label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B | POST: Is it really awkward or unusual for someone outside academia to attend an academic conference? I only completed undergrad, but I'm a curious person and I like learning about things. And I've had interest in going to some, though the fees seem intimidating. Would it be gauche to attend one on my own? Are there any issues with being there without representing a school?
RESPONSE A: Depends on the conference, but generally no. Especially if you've paid for it. I attended conferences as an undergrad in my city when I could.
RESPONSE B: The fees can definitely be steep, especially for non-students, plus additional expenses if it requires travel. But all conferences I’ve seen, across many disciplines, have been open to anyone wanting to attend as long as they pay the fees. It’s only expected to have institutional support when you submit work you intend to present (e.g., to ensure an institutional review board was involved, to credit financial and mentor support, et cetera). There may be a slot when buying a pass that asks for institution to display on a name badge. But you could just enter “unaffiliated” or something similar. I actually encourage you to attend. Being a life long learner is great for the brain and broadening your perspectives. It’ll also come in handy should you decide to pursue graduate or professional school in the future. Good luck and enjoy!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it really awkward or unusual for someone outside academia to attend an academic conference? I only completed undergrad, but I'm a curious person and I like learning about things. And I've had interest in going to some, though the fees seem intimidating. Would it be gauche to attend one on my own? Are there any issues with being there without representing a school?
RESPONSE A: It wouldn't be awkard, the issues are more (i) cost, and (ii) the fact that you might not understand anything. There are probably more accessible ways for you to gain insight into a field, e.g. MOOCs.
RESPONSE B: In computing, having industry folks come is commonplace, but if you can register online for a conference you are welcome to attend. That said, academic conferences are intended for active researchers in the field to update each other on the latest developments. Most talks will have a presumption of being mostly current in the niche area under discussion. If you are considering a conference in a field you know little about, you will likely be lost.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it really awkward or unusual for someone outside academia to attend an academic conference? I only completed undergrad, but I'm a curious person and I like learning about things. And I've had interest in going to some, though the fees seem intimidating. Would it be gauche to attend one on my own? Are there any issues with being there without representing a school?
RESPONSE A: It wouldn't be awkard, the issues are more (i) cost, and (ii) the fact that you might not understand anything. There are probably more accessible ways for you to gain insight into a field, e.g. MOOCs.
RESPONSE B: As long as you are willing to pay the registration fee, most conferences will be glad to let you attend. You may be asked to provide your affiliation, which you could list as independent scholar. If they don't ask for an affiliation you can leave this blank. In some conferences, the name tag will have your affiliation, but in others they don't. Don't expect many people to engage with you as most attendees will be focused on connecting with people that are actively working in the field, but that doesn't mean you can't attend and learn. Good luck.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it really awkward or unusual for someone outside academia to attend an academic conference? I only completed undergrad, but I'm a curious person and I like learning about things. And I've had interest in going to some, though the fees seem intimidating. Would it be gauche to attend one on my own? Are there any issues with being there without representing a school?
RESPONSE A: It wouldn't be awkard, the issues are more (i) cost, and (ii) the fact that you might not understand anything. There are probably more accessible ways for you to gain insight into a field, e.g. MOOCs.
RESPONSE B: Depends on the conference, but generally no. Especially if you've paid for it. I attended conferences as an undergrad in my city when I could.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it really awkward or unusual for someone outside academia to attend an academic conference? I only completed undergrad, but I'm a curious person and I like learning about things. And I've had interest in going to some, though the fees seem intimidating. Would it be gauche to attend one on my own? Are there any issues with being there without representing a school?
RESPONSE A: I'm in academia and it is awkward and uncomfortable for me to attend academic conferences. So, even if it is awkward, you are not alone.
RESPONSE B: Depends on the conference, but generally no. Especially if you've paid for it. I attended conferences as an undergrad in my city when I could.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why don’t premeds have their own major/tract/training programs apart from other life science majors? After reading about NYU firing Maitland Jones after numerous student complaints, I’m baffled as to why a number of the complaints were from pre-meds complaining that the class wasn’t “relevant to their MCATs”. Organic chemistry is also required curriculum for majors in biology, chemistry, chemical engineering and will likely have more students entering roles in industry or grad school that have nothing to do with med school. Granted, I’m asking from a bias of really disliking how my pre-med peers treated the material being taught when I was an undergrad. It made studying with them a nihilistic slog. Now as a grad student, I’m likely unfairly suspicious about the same types of students wasting my time and passion for my research for med school brownie points. I’m also concerned about how this socially impacts other STEM students who might really love science, but start associating it early on with the negative discussions their pre-med peers constantly complain about. There are already math/physics courses that are simplified for non-engineering folks, why not premeds as well? Given the sheer number of pre-med students, why isn’t there typically a separate track for the pre-med students to just focus on pre-med material?
RESPONSE A: This may be an unpopular opinion but I loath the label “pre-med”. It comes off a bit pretentious and presumptuous as if they are guaranteed to get into medical school. It’s not a real major and literally anyone can claim they are pre-med.
RESPONSE B: Because premed isn’t a major, and given how few students are successful in getting into med school, having them take classes that serve no broader purpose isn’t a good idea long term. But also, med schools likely would not accept watered down versions of the courses. Most already disallow using nursing organic or biochem courses to count.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why don’t premeds have their own major/tract/training programs apart from other life science majors? After reading about NYU firing Maitland Jones after numerous student complaints, I’m baffled as to why a number of the complaints were from pre-meds complaining that the class wasn’t “relevant to their MCATs”. Organic chemistry is also required curriculum for majors in biology, chemistry, chemical engineering and will likely have more students entering roles in industry or grad school that have nothing to do with med school. Granted, I’m asking from a bias of really disliking how my pre-med peers treated the material being taught when I was an undergrad. It made studying with them a nihilistic slog. Now as a grad student, I’m likely unfairly suspicious about the same types of students wasting my time and passion for my research for med school brownie points. I’m also concerned about how this socially impacts other STEM students who might really love science, but start associating it early on with the negative discussions their pre-med peers constantly complain about. There are already math/physics courses that are simplified for non-engineering folks, why not premeds as well? Given the sheer number of pre-med students, why isn’t there typically a separate track for the pre-med students to just focus on pre-med material?
RESPONSE A: What do you suppose the university do about the massive percentage of premed track students who never get into medicine? At the end, a premed degree that doesn’t get you into medicine will be utterly worthless and ultimately reflect poorly on the institution.
RESPONSE B: This may be an unpopular opinion but I loath the label “pre-med”. It comes off a bit pretentious and presumptuous as if they are guaranteed to get into medical school. It’s not a real major and literally anyone can claim they are pre-med.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: and Jones after numerous student complaints, I’m baffled as to why a number of the complaints were from pre-meds complaining that the class wasn’t “relevant to their MCATs”. Organic chemistry is also required curriculum for majors in biology, chemistry, chemical engineering and will likely have more students entering roles in industry or grad school that have nothing to do with med school. Granted, I’m asking from a bias of really disliking how my pre-med peers treated the material being taught when I was an undergrad. It made studying with them a nihilistic slog. Now as a grad student, I’m likely unfairly suspicious about the same types of students wasting my time and passion for my research for med school brownie points. I’m also concerned about how this socially impacts other STEM students who might really love science, but start associating it early on with the negative discussions their pre-med peers constantly complain about. There are already math/physics courses that are simplified for non-engineering folks, why not premeds as well? Given the sheer number of pre-med students, why isn’t there typically a separate track for the pre-med students to just focus on pre-med material?
RESPONSE A: What do you suppose the university do about the massive percentage of premed track students who never get into medicine? At the end, a premed degree that doesn’t get you into medicine will be utterly worthless and ultimately reflect poorly on the institution.
RESPONSE B: It would look bad to have a “pre-med” major where only a small percentage of graduates actually get into medical school. My alma matar had a “life sciences” degree which was essentially pre-med, in order to try and keep these students separate from the Biology, Ecology, or Biochemistry majors. TAing those students was always the worst because they would never care at all about the subject (physics) because it “won’t help them be a doctor”, but they also would freak out as soon as they lose marks on anything. I find pre-meds very adversarial compared to other students because they view their instructors as gate-keepers who are stopping them from becoming doctors.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ly suspicious about the same types of students wasting my time and passion for my research for med school brownie points. I’m also concerned about how this socially impacts other STEM students who might really love science, but start associating it early on with the negative discussions their pre-med peers constantly complain about. There are already math/physics courses that are simplified for non-engineering folks, why not premeds as well? Given the sheer number of pre-med students, why isn’t there typically a separate track for the pre-med students to just focus on pre-med material?
RESPONSE A: It would look bad to have a “pre-med” major where only a small percentage of graduates actually get into medical school. My alma matar had a “life sciences” degree which was essentially pre-med, in order to try and keep these students separate from the Biology, Ecology, or Biochemistry majors. TAing those students was always the worst because they would never care at all about the subject (physics) because it “won’t help them be a doctor”, but they also would freak out as soon as they lose marks on anything. I find pre-meds very adversarial compared to other students because they view their instructors as gate-keepers who are stopping them from becoming doctors.
RESPONSE B: It’s a result of medicine being treated as a professional post-graduate degree, rather than it’s own thing. Many other countries do separate medical students, and early. France, for example, you do a first year, then take a placement exam that about 20% of students pass. After that is the general medicine degree for two years and then an advanced medicine degree for like 3. But that has a lot of pre-filtering. Only 20% of students who want to be doctors even get into the advanced medical studies and there are further placement things after that. I think a lot of Americans wouldn’t have the appetite for a process where students are rigorously filtered before they’ve had much exposure to the course material. People like the idea of students having freedom to make decisions whenever they want during college. But I wonder to what extent we do those students any favors by letting them spend four years pursuing a career they won’t have.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How can I close the gap in my statistics knowledge? I'm a first year postdoc at an R1 university. I took statistics in undergrad and grad school and earned the highest possible grades, but I feel like I didn't retain very much. My memory was that the undergrad class involved working relatively easy math problems and my grad class involved copying and pasting R code that was a little too complex for me to understand at the time. Does anyone have thoughts on how to systematically cultivate more expertise in statistics? Being knowledgeable would really help my career, but just picking up bits and pieces as I go has not been adequate. TIA.
RESPONSE A: If you want to get good at intuition and theory: Schaum's outlines are quick and dirty. On the programming and estimation end, I am not sure.
RESPONSE B: Pick 1-3 skills you want to learn and think of a project you can apply those skills to. Just going through a textbook won’t make it stick.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How can I close the gap in my statistics knowledge? I'm a first year postdoc at an R1 university. I took statistics in undergrad and grad school and earned the highest possible grades, but I feel like I didn't retain very much. My memory was that the undergrad class involved working relatively easy math problems and my grad class involved copying and pasting R code that was a little too complex for me to understand at the time. Does anyone have thoughts on how to systematically cultivate more expertise in statistics? Being knowledgeable would really help my career, but just picking up bits and pieces as I go has not been adequate. TIA.
RESPONSE A: I've found the StatQuest YouTube channel fairly helpful.
RESPONSE B: If you want to get good at intuition and theory: Schaum's outlines are quick and dirty. On the programming and estimation end, I am not sure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How can I close the gap in my statistics knowledge? I'm a first year postdoc at an R1 university. I took statistics in undergrad and grad school and earned the highest possible grades, but I feel like I didn't retain very much. My memory was that the undergrad class involved working relatively easy math problems and my grad class involved copying and pasting R code that was a little too complex for me to understand at the time. Does anyone have thoughts on how to systematically cultivate more expertise in statistics? Being knowledgeable would really help my career, but just picking up bits and pieces as I go has not been adequate. TIA.
RESPONSE A: If you want to get good at intuition and theory: Schaum's outlines are quick and dirty. On the programming and estimation end, I am not sure.
RESPONSE B: Advice I’ve received is that one you’ve picked up a few skills in R or wherever, keeping a personal library off well documented code for analysis and presentation is both an excellent tool for yourself and a portfolio if needed. Basically, start doing projects in R to teach yourself EDA and then statistics you are interested in.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How can I close the gap in my statistics knowledge? I'm a first year postdoc at an R1 university. I took statistics in undergrad and grad school and earned the highest possible grades, but I feel like I didn't retain very much. My memory was that the undergrad class involved working relatively easy math problems and my grad class involved copying and pasting R code that was a little too complex for me to understand at the time. Does anyone have thoughts on how to systematically cultivate more expertise in statistics? Being knowledgeable would really help my career, but just picking up bits and pieces as I go has not been adequate. TIA.
RESPONSE A: Rubber ducks. When you run an analysis (or read someone else's), set a rubber duck on your desk and explain to it what each line/function/option is, how they relate, and why they're used. Do the same for the output, explain what each stat means, why it's relevant/not relevant/informative/etc., and why you're interpreting the results the way you are. Preemptively answer the duck's questions and don't assume that the duck has the background to understand you, speak plainly. If you can't explain things to the duck, if you have any uncertainty interpreting a stat, go back and fill in that gap in your knowledge. When you learn new methods, learn them in relation to a method that you and the duck know back to front. Try to build a mental map that allows you to group similar methods and understand where they overlap. If the duck prefers visuals, map the method out as a path diagram.
RESPONSE B: You need to apply concepts regularly in order to retain them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How can I close the gap in my statistics knowledge? I'm a first year postdoc at an R1 university. I took statistics in undergrad and grad school and earned the highest possible grades, but I feel like I didn't retain very much. My memory was that the undergrad class involved working relatively easy math problems and my grad class involved copying and pasting R code that was a little too complex for me to understand at the time. Does anyone have thoughts on how to systematically cultivate more expertise in statistics? Being knowledgeable would really help my career, but just picking up bits and pieces as I go has not been adequate. TIA.
