label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A | POST: Professors who teach STEM courses: have you noticed an increase in students who were clearly forced to major in your field by their parents or other family members? On the internet, and in real life, you will see many people complaining that STEM majors are much harder than non - STEM majors and that the grading is much harder in courses like engineering compared to business or psychology. Is this grade discrepancy really due to a difference in difficulty though? Due to the tech boom and increasing need for health related professionals, the need for software engineers, nurses, and doctors is only growing. Due to the increasing need and high(er) pay, surely that means that more parents are forcing their kids to major in fields like computer science, electrical engineering, nursing, than ever before, right? This happens even when the kid has no interest or ability in math and science. Am I right in saying that this would explain why more people in STEM get bad grades compared to majors like history, anthropology, or accounting?
RESPONSE A: Most students who's parents are "forcing" them to take a given major don't last beyond the first few semesters anyway. It's treated as a given that a certain fraction of the class will wash out before the end of their freshman year; we already account for them in the statistics. STEM students get bad grades because STEM education is genuinely challenging, in major part because STEM is held to accreditation standards that are actually exacting.
RESPONSE B: Just so happens a friend my mine teaches in this field. She said there has been a decline in students, particularly from public schools. Extra class time, labs and difficult material seems to have dissuaded many. This is according to her.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: A question to STEM PIs and Professors: Would you hire a postdoc who has published a lot in Frontiers journals? Considering that a lot of people view Frontiers as "predatory" (I myself do not fall into this category), would you be skeptical about hiring someone who has published a lot in these journals?
RESPONSE A: People in this sub can be very elitist about where others publish. There are very well respected researchers in my field that publish in medium impact (~4.0) Frontiers and MDPI journals, which this sub regularly turns their nose up at. Having said that I have tried to spread out the journals I publish in as much as possible, it can look weird if all of your publications are in the same exact journal. People might think you have an in at the journal and are getting preferential treatment or something.
RESPONSE B: The paper I published in frontiers was more aggressively reviewed than any other paper. There were three reviewers with good credentials and they all fine toothed combed it. The papers I have reviewed for frontiers were all terrible and I rejected all of them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: A question to STEM PIs and Professors: Would you hire a postdoc who has published a lot in Frontiers journals? Considering that a lot of people view Frontiers as "predatory" (I myself do not fall into this category), would you be skeptical about hiring someone who has published a lot in these journals?
RESPONSE A: The most recent publication of person I'm currently trying to hire for a TT faculty position is a Frontier journal. I didn't think anything about it. That being said, there are a bunch of them, and I could see if in some fields they are seen differently. But I have reviewed for them a couple of times and the process was fine.
RESPONSE B: People in this sub can be very elitist about where others publish. There are very well respected researchers in my field that publish in medium impact (~4.0) Frontiers and MDPI journals, which this sub regularly turns their nose up at. Having said that I have tried to spread out the journals I publish in as much as possible, it can look weird if all of your publications are in the same exact journal. People might think you have an in at the journal and are getting preferential treatment or something.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: A question to STEM PIs and Professors: Would you hire a postdoc who has published a lot in Frontiers journals? Considering that a lot of people view Frontiers as "predatory" (I myself do not fall into this category), would you be skeptical about hiring someone who has published a lot in these journals?
RESPONSE A: People in this sub can be very elitist about where others publish. There are very well respected researchers in my field that publish in medium impact (~4.0) Frontiers and MDPI journals, which this sub regularly turns their nose up at. Having said that I have tried to spread out the journals I publish in as much as possible, it can look weird if all of your publications are in the same exact journal. People might think you have an in at the journal and are getting preferential treatment or something.
RESPONSE B: I wouldn’t advise a postdoc or student to publish there (whether or not they’re predatory, enough people think they are that it’s a problem) but I wouldn’t reject an applicant for this either - I know applicants are being advised by previous advisors who might have different opinions from mine.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: A question to STEM PIs and Professors: Would you hire a postdoc who has published a lot in Frontiers journals? Considering that a lot of people view Frontiers as "predatory" (I myself do not fall into this category), would you be skeptical about hiring someone who has published a lot in these journals?
RESPONSE A: I haven't seen any problems with Frontiers journals, so wouldn't hesitate to hire a postdoc who had published in one.
RESPONSE B: People in this sub can be very elitist about where others publish. There are very well respected researchers in my field that publish in medium impact (~4.0) Frontiers and MDPI journals, which this sub regularly turns their nose up at. Having said that I have tried to spread out the journals I publish in as much as possible, it can look weird if all of your publications are in the same exact journal. People might think you have an in at the journal and are getting preferential treatment or something.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Getting an Assistant Professor position at R1 university Hi, I am nearing the end of my PhD and am looking for Tenure-track Assistant Professor positions at R1 universities. I have a good profile publication-wise (journal and conference) but I don't really have any experience writing proposals or securing grants. However, over the past few months, I have taken courses and workshops covering proposal writing. Are universities usually flexible in their criteria to give a chance to individuals like me with a weak profile in just the aspect of proposal writing? Also, what would you recommend me to do to improve this domain in the last semester of my PhD?
RESPONSE A: You show that you understand the grant landscape. In your application materials you say what projects you will be targetting what grant. Be specific, not just NIH/NSF, but "with this I will submit a NSF career grant" or "I will apply for X foundation grant which will support collecting the prelimary data necessary to apply for \[specific grant mechanism\]. You application materials themselves are much like a proposal, so that will show you have some chops.
RESPONSE B: In my field, this is something only your advisor would be able to tell you, as the letters and unofficial lobbying would be highly important in getting you through the first review.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: DR-Is being a professor worth it if I want to reach a lot of people and have a positive impact? Or should I go for a job that pays well or takes up less time and try being an educator (somehow) on the side?
RESPONSE A: As someone with a PhD in lit and cultural studies (in the U.S.), I don't think that what you want will align with a career as a professor. I wouldn't never just "classify" my student papers - they always get significant feedback - but my putting in time & effort to help them improve does not equal their putting in time & effort to improve. Are there a couple students each semester who I build a relationship with and who ask me for some support? Totally. But there's 15+ more than are perfectly pleasant and who do not want or need my mentorship. Additionally, the time it takes to succeed in the academy - it's a lot of time. If you want a TT job, your research needs to come first. Take a look at how PhD programs are structured (ones you'd want to attend) and that will show you how you'll be spending 6+ years of your life. What you want certainly is doable - the public humanities is something I'd encourage you look into, but you don't need a PhD to do that (and it might actually hinder your ability to succeed in that area).
RESPONSE B: I currently work as a full-time professor and used to be a HS teacher. As others say, don't be swayed by the media. While it's entirely possible to impact students, you mention tenure-track work, which means that your job will also entail committee/service work and research duties on top of teaching. The research duties may also include the supervision of research assistants. You also need to apply for competitive grants and bring in funds to the institution. For tenure, you will need to have a thick dossier detailing the above. In short, the time you spend with students, while fulfilling, will not give you job security. Other possibilities could be to become a K-12 teacher or to do a different full-time job and adjunct on the side.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: on youtube, both somewhat diluted but entertaining ones (I think some dilution is bound to happen if entertainment is an aim) and also in depth somewhat dry and more academic ones. I have always enjoyed fiction but thankfully in my undergrad I came across amazing novels, literary theory, etc and a lot of the material really seem like they would be able to change people’s perspectives or at the least increase their empathy toward certain groups. I’m not idealistic but I do believe that exposing people to new texts and ideas can help them live better lives and someone somewhere might be helped even the slightest bit. And the whole wave of people with degrees making these insanely good quality videos that reach hundreds of thousands of people for free is really inspiring despite the chances of very few actually being picked up by the algorithm. However, I also feel tempted by the idea of maybe one day getting tenure and having some form of stability (I am aware that the opportunities are shrinking and it’s very difficult but still). The problem is I don’t want to be in a place where I can’t actually have some form of a positive impact or am highly restricted. I’ve had some great teachers but their influence on me has been restricted to studies. I have no idea if the same teachers could help students who for eg could not devote most of their time to studies like me or struggled in uni because of a range of reasons (I’ve been lucky in that I found what gets me to study and I really like my subject so even if I did bad initially I picked up my grades by the time finals and assignments were due. Also thankfully faced no severe emergencies in my undergrad years). TLDR-Is being a professor worth it if I want to reach a lot of people and have a positive impact? Or should I go for a job that pays well or takes up less time and try being an educator (somehow) on the side?
RESPONSE A: Try teaching as an adjunct at your local community college and see how it goes from there.
RESPONSE B: This isn't the career to go into if you want measurable impact on big social things. If you'd like to be the band-aid that allows others to ignore those big social things, absolutely.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Have you ever witnessed (or heard of) an institution being solely responsible for the destruction of a PhD candidates' successful completion? Just curious really - has an institution ever dropped the ball so badly in terms of support for their PhD candidates that they've been forced to quit or master out? If so, what happened? Where is the candidate now? There seems to be a trend cropping up at my own institution of 'collateral damage' that gets swept under the rug and it's so, so sad. So many broken hopes and dreams.
RESPONSE A: I was a non traditional student who worked full time while getting my Master’s and knew so little about academia I didn’t think anything of it when my committee chair told me he would be on sabbatical during the semester I graduated. As you can imagine, this made my life extremely difficult and I had to figure out literally everything on my own. At one point the department chair got involved to help me get his signature on a document I needed to graduate. It was super shitty, but it also wasn’t any different from my undergrad experience or the rest of my grad experience. Universities are hostile places to students who work and are first gen. I am now a professor at the same university and constantly have to run into and work with that dickhead. The worst/best part is he doesn’t even remember me because I got married and changed my last name. My own committee chair doesn’t know what I look like! And people are always recommending that I work with him and I’m always saying no. I’m still bitter. But my career is fine. I attended a different university for my next degree and everything was much smoother.
RESPONSE B: Yes. Universities are run horrendously and students often have little to no rights. With undergraduates they are customers and can make quite a bit of trouble for an institution but at the post-graduate level it's quite common for it to be seen as some 'great privilege' bestowed upon you that they can take away. Edit: Also, COVID was a complete nightmare and many universities are still recovering from it. The way mine handled it, it would make the current UK government look competent and we're far from the worst!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Have you ever witnessed (or heard of) an institution being solely responsible for the destruction of a PhD candidates' successful completion? Just curious really - has an institution ever dropped the ball so badly in terms of support for their PhD candidates that they've been forced to quit or master out? If so, what happened? Where is the candidate now? There seems to be a trend cropping up at my own institution of 'collateral damage' that gets swept under the rug and it's so, so sad. So many broken hopes and dreams.
RESPONSE A: Not sure if this counts, but my dissertation was almost denied because ‘By’ was suppose to be a capital B on the cover, but lowercase b ‘by’ on the title page. I accidentally had both as ‘By’. Had to be fixed within a couple hours of the notice or I would have to resubmit a full semester later.
RESPONSE B: I was a non traditional student who worked full time while getting my Master’s and knew so little about academia I didn’t think anything of it when my committee chair told me he would be on sabbatical during the semester I graduated. As you can imagine, this made my life extremely difficult and I had to figure out literally everything on my own. At one point the department chair got involved to help me get his signature on a document I needed to graduate. It was super shitty, but it also wasn’t any different from my undergrad experience or the rest of my grad experience. Universities are hostile places to students who work and are first gen. I am now a professor at the same university and constantly have to run into and work with that dickhead. The worst/best part is he doesn’t even remember me because I got married and changed my last name. My own committee chair doesn’t know what I look like! And people are always recommending that I work with him and I’m always saying no. I’m still bitter. But my career is fine. I attended a different university for my next degree and everything was much smoother.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ever witnessed (or heard of) an institution being solely responsible for the destruction of a PhD candidates' successful completion? Just curious really - has an institution ever dropped the ball so badly in terms of support for their PhD candidates that they've been forced to quit or master out? If so, what happened? Where is the candidate now? There seems to be a trend cropping up at my own institution of 'collateral damage' that gets swept under the rug and it's so, so sad. So many broken hopes and dreams.
RESPONSE A: I have seen or heard 2nd hand about this happening to a *lot* of women who speak up about having been sexually harassed or raped by another graduate student or a professor in the department. This is in America, for context. Typically it plays out as gaslighting and bullying until the student spirals and quits or refuses to work with that person anymore and is conveniently not offered a transfer and is fired for "poor performance" and all internal investigations find the complain to be unactionable or even unfounded, so they can slander the student any burry any store if a reporter starts asking questions. The two "success" stories I've seen were a woman whose female PI personally arranged a new PI at a new university for her after the school refused to act on her complaint (PI was pre-tenure and could only push so much on the student's behalf or she'd be fired too since the student's rapist was senior faculty). The other was a woman who got a job ABD, finished her thesis on nights/weekends, and sued the school with a civil rights lawyer for refusing to let her defend and graduate due to being party to a "pending investigation." The school settled out of court and let her defend/graduate.
RESPONSE B: Not sure if this counts, but my dissertation was almost denied because ‘By’ was suppose to be a capital B on the cover, but lowercase b ‘by’ on the title page. I accidentally had both as ‘By’. Had to be fixed within a couple hours of the notice or I would have to resubmit a full semester later.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Have you ever witnessed (or heard of) an institution being solely responsible for the destruction of a PhD candidates' successful completion? Just curious really - has an institution ever dropped the ball so badly in terms of support for their PhD candidates that they've been forced to quit or master out? If so, what happened? Where is the candidate now? There seems to be a trend cropping up at my own institution of 'collateral damage' that gets swept under the rug and it's so, so sad. So many broken hopes and dreams.
RESPONSE A: Solely responsible? Not really. Primarily responsible? The list goes on... First, the common story: a single mom trying to do a PhD loses access to affordable childcare. Raising a kid with a grad student stipend is bad enough...mastered out. Second, the advisor that leaves and is not replaced for several years. Unable to transfer and follow the advisor, the PhD candidate gives up, masters out, goes to law school (and now probably makes more than the rest of us combined.) Third, the PhD student that falls through the cracks. In this case, the student had an outstanding incomplete from the last of their required graduate courses and, well, never completed it. They continued to receive funding (teaching courses as a graduate instructor), but were not actually taking any classes, doing research, or writing a dissertation. This went on for well over a year before anyone in the department noticed. Coursework was never completed; no masters, no PhD, but a good career after all that.
RESPONSE B: Yes!!! I know several people from the University of Arkansas's Space and Planetary Sciences PhD program that were kicked out at MS level a bit over a decade ago. As in they only had one person graduate and then the advisor screwed her chances at a post-doc. It took several years PAST when they expected to have a load of candidates to have any. One of them has two MS degrees and is a very abused high school science teacher, which is a step up as he was a bus driver for a long time after getting the second degree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is there a good word for when you’ve submitted your PhD but haven’t defended it? Quick run down: I submitted my PhD last month in the Netherlands (yay!) but it’s the sort of process where the reading committee will approve it next month, and then I won’t defend it until September (which is more a ceremonial thing than a serious defense like in some countries). So I’m no longer a PhD candidate, but not a recipient or doctor either. The reason this all matters is I’m giving a public lecture next month and the organizer kindly pointed out PhD candidate is out of date, but by that point it should all be done except the defense. So... what do I say I am in the lecture bio? Thanks for any thoughts!
RESPONSE A: You are still a PhD candidate.
RESPONSE B: Post-defense pre-degree you are a graduand. Perhaps you could get away with using that if your defense is truly a foregone conclusion. (I think technically a graduand has satisfied all requirements for graduating, so only the actual conferring of the degree remains, which typically only occurs following a graduation ceremony.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is there a good word for when you’ve submitted your PhD but haven’t defended it? Quick run down: I submitted my PhD last month in the Netherlands (yay!) but it’s the sort of process where the reading committee will approve it next month, and then I won’t defend it until September (which is more a ceremonial thing than a serious defense like in some countries). So I’m no longer a PhD candidate, but not a recipient or doctor either. The reason this all matters is I’m giving a public lecture next month and the organizer kindly pointed out PhD candidate is out of date, but by that point it should all be done except the defense. So... what do I say I am in the lecture bio? Thanks for any thoughts!
RESPONSE A: You are still a PhD candidate.
RESPONSE B: “PhD (not a doctor)”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is there a good word for when you’ve submitted your PhD but haven’t defended it? Quick run down: I submitted my PhD last month in the Netherlands (yay!) but it’s the sort of process where the reading committee will approve it next month, and then I won’t defend it until September (which is more a ceremonial thing than a serious defense like in some countries). So I’m no longer a PhD candidate, but not a recipient or doctor either. The reason this all matters is I’m giving a public lecture next month and the organizer kindly pointed out PhD candidate is out of date, but by that point it should all be done except the defense. So... what do I say I am in the lecture bio? Thanks for any thoughts!
RESPONSE A: “PhD (not a doctor)”
RESPONSE B: In Dutch, you're a promovendus, both before and after submission. Nothing changes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is there a good word for when you’ve submitted your PhD but haven’t defended it? Quick run down: I submitted my PhD last month in the Netherlands (yay!) but it’s the sort of process where the reading committee will approve it next month, and then I won’t defend it until September (which is more a ceremonial thing than a serious defense like in some countries). So I’m no longer a PhD candidate, but not a recipient or doctor either. The reason this all matters is I’m giving a public lecture next month and the organizer kindly pointed out PhD candidate is out of date, but by that point it should all be done except the defense. So... what do I say I am in the lecture bio? Thanks for any thoughts!
RESPONSE A: Congrats! I've seen the abbreviation ABD for "all but defense" used before. I'm not sure if its meaning would be recognized everywhere. It does feel a little informal, which could be good or bad depending on the setting.
RESPONSE B: “PhD (not a doctor)”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is there a good word for when you’ve submitted your PhD but haven’t defended it? Quick run down: I submitted my PhD last month in the Netherlands (yay!) but it’s the sort of process where the reading committee will approve it next month, and then I won’t defend it until September (which is more a ceremonial thing than a serious defense like in some countries). So I’m no longer a PhD candidate, but not a recipient or doctor either. The reason this all matters is I’m giving a public lecture next month and the organizer kindly pointed out PhD candidate is out of date, but by that point it should all be done except the defense. So... what do I say I am in the lecture bio? Thanks for any thoughts!
RESPONSE A: The Long, Dark Teatime of the Soul
RESPONSE B: If you want to be super clear, just say: "PhD candidate, defense scheduled for September".
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How far in advance do PhD students typically know about the date at which they will defend their disseration? 2 months in adavance or like 6 months in advance? How far in advance do PhD students typically know about the date at which they will defend their disseration? 2 months in adavance or like 6 months in advance?
RESPONSE A: You have to be ready at any moment to defend yourself. You never know when a committee will be waiting around a corner to ambush you.
RESPONSE B: It depends on the student, the committee, and the school. I scheduled mine 6 months in advance. Another student in the same program but slightly different committee had the final date in 2 months. Personally, go with the 6 months, if you can. Gives you a better structure for the last push on your dissertation and you're less likely to have scheduling conflicts with your committee.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How far in advance do PhD students typically know about the date at which they will defend their disseration? 2 months in adavance or like 6 months in advance? How far in advance do PhD students typically know about the date at which they will defend their disseration? 2 months in adavance or like 6 months in advance?
RESPONSE A: Look at your school guidelines. Mine required us to submit the exact date, time, and location at least 2 months in advance with a bunch of signatures, an abstract, and our CV 🤷🏻♀️ You can schedule as far in advance as you want though
RESPONSE B: You have to be ready at any moment to defend yourself. You never know when a committee will be waiting around a corner to ambush you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How far in advance do PhD students typically know about the date at which they will defend their disseration? 2 months in adavance or like 6 months in advance? How far in advance do PhD students typically know about the date at which they will defend their disseration? 2 months in adavance or like 6 months in advance?