RESPONSE A: Rubber ducks. When you run an analysis (or read someone else's), set a rubber duck on your desk and explain to it what each line/function/option is, how they relate, and why they're used. Do the same for the output, explain what each stat means, why it's relevant/not relevant/informative/etc., and why you're interpreting the results the way you are. Preemptively answer the duck's questions and don't assume that the duck has the background to understand you, speak plainly. If you can't explain things to the duck, if you have any uncertainty interpreting a stat, go back and fill in that gap in your knowledge. When you learn new methods, learn them in relation to a method that you and the duck know back to front. Try to build a mental map that allows you to group similar methods and understand where they overlap. If the duck prefers visuals, map the method out as a path diagram.
RESPONSE B: What is your area? If you have a PhD in mathematics, that is different than if you have a PhD in English as far as a preparation for statistics.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Those who came up with their own PhD topic/subject, what process led you to discover your specific topic? Currently I'm reading mid 2020 publications of authors in my field to discover problems and ideas that may be at the basis of my own PhD proposal in early 2021. I feel like there is some exciting stuff here that could work for me and I'm making notes on interesting questions / issues. To know if I'm on the right track or if I could improve what I'm doing, I am very curious to hear about the process and things you did to get to your (accepted) PhD proposals!
RESPONSE A: Just applied for a MPhil/PhD in Australia and you’re required to have a research proposal as part of the application. That said, I’ve always followed what made me curious — for example: in coursework, I was good at social psychology but I wasn’t interested enough to work on it for a dissertation. While working as a RA, I read everything I could about different topics esp if related to my work. Then I started writing short lit reviews about them to gauge my interest before finally settling in one that I 100% want. This ended up being health psychology and worked well because it weeds out any topics, doubts or confusion. It’s pretty uncommon but because I didnt have a particular question to answer, I started with my interest and tried to see what worked best for me. The hypotheses came much later once I reformed my ideas and discussed with many supervisors. Many of my PhD friends started with a problem (mostly a personal one they’ve experienced) and tried to see how it could be molded in their current work. Otherwise, it’s usually having a strong interest in one thing.
RESPONSE B: I dreamed big and identified the steps that must be done to get to the end goal. Then I picked a fundamental step that was not yet solved. Then I restricted the problem such that it seemed solvable in the timeframe of a few years. The end goal gave me my "why". The picking process gave me my "what". And the restriction process provided me with my "how".
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Those who came up with their own PhD topic/subject, what process led you to discover your specific topic? Currently I'm reading mid 2020 publications of authors in my field to discover problems and ideas that may be at the basis of my own PhD proposal in early 2021. I feel like there is some exciting stuff here that could work for me and I'm making notes on interesting questions / issues. To know if I'm on the right track or if I could improve what I'm doing, I am very curious to hear about the process and things you did to get to your (accepted) PhD proposals!
RESPONSE A: I dreamed big and identified the steps that must be done to get to the end goal. Then I picked a fundamental step that was not yet solved. Then I restricted the problem such that it seemed solvable in the timeframe of a few years. The end goal gave me my "why". The picking process gave me my "what". And the restriction process provided me with my "how".
RESPONSE B: I'm in linguistics and already knew the group I wanted to work with, but for me the hardest part was finding the theoretical question to make it "matter". I came across a paper detailing how one specific term ('markedness') has taken on a dozen meanings since it was first used and how each of those could be replaced by more descriptive, i.e. more transparent, terms, e.g. frequency. I also noticed that this term was used a lot in the literature on language contact as an explanatory factor for language change, but that it wasn't usually defined all that well since the term is so prevalent. Since I wanted to do something with language contact, I decided to break down the various senses of the term and analyze the adequacy of each sense's predictions regarding language change and 'markedness' (at least as they relate to my subfield of morphosyntax). The work's ongoing, but the proposal has been accepted. So basically, I found my group first and then worked to find a theoretical reason to justify working with them (since personal feelings/connections aren't much of a basis for a dissertation).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Those who came up with their own PhD topic/subject, what process led you to discover your specific topic? Currently I'm reading mid 2020 publications of authors in my field to discover problems and ideas that may be at the basis of my own PhD proposal in early 2021. I feel like there is some exciting stuff here that could work for me and I'm making notes on interesting questions / issues. To know if I'm on the right track or if I could improve what I'm doing, I am very curious to hear about the process and things you did to get to your (accepted) PhD proposals!
RESPONSE A: I worked in practice for about 10 years before going back for my PhD. My topic is directly related to the experiences I had in the field. For me, having a topic that had practical relevance to the world I came from was very important.
RESPONSE B: I dreamed big and identified the steps that must be done to get to the end goal. Then I picked a fundamental step that was not yet solved. Then I restricted the problem such that it seemed solvable in the timeframe of a few years. The end goal gave me my "why". The picking process gave me my "what". And the restriction process provided me with my "how".
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Those who came up with their own PhD topic/subject, what process led you to discover your specific topic? Currently I'm reading mid 2020 publications of authors in my field to discover problems and ideas that may be at the basis of my own PhD proposal in early 2021. I feel like there is some exciting stuff here that could work for me and I'm making notes on interesting questions / issues. To know if I'm on the right track or if I could improve what I'm doing, I am very curious to hear about the process and things you did to get to your (accepted) PhD proposals!
RESPONSE A: Not what you asked, so unsolicited advice. I always told my PhD students (I supervised 5 to completion; I am retired now) - have two topics you are working on, in case one goes belly up. Bonus: if one topic doesn't go belly up, you have your next topic to work on all ready. It turned out to be a life saver with one student.
RESPONSE B: Just applied for a MPhil/PhD in Australia and you’re required to have a research proposal as part of the application. That said, I’ve always followed what made me curious — for example: in coursework, I was good at social psychology but I wasn’t interested enough to work on it for a dissertation. While working as a RA, I read everything I could about different topics esp if related to my work. Then I started writing short lit reviews about them to gauge my interest before finally settling in one that I 100% want. This ended up being health psychology and worked well because it weeds out any topics, doubts or confusion. It’s pretty uncommon but because I didnt have a particular question to answer, I started with my interest and tried to see what worked best for me. The hypotheses came much later once I reformed my ideas and discussed with many supervisors. Many of my PhD friends started with a problem (mostly a personal one they’ve experienced) and tried to see how it could be molded in their current work. Otherwise, it’s usually having a strong interest in one thing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Those who came up with their own PhD topic/subject, what process led you to discover your specific topic? Currently I'm reading mid 2020 publications of authors in my field to discover problems and ideas that may be at the basis of my own PhD proposal in early 2021. I feel like there is some exciting stuff here that could work for me and I'm making notes on interesting questions / issues. To know if I'm on the right track or if I could improve what I'm doing, I am very curious to hear about the process and things you did to get to your (accepted) PhD proposals!
RESPONSE A: I'm in linguistics and already knew the group I wanted to work with, but for me the hardest part was finding the theoretical question to make it "matter". I came across a paper detailing how one specific term ('markedness') has taken on a dozen meanings since it was first used and how each of those could be replaced by more descriptive, i.e. more transparent, terms, e.g. frequency. I also noticed that this term was used a lot in the literature on language contact as an explanatory factor for language change, but that it wasn't usually defined all that well since the term is so prevalent. Since I wanted to do something with language contact, I decided to break down the various senses of the term and analyze the adequacy of each sense's predictions regarding language change and 'markedness' (at least as they relate to my subfield of morphosyntax). The work's ongoing, but the proposal has been accepted. So basically, I found my group first and then worked to find a theoretical reason to justify working with them (since personal feelings/connections aren't much of a basis for a dissertation).
RESPONSE B: Not what you asked, so unsolicited advice. I always told my PhD students (I supervised 5 to completion; I am retired now) - have two topics you are working on, in case one goes belly up. Bonus: if one topic doesn't go belly up, you have your next topic to work on all ready. It turned out to be a life saver with one student.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: First offer Folks, I had posted this a few weeks ago about rejections in academia. I just received my first offer for a TT position and I still cannot believe it. ​ Thank you for all of your suggestions/advice/motivational comments. r/AskAcademia has truly been a godsend for navigating the crazy labyrinth of the academic job search process. For those of you on the market, please keep persevering!
RESPONSE A: Congrats. It’s a hell of a process. I know bc I’m applying as well.
RESPONSE B: Congrats! Now, start preparing for tenure!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . Is that sentiment dead?
RESPONSE A: >I'm not going into a humanities degree with rose-colored glasses. That's the problem with wearing rose colored glasses. All the rose colored glasses just look like glasses. It doesn't bother me in the least that you want to do this. Just know that your anticipated outcomes are wildly optimistic. Do not take on even a penny of debt to support this endeavor.
RESPONSE B: We can't tell you if it's right for you or not. Only you can know. >I feel like that upsets a lot of people. With the job market like it is, it's like people resent that you might want an advanced degree in something that won't immediately or directly translate to a job, and pursue it for a reason other than getting a job. That's not really resentment per se; it's just good sense. Instead, what you're experiencing probably stems from two things; 1) People are anticipating you getting through this and finding it does nothing for you, and then complaining about it. You wouldn't be the first, and you wouldn't be the last. 2) Often a lot of the people who pursue a doctorate for "intellectual" reasons tend to have a wildly romanticized view of how academia is, and when they end up learning how the sausage is made they end up complaining about it. You wouldn't be the first, and you wouldn't be the last. So in both cases; the resentment isn't towards what you want to do, but instead is pointed towards who we anticipate who you'll become. Alternatively; you're asking for advice, disregarding that advice, and then being surprised when people are annoyed at you for wasting their time. >But nor am I shunning it because I might not need a PhD for whatever job I end up getting or because the academic job market is bad (right now, not necessarily forever. I'm 26, and hopefully my life will be long). It's going to remain bad for a **long** time, likely for the remainder of the century given the instability that's likely to occur and the resulting flood of educated individuals into developed/stable nations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Completing PhD in 3-4 years? How do some people end up completing their PhD (in the USA) in 4 years? I've seen people in Chemistry and Materials Sciences complete their PhDs in 4 years directly after their bachelor's and that too without compromising the number and quality of publications. What traits set these students apart and what skills need deliberate practice to follow their footsteps? ​ PS: I'm not talking about PhD programs in the European universities where the length of PhD is much shorter in general. But that is an interesting topic too. The students in the European universities also produce similar works like that of US grad students but they take much less time to complete their PhDs.
RESPONSE A: I’m in a discipline that has a good job market. I finished in four years with no pubs and still had a job offer one year before graduation.
RESPONSE B: When I got to grad school, I was already 36 years old. When I got my advisor, I said, "I'd like to finish in four years, to start my post-Ph.D. career." She replied, "Okay, let's come up with a list of things you need to do to graduate. Do those, and you'll graduate." It worked out fine, and I pulled it off in four years. The downside: I didn't really end up with a deep publication record. It was adequate, but not superstar-level. Had I stuck around for a couple more years, I'm certain I could have pushed out many more papers and done some good follow-on research. It worked out fine, though, and I'm happily in a teaching position at a dream school.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Completing PhD in 3-4 years? How do some people end up completing their PhD (in the USA) in 4 years? I've seen people in Chemistry and Materials Sciences complete their PhDs in 4 years directly after their bachelor's and that too without compromising the number and quality of publications. What traits set these students apart and what skills need deliberate practice to follow their footsteps? ​ PS: I'm not talking about PhD programs in the European universities where the length of PhD is much shorter in general. But that is an interesting topic too. The students in the European universities also produce similar works like that of US grad students but they take much less time to complete their PhDs.
RESPONSE A: When I got to grad school, I was already 36 years old. When I got my advisor, I said, "I'd like to finish in four years, to start my post-Ph.D. career." She replied, "Okay, let's come up with a list of things you need to do to graduate. Do those, and you'll graduate." It worked out fine, and I pulled it off in four years. The downside: I didn't really end up with a deep publication record. It was adequate, but not superstar-level. Had I stuck around for a couple more years, I'm certain I could have pushed out many more papers and done some good follow-on research. It worked out fine, though, and I'm happily in a teaching position at a dream school.
RESPONSE B: I finished mine PhD in engineering in less than 4 yrs after BS, with a couple of publications. As many have mentioned here, my project had: 1. No animal model 2. Relatively straight up project scope, good amount computational beside wetlab work 3. No lab rotation (so I started my project since day 1) But also, my PI was running out of funding (so I always knew I had a deadline), which forced me to work ~50-70hrs/weeks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: il. What are the benefits for students? What are the risks? For what are probably obvious reasons, my university is surveying grad students to see if we prefer a pass/fail grade. This is my second masters, and I hope to go into a PhD afterward. I felt like taking a pass/fail was the obvious choice, but people have given me doubts. What do you think? How would you evaluate a pass/fail grad school metric for next year's PhD candidates?
RESPONSE A: When it's not a "coronvirus semester", I consider it a pass/fail on a PhD application as a "took a diet version of the course", so maybe like a half a course worth. It usually doesn't matter, but it would not look good if that course was the research area of interest. I don't think there's a consensus yet about how to interpret it for this semester specifically.