RESPONSE A: You have to be ready at any moment to defend yourself. You never know when a committee will be waiting around a corner to ambush you.
RESPONSE B: Varies. Depends on a) schedules and b) certainly everything will be ready for the defense. It can be months or weeks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How far in advance do PhD students typically know about the date at which they will defend their disseration? 2 months in adavance or like 6 months in advance? How far in advance do PhD students typically know about the date at which they will defend their disseration? 2 months in adavance or like 6 months in advance?
RESPONSE A: You have to be ready at any moment to defend yourself. You never know when a committee will be waiting around a corner to ambush you.
RESPONSE B: I scheduled mine for 6 months in advance but my university has a 6 week minimum so that there's time for examiners to read the thesis. Less than that can be arranged in exceptional circumstances (expiring visa typically) but 2-6 months is more typical. Your thesis needs to be fully written and submitted before you can start scheduling, which creates a weird period of down time here.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How far in advance do PhD students typically know about the date at which they will defend their disseration? 2 months in adavance or like 6 months in advance? How far in advance do PhD students typically know about the date at which they will defend their disseration? 2 months in adavance or like 6 months in advance?
RESPONSE A: I knew “summer semester” about 9 months in advance, “late May or early June” about 3 - 4 months in advance, and a specific date about 4 weeks in advance.
RESPONSE B: It depends on the student, the committee, and the school. I scheduled mine 6 months in advance. Another student in the same program but slightly different committee had the final date in 2 months. Personally, go with the 6 months, if you can. Gives you a better structure for the last push on your dissertation and you're less likely to have scheduling conflicts with your committee.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhDs who successfully landed a job in academia: how's your workload compared to that of a PhD student? Are your responsibilities as time consuming? Is your mind constantly set to work, due dates and what needs to be done next? How's the pressure to meet the job requirements vs the usual PhD pressure?
RESPONSE A: I’m doing a post Doc in a university, which include giving lectures. I would say that the workload is higher than the time spent as a PhD student. Maybe less than the last 6 months of the PhD, but generally higher. I hope it helps !
RESPONSE B: Postdoc was fine -largely like an extended PhD although this depends mostly on what your PhD was like and how much academic freedom you're used to. Tenure track is an unending hell, where you switch from grant deadlines, to brief moments of research, to service and to teaching. The pressure continues to be largely self inflicted. But everything takes up so much time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhDs who successfully landed a job in academia: how's your workload compared to that of a PhD student? Are your responsibilities as time consuming? Is your mind constantly set to work, due dates and what needs to be done next? How's the pressure to meet the job requirements vs the usual PhD pressure?
RESPONSE A: Subjectively, it's about the same for me. My responsibilities and workload have increased, but so has my experience, so things that were a bit more daunting and time-consuming as a PhD student aren't such a big deal now. I'm also better at actively managing my work life balance now compared to when I was a PhD student (e.g. I used to work a lot of weekends as a student, whereas now I set a rule not to unless absolutely necessary). (Post-doc/Research fellow of about 6 years)
RESPONSE B: My workload as a PhD and post-doc were comparable. My workload as an assistant professor is *substantially* higher. I am basically expected to do as much or more research as before, but I also have admin responsibilities, teaching, and pastoral care for students. Plus a lot more meetings.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PhDs who successfully landed a job in academia: how's your workload compared to that of a PhD student? Are your responsibilities as time consuming? Is your mind constantly set to work, due dates and what needs to be done next? How's the pressure to meet the job requirements vs the usual PhD pressure?
RESPONSE A: My workload as a PhD and post-doc were comparable. My workload as an assistant professor is *substantially* higher. I am basically expected to do as much or more research as before, but I also have admin responsibilities, teaching, and pastoral care for students. Plus a lot more meetings.
RESPONSE B: I’m doing a post Doc in a university, which include giving lectures. I would say that the workload is higher than the time spent as a PhD student. Maybe less than the last 6 months of the PhD, but generally higher. I hope it helps !
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhDs who successfully landed a job in academia: how's your workload compared to that of a PhD student? Are your responsibilities as time consuming? Is your mind constantly set to work, due dates and what needs to be done next? How's the pressure to meet the job requirements vs the usual PhD pressure?
RESPONSE A: My workload as a post doc is much higher than it was as a PhD student. There's an extent to which that's self-inflicted due to doing things which aren't necessary but which I find interesting and enjoy doing (running reading groups, taking on teaching that I don't strictly need to be doing, organising events that aren't required, doing work with people outside of my main research, that kind of thing), but even the workload of the stuff that makes up the core of my job is higher than it was when I was doing a PhD.
RESPONSE B: My workload as a PhD and post-doc were comparable. My workload as an assistant professor is *substantially* higher. I am basically expected to do as much or more research as before, but I also have admin responsibilities, teaching, and pastoral care for students. Plus a lot more meetings.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PhDs who successfully landed a job in academia: how's your workload compared to that of a PhD student? Are your responsibilities as time consuming? Is your mind constantly set to work, due dates and what needs to be done next? How's the pressure to meet the job requirements vs the usual PhD pressure?
RESPONSE A: Postdoc was about the same. For my current position, I'm responsible for way more and with that comes more stress. I have to get money for my students, but they have to do the research now, so while I'm responsible for getting research done, they are the ones that have to do it. And of course, since I'm only in my second year, none of them really know what they're doing, so that's pretty stressful. It's also honestly just way harder. Writing proposals with 10% success rates that are directly responsible for not only my salary, but that of my students, and trying to get way more research done, is way harder than my phd where after about my 2nd year there were things I knew would work. There was still plenty of stuff I had to figure out, but given what I saw some students doing, it was going pretty well.
RESPONSE B: I’m doing a post Doc in a university, which include giving lectures. I would say that the workload is higher than the time spent as a PhD student. Maybe less than the last 6 months of the PhD, but generally higher. I hope it helps !
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Academics, what would be your advice for a PhD student looking to pursue a successful academic career? If you could give strategic career advice to your younger self, what would your advice be and why? Looking for some solid advice here and I appreciate some people may have regrets entering academia in the first place but please no comments along the lines of "don't do it"! (:
RESPONSE A: Be clear about your purpose, and review it from time to time - it helps with planning and making decisions.
RESPONSE B: * "80% of success is just showing up." (Woody Allen) - Get your stuff submitted to that journal, conference etc. early and often. * Rejection is a good thing, since it means that you tried, and you probably will get feedback that will help you improve, which means that your stuff will eventually be accepted. Focus on piling up rejections, and the occasional acceptance will come automatically. * Focus on your research. For everything that is not your research (coursework etc.), figure out the minimum requirements and fulfill them. * Don't get wrapped up in your ego. Research is collaborative, and people will come back to people they find pleasant to work with. * Ask questions. Your time is valuable and the ambition to figure out everything by yourself is a huge time killer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Academics, what would be your advice for a PhD student looking to pursue a successful academic career? If you could give strategic career advice to your younger self, what would your advice be and why? Looking for some solid advice here and I appreciate some people may have regrets entering academia in the first place but please no comments along the lines of "don't do it"! (:
RESPONSE A: Take grant writing course if available through the school or some online program Learn how to read fast and efficiently Learn how to multitask and do multiple things at one time without stressing out too much so also find a good stress reliever Learn how to train other people whether it be rotating students and undergrads Find a good support group because you’ll need it on those days that you just want to give up Publish papers, review articles, book chapters
RESPONSE B: Publish publish publish publish publish publish publish. But do it well. I was on a faculty search committee a few years ago at an R1. We took every CV's publication list and crossed off every publication where the applicant wasn't first or senior author; where the journal wasn't very good or accepted anything scientifically sound (goodbye, PLOS One); and every 'worthless' publication (in the field of evolutionary biology) -- no book chapters, no monographs, no reviews, etc. We went from over a thousand applicants to 50 in half a day. THEN we looked at their cover letters.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My supervisor is tougher with me because she believes I can take it. Is it fair? (F29 - PhD student in communication ) My supervisor - as well as my chair committee - told me they are harder on my while I defended my comprehensive exam. It was the hardest moment of my academic life so far and even though they told me it was clear for them it was a success, it made me rethink about everything and why I was putting myself through this. I feel it is ok that they try to bring me further in general but during a defense... seem unfair to me, my colleagues are having it waaaay easier I feel (a PhD is already hard enough in itself). What are your thoughts? Are you tougher on some students because you *believe in them*?
RESPONSE A: Yes, it’s fair. One goal of a defense is to understand the limits of your work. Do you want a good letter of recommendation or not? Your committee can ask weak questions and decide your work is shallow,or they can ask difficult questions and determine that it is deep and comprehensive. Which would you prefer?
RESPONSE B: I had a similar experience in my MSc defence. My panel pushed me and found some of my weaknesses. I passed and they said I did a good job, but I felt completely crushed. I wasn't used to receiving negative feedback and had been anticipating that even though there would be some tough questions, I would come out of my defence feeling excited about having completed it successfully. It was a tough experience, but I did my best to take it in stride. And I've worked really hard during my PhD to address the weaknesses they identified in my MSc defence. I haven't yet submitted my PhD thesis (soon) so I can't say for certain that I've overcome the issues, but I feel I've grown substantially. Provided I don't get ripped to shreds when my PhD thesis is evaluated, it will have been worth it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: my academic life so far and even though they told me it was clear for them it was a success, it made me rethink about everything and why I was putting myself through this. I feel it is ok that they try to bring me further in general but during a defense... seem unfair to me, my colleagues are having it waaaay easier I feel (a PhD is already hard enough in itself). What are your thoughts? Are you tougher on some students because you *believe in them*?
RESPONSE A: While I agree with everyone here I am going to add a counterbalance. It is ok to have higher expectations of a good student and push them, but it's not ok to push so hard it undermines your confidence or feels like an attack. With the additional pushing must come additional praise. Saying "we're pushing you harder because you can take it" in itself isn't good enough from them - although it is necessary for them to explain their behaviour. They also need to be providing specific actionable feedback for you - eg your writing is excellent, you construct your arguments in a thoughtful and deliberate way. With feedback like that you know to continue doing what you're doing. "You can take it" isn't good feedback. Depending on your relationship with your committee /PI you could raise this. Not as "I don't like you pushing, you're mean", but more as "I appreciate the time taken to go into this in depth. However, although I got the broad sense you are happy, I'm wondering if you could provide more specific feedback letting me know both what's working well and where I could improve".
RESPONSE B: When you said your supervisor was “tougher” and “unfair”, do you mean that they asked harder questions and pointed out more problems, or do you mean that they made judgment about your ability as a researcher? This is An important and useful distinction in academic environment. It’s a red flag if they humiliated you and made judgment about you as a person. But if they just pushed you harder by asking more questions and pointing out more problems, shouldn’t you appreciate it? You want your project to have less problems after all, no?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My supervisor is tougher with me because she believes I can take it. Is it fair? (F29 - PhD student in communication ) My supervisor - as well as my chair committee - told me they are harder on my while I defended my comprehensive exam. It was the hardest moment of my academic life so far and even though they told me it was clear for them it was a success, it made me rethink about everything and why I was putting myself through this. I feel it is ok that they try to bring me further in general but during a defense... seem unfair to me, my colleagues are having it waaaay easier I feel (a PhD is already hard enough in itself). What are your thoughts? Are you tougher on some students because you *believe in them*?
RESPONSE A: My PhD advisor worked harder to get his other PhD-students jobs and research funding because they were allegedly less potent to make it on their own. He literally said this. "I don't have to worry about molobodd, he will do fine regardless." He wasn't wrong, but this very notion still pisses me off, decades later.
RESPONSE B: When you said your supervisor was “tougher” and “unfair”, do you mean that they asked harder questions and pointed out more problems, or do you mean that they made judgment about your ability as a researcher? This is An important and useful distinction in academic environment. It’s a red flag if they humiliated you and made judgment about you as a person. But if they just pushed you harder by asking more questions and pointing out more problems, shouldn’t you appreciate it? You want your project to have less problems after all, no?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My supervisor is tougher with me because she believes I can take it. Is it fair? (F29 - PhD student in communication ) My supervisor - as well as my chair committee - told me they are harder on my while I defended my comprehensive exam. It was the hardest moment of my academic life so far and even though they told me it was clear for them it was a success, it made me rethink about everything and why I was putting myself through this. I feel it is ok that they try to bring me further in general but during a defense... seem unfair to me, my colleagues are having it waaaay easier I feel (a PhD is already hard enough in itself). What are your thoughts? Are you tougher on some students because you *believe in them*?
RESPONSE A: Congrats on passing quals! I agree with others who say this is actually a good thing for you, and shows that your advisor really respects you intellectually. Sure they could treat you the same as your colleagues, but the fact that they a)recognize your greater potential and b) actually care enough to try and develop it is a positive thing overall. Think of it like when you were in high school and had honors vs general levels of the same classes. Also agree that they should balance it with positive feedback as well, so I’m curious if you’ve found them otherwise helpful and supportive, and it’s just this one comment that’s throwing you, or if you have felt pressured from the start and are only just now finding out that they believe in you.
RESPONSE B: When you said your supervisor was “tougher” and “unfair”, do you mean that they asked harder questions and pointed out more problems, or do you mean that they made judgment about your ability as a researcher? This is An important and useful distinction in academic environment. It’s a red flag if they humiliated you and made judgment about you as a person. But if they just pushed you harder by asking more questions and pointing out more problems, shouldn’t you appreciate it? You want your project to have less problems after all, no?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: kind of cat. You may giggle, but cats are my number one passion in life. Books about my field, ehh. Any information about cats, DEVOUR. I want a job that involves cats. I don't have any veterinary-related experience at all. I'm a humanist. I was not good at science. I don't want to be a vet or anything, I just want to be around cats every day. I volunteer at a major shelter, but that's about it. I've been picking up all the training possible at the shelter. I plan to scour shelters, vets, pet stores, etc for employment. I'll clean up cat poop all day, as long as there are cats. I guess I'm wondering if anyone has any stories of having successfully done something completely different. Not necessarily after having been crushed and beaten down and destroyed by adjuncthood, but just.... taking a different path, one that your degrees didn't prepare you for at all. I'm terrified, to be perfectly honest. If there's no luck with cats, I'm formulating other plans. Then again, I do remember having read about a scholar in my field who quit after being denied tenure and ended up working with horses, so hey.
RESPONSE A: I've heard of plenty of PhD's taking completely different career paths after graduation. That's the glory of doctoral work. It prepares you for independent work... In anything. All your skill sets are applicable elsewhere, even if your specific background isn't. I'm probably about to do the same thing. Listing off all my skills and qualities I've picked up in grad school that would make me kickass at anything else really helped abate my fears. Eventually you'll realize you can do anything you want.
RESPONSE B: I don't have a good answer for you, but I have to say, your story reads incredibly similar to mine. Coming up on the end of a Ph.D. in social sciences, but wondering if it's worth it anymore. I care way more about my cat, husband, and our future kids than any paper or data analysis. PM me if you want to chat more?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: and I'm an eager little peruser of the Chronicle, the quit lit industry, the Professor is In, etc. I've thought in circles for so long about what to do, ever since I felt my passion waning, which started to happen a couple years back. But, you know, here's the thing. I love cats. I love every kind of cat. You may giggle, but cats are my number one passion in life. Books about my field, ehh. Any information about cats, DEVOUR. I want a job that involves cats. I don't have any veterinary-related experience at all. I'm a humanist. I was not good at science. I don't want to be a vet or anything, I just want to be around cats every day. I volunteer at a major shelter, but that's about it. I've been picking up all the training possible at the shelter. I plan to scour shelters, vets, pet stores, etc for employment. I'll clean up cat poop all day, as long as there are cats. I guess I'm wondering if anyone has any stories of having successfully done something completely different. Not necessarily after having been crushed and beaten down and destroyed by adjuncthood, but just.... taking a different path, one that your degrees didn't prepare you for at all. I'm terrified, to be perfectly honest. If there's no luck with cats, I'm formulating other plans. Then again, I do remember having read about a scholar in my field who quit after being denied tenure and ended up working with horses, so hey.
RESPONSE A: I don't have a good answer for you, but I have to say, your story reads incredibly similar to mine. Coming up on the end of a Ph.D. in social sciences, but wondering if it's worth it anymore. I care way more about my cat, husband, and our future kids than any paper or data analysis. PM me if you want to chat more?
RESPONSE B: >Then again, I do remember having read about a scholar in my field who quit after being denied tenure and ended up working with horses, so hey. *hay FTFY
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , ever since I felt my passion waning, which started to happen a couple years back. But, you know, here's the thing. I love cats. I love every kind of cat. You may giggle, but cats are my number one passion in life. Books about my field, ehh. Any information about cats, DEVOUR. I want a job that involves cats. I don't have any veterinary-related experience at all. I'm a humanist. I was not good at science. I don't want to be a vet or anything, I just want to be around cats every day. I volunteer at a major shelter, but that's about it. I've been picking up all the training possible at the shelter. I plan to scour shelters, vets, pet stores, etc for employment. I'll clean up cat poop all day, as long as there are cats. I guess I'm wondering if anyone has any stories of having successfully done something completely different. Not necessarily after having been crushed and beaten down and destroyed by adjuncthood, but just.... taking a different path, one that your degrees didn't prepare you for at all. I'm terrified, to be perfectly honest. If there's no luck with cats, I'm formulating other plans. Then again, I do remember having read about a scholar in my field who quit after being denied tenure and ended up working with horses, so hey.
RESPONSE A: As a PhD student also on the verge of submitting/defending, it is eerie how much your story matches up with mine. Except the part about cats. You said you like the writing part, so why don't you have a go at a writing job - as a reporter or editor for a paper or magazine in your city? or maybe something online (as in not a blog kind of writing but a fixed job which pays the bills regularly)? And in the spare time you can work at SPCA or some cat shelter I guess? I think
RESPONSE B: >Then again, I do remember having read about a scholar in my field who quit after being denied tenure and ended up working with horses, so hey. *hay FTFY
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to answer, "Ok I agree that your work is novel, but why has no one ever come up with this?" This question always confuses me and I'm encountering it more and more often. Like, I read a lot of literature and developed an understanding, then connected the dots to come up with a novel process. That's it. How can I cite or back up an answer about something that has never been done? My answer would technically be just my own theory about why it has never been done. No one writes in their paper, "Yeah this is a new process. I didn't come up with this. But someone will." I know it sounds very absurd, but I get this question from professors who are interviewing me for Phd about my Masters research work. How can I answer, "Why has no one ever come up with this?"
RESPONSE A: The question they're asking is likely why has no one ever **bothered** to come up with this? Why is it important enough to work on?
RESPONSE B: I think they want you to answer the ‘so what?’ question. Good research, in whatever field, doesn’t just need to be original: it needs to be necessary. In my world (humanities) this need is perhaps fuzzier than it is in the sciences, but it’s still there. So one answer to the question you’re being asked might be ‘because it hasn’t been thought worth doing.’ You need an answer that persuades people this isn’t the case.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: can I cite or back up an answer about something that has never been done? My answer would technically be just my own theory about why it has never been done. No one writes in their paper, "Yeah this is a new process. I didn't come up with this. But someone will." I know it sounds very absurd, but I get this question from professors who are interviewing me for Phd about my Masters research work. How can I answer, "Why has no one ever come up with this?"