RESPONSE B: Ours went this way: students have one week after getting their final (A-F) grades to decide whether to turn them into P/F grades. If they decide to do P/F, the course still counts as a requirement for majors, but does not contribute to their GPA. This is all mandated from above so professors don't have to choose anything. I think this splits the difference somewhat nicely. It's basically saying, "courses are still real courses," but "if you don't do as well as you'd hoped, you can make the course not count towards your GPA, but still get graduation credit for it." I also am glad it doesn't make me pick; I'm not the good guy or the bad guy here. The students, if the Reddit forum for our university is to be trusted, seem to like this option as well. (I've talked to my own students about this, most seem very happy with it. My honors freshmen worried a little that this will require explanation for grad or med school admissions but I've assured them that the admissions people are going to understand that this was a weird semester and they'll hardly be the only ones in this situation.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: felt like taking a pass/fail was the obvious choice, but people have given me doubts. What do you think? How would you evaluate a pass/fail grad school metric for next year's PhD candidates?
RESPONSE A: Ours went this way: students have one week after getting their final (A-F) grades to decide whether to turn them into P/F grades. If they decide to do P/F, the course still counts as a requirement for majors, but does not contribute to their GPA. This is all mandated from above so professors don't have to choose anything. I think this splits the difference somewhat nicely. It's basically saying, "courses are still real courses," but "if you don't do as well as you'd hoped, you can make the course not count towards your GPA, but still get graduation credit for it." I also am glad it doesn't make me pick; I'm not the good guy or the bad guy here. The students, if the Reddit forum for our university is to be trusted, seem to like this option as well. (I've talked to my own students about this, most seem very happy with it. My honors freshmen worried a little that this will require explanation for grad or med school admissions but I've assured them that the admissions people are going to understand that this was a weird semester and they'll hardly be the only ones in this situation.)
RESPONSE B: My university is petitioning for this as well. On the one hand, I don't care because I have a good GPA and also grad school grades don't matter. On the other, I've had way too many run ins with supervisors/employers/whatever asking for my transcripts (even from undergrad!) to think that a P/NP semester will not create problems for me in the future. If one thing is clear, it's that people are heavily overestimating the memory and attention of adcoms. A couple years on, a lot of people will need a reminder that Spring 2020 was Coronavirus Spring. You will have to include an explanatory note about the pass fail for every transcript you send.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: University surveying whether to go pass/fail. What are the benefits for students? What are the risks? For what are probably obvious reasons, my university is surveying grad students to see if we prefer a pass/fail grade. This is my second masters, and I hope to go into a PhD afterward. I felt like taking a pass/fail was the obvious choice, but people have given me doubts. What do you think? How would you evaluate a pass/fail grad school metric for next year's PhD candidates?
RESPONSE A: Ours went this way: students have one week after getting their final (A-F) grades to decide whether to turn them into P/F grades. If they decide to do P/F, the course still counts as a requirement for majors, but does not contribute to their GPA. This is all mandated from above so professors don't have to choose anything. I think this splits the difference somewhat nicely. It's basically saying, "courses are still real courses," but "if you don't do as well as you'd hoped, you can make the course not count towards your GPA, but still get graduation credit for it." I also am glad it doesn't make me pick; I'm not the good guy or the bad guy here. The students, if the Reddit forum for our university is to be trusted, seem to like this option as well. (I've talked to my own students about this, most seem very happy with it. My honors freshmen worried a little that this will require explanation for grad or med school admissions but I've assured them that the admissions people are going to understand that this was a weird semester and they'll hardly be the only ones in this situation.)
RESPONSE B: Ive seen this as well. I have a student who is worried about their 4.0 gpa dropping. They are an excellent student and need the campus enviroment as their home isnt conducive to learning.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . What are the benefits for students? What are the risks? For what are probably obvious reasons, my university is surveying grad students to see if we prefer a pass/fail grade. This is my second masters, and I hope to go into a PhD afterward. I felt like taking a pass/fail was the obvious choice, but people have given me doubts. What do you think? How would you evaluate a pass/fail grad school metric for next year's PhD candidates?
RESPONSE A: Where I am re a number of universities, the PhD defense is pass/fail. Courses from masters up are A you pass, B you are basically warned and if you do it in a subsequent semester you are on probation and must get back to an A, which is basically pass/fail. All professors know this and A's are given out liberally, so one has to be fairly determined to get a B and not continue.
RESPONSE B: Ours went this way: students have one week after getting their final (A-F) grades to decide whether to turn them into P/F grades. If they decide to do P/F, the course still counts as a requirement for majors, but does not contribute to their GPA. This is all mandated from above so professors don't have to choose anything. I think this splits the difference somewhat nicely. It's basically saying, "courses are still real courses," but "if you don't do as well as you'd hoped, you can make the course not count towards your GPA, but still get graduation credit for it." I also am glad it doesn't make me pick; I'm not the good guy or the bad guy here. The students, if the Reddit forum for our university is to be trusted, seem to like this option as well. (I've talked to my own students about this, most seem very happy with it. My honors freshmen worried a little that this will require explanation for grad or med school admissions but I've assured them that the admissions people are going to understand that this was a weird semester and they'll hardly be the only ones in this situation.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: University surveying whether to go pass/fail. What are the benefits for students? What are the risks? For what are probably obvious reasons, my university is surveying grad students to see if we prefer a pass/fail grade. This is my second masters, and I hope to go into a PhD afterward. I felt like taking a pass/fail was the obvious choice, but people have given me doubts. What do you think? How would you evaluate a pass/fail grad school metric for next year's PhD candidates?
RESPONSE A: We'll have to reevaluate how we as a college will look at those scores. Right now, it's our policy to not accept classes for transfer credit if the student took them pass/fail. That will probably change but only for this semester.
RESPONSE B: Ours went this way: students have one week after getting their final (A-F) grades to decide whether to turn them into P/F grades. If they decide to do P/F, the course still counts as a requirement for majors, but does not contribute to their GPA. This is all mandated from above so professors don't have to choose anything. I think this splits the difference somewhat nicely. It's basically saying, "courses are still real courses," but "if you don't do as well as you'd hoped, you can make the course not count towards your GPA, but still get graduation credit for it." I also am glad it doesn't make me pick; I'm not the good guy or the bad guy here. The students, if the Reddit forum for our university is to be trusted, seem to like this option as well. (I've talked to my own students about this, most seem very happy with it. My honors freshmen worried a little that this will require explanation for grad or med school admissions but I've assured them that the admissions people are going to understand that this was a weird semester and they'll hardly be the only ones in this situation.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does anyone have any positive experiences of getting a PhD and working in academia? I’ve seen so many articles and posts about the negative aspects of getting a PhD and finding a decent job in academia (particularly the humanities). All of the struggles and downsides seem completely valid, but surely there are those out there who have more positive experiences. Anyone willing to share?
RESPONSE A: I work at a tiny liberal arts college, and I love it. I’m absurdly underpaid, but I live simply and what I make is enough for the bills and a decent retirement. Best of all, I genuinely look forward to getting to work every morning, and lots of my former students morph into (admittedly far flung) friends. It’s a good life.
RESPONSE B: Yup! 6 years PhD, spent reading and writing, my two favorite things since forever. Then fell in love with researching my dissertation. TT job in history dept, love my colleagues and school. Committee work sucks, and I don’t get to research as much as I’d like, but surround yourself in grad school and your career who care and appreciate you. I’m lucky, I know, but it’s possible!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does anyone have any positive experiences of getting a PhD and working in academia? I’ve seen so many articles and posts about the negative aspects of getting a PhD and finding a decent job in academia (particularly the humanities). All of the struggles and downsides seem completely valid, but surely there are those out there who have more positive experiences. Anyone willing to share?
RESPONSE A: I work at a tiny liberal arts college, and I love it. I’m absurdly underpaid, but I live simply and what I make is enough for the bills and a decent retirement. Best of all, I genuinely look forward to getting to work every morning, and lots of my former students morph into (admittedly far flung) friends. It’s a good life.
RESPONSE B: Yeah. I had very stand-off supervisors who let me run my own project with occasional nudges in the right direction. I had a much longer postdoc period than I wanted but I met some awesome people , got some great opportunities, and experienced a lot of cool stuff. That in turn has made my academic posts now much easier. I love teaching, and I love my research. I have built a group of collaborators who I trust and enjoy working with.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does anyone have any positive experiences of getting a PhD and working in academia? I’ve seen so many articles and posts about the negative aspects of getting a PhD and finding a decent job in academia (particularly the humanities). All of the struggles and downsides seem completely valid, but surely there are those out there who have more positive experiences. Anyone willing to share?
RESPONSE A: I work at a tiny liberal arts college, and I love it. I’m absurdly underpaid, but I live simply and what I make is enough for the bills and a decent retirement. Best of all, I genuinely look forward to getting to work every morning, and lots of my former students morph into (admittedly far flung) friends. It’s a good life.
RESPONSE B: My PhD was a mess, but after that I got a PostDoc which turned into tenured position. There are ups and downs, but in general, I wouldn't do anything else and not sure if I'd want to go anywhere else.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does anyone have any positive experiences of getting a PhD and working in academia? I’ve seen so many articles and posts about the negative aspects of getting a PhD and finding a decent job in academia (particularly the humanities). All of the struggles and downsides seem completely valid, but surely there are those out there who have more positive experiences. Anyone willing to share?
RESPONSE A: Yes. I enjoyed doing my PhD (UK, Russell Group), found it not difficult or stressful, completed it within time, and got an Oxbridge postdoc on my third job interview. I work a lot and the expectations are high, but I love my job.
RESPONSE B: I work at a tiny liberal arts college, and I love it. I’m absurdly underpaid, but I live simply and what I make is enough for the bills and a decent retirement. Best of all, I genuinely look forward to getting to work every morning, and lots of my former students morph into (admittedly far flung) friends. It’s a good life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does anyone have any positive experiences of getting a PhD and working in academia? I’ve seen so many articles and posts about the negative aspects of getting a PhD and finding a decent job in academia (particularly the humanities). All of the struggles and downsides seem completely valid, but surely there are those out there who have more positive experiences. Anyone willing to share?
RESPONSE A: I work at a tiny liberal arts college, and I love it. I’m absurdly underpaid, but I live simply and what I make is enough for the bills and a decent retirement. Best of all, I genuinely look forward to getting to work every morning, and lots of my former students morph into (admittedly far flung) friends. It’s a good life.
RESPONSE B: Be aware that your question is like asking for stories of lottery winners. It would be unwise to make career decisions based on these responses.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: , could you share how? I just graduated from my undergrad and I’m planning on applying to PhD programs this fall (looking at CS and information science depts, interested in critical computing and HCI). I have a good amount of research experience and know that I genuinely love research and think that I want to be a researcher — I’m as sure of that as I can be sure of anything at 22 years old. but I’m also terrified of phd student life! It seems like it’s designed, whether intentionally or not, to destroy your mental health. Pressure to publish + lack of work/life boundaries + being severely underpaid + exploitation + possibly abusive environments + loneliness & social isolation + many more things...I’m overwhelmed thinking about it. I already have mental health issues (that I’m actively working on with a therapist), and I’ve observed that these issues are much easier to cope with when I have ample time for rest and life-giving activities. I’m also a young woman of color so extra nervous about associated challenges. It seems like every day on Twitter I see another tweet about yet another broken aspect of the institution of academia. I had an industry research internship this summer, and while it was much better in some ways, I still felt the isolation and pressure to publish. I guess I feel frustrated as to why it seems like I need to go through a traumatic experience to become a researcher. Are there places in academia that are supportive of a healthy lifestyle, or is academia just incompatible with that? I apologize in advance if this was too pessimistic. I ask these questions because I love research so much, but I feel hopeless about being able to do research without major consequence to my mental health.
RESPONSE A: Step 1: Stop reading academic reddit / twitter / blogs. Step 2: Be less miserable.
RESPONSE B: It's all a matter of perspective. I used to work 60 to 70 hours weekly in my corporate job with tight deadlines, while managing teams of 20+. PhD wasn't that bad. I still have a tendency to work too much even today. My wife and kids keep my workaholism in check. --Edit-- Also, I had awesome mentors. Still do.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: of work/life boundaries + being severely underpaid + exploitation + possibly abusive environments + loneliness & social isolation + many more things...I’m overwhelmed thinking about it. I already have mental health issues (that I’m actively working on with a therapist), and I’ve observed that these issues are much easier to cope with when I have ample time for rest and life-giving activities. I’m also a young woman of color so extra nervous about associated challenges. It seems like every day on Twitter I see another tweet about yet another broken aspect of the institution of academia. I had an industry research internship this summer, and while it was much better in some ways, I still felt the isolation and pressure to publish. I guess I feel frustrated as to why it seems like I need to go through a traumatic experience to become a researcher. Are there places in academia that are supportive of a healthy lifestyle, or is academia just incompatible with that? I apologize in advance if this was too pessimistic. I ask these questions because I love research so much, but I feel hopeless about being able to do research without major consequence to my mental health.
RESPONSE A: I am in the very subfield that you'd like to be in. I am actually very curious why and how you know the term critical computing because that is unusually new as a branch of HCI. In fact, this is the second year of that specific sub-committee at CHI. I can assure you that the vast majority of PhD students are neither depressed nor miserable. Most of the them are quite well adjusted, take plenty of time to themselves and their hobbies and do pretty well. Don't believe everything you see on #academictwitter because that is a cesspool of mediocrity. Pressure to publish is not a bad thing. In fact, its the only important thing as a PhD student you are expected to do, not because your adviser wants it but because in this field, that is the number one criteria for a future job in academia or industrial research. Try to get into the best program that you can with the most supportive adviser that you can wrangle.
RESPONSE B: Step 1: Stop reading academic reddit / twitter / blogs. Step 2: Be less miserable.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: researcher. Are there places in academia that are supportive of a healthy lifestyle, or is academia just incompatible with that? I apologize in advance if this was too pessimistic. I ask these questions because I love research so much, but I feel hopeless about being able to do research without major consequence to my mental health.