RESPONSE A: Few options: - someone did already come up with it - it's a bad idea, that's why nobody published it - it's actually new and useful. You should be able to come up with some arguments why the method can be useful in some cases
RESPONSE B: A lot of inexperienced researchers think that it’s enough for no one to have done it before: “my project is so innovative because I am filling a huge gap! No one has ever written a book on the thickness of Lithuanian cooking pots in the first decade of the 13th century!” But why has no one done that? Is it just because absolutely no one cares about it at all? Instead, what makes those “gaps” interesting is their larger implication: “due to the attention on political actors, the importance of early 13th century Lithuanian cookware has been overlooked, but in fact, the shifting thickness of skillet bottoms caused by the Great Iron Shortage of 1203 was a crucial factor in Lithuania’s later relative immunity to the Black Death and may well partially account for their dominance of the Late Medieval politico-economic sphere.” The difference is not just that the second version is phrased more formally. In the second version, I explained WHY previous scholarship has overlooked it and why it’s IMPORTANT that I now write a dissertation about this new thing. Other things that they might want to hear, depending on the project: Is there a damn good reason that no one has done that project? Like is it impossible/unfeasible? If it was until recently impossible or very difficult, has something changed? Do you even know if it’s actually a do-able project?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to answer, "Ok I agree that your work is novel, but why has no one ever come up with this?" This question always confuses me and I'm encountering it more and more often. Like, I read a lot of literature and developed an understanding, then connected the dots to come up with a novel process. That's it. How can I cite or back up an answer about something that has never been done? My answer would technically be just my own theory about why it has never been done. No one writes in their paper, "Yeah this is a new process. I didn't come up with this. But someone will." I know it sounds very absurd, but I get this question from professors who are interviewing me for Phd about my Masters research work. How can I answer, "Why has no one ever come up with this?"
RESPONSE A: Also because its very rare that masters projects are truly novel. Most often the student is not aware of literature in their field. I've seen countless students claiming novelty of their work and I could easily point out a few similar studies. Being on top of the literature is very hard particularly someone who is new to the field. When people ask me this question, the answer is usually because I've got data others don't have. Also, this question is commonly asked in funding panels.
RESPONSE B: Few options: - someone did already come up with it - it's a bad idea, that's why nobody published it - it's actually new and useful. You should be able to come up with some arguments why the method can be useful in some cases
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do academic journals do anything when notified of plagiarized work in submitted papers? This hasn't happened to me yet (thankfully), but lets say a colleague decides to publish a paper that contains work of mine, and manages to get it published in a journal. If I contact the journal with proof, do they usually do anything? Such as issue a retraction, remove the paper, or force the author to resubmit with proper credits? Or is the damage done at that point?
RESPONSE A: I was asked to review a paper that blatantly plagiarized *my own published paper*! It was quite a shock when I realized what was happening. I notified to editor, and I was floored by his response. He told me to ignore it and review the paper on its merit. I recused myself instead.
RESPONSE B: They will investigate and, if warranted, retract the article. Many times journals try to downplay these issues but they will still retract them. Check out Retraction Watch for many, many examples.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: An odd question: Can you recommend fun, interesting academic journal articles that are not too long? So I teach a foundation course in academic reading. We establish early on the difference between academic journal articles and general reading, and students comment that they can identify the academic journal articles because they're boring. I think we were all there at one point. I have a great academic journal article about how to read an academic journal article But what about actual journal articles? I have several links to the most read articles, which is pretty cool, but do you know of articles that say something above and beyond the rest about issues most of us care about? 14-20 page examinations are...probably too long to hold my neophytes' attention, so something more succinct-but-readable is what I'm shooting for. I teach a lot of engineering, STEM, pre-med and robotics students, but I do also have humanities students. As such, I don't think there's any one subject that is off-base. Bonus points for controversy and things we can debate.
RESPONSE A: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 This is a randomized controlled study about jumping out of an airplane with or without a parachute. There is a twist at the end that is quite funny.
RESPONSE B: There's an amazing article from the IEEE HRI conference, so it's technical but under 8 pages: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7451740 The idea is humans over-trust robots, and aside from being very popular it also motivates interdisciplinary work between roboticists and psychologists. It's a bit old, so a longer journal version may also be floating around.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: An odd question: Can you recommend fun, interesting academic journal articles that are not too long? So I teach a foundation course in academic reading. We establish early on the difference between academic journal articles and general reading, and students comment that they can identify the academic journal articles because they're boring. I think we were all there at one point. I have a great academic journal article about how to read an academic journal article But what about actual journal articles? I have several links to the most read articles, which is pretty cool, but do you know of articles that say something above and beyond the rest about issues most of us care about? 14-20 page examinations are...probably too long to hold my neophytes' attention, so something more succinct-but-readable is what I'm shooting for. I teach a lot of engineering, STEM, pre-med and robotics students, but I do also have humanities students. As such, I don't think there's any one subject that is off-base. Bonus points for controversy and things we can debate.
RESPONSE A: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 This is a randomized controlled study about jumping out of an airplane with or without a parachute. There is a twist at the end that is quite funny.
RESPONSE B: I really like this paper from Diane Brentari and Susan Goldin-Meadow giving an overview of the state of the fields of sign linguistics and gesture psychology. I may be biased because it's my area of interest, but I think it's an accessible and interesting summary that raises some food for thought/debate without requiring pre-existing knowledge of the field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: An odd question: Can you recommend fun, interesting academic journal articles that are not too long? So I teach a foundation course in academic reading. We establish early on the difference between academic journal articles and general reading, and students comment that they can identify the academic journal articles because they're boring. I think we were all there at one point. I have a great academic journal article about how to read an academic journal article But what about actual journal articles? I have several links to the most read articles, which is pretty cool, but do you know of articles that say something above and beyond the rest about issues most of us care about? 14-20 page examinations are...probably too long to hold my neophytes' attention, so something more succinct-but-readable is what I'm shooting for. I teach a lot of engineering, STEM, pre-med and robotics students, but I do also have humanities students. As such, I don't think there's any one subject that is off-base. Bonus points for controversy and things we can debate.
RESPONSE A: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 This is a randomized controlled study about jumping out of an airplane with or without a parachute. There is a twist at the end that is quite funny.
RESPONSE B: I recommend this one if you like some sarcasm with your science : https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.9b00184 If you want to push it to another level, I recommend this very short read : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ciuz.201600750
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: An odd question: Can you recommend fun, interesting academic journal articles that are not too long? So I teach a foundation course in academic reading. We establish early on the difference between academic journal articles and general reading, and students comment that they can identify the academic journal articles because they're boring. I think we were all there at one point. I have a great academic journal article about how to read an academic journal article But what about actual journal articles? I have several links to the most read articles, which is pretty cool, but do you know of articles that say something above and beyond the rest about issues most of us care about? 14-20 page examinations are...probably too long to hold my neophytes' attention, so something more succinct-but-readable is what I'm shooting for. I teach a lot of engineering, STEM, pre-med and robotics students, but I do also have humanities students. As such, I don't think there's any one subject that is off-base. Bonus points for controversy and things we can debate.
RESPONSE A: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 This is a randomized controlled study about jumping out of an airplane with or without a parachute. There is a twist at the end that is quite funny.
RESPONSE B: I really like engineering education papers. Written in relatively plain language and most people can relate to how they think a uni class can be taught
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: An odd question: Can you recommend fun, interesting academic journal articles that are not too long? So I teach a foundation course in academic reading. We establish early on the difference between academic journal articles and general reading, and students comment that they can identify the academic journal articles because they're boring. I think we were all there at one point. I have a great academic journal article about how to read an academic journal article But what about actual journal articles? I have several links to the most read articles, which is pretty cool, but do you know of articles that say something above and beyond the rest about issues most of us care about? 14-20 page examinations are...probably too long to hold my neophytes' attention, so something more succinct-but-readable is what I'm shooting for. I teach a lot of engineering, STEM, pre-med and robotics students, but I do also have humanities students. As such, I don't think there's any one subject that is off-base. Bonus points for controversy and things we can debate.
RESPONSE A: The Peter principle revisited: A computational study https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2009.09.045 Computational simulation showing that companies should randomly promote their employees. Won the IgNoble prize. In fact, any of the IgNoble prize winners would be good. https://improbable.com/
RESPONSE B: There's an amazing article from the IEEE HRI conference, so it's technical but under 8 pages: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7451740 The idea is humans over-trust robots, and aside from being very popular it also motivates interdisciplinary work between roboticists and psychologists. It's a bit old, so a longer journal version may also be floating around.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are your most and least favorite parts of an academic paper to write? And why?
RESPONSE A: I find introductions really frustrating, especially if you've already written a paper on a similar topic before. Some reviewers will really get on you about not having enough references and it's like, yeah, sure, there are a million papers in this area, but these are the ones that are good and are actually important _here_. I have had to add whole paragraphs just to explain areas of work that are outside of scope. Second from that is the experimental section, just because it's the least creative imo (again, especially if it's a continuation study). I personally really like writing the body. Its a much more creative process in many ways: figuring out how to organize and communicate everything, really voicing all of the work you've done and how it's paid off. I usually write the body, review that until it's ready, then just slap the other stuff on.
RESPONSE B: The middle part is the unfunnest for me
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are your most and least favorite parts of an academic paper to write? And why?
RESPONSE A: Maybe a bit beside the point but the data analysis is the most stressful. I could suddenly realize some of my data wasnt done well, which mean I have to roll back and do them again
RESPONSE B: The middle part is the unfunnest for me
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: in going into a Ph.D. Program is not the long hours or lack of money, or amount of little reading/writing for the next four years. My fear is that I have crippling performance anxiety when it comes to presentations. Ironic, I know, considering the program I’m going into. I’m not a TERRIBLE presenter, especially when it’s something I’m passionate about, and I have some experience in academic presentations from my master’s degree research. I just get insanely nervous and then this whole negative feedback loop occurs where I’m too aware of the change in my voice and my palms sweating and then my brain starts to black out. And even though traditional academic conferences and the like can be some of the most boring experiences on Earth, I want to be able to communicate my ideas and research in engaging ways, especially if I end up going the TA route rather than an RA route (although I’d like to gain experience in both). Anyway, what tips and tricks have any of you hardened academics learned to be better presenters and/or lecturers. (A friend of mine recommended beta blockers lol)
RESPONSE A: As others have said practice. I get nervous too and have to run through a presentation at least a dozen times where I feel like my jaw develops muscle memory to form the right words. This will mean preparing it earlier, but do what you need to do. Go through it so much that you're sick of it and the nervousness is replaced by annoyance at having to say the words again (although don't be annoyed for the real thing). Over time you won't need to go through that process as much. With virtual conferences I was able to cheat and read my notes and now I feel like I did myself a disservice to my presentation skills.