RESPONSE A: Social science so ymmv. I enjoyed grad school except for maybe the last 2 months before I defended. Obviously there’s a lot out of your control. Health problems and financial issues are big ones. The big thing that you control is choosing the right school and advisor. If your QOL is really important to you then you should absolutely take that into account in your decision making. Find the place where the grad students seem happier. Find an advisor who is supportive. A grad school interview should be about as much you choosing them as them choosing you. Speak to current grad students and see how they like it. A structural thing that was important is that everyone in my program got the exact same guaranteed funding package. So grad students were much more supportive of each other and didn’t have to fight for a TAship or whatever. What’s the health benefits like? Does that include mental health? Can I live on the stipend in a way I’m comfortable with? What’s the dean like and the climate in general? I’m a person of color and grad school was the first time I’d been to anywhere primarily White. So I found grad students of color and faculty to talk to. I’ll always be grateful to the woman of color faculty member who saw me in the hallway during recruitment weekend and pulled me into her office and told me *everything*. QOL is one of the things we got pitched on. Like you could go to “top 5 school” but they’re all miserable. Come here and we are cool and also you’ll learn a ton. Basically what I’m saying is to consider your quality of life as part of your decision making process. Don’t automatically go to best school/advisor if QOL is important to you.
RESPONSE B: Step 1: Stop reading academic reddit / twitter / blogs. Step 2: Be less miserable.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: last year from COVID, he was a very well known and respected scientist in my field. Pre COVID he had been very supportive of my PhD plans and had sent recommendations, and also given me a pdf copy of his recommendation letter in case I needed to upload it somehere, dated pre COVID. I had halted my PhD search since COVID began and am about to start again. Would it be ethical to use his letter for applications (as an extra addition) where they ask for uploaded documents? If it is, how should I go about indicating that the letter is dated pre 2020 because he passed away?
RESPONSE A: It's not unheard of to send and/or receive posthumous recommendation letters. If I were on the receiving end of this one, I would find it perfectly appropriate and understandable that you submitted it on your supervisor's behalf. It's clear from what you've written here that it's what he would have wanted you to do. Here's one way you could clearly indicate what happened so that the recipient didn't get confused/suspicious about the date: 1. Type up a "cover sheet" for the letter, just a simple one-paragraph Word document. Something to the effect of "Note: Dr. Smith wrote the following letter in 2020 and provided me with a PDF copy for application purposes. Sadly, Dr. Smith passed away in 2021, which is why I am submitting this letter rather than a more up-to-date one from him." (You can probably put it better than I did here.) 2. Save that Word document as a PDF and use a tool like ILovePDF to combine it with the letter. Submit this combined PDF with your application materials. That way, anyone who opens it will see your explanation first and will know you're not trying to be sneaky by including an old letter. P.S.: I'm sorry to hear about your supervisor's passing. I'm sure he would be glad to know that you're continuing your pursuit of your PhD and honored to still be taking part in that search by virtue of your use of his letter.
RESPONSE B: 🥺 I’m so sorry to hear. Yes, that is ethical!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.
RESPONSE A: Never argue with a Karen. She will drag you down to her level and beat you to death with her superiority complex. Once you state all the facts nothing more needs be said. Just because some random on the internet believes the earth is flat doesn't make it so.
RESPONSE B: The best way to avoid being accused of elitism is to not come across as elitist. It's not a popular thing to say in academia, but knowledge gatekeeping IS a thing and immediately dismissing a layperson non-expert's opinion just reinforces their perception that you're just how they expected an academic to behave. You're automatically positioning yourself as superior by holding your degree over their head and it's quite unpleasant to experience. Now, I'm not saying not to push back if they get the facts wrong. Particularly if their misinformation is dangerous, like your cardiology example. But you can do it in a way that is non-confrontational and respectful of the fact that this other person wants to be an expert, and will engage in good faith if they value knowledge over ego. Like a student, you guide them to the correct knowledge by asking questions and showing an interest in where they got their information and how they assessed it to be true. Because at the end of the day, you are a scholar and there are always new things to be learned. I open myself to the daily possibility that anyone can teach me, regardless of their background. When I identify a gap in a person's understanding and I'm in a position to inform them of things to fill that gap, I offer links to open access sources whenever I can. I also let them know when I think their point is interesting but just missing a few things that I have privileged access to. It's important to acknowledge the desire to learn and have knowledge on a topic, to encourage that person's further inquiry even if they disagree with you. I might not get anywhere with a troll during an interaction, but if they're curious about the things I sent them and idly wonder '...what if...? ', even for a second, then I consider my efforts worthwhile.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.
RESPONSE A: The best way to avoid being accused of elitism is to not come across as elitist. It's not a popular thing to say in academia, but knowledge gatekeeping IS a thing and immediately dismissing a layperson non-expert's opinion just reinforces their perception that you're just how they expected an academic to behave. You're automatically positioning yourself as superior by holding your degree over their head and it's quite unpleasant to experience. Now, I'm not saying not to push back if they get the facts wrong. Particularly if their misinformation is dangerous, like your cardiology example. But you can do it in a way that is non-confrontational and respectful of the fact that this other person wants to be an expert, and will engage in good faith if they value knowledge over ego. Like a student, you guide them to the correct knowledge by asking questions and showing an interest in where they got their information and how they assessed it to be true. Because at the end of the day, you are a scholar and there are always new things to be learned. I open myself to the daily possibility that anyone can teach me, regardless of their background. When I identify a gap in a person's understanding and I'm in a position to inform them of things to fill that gap, I offer links to open access sources whenever I can. I also let them know when I think their point is interesting but just missing a few things that I have privileged access to. It's important to acknowledge the desire to learn and have knowledge on a topic, to encourage that person's further inquiry even if they disagree with you. I might not get anywhere with a troll during an interaction, but if they're curious about the things I sent them and idly wonder '...what if...? ', even for a second, then I consider my efforts worthwhile.
RESPONSE B: In what context?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you deal with laypeople that "know" more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.
RESPONSE A: Never argue with a Karen. She will drag you down to her level and beat you to death with her superiority complex. Once you state all the facts nothing more needs be said. Just because some random on the internet believes the earth is flat doesn't make it so.
RESPONSE B: While it is unarguably that you should avoid direct confrontation with these people, you should however use your 'elitist title' to keep educating masses. By time, you should be able to distinguish between who want to genuinely listen and who want to listen just for the sake of argument.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: more about your field than you? (reposted for grammar and clarity) How do you deal with lay people that "know" about your field/discipline more than you? Because, asserting your experience, research, and credentials makes you a cookie-cutter elitist and no match for their....umm...uhh........vitriol? *ad hominem* jabs? Friend that once studied French Baroque? If you are a scholar and expert in a field, how do you know more than some random person that "knows" more about your discipline? The axiom here is that you have/are working toward an advanced degree and have an actual understanding of your field compared to a layperson. These laypeople are actually the ones trying to prove themselves with outright lies despite you, the person who has studied the field for a decade, being able to state otherwise. you are an expert in your field, have researched and practiced it for a decade and someone with no real experience or rigor "knows more than you." So, for example, if you were a cardiologist and somebody on Reddit/YouTube, etc. claimed to know more than you and their advice just as valid. Often the retort or retaliation for your hard work and sacrifice is that you are an elitist. Maybe an American sports analogy would be: an armchair quarterback that would coach/tell Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes how to play their position.
RESPONSE A: Considering the nature of my specialty, people who try to speak over my authority on it generally fall into one of two categories: - People who consider the humanities worthless. - Literal homophobes. It's not worth my time engaging in either case.
RESPONSE B: I don't have conversations with people who want to argue about my discipline, what I know or what I do. I just politely end a conversation with something like, "Oh, that' interesting. Excuse me." and go away. Nor do I have conversations that approach contentiousness about politics, religion or even the weather. I have better things to do than to argue with know-it-all's.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.
RESPONSE A: You are making an assumption in your question that isn't supported by anything you say and is probably arguable anyway. I don't get why you think these exams might be super difficult to grade, that is dependent on various other factors. Making something that allows multiple submissions and is a legitimate assessment, sounds a lot more difficult to me. What's with all the hair pulling?
RESPONSE B: Many of us do not-- I haven't given an in-class exam in over 20 years. Many of my colleagues and I agree that the pedagogy of testing in general isn't well suited to the sort of learning we seek to develop. I am not interested in a student's ability to memorize information or to perform under pressure; for me analysis, synthesis, argumentation, and clear communication are my primary goals. Information they can look up just like anyone who is not a expert in a given field will do. I understand why some fields still use exams. They just aren't an effective means of teaching or assessing learning in my fields, especially compared to the great many alternative assessments. Further, not having exams means I don't have to invest class time in giving them and I never have to grade them. Win/win in my book.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.
RESPONSE A: I think it’s funny that in some states you have to take certain exams in order to get your teaching license. For teachers they disagree with having tests “prove” that children know the information. I know for public schools k-12 this changed for teaching for the test because of no child left behind. They actually prevent you from taking certain classes if you can’t pass some of your teaching exams by certain point. Some students can’t afford to take or retake it and it delays students from continuing their degree. I guess this was more of a vent then really what you were asking
RESPONSE B: Many of us do not-- I haven't given an in-class exam in over 20 years. Many of my colleagues and I agree that the pedagogy of testing in general isn't well suited to the sort of learning we seek to develop. I am not interested in a student's ability to memorize information or to perform under pressure; for me analysis, synthesis, argumentation, and clear communication are my primary goals. Information they can look up just like anyone who is not a expert in a given field will do. I understand why some fields still use exams. They just aren't an effective means of teaching or assessing learning in my fields, especially compared to the great many alternative assessments. Further, not having exams means I don't have to invest class time in giving them and I never have to grade them. Win/win in my book.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.
RESPONSE A: A lot of other posters said good things, but I just want to add that exams are the closest you can get to cheating-proof assessment in some disciplines. I'm in Computer Science and we have huge problems with cheating. I would love to assign grades entirely based on projects, but 99.9% of CS problems can be easily Googled.
RESPONSE B: You are making an assumption in your question that isn't supported by anything you say and is probably arguable anyway. I don't get why you think these exams might be super difficult to grade, that is dependent on various other factors. Making something that allows multiple submissions and is a legitimate assessment, sounds a lot more difficult to me. What's with all the hair pulling?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.
RESPONSE A: A lot of other posters said good things, but I just want to add that exams are the closest you can get to cheating-proof assessment in some disciplines. I'm in Computer Science and we have huge problems with cheating. I would love to assign grades entirely based on projects, but 99.9% of CS problems can be easily Googled.
RESPONSE B: I think it’s funny that in some states you have to take certain exams in order to get your teaching license. For teachers they disagree with having tests “prove” that children know the information. I know for public schools k-12 this changed for teaching for the test because of no child left behind. They actually prevent you from taking certain classes if you can’t pass some of your teaching exams by certain point. Some students can’t afford to take or retake it and it delays students from continuing their degree. I guess this was more of a vent then really what you were asking
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do we continue to give high-stakes tests, especially when they are counter-productive to both students and professors? While this may seem like a cringingly naive question to ask this, however, the consequences of colleges that continue to unquestioningly to give hair-pulling exams aren't. It becomes more costly to the school and to the student to retake a class and postpone their graduation date, and extensive grading of these exams take away research time from professors and graduate students trying to get their foot in the door, and not to mention that even the most well-motivated students can succumb to life-tragedies in their semsters that cause them to bomb the exam entirely, thereby repeating the first sentence.
RESPONSE A: You are making an assumption in your question that isn't supported by anything you say and is probably arguable anyway. I don't get why you think these exams might be super difficult to grade, that is dependent on various other factors. Making something that allows multiple submissions and is a legitimate assessment, sounds a lot more difficult to me. What's with all the hair pulling?
RESPONSE B: I think it’s funny that in some states you have to take certain exams in order to get your teaching license. For teachers they disagree with having tests “prove” that children know the information. I know for public schools k-12 this changed for teaching for the test because of no child left behind. They actually prevent you from taking certain classes if you can’t pass some of your teaching exams by certain point. Some students can’t afford to take or retake it and it delays students from continuing their degree. I guess this was more of a vent then really what you were asking
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.
RESPONSE A: Yeah, that is assault. Report it, please.
RESPONSE B: You should certainly report this! That person's behavior was 100% uncalled for, and they have absolutely no right to make you feel uncomfortable in your workplace. No one should touch you, ever, unless it is welcome. Please let your chair know, in writing, and with as much detail as possible. Best of luck.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.
RESPONSE A: Yeah, that is assault. Report it, please.
RESPONSE B: Holy shit that person is way out of line. It must be reported and it is good you bring your work home though what a hassle. That person needs to get the hell away from working with others if they behave that way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Assaulted in the office, is it a good idea ever to mention this? I work in a shared office with a couple of other research groups at a university, one of which a feud with someone in our group (e.g. using office consumables, misplacing staplers and claiming ownership of items etc). ​ Last week, when I was working late, a member from that group came and intimidated me, swearing and getting uncomfortably close, asking me about an office item which was misplaced quite often (I knew of it, but not really the specifics), to which he ended up smacking me on the back and head several times (a very aggressive way that could've seemed casual if anyone was watching). ​ Since then, I've been feeling quite shaken, I don't really trust the environment I'm in anymore and certainly not anything around me, I've been keeping my food locked and putting all my work in a binder at the end of the day and taking all my data/books home in case there is any further conflict that gets worse than physical. ​ I understand academia can be a stressful environment but I don't anyone has ever tried to physically confront me over something that I was not directly involved in (other than having a vague knowledge of the events). Is this a common occurrence that people brush off? ​ I'm a junior research fellow if this helps anyone.
RESPONSE A: Yeah, that is assault. Report it, please.
RESPONSE B: Report it. If they did that to you, then what else have they done that you don’t know of?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?
RESPONSE A: Being a 16th or 17th century style polymath is difficult to impossible, but interdisciplinary studies are basically required at this point. Where do you draw the line between compsci, biology, and chemistry in genetics? Where is the line between biology, chemistry, and psychology when you're working in neuroscience? Toss in some physics for flavoring when you're talking about acoustics, or fMRI, or...
RESPONSE B: Buckaroo Banzai is a physicist, neurosurgeon, test pilot, and rock musician.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?
RESPONSE A: Being a 16th or 17th century style polymath is difficult to impossible, but interdisciplinary studies are basically required at this point. Where do you draw the line between compsci, biology, and chemistry in genetics? Where is the line between biology, chemistry, and psychology when you're working in neuroscience? Toss in some physics for flavoring when you're talking about acoustics, or fMRI, or...
RESPONSE B: Not in the sense you speak of. There’s plenty of people who publish in fields they aren’t experts in though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?
RESPONSE A: Honestly, the ability to do research in lots of different fields is the reason that I'm still in academia. I have published and loads of different areas and I have active grants and lots of different areas. I think we impose a lot of artificial limitations on ourselves.
RESPONSE B: Not in the sense you speak of. There’s plenty of people who publish in fields they aren’t experts in though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?
RESPONSE A: Polymaths are rare. Interdisciplinary scholars are not. In fact there are multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, and trans-disciplinary degree programs all over the place. Dual-degree programs are one point of concentration; "studies" programs are another. Consider environmental studies at the graduate level as an example: it's typically built around a core of natural and social science courses/methods, with humanities elements (literature, ethics, history) sprinkled in. Or any area studies program: African studies, Asian studies, Latin American studies, etc. Or cultural studies, film studies, American studies and the like. All of these are at *least* multi-disciplinary (i.e. combining coursework and methods from multiple disciplines) and the better programs are truly *inter-disciplinary* (based on courses that internally integrate across disciplinary boundaries). A good example is the Energy Resources Group at Berkeley, which was designed to be interdisciplinary from the ground up. Programs like these are intended to *create* interdisciplinary academics from whole cloth and in many cases they do just that. I've worked with graduates from them and a big chunk of my own graduate work comes from similar programs (at quick count I have graduate credits from over a dozen different disciplines). Are there still Linus Paulings out there? Or Athelstan Spilhauses? Perhaps, but I'd wager they are even fewer in number than a generation or two ago due to the hyperspecialization of the academe and the way university structures and incentives have changed since the 1960s. True polymaths in the sense OP is suggesting are rare and there aren't often places to foster them in American academe any longer-- but plain old inter/multi/trans disciplinarians are all over the place now, more so than even 25 years ago when I was in grad school.
RESPONSE B: Sure, I'm a cell biologist and molecular biologist. A bit of a biochemist, too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it realistic to want to be interdisciplinary? My favorite Wikipedia pages are the ones that say “John/Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historian, sociologist, mathematician, and artist.” Those are the kinds of people I look up to. Those are my role models. But there’s a lot of information out there. More than there was 100 or 200 years ago. Which means it takes longer to become an expert in a discipline than it once did. Are there still polymaths in the 21st-century?
RESPONSE A: When you are looking at historic individuals, it is important to remember that discipline boundaries have shifted since the time that they worked. When we say that "Jane Doe was a philosopher, scientist, historial, sociologist, mathematician, and artist", from our current perspective those seem like radically different activities. But during Jane Doe's time, they might have been much more similar to each other or even classified together. For example, a lot of the Renaissance artists were also mathematicians since perspective painting was a leading edge math topic at the time. They often used their perspective drawings as part of engineering or city planning goals, so they were engineers by our modern definitions. If they also observed natural scenes in their art then they might get classified as scientists and philosophers today. Yet from their perspective they were doing something very continuous. You can't predict how the fields will rearrange themselves in the future, and if what seems like a single discipline today, will look like a vaguely connected bundle of disciplines in a century.
RESPONSE B: Sure, I'm a cell biologist and molecular biologist. A bit of a biochemist, too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to politely decline a PhD position I interviewed and was accepted to a PhD position, Told the PI i would take a few weeks to think about it and let her know. How can I decline politely via email? I really respect her and her work, and im not declining out of a lack of interest, rather I chose to stay in my current lab (Msc and PhD are separate here)
RESPONSE A: Sooner rather than later. They might need a person as part of staffing their research. If you have no intention of accepting, let them know ASAP so they can move on to someone who desperately wants the position.
RESPONSE B: “I’m good thx 👍 Keep it real -B”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.
RESPONSE A: Many are disheartened by job opportunities and the overall BS of post-doc life, but I have never met anyone who regretted getting the degree.
RESPONSE B: Not being sarcastic, but I think this is the end state for most (say about 75%) PhDs.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.
RESPONSE A: I wonder this. My mh has been in the toilet for a while.
RESPONSE B: Many are disheartened by job opportunities and the overall BS of post-doc life, but I have never met anyone who regretted getting the degree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.
RESPONSE A: For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.
RESPONSE B: Me, haven't even finish mine and I'm regretted. Yet, I can't leave because I'm *that* close to get out with something to prove that I have endured this BS.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.
RESPONSE A: Not being sarcastic, but I think this is the end state for most (say about 75%) PhDs.
RESPONSE B: For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is PhD regret a thing? Just wondering if anyone has ever felt like getting a PhD was ultimately the wrong move for them and why.
RESPONSE A: For me yes, I spent about four years getting this degree and others in my field spent four years progressing in the practical field. They are more established and made a name for themselves. The expectations of a postdoc as well being being treated poorly really made me feel a bit of regret. Not to put you off it, I also think it depends on the group and support you get during your PhD. I was left to do things on my own with very little guidance so I felt so lost during the whole thing, I couldn’t believe I finished the when I did. There were a lot of tears throughout the whole thing, and even when I last amended my thesis! I never felt like I had direction and somehow mustered up a thesis.
RESPONSE B: I wonder this. My mh has been in the toilet for a while.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it appropriate to ask a Professor you’re doing research under if they know how to get academic books for cheaper than market price? Sorry for confusing wording. I will start working on a thesis project (MA - humanities) under a new professor which I do not yet have a relationship with (we have exchanged many emails but I have never met them - not even via Zoom). A brand new monograph covering important parts of my research topic has just come out from an academic press but is quite expensive to buy through the press and on Amazon etc. Would it be appropriate for me to ask this professor - who I don’t really “know” but under who I will be working for at least the next year - via email if they have access to the work as it also pertains to their sub-field and/or if they knew how I could get it for cheap (market price is over $100)? I feel like it is a fair question for an academic supervisor/mentor but don’t want to break some academic social protocol that I am unaware of. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Nope, not inappropriate at all. As others have pointed out, better to ask a librarian, but its not at all odd to ask about getting cheaper books. My own faculty have all sorts of tips about local bookstores and the quality of their secondhand material, because they've lived in the university town longer. They know the shops better. And sometimes they can arrange to have a library acquire the resource you need so that you can then access it yourself. In a few cases, they've offered me the books themselves, or let me know when a faculty member is leaving and planning on disposing of their books.
RESPONSE B: If the book is in their field it might be worth just asking if they have a copy. Professors get spare copies of books all the time and if you do research with them are normally happy to lend them out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it appropriate to ask a Professor you’re doing research under if they know how to get academic books for cheaper than market price? Sorry for confusing wording. I will start working on a thesis project (MA - humanities) under a new professor which I do not yet have a relationship with (we have exchanged many emails but I have never met them - not even via Zoom). A brand new monograph covering important parts of my research topic has just come out from an academic press but is quite expensive to buy through the press and on Amazon etc. Would it be appropriate for me to ask this professor - who I don’t really “know” but under who I will be working for at least the next year - via email if they have access to the work as it also pertains to their sub-field and/or if they knew how I could get it for cheap (market price is over $100)? I feel like it is a fair question for an academic supervisor/mentor but don’t want to break some academic social protocol that I am unaware of. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: As a professor, this question would not be inappropriate to me. Educational resources should be free and I’d be happy to help my students. I think most of my colleagues share this sentiment.
RESPONSE B: I can’t be bothered to actually ask for a physical copy since most of my books are available through library or libgen, but generally your supervisor has either a specific funding for research activities or other that should cover material as well. It can’t hurt to ask.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: and what happened next? Also have you ever heard of anyone having a panic attack during their defense?
RESPONSE A: I know a person who didn't "fail" their defense, so much as their advisor would wait until 2-3 days before their scheduled defense and then would email the entire committee and say "they are not ready yet" and would ask the student to reschedule for 1-2 months later. This advisor did this so many times that the student was supposed to defend (the first time) in February, but we didn't wind up actually getting to their defense until late July. The chair of the department forced the defense to go through because the student had an August start date for a job. The advisor tried to fail the student at the defense, but then the other members of the committee and the department chair asked for just cause, and the advisor didn't really have any. The student defended, graduated, got out. They found out several years later through the grapevine that the reason the advisor didn't want them to defend at all is that the advisor wanted to keep them on their project (as cheap but competent labor) for 1 more year until their grant ran out because it's really hard to find a grad student willing to take on a <1 year project. tl;dr advisor kept delaying defense trying to get student to stay until end of a grant so that the advisor didn't have to find someone new in the last year of said grant.
RESPONSE B: I think it depends on the field. In my department (linguistics), you get a defense when your advisers think you're ready, so nobody's failed at least as long as I've been there. However I used to work in the math department of the same school and they would once in a while have students fail and have to re-defend (I think a lot of them had projects where the premise could fail entirely if the data didn't pan out). I knew this because when students would defend for the second or third time it was policy to have a security guard waiting in the office in case things got too heated. A few times while I worked there the security guards hung out in the office for that reason, but they were never actually needed fortunately.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does anyone know any case of a PhD student that failed their PhD defense? If yes why and what happened next? Also have you ever heard of anyone having a panic attack during their defense?
RESPONSE A: Me. The defense didn't go well and the committee decided it was a "committee meeting" so I could have another go. There were multiple issues: partly me not being as prepared as I should have been, partly my advisor not realizing some interpersonal issues on the committee, and partly the committee (besides my advisor) expecting one thing when in my proposal I thought I had made it clear this project was something else. It took another year for me to get over it and try again, successfully that time. Same committee. Honestly, I think my advisor and I wore them down. I'm sure someone could do an interesting study on additional layers of imposter syndrome that beset those that fail the defense the first time.
RESPONSE B: Supervisors in the UK can advise but they can’t stop a student from submitting their thesis as it’s up to the student in the end. However, the examination committee is the one to decide if it’s good enough to go to viva. I’ve been on an examination committee where the student was definitely not ready and had very poor data collection methods and had done the wrong stats. Before it got to viva we conferred and sent it back saying that it wouldn’t even get a MPhil level in the state it was, and that even if the stats were done correctly it would only ever get MPhil level. (It was that poor.) The student resubmitted a year later and got their MPhil. Edit to add: they were an international student and their visa was running out, that’s why they submitted anyway, apparently. Us giving them more time to work on it allowed them to extend the visa.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does anyone know any case of a PhD student that failed their PhD defense? If yes why and what happened next? Also have you ever heard of anyone having a panic attack during their defense?
RESPONSE A: I know of one that would have failed had he defended, but was told beforehand so he postponed the defense to work out the issues in question. Granted, *part* of that was due to office politics, but at the same time there were genuine issues with the dissertation and it wasn't precisely up to par. Realistically, though; it should be relatively rare to actually fail the defense, as the hard one should be your comprehensive exam. If you can even *get* to the defense, you should already basically be a sure-bet. Edit: Actually, scratch that, I *do* remember a second failure; it was a student who essentially ran out of time because he lost interest in his degree field and his advisor was pretty hands-off and let him fail. He tried to defend twice with essentially nothing; the first time they managed to convince him not to defend, and the second time the committee let him defend, then told him he wasn't passing and allowed him to basically drop out rather than have it on his record that he failed at the defense.
RESPONSE B: Me. The defense didn't go well and the committee decided it was a "committee meeting" so I could have another go. There were multiple issues: partly me not being as prepared as I should have been, partly my advisor not realizing some interpersonal issues on the committee, and partly the committee (besides my advisor) expecting one thing when in my proposal I thought I had made it clear this project was something else. It took another year for me to get over it and try again, successfully that time. Same committee. Honestly, I think my advisor and I wore them down. I'm sure someone could do an interesting study on additional layers of imposter syndrome that beset those that fail the defense the first time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does anyone know any case of a PhD student that failed their PhD defense? If yes why and what happened next? Also have you ever heard of anyone having a panic attack during their defense?
RESPONSE A: My father failed. I don't know all the details/timing but he was in the English department and his adviser died. My father had already landed a tenure track position at another place and he thought the thesis was ok. Evidently the defense didn't go well, especially without his primary adviser to help, and during it he asked "which of you will help me sort this out?" and was met with silence. He said that he left and never looked back. He eventually had to leave the tenure track but taught part time off and on for several years before eventually opening a used book store.