RESPONSE B: Get a teaching position. You will be forced to get over it. I was a wreck my first semester teaching....but it made me get over my pubp Ii c speaking anxiety!!! Also, remember that presenting is required for most jobs out there so it's not something you'd even be able to avoid if you didn't do a PhD. It's just a fact of life. You will do great!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you get over presentation anxiety as an academic? Hi all! I’m a newly admitted Ph.D. Candidate in a humanities field (communications-related). My biggest fear in going into a Ph.D. Program is not the long hours or lack of money, or amount of little reading/writing for the next four years. My fear is that I have crippling performance anxiety when it comes to presentations. Ironic, I know, considering the program I’m going into. I’m not a TERRIBLE presenter, especially when it’s something I’m passionate about, and I have some experience in academic presentations from my master’s degree research. I just get insanely nervous and then this whole negative feedback loop occurs where I’m too aware of the change in my voice and my palms sweating and then my brain starts to black out. And even though traditional academic conferences and the like can be some of the most boring experiences on Earth, I want to be able to communicate my ideas and research in engaging ways, especially if I end up going the TA route rather than an RA route (although I’d like to gain experience in both). Anyway, what tips and tricks have any of you hardened academics learned to be better presenters and/or lecturers. (A friend of mine recommended beta blockers lol)
RESPONSE A: Get a teaching position. You will be forced to get over it. I was a wreck my first semester teaching....but it made me get over my pubp Ii c speaking anxiety!!! Also, remember that presenting is required for most jobs out there so it's not something you'd even be able to avoid if you didn't do a PhD. It's just a fact of life. You will do great!
RESPONSE B: I would definitely recommend counseling and seeing how you can work to reduce your anxiety.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you get over presentation anxiety as an academic? Hi all! I’m a newly admitted Ph.D. Candidate in a humanities field (communications-related). My biggest fear in going into a Ph.D. Program is not the long hours or lack of money, or amount of little reading/writing for the next four years. My fear is that I have crippling performance anxiety when it comes to presentations. Ironic, I know, considering the program I’m going into. I’m not a TERRIBLE presenter, especially when it’s something I’m passionate about, and I have some experience in academic presentations from my master’s degree research. I just get insanely nervous and then this whole negative feedback loop occurs where I’m too aware of the change in my voice and my palms sweating and then my brain starts to black out. And even though traditional academic conferences and the like can be some of the most boring experiences on Earth, I want to be able to communicate my ideas and research in engaging ways, especially if I end up going the TA route rather than an RA route (although I’d like to gain experience in both). Anyway, what tips and tricks have any of you hardened academics learned to be better presenters and/or lecturers. (A friend of mine recommended beta blockers lol)
RESPONSE A: Practice. Teaching does wonders for public speaking.
RESPONSE B: As others have said practice. I get nervous too and have to run through a presentation at least a dozen times where I feel like my jaw develops muscle memory to form the right words. This will mean preparing it earlier, but do what you need to do. Go through it so much that you're sick of it and the nervousness is replaced by annoyance at having to say the words again (although don't be annoyed for the real thing). Over time you won't need to go through that process as much. With virtual conferences I was able to cheat and read my notes and now I feel like I did myself a disservice to my presentation skills.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you get over presentation anxiety as an academic? Hi all! I’m a newly admitted Ph.D. Candidate in a humanities field (communications-related). My biggest fear in going into a Ph.D. Program is not the long hours or lack of money, or amount of little reading/writing for the next four years. My fear is that I have crippling performance anxiety when it comes to presentations. Ironic, I know, considering the program I’m going into. I’m not a TERRIBLE presenter, especially when it’s something I’m passionate about, and I have some experience in academic presentations from my master’s degree research. I just get insanely nervous and then this whole negative feedback loop occurs where I’m too aware of the change in my voice and my palms sweating and then my brain starts to black out. And even though traditional academic conferences and the like can be some of the most boring experiences on Earth, I want to be able to communicate my ideas and research in engaging ways, especially if I end up going the TA route rather than an RA route (although I’d like to gain experience in both). Anyway, what tips and tricks have any of you hardened academics learned to be better presenters and/or lecturers. (A friend of mine recommended beta blockers lol)
RESPONSE A: Practice. Teaching does wonders for public speaking.
RESPONSE B: I would definitely recommend counseling and seeing how you can work to reduce your anxiety.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you get over presentation anxiety as an academic? Hi all! I’m a newly admitted Ph.D. Candidate in a humanities field (communications-related). My biggest fear in going into a Ph.D. Program is not the long hours or lack of money, or amount of little reading/writing for the next four years. My fear is that I have crippling performance anxiety when it comes to presentations. Ironic, I know, considering the program I’m going into. I’m not a TERRIBLE presenter, especially when it’s something I’m passionate about, and I have some experience in academic presentations from my master’s degree research. I just get insanely nervous and then this whole negative feedback loop occurs where I’m too aware of the change in my voice and my palms sweating and then my brain starts to black out. And even though traditional academic conferences and the like can be some of the most boring experiences on Earth, I want to be able to communicate my ideas and research in engaging ways, especially if I end up going the TA route rather than an RA route (although I’d like to gain experience in both). Anyway, what tips and tricks have any of you hardened academics learned to be better presenters and/or lecturers. (A friend of mine recommended beta blockers lol)
RESPONSE A: As others have said practice. I get nervous too and have to run through a presentation at least a dozen times where I feel like my jaw develops muscle memory to form the right words. This will mean preparing it earlier, but do what you need to do. Go through it so much that you're sick of it and the nervousness is replaced by annoyance at having to say the words again (although don't be annoyed for the real thing). Over time you won't need to go through that process as much. With virtual conferences I was able to cheat and read my notes and now I feel like I did myself a disservice to my presentation skills.
RESPONSE B: In my experience, teaching is what got me over my anxiety. I have a diagnosed anxiety disorder so presenting was terrifying for me throughout undergrad. But once you are doing it multiple times a week for teaching it eventually becomes routine through repetition.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it advisable to change your career and become an academic if you are looking to shift from a toxic and stressful industry like banking? Non-native English speaker here. I work at a bank and the environment is very high pressured and rushed and full of dirty workplace politics and downright toxicity. Its customer service rush all day long, with loads of multitasking from 9:30 till 8pm five days a week. There is huge sales targets, fifteen minute lunch breaks that are mostly done at around 4pm. You cannot roll up your sleeves, call someone, go online or get out of the floor without permission. You can't go out for say the post office or banks without permission and lots of explaining. People are extremely toxic, has unhealthy competitions and are abusive for mostly no reasons and you are micromanaged. I like doing research on Economics and Business, particularly economics and I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile to change careers to become an academic. The academic environment of a lecturer seems very relaxed from what I have seen of friends. Lots of vacations, time on your own during the day, only 4-5 classes on 1.5 hours a week, little politics given that you rarely need to interact with other colleagues etc. But that is only what I see from the outside. However according to wikipedia there seems to be separate large articles on Bullying in Academia and Academic abuse in academia. No such articles for the finance industries. So it *seems* to me that given there are such large articles, Academia might have even more of a toxic environment than Banking or Finance. Can someone provide some advice or guidelines into whether it would be worthwhile to shift to an academic-researcher career if one wants to get out of a toxic industry?
RESPONSE A: Depends where you are, both nationaly and per institution.
RESPONSE B: Regarding having holidays: my colleague applied for long service leave and management insisted he come up with a publication plan before they would let him have his required leave... ie. What research work are you going to do in your holiday. Welcome to academia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it advisable to change your career and become an academic if you are looking to shift from a toxic and stressful industry like banking? Non-native English speaker here. I work at a bank and the environment is very high pressured and rushed and full of dirty workplace politics and downright toxicity. Its customer service rush all day long, with loads of multitasking from 9:30 till 8pm five days a week. There is huge sales targets, fifteen minute lunch breaks that are mostly done at around 4pm. You cannot roll up your sleeves, call someone, go online or get out of the floor without permission. You can't go out for say the post office or banks without permission and lots of explaining. People are extremely toxic, has unhealthy competitions and are abusive for mostly no reasons and you are micromanaged. I like doing research on Economics and Business, particularly economics and I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile to change careers to become an academic. The academic environment of a lecturer seems very relaxed from what I have seen of friends. Lots of vacations, time on your own during the day, only 4-5 classes on 1.5 hours a week, little politics given that you rarely need to interact with other colleagues etc. But that is only what I see from the outside. However according to wikipedia there seems to be separate large articles on Bullying in Academia and Academic abuse in academia. No such articles for the finance industries. So it *seems* to me that given there are such large articles, Academia might have even more of a toxic environment than Banking or Finance. Can someone provide some advice or guidelines into whether it would be worthwhile to shift to an academic-researcher career if one wants to get out of a toxic industry?
RESPONSE A: Dirty workplace politics-- couldn't happen in academic environment!
RESPONSE B: Regarding having holidays: my colleague applied for long service leave and management insisted he come up with a publication plan before they would let him have his required leave... ie. What research work are you going to do in your holiday. Welcome to academia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it advisable to change your career and become an academic if you are looking to shift from a toxic and stressful industry like banking? Non-native English speaker here. I work at a bank and the environment is very high pressured and rushed and full of dirty workplace politics and downright toxicity. Its customer service rush all day long, with loads of multitasking from 9:30 till 8pm five days a week. There is huge sales targets, fifteen minute lunch breaks that are mostly done at around 4pm. You cannot roll up your sleeves, call someone, go online or get out of the floor without permission. You can't go out for say the post office or banks without permission and lots of explaining. People are extremely toxic, has unhealthy competitions and are abusive for mostly no reasons and you are micromanaged. I like doing research on Economics and Business, particularly economics and I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile to change careers to become an academic. The academic environment of a lecturer seems very relaxed from what I have seen of friends. Lots of vacations, time on your own during the day, only 4-5 classes on 1.5 hours a week, little politics given that you rarely need to interact with other colleagues etc. But that is only what I see from the outside. However according to wikipedia there seems to be separate large articles on Bullying in Academia and Academic abuse in academia. No such articles for the finance industries. So it *seems* to me that given there are such large articles, Academia might have even more of a toxic environment than Banking or Finance. Can someone provide some advice or guidelines into whether it would be worthwhile to shift to an academic-researcher career if one wants to get out of a toxic industry?