RESPONSE B: Supervisors in the UK can advise but they can’t stop a student from submitting their thesis as it’s up to the student in the end. However, the examination committee is the one to decide if it’s good enough to go to viva. I’ve been on an examination committee where the student was definitely not ready and had very poor data collection methods and had done the wrong stats. Before it got to viva we conferred and sent it back saying that it wouldn’t even get a MPhil level in the state it was, and that even if the stats were done correctly it would only ever get MPhil level. (It was that poor.) The student resubmitted a year later and got their MPhil. Edit to add: they were an international student and their visa was running out, that’s why they submitted anyway, apparently. Us giving them more time to work on it allowed them to extend the visa.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does anyone know any case of a PhD student that failed their PhD defense? If yes why and what happened next? Also have you ever heard of anyone having a panic attack during their defense?
RESPONSE A: My father failed. I don't know all the details/timing but he was in the English department and his adviser died. My father had already landed a tenure track position at another place and he thought the thesis was ok. Evidently the defense didn't go well, especially without his primary adviser to help, and during it he asked "which of you will help me sort this out?" and was met with silence. He said that he left and never looked back. He eventually had to leave the tenure track but taught part time off and on for several years before eventually opening a used book store.
RESPONSE B: I know of one that would have failed had he defended, but was told beforehand so he postponed the defense to work out the issues in question. Granted, *part* of that was due to office politics, but at the same time there were genuine issues with the dissertation and it wasn't precisely up to par. Realistically, though; it should be relatively rare to actually fail the defense, as the hard one should be your comprehensive exam. If you can even *get* to the defense, you should already basically be a sure-bet. Edit: Actually, scratch that, I *do* remember a second failure; it was a student who essentially ran out of time because he lost interest in his degree field and his advisor was pretty hands-off and let him fail. He tried to defend twice with essentially nothing; the first time they managed to convince him not to defend, and the second time the committee let him defend, then told him he wasn't passing and allowed him to basically drop out rather than have it on his record that he failed at the defense.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: the way back to grade school. I'm referring to practically a total inability to keep the ears and brain both directed towards the speaker for any meaningful amount of time. My main explanation for this is that conferences and talks are often socializing overload. You're surrounded by colleagues and peers in the same field as you, and it's hard to resist glancing over at them, thinking about your interactions with them, wondering what they're thinking about the lecture, wondering what they're thinking about *you*, trying to compose yourself in a way that looks totally scholarly and serious... Of course, there's also the matter of how engaging the speaker is. Listening to someone read 15 pages of a paper that is written in a style intended to be read and not spoken is already a bit of a challenge, but add that to a senior academic who doesn't look up or change his/her intonation even once... I'm exaggerating a bit here for effect, but I imagine there must be others who experience what I am describing. Also, to all those out there who know the topic at a talk well enough to just ask a random question that has little to do with what the speaker was saying but at least saves everyone from the awkwardness of no one asking anything at all — thanks. To all those who do the same thing when there are many other people with their hands up — ugh.
RESPONSE A: Also, to add onto other points, let's be honest that good researchers don't make good talkers. Very hard to remain focused when the person talking has about as much intonation as a flatline, no matter how amazing the research itself is.
RESPONSE B: People don't like admitting this, but the majority of conference talks are outright bad. People don't want to admit to themselves that a good talk provides some sort of entertainment value to hold the audience's attention. The result is many very bland talks that could just as easily be given to the audience to read in silence for 15 minutes before they ask questions. When we give talks at conferences, I think we should consider their stand-alone value as an informative lecture, and not just treat them as another CV line and a bland recitation of our research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do others have a very hard time staying focused during talks/conference lectures? I almost always lose track of what a speaker is saying at conferences. I'm not talking about the typical moments of spacing out that happen and have happened to all of us during lectures going all the way back to grade school. I'm referring to practically a total inability to keep the ears and brain both directed towards the speaker for any meaningful amount of time. My main explanation for this is that conferences and talks are often socializing overload. You're surrounded by colleagues and peers in the same field as you, and it's hard to resist glancing over at them, thinking about your interactions with them, wondering what they're thinking about the lecture, wondering what they're thinking about *you*, trying to compose yourself in a way that looks totally scholarly and serious... Of course, there's also the matter of how engaging the speaker is. Listening to someone read 15 pages of a paper that is written in a style intended to be read and not spoken is already a bit of a challenge, but add that to a senior academic who doesn't look up or change his/her intonation even once... I'm exaggerating a bit here for effect, but I imagine there must be others who experience what I am describing. Also, to all those out there who know the topic at a talk well enough to just ask a random question that has little to do with what the speaker was saying but at least saves everyone from the awkwardness of no one asking anything at all — thanks. To all those who do the same thing when there are many other people with their hands up — ugh.
RESPONSE A: Try sitting at the very front one time. I feel like it's a completely different experience. Just the close up of the speaker's face and expressions keeps you a lot more engaged. It's more like a 1-on-1 conversation than a talk.
RESPONSE B: Also, to add onto other points, let's be honest that good researchers don't make good talkers. Very hard to remain focused when the person talking has about as much intonation as a flatline, no matter how amazing the research itself is.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: amount of time. My main explanation for this is that conferences and talks are often socializing overload. You're surrounded by colleagues and peers in the same field as you, and it's hard to resist glancing over at them, thinking about your interactions with them, wondering what they're thinking about the lecture, wondering what they're thinking about *you*, trying to compose yourself in a way that looks totally scholarly and serious... Of course, there's also the matter of how engaging the speaker is. Listening to someone read 15 pages of a paper that is written in a style intended to be read and not spoken is already a bit of a challenge, but add that to a senior academic who doesn't look up or change his/her intonation even once... I'm exaggerating a bit here for effect, but I imagine there must be others who experience what I am describing. Also, to all those out there who know the topic at a talk well enough to just ask a random question that has little to do with what the speaker was saying but at least saves everyone from the awkwardness of no one asking anything at all — thanks. To all those who do the same thing when there are many other people with their hands up — ugh.
RESPONSE A: Also, to add onto other points, let's be honest that good researchers don't make good talkers. Very hard to remain focused when the person talking has about as much intonation as a flatline, no matter how amazing the research itself is.
RESPONSE B: I need 2 things to be able to stay focused: \-the topic is close to me, even a bit \-the presenter is good ​ Don't worry about yourself, pretty sure that most of the time it's the presenters fault, their presentation sounds like a torrent of words, completely incoherent. They don't know what to put emphasis on and when to hold pauses, how to lead the thought and how to create good PPTs. ​ At the end of a long conference day it is also hard to give a fuck about what the presenter is saying, no matter how ugly that sounds.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: hard to resist glancing over at them, thinking about your interactions with them, wondering what they're thinking about the lecture, wondering what they're thinking about *you*, trying to compose yourself in a way that looks totally scholarly and serious... Of course, there's also the matter of how engaging the speaker is. Listening to someone read 15 pages of a paper that is written in a style intended to be read and not spoken is already a bit of a challenge, but add that to a senior academic who doesn't look up or change his/her intonation even once... I'm exaggerating a bit here for effect, but I imagine there must be others who experience what I am describing. Also, to all those out there who know the topic at a talk well enough to just ask a random question that has little to do with what the speaker was saying but at least saves everyone from the awkwardness of no one asking anything at all — thanks. To all those who do the same thing when there are many other people with their hands up — ugh.
RESPONSE A: I'm usually terribly sleepy from the travel so I only attend talks that I am SUPER interested in and the keynote. If I try to do other wise it might as well be nap time. If it's nap time I'm better served sitting at the bar catching up on articles or enjoying a hotel bed sans kids! I've watched my PI fall asleep at a talk. So no, you're not the only one.
RESPONSE B: I need 2 things to be able to stay focused: \-the topic is close to me, even a bit \-the presenter is good ​ Don't worry about yourself, pretty sure that most of the time it's the presenters fault, their presentation sounds like a torrent of words, completely incoherent. They don't know what to put emphasis on and when to hold pauses, how to lead the thought and how to create good PPTs. ​ At the end of a long conference day it is also hard to give a fuck about what the presenter is saying, no matter how ugly that sounds.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PhD Supervisor missed a deadline, now candidate has to pay $15,000 and wait months before graduating Hello all. I'm asking this for a co-worker. He has been working a full time job and writing to finish his dissertation in Linguistics. He completed and submitted well in advance of the deadline. However, his supervisor was supposed to submit it to the doctoral committee before the deadline, BUT DIDN'T! Now, the school is telling him that he needs to wait until the next semester to graduate, and he needs to pay an additional $15k for that semester since he's no longer in the country (I don't know how that part works). So, because his supervisor screwed up, it's going to cost him thousands of dollars and waste a significant amount of time. Is there anything he can do?
RESPONSE A: There's usually a process either within the department or at the college/uni level for "special consideration" or a "request for exemption" or some such. However, these processes usually require the advisor to be involved and to be a real advocate for the student. If I had done this to one of my students, I'd be in the grad dean's office falling on my sword and trying to see what I can make happen. If your friend's advisor isn't doing that, then either a) his advisor's not a very good advisor and your friend is probably screwed, or b) you don't have the full story and there may well be a totally legit reason why the advisor didn't forward the work.
RESPONSE B: Probably not - check the handbook, but usually there is text to the effect that responsibility for making all deadlines ultimately falls on the student. It sucks, but there probably isn't much that can be done. They can try contacting the department head or graduate committee, but outcomes will depend on the local politics.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD Supervisor missed a deadline, now candidate has to pay $15,000 and wait months before graduating Hello all. I'm asking this for a co-worker. He has been working a full time job and writing to finish his dissertation in Linguistics. He completed and submitted well in advance of the deadline. However, his supervisor was supposed to submit it to the doctoral committee before the deadline, BUT DIDN'T! Now, the school is telling him that he needs to wait until the next semester to graduate, and he needs to pay an additional $15k for that semester since he's no longer in the country (I don't know how that part works). So, because his supervisor screwed up, it's going to cost him thousands of dollars and waste a significant amount of time. Is there anything he can do?
RESPONSE A: With $15k at stake, consult a lawyer. It's at least worth looking into.
RESPONSE B: There's usually a process either within the department or at the college/uni level for "special consideration" or a "request for exemption" or some such. However, these processes usually require the advisor to be involved and to be a real advocate for the student. If I had done this to one of my students, I'd be in the grad dean's office falling on my sword and trying to see what I can make happen. If your friend's advisor isn't doing that, then either a) his advisor's not a very good advisor and your friend is probably screwed, or b) you don't have the full story and there may well be a totally legit reason why the advisor didn't forward the work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PhD Supervisor missed a deadline, now candidate has to pay $15,000 and wait months before graduating Hello all. I'm asking this for a co-worker. He has been working a full time job and writing to finish his dissertation in Linguistics. He completed and submitted well in advance of the deadline. However, his supervisor was supposed to submit it to the doctoral committee before the deadline, BUT DIDN'T! Now, the school is telling him that he needs to wait until the next semester to graduate, and he needs to pay an additional $15k for that semester since he's no longer in the country (I don't know how that part works). So, because his supervisor screwed up, it's going to cost him thousands of dollars and waste a significant amount of time. Is there anything he can do?
RESPONSE A: He should consult a lawyer definitely. Depending on the country it might work. Especially if the supervisor did it on purpose. But in my school this is pretty normal. A friend of mine waited another semester just because a committee member kept saying he needs more time to read the dissertation for months, so they could not meet for her defense.
RESPONSE B: Have your friend either: 1) Look into enrolling through their university’s “Extended Studies” program, where they might pay per credit, or 2) See if they can defer to the next summer term, which costs less money than a typical school term. Obviously if you have an ombudsman of any sort, they should be sympathetic to your predicament. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD Supervisor missed a deadline, now candidate has to pay $15,000 and wait months before graduating Hello all. I'm asking this for a co-worker. He has been working a full time job and writing to finish his dissertation in Linguistics. He completed and submitted well in advance of the deadline. However, his supervisor was supposed to submit it to the doctoral committee before the deadline, BUT DIDN'T! Now, the school is telling him that he needs to wait until the next semester to graduate, and he needs to pay an additional $15k for that semester since he's no longer in the country (I don't know how that part works). So, because his supervisor screwed up, it's going to cost him thousands of dollars and waste a significant amount of time. Is there anything he can do?
RESPONSE A: Have your friend either: 1) Look into enrolling through their university’s “Extended Studies” program, where they might pay per credit, or 2) See if they can defer to the next summer term, which costs less money than a typical school term. Obviously if you have an ombudsman of any sort, they should be sympathetic to your predicament. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: This situation sounds entirely terrible, and the college should be willing to work with the student to waive most or all of the tuition and fees for the upcoming semester. However, though it sometimes leads to injustices, the clause about deadlines being the responsibility of the student rather than faculty is a necessity. If faculty were financially liable for the missed deadlines of their students, faculty members would no longer be willing to mentor graduate students. With 6-8 grad students working with me at any given time, my potential liability would exceed my entire salary.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Can academia encourage bizarre job expectations, even for Doctors? Long story short: my partner is in a humanities postdoc. I heard for years that "there are opportunities", "people work remotely", etc. as he progressed. Last week, he revealed that he doesn't know what his career should be and that his statements are true about various people but he just hasn't come across those roles as something he could apply to. After asking a bit more, it seems like the jobs he can get are scarce, the jobs that are appealing are scarcer, and he's hoping companies might create a role for him to essentially help humanity. I'm feeling pretty mislead. Him telling me that our plans can happen and that there are jobs beyond his postdoc, when in actuality there wasn't much support for that, is making me very confused. I've always supported him and he's no slouch, so it was easy to play the waiting game while I worked. He's always been a bit prideful, but this feels almost delusional. At this stage, how can he have future goals but can't name a viable job to make them happen? Is it common for academic life to motivate such bizarre planning?
RESPONSE A: Academia is difficult and leads to people making career decisions based on hope rather than fact for sure, but your partner still sounds unhealthily delusional. Any advisor worth their salt will have outlined to him how difficult it is to get a job and the things he has to do to maximise the possibility. (And no company is going to create a role for him to "help humanity", that's just off the scale naïve). Either he has been seriously misled, or he hasn't been listening. Either way, he needs to find a mentor - ideally someone who managed to get a job in the last 5-10 years - and really listen to what they have to say.
RESPONSE B: Numbers wise, it's like being married to a college athlete who wants to go pro. They have plans, but whether they get there or not... is a really competitive game.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Can academia encourage bizarre job expectations, even for Doctors? Long story short: my partner is in a humanities postdoc. I heard for years that "there are opportunities", "people work remotely", etc. as he progressed. Last week, he revealed that he doesn't know what his career should be and that his statements are true about various people but he just hasn't come across those roles as something he could apply to. After asking a bit more, it seems like the jobs he can get are scarce, the jobs that are appealing are scarcer, and he's hoping companies might create a role for him to essentially help humanity. I'm feeling pretty mislead. Him telling me that our plans can happen and that there are jobs beyond his postdoc, when in actuality there wasn't much support for that, is making me very confused. I've always supported him and he's no slouch, so it was easy to play the waiting game while I worked. He's always been a bit prideful, but this feels almost delusional. At this stage, how can he have future goals but can't name a viable job to make them happen? Is it common for academic life to motivate such bizarre planning?
RESPONSE A: Numbers wise, it's like being married to a college athlete who wants to go pro. They have plans, but whether they get there or not... is a really competitive game.
RESPONSE B: I would recommend that your partner get in touch with his university’s career services department, a nearby school’s career services department, or check out the career services department websites of of a wider set of universities. Many, if not most, academics have very vague ideas of what non-academic opportunities there are and what kinds of things companies look for. I’d also, ask him to consider what he enjoys and what his strengths are beyond the specific niche of his graduate work. PhD’s develop a lot of soft skills that can be useful in a range of career paths, and though entering those paths may take some struggling it at least increases the options available.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: can get are scarce, the jobs that are appealing are scarcer, and he's hoping companies might create a role for him to essentially help humanity. I'm feeling pretty mislead. Him telling me that our plans can happen and that there are jobs beyond his postdoc, when in actuality there wasn't much support for that, is making me very confused. I've always supported him and he's no slouch, so it was easy to play the waiting game while I worked. He's always been a bit prideful, but this feels almost delusional. At this stage, how can he have future goals but can't name a viable job to make them happen? Is it common for academic life to motivate such bizarre planning?
RESPONSE A: OP should know that competition is part of the world of academia. Opportunities do exist, and the top institutions compete for top talent. It's reasonably easy to tell if you are top talent or not. I don't know humanities, per se. In other fields it comes down to some measurables (# peer-reviewed publications and the quality of their journals plus ability to obtain extra-mural funding), and some subjective aspects (the attention to your work at professional conferences). The quality of your pedigree matters, too -- what university and what scholars you've published with. If your partner is at the postdoc stage, it should be straightforward to evaluate his position and likelihood of a career in academia. If his record is good, he should apply for tenure-track positions in every location that's advertising. If his record is typical, he'll have to apply for lower-tier schools and teaching positions. Worst case in academia is to do adjunct gigs, which looks miserable, tbh. My school had some applicants whose materials made it look like they're teaching 20+ courses per year at 3-4 online schools at the same time. The common theme was they had doctorates from schools I never heard of, and few or no publications in journals I ever heard of.
RESPONSE B: Numbers wise, it's like being married to a college athlete who wants to go pro. They have plans, but whether they get there or not... is a really competitive game.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Can academia encourage bizarre job expectations, even for Doctors? Long story short: my partner is in a humanities postdoc. I heard for years that "there are opportunities", "people work remotely", etc. as he progressed. Last week, he revealed that he doesn't know what his career should be and that his statements are true about various people but he just hasn't come across those roles as something he could apply to. After asking a bit more, it seems like the jobs he can get are scarce, the jobs that are appealing are scarcer, and he's hoping companies might create a role for him to essentially help humanity. I'm feeling pretty mislead. Him telling me that our plans can happen and that there are jobs beyond his postdoc, when in actuality there wasn't much support for that, is making me very confused. I've always supported him and he's no slouch, so it was easy to play the waiting game while I worked. He's always been a bit prideful, but this feels almost delusional. At this stage, how can he have future goals but can't name a viable job to make them happen? Is it common for academic life to motivate such bizarre planning?
RESPONSE A: >he's hoping companies might create a role for him to essentially help humanity. I think that's very delusional thinking.
RESPONSE B: I would recommend that your partner get in touch with his university’s career services department, a nearby school’s career services department, or check out the career services department websites of of a wider set of universities. Many, if not most, academics have very vague ideas of what non-academic opportunities there are and what kinds of things companies look for. I’d also, ask him to consider what he enjoys and what his strengths are beyond the specific niche of his graduate work. PhD’s develop a lot of soft skills that can be useful in a range of career paths, and though entering those paths may take some struggling it at least increases the options available.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: a bit more, it seems like the jobs he can get are scarce, the jobs that are appealing are scarcer, and he's hoping companies might create a role for him to essentially help humanity. I'm feeling pretty mislead. Him telling me that our plans can happen and that there are jobs beyond his postdoc, when in actuality there wasn't much support for that, is making me very confused. I've always supported him and he's no slouch, so it was easy to play the waiting game while I worked. He's always been a bit prideful, but this feels almost delusional. At this stage, how can he have future goals but can't name a viable job to make them happen? Is it common for academic life to motivate such bizarre planning?
RESPONSE A: Academia is difficult and leads to people making career decisions based on hope rather than fact for sure, but your partner still sounds unhealthily delusional. Any advisor worth their salt will have outlined to him how difficult it is to get a job and the things he has to do to maximise the possibility. (And no company is going to create a role for him to "help humanity", that's just off the scale naïve). Either he has been seriously misled, or he hasn't been listening. Either way, he needs to find a mentor - ideally someone who managed to get a job in the last 5-10 years - and really listen to what they have to say.
RESPONSE B: I would recommend that your partner get in touch with his university’s career services department, a nearby school’s career services department, or check out the career services department websites of of a wider set of universities. Many, if not most, academics have very vague ideas of what non-academic opportunities there are and what kinds of things companies look for. I’d also, ask him to consider what he enjoys and what his strengths are beyond the specific niche of his graduate work. PhD’s develop a lot of soft skills that can be useful in a range of career paths, and though entering those paths may take some struggling it at least increases the options available.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Got revisions to do on a paper but I graduated and left, PI pushing me to do revisions but I have a full-time job and don't need the paper We submitted the paper to a journal and preprinted it, then I graduated and took a job. I don't need the paper for my career but obviously it helps my PI. My PI keeps bugging me about getting the paper resubmitted and I don't want/have time to do it. I'm the only author along with PI, PI older and pretty hands off. How do I tell my PI I can't work on the paper anymore? Feel hostage.
RESPONSE A: My suggestion would be to consider the investment that your advisor put into you and helping you get your degree. My advisor always said that it felt like each of his graduate students takes a small piece of his soul with them when they graduate. My point is that completing the revisions and resubmitting could be a nice way to reciprocate the trust and effort that your advisor showed you when they took a chance to bring you into their research group. Otherwise, I would do everything you can to make sure your advisor had what they need to complete the revisions themselves.
RESPONSE B: Why not let them take first authorship and have them do the revisions?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Got revisions to do on a paper but I graduated and left, PI pushing me to do revisions but I have a full-time job and don't need the paper We submitted the paper to a journal and preprinted it, then I graduated and took a job. I don't need the paper for my career but obviously it helps my PI. My PI keeps bugging me about getting the paper resubmitted and I don't want/have time to do it. I'm the only author along with PI, PI older and pretty hands off. How do I tell my PI I can't work on the paper anymore? Feel hostage.
RESPONSE A: Why not let them take first authorship and have them do the revisions?
RESPONSE B: Can you estimate how many hours the revisions and resubmission would require? Keep in mind ... even though you have graduated and are working your first job, this relationship with your PI, and your reference from him, is and always will be a critical one in your career. My perspective is as an industry person: universities do not do a good job of teaching that relationships, more than any particular technical skills, are the major drivers of career success.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Got revisions to do on a paper but I graduated and left, PI pushing me to do revisions but I have a full-time job and don't need the paper We submitted the paper to a journal and preprinted it, then I graduated and took a job. I don't need the paper for my career but obviously it helps my PI. My PI keeps bugging me about getting the paper resubmitted and I don't want/have time to do it. I'm the only author along with PI, PI older and pretty hands off. How do I tell my PI I can't work on the paper anymore? Feel hostage.
RESPONSE A: I had a similar situation recently. Similar to what one of the other comments stated, he trusted you at one point and you should try and spend some time on the revisions. Let him know you’re busy and give yourself a weekend to do as much as you can to knock it out. And leave it at that.
RESPONSE B: Can you estimate how many hours the revisions and resubmission would require? Keep in mind ... even though you have graduated and are working your first job, this relationship with your PI, and your reference from him, is and always will be a critical one in your career. My perspective is as an industry person: universities do not do a good job of teaching that relationships, more than any particular technical skills, are the major drivers of career success.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Got revisions to do on a paper but I graduated and left, PI pushing me to do revisions but I have a full-time job and don't need the paper We submitted the paper to a journal and preprinted it, then I graduated and took a job. I don't need the paper for my career but obviously it helps my PI. My PI keeps bugging me about getting the paper resubmitted and I don't want/have time to do it. I'm the only author along with PI, PI older and pretty hands off. How do I tell my PI I can't work on the paper anymore? Feel hostage.
RESPONSE A: Work on the paper. So many people ache for having a paper published, and surely your PI worked his ass off to help you out. Don't be ungrateful.
RESPONSE B: Can you estimate how many hours the revisions and resubmission would require? Keep in mind ... even though you have graduated and are working your first job, this relationship with your PI, and your reference from him, is and always will be a critical one in your career. My perspective is as an industry person: universities do not do a good job of teaching that relationships, more than any particular technical skills, are the major drivers of career success.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Got revisions to do on a paper but I graduated and left, PI pushing me to do revisions but I have a full-time job and don't need the paper We submitted the paper to a journal and preprinted it, then I graduated and took a job. I don't need the paper for my career but obviously it helps my PI. My PI keeps bugging me about getting the paper resubmitted and I don't want/have time to do it. I'm the only author along with PI, PI older and pretty hands off. How do I tell my PI I can't work on the paper anymore? Feel hostage.
RESPONSE A: Just finish the paper. In 15 years when you find out your prof passed away you won't feel guilty for ditching him after you got your job. Revisions aren't a huge investment of time. Spread out a few hours over one week/weekend and you can resubmit.
RESPONSE B: I've had students of mine go into industry, and they've left some papers hanging as a consequence. Ultimately, I understand that publications are no longer a priority for these former students of mine. But, at the very least, you should provide anything you have available to your PI, so that he is able to handle the revision if necessary. If the revisions are minor, then it might be worthwhile to just finish them up to preserve the relationship. But, if the revisions are more major, then you might wish to communicate to your PI that you lack the time to handle the revisions, but that you would be okay with your PI adding another student as first author to finish up the revisions. If you're not okay with being dropped as first author, then you should handle the revisions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I tell my supervisor I want to do a PhD somewhere else? I'm a year into my 2-year Master's. I like my field a lot but I want to move to do a PhD somewhere more central where I could get more experience. I consulted a former postdoc about leaving the lab and they said they had a really hard time leaving, with my advisor trying to manipulate them into staying for another year + until the very last moment, even sabotaging their search for a faculty position. Another former master's student told me that my advisor tried to delay their defense and get them to do more work even after their thesis was already written. They both told me that the best approach is to frame me leaving as beneficial for my advisor. So... How can I present me leaving the lab as a good thing for my advisor, and still get their support and do good work while I'm there? So far I have: * I'd like to continue working with the lab, even collaborating from a distance (which is true but not something I can promise since I don't know where I'll end up and my advisor is already well-connected) * Leaving the lab to a more renowned university will improve the lab's track record (which also doesn't hold that well since my lab's alumni have a pretty good track record)
RESPONSE A: I don’t know what field you’re in but in mine it is common and expected to conduct your PhD at an institution separate from your MS. It’s about broadening your horizons intellectually and, given that we often operate in relatively small fields, socially. Those obtaining their degrees at a single institution do themselves a disservice.
RESPONSE B: Both solid (and hard-to-refute) options! An additional way to frame it as beneficial for them might be to highlight the connections and resources you'll be getting at X New University that would be helpful to them through you. e.g. A connection to Well-Known-In-The-Field Professor Y and access to archival or program-specific materials at X New University. Essentially, emphasizing that the expansion of your network = the expansion of your current lab's network.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do I tell my supervisor I want to do a PhD somewhere else? I'm a year into my 2-year Master's. I like my field a lot but I want to move to do a PhD somewhere more central where I could get more experience. I consulted a former postdoc about leaving the lab and they said they had a really hard time leaving, with my advisor trying to manipulate them into staying for another year + until the very last moment, even sabotaging their search for a faculty position. Another former master's student told me that my advisor tried to delay their defense and get them to do more work even after their thesis was already written. They both told me that the best approach is to frame me leaving as beneficial for my advisor. So... How can I present me leaving the lab as a good thing for my advisor, and still get their support and do good work while I'm there? So far I have: * I'd like to continue working with the lab, even collaborating from a distance (which is true but not something I can promise since I don't know where I'll end up and my advisor is already well-connected) * Leaving the lab to a more renowned university will improve the lab's track record (which also doesn't hold that well since my lab's alumni have a pretty good track record)
RESPONSE A: Both solid (and hard-to-refute) options! An additional way to frame it as beneficial for them might be to highlight the connections and resources you'll be getting at X New University that would be helpful to them through you. e.g. A connection to Well-Known-In-The-Field Professor Y and access to archival or program-specific materials at X New University. Essentially, emphasizing that the expansion of your network = the expansion of your current lab's network.