RESPONSE A: Depends where you are, both nationaly and per institution.
RESPONSE B: Everything my college professor ever told me in confidence was that higher academia is very political from funding to tenure to courses they’re allowed to teach. There’s definitely an element of seniority.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it advisable to change your career and become an academic if you are looking to shift from a toxic and stressful industry like banking? Non-native English speaker here. I work at a bank and the environment is very high pressured and rushed and full of dirty workplace politics and downright toxicity. Its customer service rush all day long, with loads of multitasking from 9:30 till 8pm five days a week. There is huge sales targets, fifteen minute lunch breaks that are mostly done at around 4pm. You cannot roll up your sleeves, call someone, go online or get out of the floor without permission. You can't go out for say the post office or banks without permission and lots of explaining. People are extremely toxic, has unhealthy competitions and are abusive for mostly no reasons and you are micromanaged. I like doing research on Economics and Business, particularly economics and I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile to change careers to become an academic. The academic environment of a lecturer seems very relaxed from what I have seen of friends. Lots of vacations, time on your own during the day, only 4-5 classes on 1.5 hours a week, little politics given that you rarely need to interact with other colleagues etc. But that is only what I see from the outside. However according to wikipedia there seems to be separate large articles on Bullying in Academia and Academic abuse in academia. No such articles for the finance industries. So it *seems* to me that given there are such large articles, Academia might have even more of a toxic environment than Banking or Finance. Can someone provide some advice or guidelines into whether it would be worthwhile to shift to an academic-researcher career if one wants to get out of a toxic industry?
RESPONSE A: Everything my college professor ever told me in confidence was that higher academia is very political from funding to tenure to courses they’re allowed to teach. There’s definitely an element of seniority.
RESPONSE B: Dirty workplace politics-- couldn't happen in academic environment!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: (UK) How are you guys feeling about the DfE saying that academics should still teach face-to-face. I teach nursing students. I do not want to do that in person. They are in and out of hospital every week, they're high risk. But even aside from that, why do I have to teach face to face when every other sector can work from home. I won't lie, I'm on the brink of quitting my job. I've applied for roles outside of academia, and if I had the financial means to I'd leave now. (For more reasons that covid but it is a driving force). How do you all feel about having to teach face to face? Any advice? Also sorry, no idea what flair to add here.
RESPONSE A: I’ve taught online and in person and found that student engagement is much higher in person. Even I have trouble paying attention to online presentations. Most of my colleagues want to teach in person too. But we’ve all had vaccine boosters and students are also required to be vaccinated.
RESPONSE B: I am a PhD student teaching in my department. Honestly it makes me feel pretty expendable. The modules I teach on are all critical/theoretical and could easily be taught remotely - they were last year. I absolutely hate the idea that remote learning is somehow lesser when my experience has been that you have to work harder to deliver sessions. I don't have any advice I'm afraid. It feels like it's an ongoing process of managing risk and anxiety.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: (UK) How are you guys feeling about the DfE saying that academics should still teach face-to-face. I teach nursing students. I do not want to do that in person. They are in and out of hospital every week, they're high risk. But even aside from that, why do I have to teach face to face when every other sector can work from home. I won't lie, I'm on the brink of quitting my job. I've applied for roles outside of academia, and if I had the financial means to I'd leave now. (For more reasons that covid but it is a driving force). How do you all feel about having to teach face to face? Any advice? Also sorry, no idea what flair to add here.
RESPONSE A: I am someone who loves doing teaching face to face. That said, there's clearly a whole load of stuff that can be done as well remotely, so why take the risk? It's important that we are able to teach some skills face to face. But if things can be remote they should be allowed to be.
RESPONSE B: I’ve taught online and in person and found that student engagement is much higher in person. Even I have trouble paying attention to online presentations. Most of my colleagues want to teach in person too. But we’ve all had vaccine boosters and students are also required to be vaccinated.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: (UK) How are you guys feeling about the DfE saying that academics should still teach face-to-face. I teach nursing students. I do not want to do that in person. They are in and out of hospital every week, they're high risk. But even aside from that, why do I have to teach face to face when every other sector can work from home. I won't lie, I'm on the brink of quitting my job. I've applied for roles outside of academia, and if I had the financial means to I'd leave now. (For more reasons that covid but it is a driving force). How do you all feel about having to teach face to face? Any advice? Also sorry, no idea what flair to add here.
RESPONSE A: /r/AskAcademiaUK
RESPONSE B: I’ve taught online and in person and found that student engagement is much higher in person. Even I have trouble paying attention to online presentations. Most of my colleagues want to teach in person too. But we’ve all had vaccine boosters and students are also required to be vaccinated.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: (UK) How are you guys feeling about the DfE saying that academics should still teach face-to-face. I teach nursing students. I do not want to do that in person. They are in and out of hospital every week, they're high risk. But even aside from that, why do I have to teach face to face when every other sector can work from home. I won't lie, I'm on the brink of quitting my job. I've applied for roles outside of academia, and if I had the financial means to I'd leave now. (For more reasons that covid but it is a driving force). How do you all feel about having to teach face to face? Any advice? Also sorry, no idea what flair to add here.
RESPONSE A: I am someone who loves doing teaching face to face. That said, there's clearly a whole load of stuff that can be done as well remotely, so why take the risk? It's important that we are able to teach some skills face to face. But if things can be remote they should be allowed to be.
RESPONSE B: I prefer teaching face to face. Many of my poorer students don’t have a good internet connection or a quiet place to study and their learning was badly affected during the pandemic. Can’t wait for in person classes again. Remote learning just seems like another way to exclude the poor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: (UK) How are you guys feeling about the DfE saying that academics should still teach face-to-face. I teach nursing students. I do not want to do that in person. They are in and out of hospital every week, they're high risk. But even aside from that, why do I have to teach face to face when every other sector can work from home. I won't lie, I'm on the brink of quitting my job. I've applied for roles outside of academia, and if I had the financial means to I'd leave now. (For more reasons that covid but it is a driving force). How do you all feel about having to teach face to face? Any advice? Also sorry, no idea what flair to add here.
RESPONSE A: /r/AskAcademiaUK
RESPONSE B: I prefer teaching face to face. Many of my poorer students don’t have a good internet connection or a quiet place to study and their learning was badly affected during the pandemic. Can’t wait for in person classes again. Remote learning just seems like another way to exclude the poor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What do you wish you knew about public speaking as an academic? What skills are you working on in order to communicate more effectively? I'm in Communication and starting a program with my Center for Teaching Excellence to help academics with presentation skills in the classroom and at conferences. I know the undergraduate audience that I teach well and what they want/need to know. I'm trying to figure out what would be most helpful to focus on with this new audience of faculty, grad students, and staff from a variety of diciplines. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: No walls of text in the slides. The less the better.
RESPONSE B: Never ever go over your time (practicing out loud several times helps). Title for every slide with main conclusion/takeaway for that slide. Know your audience. Don't give too much, or too little background. Keep slides simple and less text. Circle/highlight where they should focus. As much as possible they should be able to figure out the point on there own if they miss something you say. i.e don't be that person who just uses a figure from a paper with 4 panels or a bar chart that includes 10 controls. Anyways. I could probably keep going. I hate a bad talk, and there are a lot of them. Definitely a skill I think could use more focus in undergraduate and graduate programs. Always good to hear that there are people who are really interested in teaching these things.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What do you wish you knew about public speaking as an academic? What skills are you working on in order to communicate more effectively? I'm in Communication and starting a program with my Center for Teaching Excellence to help academics with presentation skills in the classroom and at conferences. I know the undergraduate audience that I teach well and what they want/need to know. I'm trying to figure out what would be most helpful to focus on with this new audience of faculty, grad students, and staff from a variety of diciplines. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: No walls of text in the slides. The less the better.
RESPONSE B: Techniques for voice projection. I speak very quietly and would like to not be like that..
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What do you wish you knew about public speaking as an academic? What skills are you working on in order to communicate more effectively? I'm in Communication and starting a program with my Center for Teaching Excellence to help academics with presentation skills in the classroom and at conferences. I know the undergraduate audience that I teach well and what they want/need to know. I'm trying to figure out what would be most helpful to focus on with this new audience of faculty, grad students, and staff from a variety of diciplines. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: No walls of text in the slides. The less the better.
RESPONSE B: Concerning scientific talks, things I wish someone had taught me, for which I largely just "wing it" on my own when the time comes: * Fonts, font sizes, spacing, text alignment, etc: what's best? * Slide decoration: how not to over or under-do it * When should one slide be two, and vice-versa * Overall organization and pacing of the talks - how much time to spend on intro vs. methods vs. results * Callbacks. Normal academics can do this, not just in TED talks, and it helps refocus people and sends a message that the talk was well-crafted I grew up doing some performing arts stuff and being on stage has never been a huge issue for me, but maybe people who didn't have that experience could use some more help. Getting people up in front of the group and having them do some sort of fun/funny read or rehearsed monologue unrelated to their work could be a really useful exercise -- let them focus on how they're saying things instead of what they're saying. I guess the fundamental issue is that academics become graphic designers and actors while having zero mandated training in either area, and they're expected to just figure it out themselves.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What did you give up (long term) for being an academic? Let me preface this by saying I am a senior undergraduate student in the medical engineering area, leaning heavily on neuroengineering and microtechnologies. As I near the end of my degree, I see two paths I want to follow: R&D, or academia. I have little experience in both, so it's not like both are completely unexplored (fortunately) for me. I want to make educated decisions, such as what type of masters to pursue, where I want to live, how it would be best to handle personal finances, etc. And to do this, I would like to decide what I want to do long term. I understand that these two paths are not mutually exclusive, nor is it impossible to transition from one to the other. Having said that, I wanted to ask you as a community, what have you sacrificed (at any level) to have a career in academia?