RESPONSE B: I can’t imagine caring at all whether one of my masters students continues with me or not.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: or if she's been spreading lies on other platforms/in person. I'm no longer seeing red about this (I'm still really pissed), but now I'm panicking. I don't know what to do. I don't know why she hates me.
RESPONSE A: I would start by sending the URL, plus screenshots and a saved HTML file of the page, to your PI, your university's academic integrity office, and your university's legal department. Say that you found this by googling your name, you are very concerned that it exists, and you don't know what to do about it and need help dealing with it. No statements or demands, just "Wow, I don't know what to do with this, please help". It's a big move to escalate it immediately to integrity and legal, but my concern is that if you don't, your advisor will sweep this under the rug, essentially allowing "Hayley" to get away with it, and this will embolden her to escalate her behavior and damage your career. Because you are a first year, if your PI doesn't support you in this, you might want to shop around for a different PI before you are too deep in a project.
RESPONSE B: If your department or school has anything like ombuds go talk to them. They usually help you talk through relationship or academic problems in a confidential environment. Even though she is not at your school, they probably have strategies that can help you figure out what to do or if this random webpage even matters. Can you see if she has something similar about other people on her site? It sounds kind of weird. Is she trying to deflect something? Maybe she has done some of what she accuses you of. I agree with your instinct to not attack her or go public with this given her polished reputation. Do not message her directly. That will put fuel on the fire if she has an issue with you. Do not contact her. Because she does not have evidence I would not worry about this too much. There are steps you can take (talking to your ombuds, maybe a dean or something if you dont have ombuds).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: but you can find that direct link if you google my name (I have a very uncommon name, probably unique). So maybe she didn't mean to publish it or doesn't think it's visible? - Hayley is generally pretty polished from what I've seen online, and the page is not - it's just text, and my name is all lowercase. Maybe it's a mental illness thing? Not an excuse for what she's done, but could mean she gets sympathy and a free pass. - I'm a first-year PhD who no one really knows in academia, so this could really hurt me professionally. Even if I show everyone how much of a petty, lying piece of shit she is, I'm going to look like a trouble-maker. I don't know how many people have seen the page or if she's been spreading lies on other platforms/in person. I'm no longer seeing red about this (I'm still really pissed), but now I'm panicking. I don't know what to do. I don't know why she hates me.
RESPONSE A: If your department or school has anything like ombuds go talk to them. They usually help you talk through relationship or academic problems in a confidential environment. Even though she is not at your school, they probably have strategies that can help you figure out what to do or if this random webpage even matters. Can you see if she has something similar about other people on her site? It sounds kind of weird. Is she trying to deflect something? Maybe she has done some of what she accuses you of. I agree with your instinct to not attack her or go public with this given her polished reputation. Do not message her directly. That will put fuel on the fire if she has an issue with you. Do not contact her. Because she does not have evidence I would not worry about this too much. There are steps you can take (talking to your ombuds, maybe a dean or something if you dont have ombuds).
RESPONSE B: This is weird but I'm almost more confused about why a first year PhD student is advising on movies and doing interviews.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: seen the page or if she's been spreading lies on other platforms/in person. I'm no longer seeing red about this (I'm still really pissed), but now I'm panicking. I don't know what to do. I don't know why she hates me.
RESPONSE A: Who knows man. I’m sorry you read that. If it had happened to me I would save evidence (you can download the HTML) and then get a friend or third party to confirm. Then I would talk to the head of school, not your Pi and let them take over. I would then ask for an apology from the person who wrote it in recognising the fabrication, and then ask for mediation if I felt like this would become an issue. The fact is, my professional standing is priority and if someone feels insecure about my accomplishments then they need to be dealt with from their end. These situations make University life incredibly toxic. It’s the worst part of the whole thing, dealing with some shit like this about others egos. The smart ones know this, and learn to give up their ego as it gets in the way of discovery. At least that’s how I see it. You need to escalate this because otherwise your allowing this toxic person in your immediate environment and it may affect others. I’ve seen faculties destroyed because one of these types get into positions then hire their other overvalued, self important friends who publish by the synthesis of others. Academic enterprise is not far from building houses of cards. In the end it’s the students who suffer. This person should be elevating you, and you them. Hah!
RESPONSE B: I don’t know why this person is acting this way. However, your story reminded me of my friend who is currently going through some kind of psychotic episode. He has been acting paranoid for the past year. He believes his friends and colleagues are trying to poison him and are placing hidden cameras in his home. Somehow he manages to function normally most of the time and works in an office. But he regularly sends me very similar blog entries about people in his life “in case something happens to him” or if he ever goes on trial and needs to present his side of the story.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Accepted offer for TT position Signed contract today with only a few minor adjustments. I’m grateful for this group with helping field mh questions about negotiations, campus visits and everything about this process. I love the numbers we landed with and happy to see it all in writing! Thank you all! I’m sure I’ll be on this thread again with questions but for now I’m just gonna let it sink in!
RESPONSE A: Congratulations! You did a really hard thing! Celebrate yourself.
RESPONSE B: Congratulations!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Accepted offer for TT position Signed contract today with only a few minor adjustments. I’m grateful for this group with helping field mh questions about negotiations, campus visits and everything about this process. I love the numbers we landed with and happy to see it all in writing! Thank you all! I’m sure I’ll be on this thread again with questions but for now I’m just gonna let it sink in!
RESPONSE A: Congratulations! Remember how precious this is and how many people would want to be in your shoes ;) Keeps me grateful everyday.
RESPONSE B: Congratulations!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Accepted offer for TT position Signed contract today with only a few minor adjustments. I’m grateful for this group with helping field mh questions about negotiations, campus visits and everything about this process. I love the numbers we landed with and happy to see it all in writing! Thank you all! I’m sure I’ll be on this thread again with questions but for now I’m just gonna let it sink in!
RESPONSE A: Congratulations! Remember how precious this is and how many people would want to be in your shoes ;) Keeps me grateful everyday.
RESPONSE B: Congratulations!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Accepted offer for TT position Signed contract today with only a few minor adjustments. I’m grateful for this group with helping field mh questions about negotiations, campus visits and everything about this process. I love the numbers we landed with and happy to see it all in writing! Thank you all! I’m sure I’ll be on this thread again with questions but for now I’m just gonna let it sink in!
RESPONSE A: Congratulations! Remember how precious this is and how many people would want to be in your shoes ;) Keeps me grateful everyday.
RESPONSE B: congrats!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Accepted offer for TT position Signed contract today with only a few minor adjustments. I’m grateful for this group with helping field mh questions about negotiations, campus visits and everything about this process. I love the numbers we landed with and happy to see it all in writing! Thank you all! I’m sure I’ll be on this thread again with questions but for now I’m just gonna let it sink in!
RESPONSE A: Congratulations! Remember how precious this is and how many people would want to be in your shoes ;) Keeps me grateful everyday.
RESPONSE B: Congrats!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: highlight the negative aspects and stresses associated with an academic career. For context, I’m an Australian that completed my undergraduate at the end of last year and have been working clinically in my sport and exercise role for almost 12 months but have been very keen on getting into academia via masters by research or mPhil with either a subsequent or upgrading masters to PhD (either in public health, cancer research in relation to exercise or more specific. (Honours is not a financially viable route fo me). I have tried to start transitioning into the space with some other projects and research assistant work on the side but reading through some of these experiences have really given me some cause for concern about my desired career choice.
RESPONSE A: We mostly come here to whine and seek advice when in trouble, like others have said, don't take what you see here as our daily life. If you are interested, I'd say pursue a master's, its 1 or 2 years (depending on where you do it), you'll get to do research, the skills can be easily transferable to regular jobs, and you'll be able to decide if you want more or not. I decided to pursue my PhD with the certainty that I want to do science until I grow old and retire. I really like what I do. However, as years passed, and this is my 6th year in academia (2y masters, 4y phd), I now that I want stability and comfort more than I love science. My area, unfortunately, does not have as many options as in the past, plus there is zero possibility of me finding a research-only position, everything is mostly focused on teaching, which I really dislike. This made me "broaden my view", and I started to look "the other world", of regular jobs, industry and whatever. Basically, this rambling is more to say that No, life isn't as bad as it seems, and Yes, you might enter a MSc. or a PhD and you might change your mind due to whatever reason, and that's okay too, won't mean that your MSc. or PhD was a complete waste of time/money, really.
RESPONSE B: We come to Reddit to whine. Don't worry about it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is Academia really as bad as it can be made out to be? Is there any benefit to going into academia? I stumbled across this sub a few weeks ago and had been browsing popular posts and comments that all appear to highlight the negative aspects and stresses associated with an academic career. For context, I’m an Australian that completed my undergraduate at the end of last year and have been working clinically in my sport and exercise role for almost 12 months but have been very keen on getting into academia via masters by research or mPhil with either a subsequent or upgrading masters to PhD (either in public health, cancer research in relation to exercise or more specific. (Honours is not a financially viable route fo me). I have tried to start transitioning into the space with some other projects and research assistant work on the side but reading through some of these experiences have really given me some cause for concern about my desired career choice.
RESPONSE A: Yes, it's that bad.
RESPONSE B: If you really love your field and cannot imagine doing anything else but contribute to the scholarly understanding of it for the rest of your life, then it's a good fit. If things like a good work-life balance and fair compensation are important to you, it's not the best. It's also not the only career to suffer from this, but the expectations can get demotivating when you see that the rewards are mostly from self-fulfillment.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is Academia really as bad as it can be made out to be? Is there any benefit to going into academia? I stumbled across this sub a few weeks ago and had been browsing popular posts and comments that all appear to highlight the negative aspects and stresses associated with an academic career. For context, I’m an Australian that completed my undergraduate at the end of last year and have been working clinically in my sport and exercise role for almost 12 months but have been very keen on getting into academia via masters by research or mPhil with either a subsequent or upgrading masters to PhD (either in public health, cancer research in relation to exercise or more specific. (Honours is not a financially viable route fo me). I have tried to start transitioning into the space with some other projects and research assistant work on the side but reading through some of these experiences have really given me some cause for concern about my desired career choice.
RESPONSE A: I can be. But it can also be the opposite.
RESPONSE B: If you really love your field and cannot imagine doing anything else but contribute to the scholarly understanding of it for the rest of your life, then it's a good fit. If things like a good work-life balance and fair compensation are important to you, it's not the best. It's also not the only career to suffer from this, but the expectations can get demotivating when you see that the rewards are mostly from self-fulfillment.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is Academia really as bad as it can be made out to be? Is there any benefit to going into academia? I stumbled across this sub a few weeks ago and had been browsing popular posts and comments that all appear to highlight the negative aspects and stresses associated with an academic career. For context, I’m an Australian that completed my undergraduate at the end of last year and have been working clinically in my sport and exercise role for almost 12 months but have been very keen on getting into academia via masters by research or mPhil with either a subsequent or upgrading masters to PhD (either in public health, cancer research in relation to exercise or more specific. (Honours is not a financially viable route fo me). I have tried to start transitioning into the space with some other projects and research assistant work on the side but reading through some of these experiences have really given me some cause for concern about my desired career choice.
RESPONSE A: Depends. If you are in STEM, get your PhD and postdoc from Ivy League and are in very good personal terms with both your advisors…..you will find tenure prof jobs easily. The further you are from this optimal condition, academic career will be more difficult.
RESPONSE B: If you really love your field and cannot imagine doing anything else but contribute to the scholarly understanding of it for the rest of your life, then it's a good fit. If things like a good work-life balance and fair compensation are important to you, it's not the best. It's also not the only career to suffer from this, but the expectations can get demotivating when you see that the rewards are mostly from self-fulfillment.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a two year post-doc position with the option to convert to lecturer at the end of my post with the caveat that I publish papers. This is the crux of my problem, the stress of publishing is really getting to me. I dont know how to push this process along any faster than it is. It feels like I'm really lost at sea. I keep panicing that I'm not cut out for this post -- not so much intellectually but rather just scoring the funding necessary to sustain myself. It really feels like I'm going to run into very serious problems when it turns out I haven't published enough throughout my PhD and post-doc to warrent my position and therefore "fail". I think its worth noting that I moved overseas for this post and now if I don't convert the job, I'll have to move back and face the reality of being a bit of a failure. Does anyone have any sage advice for a lonely post-doc. I dont know who to turn to....
RESPONSE A: What field are you in? STEM is so different than Arts is different from Fine Art is different from Engineering that the advice will be altered radically.
RESPONSE B: I’m just some rando on the interwebs and don’t know what field you’re in but here’s my advice: Writing papers is a skill that can be trained. Focus on writing well and read style guides etc. continuously. Read about making good graphs as well. Reviewers like to read well-crafted papers. Eventually, writing a paper will be quite straightforward and fast. Maybe you can write more communications instead of full papers? They take so much less time to write and the peer review is generally quicker. You’ll probably need some full papers as well, though. Lastly, stop worrying. Do what you can, but accept that the final outcome is beyond your control. Constantly worrying will not change it all. Maybe get acquainted with stoicism: “A man who suffers before it is necessary, suffers more than is necessary.” (Seneca) In addition, even if you can’t achieve your goal, life will go on. You’ll still be the guy who worked overseas at a top university and you’ll have plenty of options.
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.