RESPONSE A: Money
RESPONSE B: Opportunities to make money commensurate with education level or experience; stable/non toxic, merit-based working environments; children (for me, not a huge loss, but for some); my long term gastrointestinal and overall health. Regular social life. A lot of academia is either little time for socializing or listening to complaints about a system that has been badly converted to an unsustainable business model involving bloated administrations, competing professional priorities, focus on increasing enrollment and student satisfaction over student ability and education. The list goes on. It’s so weird to spend time socializing with people who either complain (legitimately) about the job or celebrate when someone gets out of your profession.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What did you give up (long term) for being an academic? Let me preface this by saying I am a senior undergraduate student in the medical engineering area, leaning heavily on neuroengineering and microtechnologies. As I near the end of my degree, I see two paths I want to follow: R&D, or academia. I have little experience in both, so it's not like both are completely unexplored (fortunately) for me. I want to make educated decisions, such as what type of masters to pursue, where I want to live, how it would be best to handle personal finances, etc. And to do this, I would like to decide what I want to do long term. I understand that these two paths are not mutually exclusive, nor is it impossible to transition from one to the other. Having said that, I wanted to ask you as a community, what have you sacrificed (at any level) to have a career in academia?
RESPONSE A: Money
RESPONSE B: I guess I could have made more money if I had been equally successful in an equally competitive field outside academia. No regrets, though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What did you give up (long term) for being an academic? Let me preface this by saying I am a senior undergraduate student in the medical engineering area, leaning heavily on neuroengineering and microtechnologies. As I near the end of my degree, I see two paths I want to follow: R&D, or academia. I have little experience in both, so it's not like both are completely unexplored (fortunately) for me. I want to make educated decisions, such as what type of masters to pursue, where I want to live, how it would be best to handle personal finances, etc. And to do this, I would like to decide what I want to do long term. I understand that these two paths are not mutually exclusive, nor is it impossible to transition from one to the other. Having said that, I wanted to ask you as a community, what have you sacrificed (at any level) to have a career in academia?
RESPONSE A: I guess I could have made more money if I had been equally successful in an equally competitive field outside academia. No regrets, though.
RESPONSE B: Life?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: new house and covid restrictions are getting lifted). Is this a Hungarian thing to do? If not, what should I expect? How should I behave? And - I tend to get overwhelmed from socialisation/noise due to congenital stuff, how do I back out once it's too much without offending him? To note: Ages - Prof 57, PhD Cand. 27, myself 24.
RESPONSE A: >Is this a Hungarian thing to do? Not specific to Hungary, I'm in Canada and have gone to gone to my lab supervisors' homes for parties (holidays, graduations, etc). >If not, what should I expect? Think of it like a work party. Snacks, drinks, socializations, etc. >How should I behave? Behave like you would any other time you would interact with the professor and other student. >how do I back out once it's too much without offending him? I'd just say you weren't feeling well and excuse yourself. Don't overthink it.
RESPONSE B: In the U.S. it would generally be advisable just to mention to him ahead of time that you might have to leave early: "Hi Prof X, do you want me to bring anything for that party on Friday? Also I just want to give you a heads-up, I'm pretty excited about the party, but there's a chance I might have to leave early because in chaotic social situations I get overwhelmed and need to go be by myself for a while. Just wanted you to know so you don't think anything is wrong if that happens! I'm still really looking forward to seeing your new house." If you've had that brief conversation ahead of time, then you won't have to do any explaining when you leave during the party. As a bonus, the prof will feel a bit closer to you because you confided in him, and it will reflect well on you that you were honest about your issue and thinking ahead about others' feelings. ...On the other hand, the culture around mental health might be much different in Hungary, so I'm not sure this is the best approach. But this is how we'd do it in the United States.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: [Hungary] My laboratory supervisor wants to throw a house party to celebrate one of our labmember's paper getting published, and also to celebrate him getting a new house. How should I behave? Act? How can I respectfully leave when I get overwhelmed? I'm part of a rather small theoretical/computational chemistry laboratory - there's the professor, a PhD student and myself (BSc 3rd yr). We finally got all calculations done, finished final draft and submitted the manuscript. We expect it to get thru with revisions, so prof wants to celebrate (and he conveniently has new house and covid restrictions are getting lifted). Is this a Hungarian thing to do? If not, what should I expect? How should I behave? And - I tend to get overwhelmed from socialisation/noise due to congenital stuff, how do I back out once it's too much without offending him? To note: Ages - Prof 57, PhD Cand. 27, myself 24.
RESPONSE A: Cat on fire? Or feed animals at home, Early morning meeting/situation
RESPONSE B: >Is this a Hungarian thing to do? Not specific to Hungary, I'm in Canada and have gone to gone to my lab supervisors' homes for parties (holidays, graduations, etc). >If not, what should I expect? Think of it like a work party. Snacks, drinks, socializations, etc. >How should I behave? Behave like you would any other time you would interact with the professor and other student. >how do I back out once it's too much without offending him? I'd just say you weren't feeling well and excuse yourself. Don't overthink it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 3rd yr). We finally got all calculations done, finished final draft and submitted the manuscript. We expect it to get thru with revisions, so prof wants to celebrate (and he conveniently has new house and covid restrictions are getting lifted). Is this a Hungarian thing to do? If not, what should I expect? How should I behave? And - I tend to get overwhelmed from socialisation/noise due to congenital stuff, how do I back out once it's too much without offending him? To note: Ages - Prof 57, PhD Cand. 27, myself 24.
RESPONSE A: In the U.S. it would generally be advisable just to mention to him ahead of time that you might have to leave early: "Hi Prof X, do you want me to bring anything for that party on Friday? Also I just want to give you a heads-up, I'm pretty excited about the party, but there's a chance I might have to leave early because in chaotic social situations I get overwhelmed and need to go be by myself for a while. Just wanted you to know so you don't think anything is wrong if that happens! I'm still really looking forward to seeing your new house." If you've had that brief conversation ahead of time, then you won't have to do any explaining when you leave during the party. As a bonus, the prof will feel a bit closer to you because you confided in him, and it will reflect well on you that you were honest about your issue and thinking ahead about others' feelings. ...On the other hand, the culture around mental health might be much different in Hungary, so I'm not sure this is the best approach. But this is how we'd do it in the United States.
RESPONSE B: My dad was a lab head and dept chair, and I grew up with most of our socializing being at his technicians house, we had barbecues with his students at least once a year. I also went to my post doc advisors house twice a year. So yes, this happens. Nervous students don't have to stay long, and everyone is on their best manners. No hook ups, only have 1-2 drinks, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: [Hungary] My laboratory supervisor wants to throw a house party to celebrate one of our labmember's paper getting published, and also to celebrate him getting a new house. How should I behave? Act? How can I respectfully leave when I get overwhelmed? I'm part of a rather small theoretical/computational chemistry laboratory - there's the professor, a PhD student and myself (BSc 3rd yr). We finally got all calculations done, finished final draft and submitted the manuscript. We expect it to get thru with revisions, so prof wants to celebrate (and he conveniently has new house and covid restrictions are getting lifted). Is this a Hungarian thing to do? If not, what should I expect? How should I behave? And - I tend to get overwhelmed from socialisation/noise due to congenital stuff, how do I back out once it's too much without offending him? To note: Ages - Prof 57, PhD Cand. 27, myself 24.
RESPONSE A: My dad was a lab head and dept chair, and I grew up with most of our socializing being at his technicians house, we had barbecues with his students at least once a year. I also went to my post doc advisors house twice a year. So yes, this happens. Nervous students don't have to stay long, and everyone is on their best manners. No hook ups, only have 1-2 drinks, etc.
RESPONSE B: Cat on fire? Or feed animals at home, Early morning meeting/situation
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: [Hungary] My laboratory supervisor wants to throw a house party to celebrate one of our labmember's paper getting published, and also to celebrate him getting a new house. How should I behave? Act? How can I respectfully leave when I get overwhelmed? I'm part of a rather small theoretical/computational chemistry laboratory - there's the professor, a PhD student and myself (BSc 3rd yr). We finally got all calculations done, finished final draft and submitted the manuscript. We expect it to get thru with revisions, so prof wants to celebrate (and he conveniently has new house and covid restrictions are getting lifted). Is this a Hungarian thing to do? If not, what should I expect? How should I behave? And - I tend to get overwhelmed from socialisation/noise due to congenital stuff, how do I back out once it's too much without offending him? To note: Ages - Prof 57, PhD Cand. 27, myself 24.
RESPONSE A: Party before reviewer feedback.... bold.
RESPONSE B: Cat on fire? Or feed animals at home, Early morning meeting/situation
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Advice please -- I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc in my field I'll be graduating within a year and the job market is looming. At this point in my career, I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc. I can get specific if you think it's relevant, but what it comes down to is that there are some skills that are essential to succeeding in my field, and I am just not very good at them (e.g., programming). I am a smart person and I know my field inside and out, but I'm just not very good at these things. If something depends on it I can limp through and get a program written with a great deal of help from google and better programmers, but it will never be as good as one written by someone who knows what they're doing. I always thought I would develop these skills as a grad student but the truth is 5 years have passed and I'm still barely competent. I wouldn't hire me as a postdoc knowing how bad I am at these things. I don't know what to do. My PI is no help. Any advice would be appreciated.
RESPONSE A: just a fellow phd student, so I am clueless. But I do have a question: if programming is an added value to your professional profile but is not the main focus of your domain, maybe that is a good justification to do a postdoc? If you are bringing a strong theoretical knowledge and commit to get better at programming, I would think (with my partial understanding of what a postdoc can be) that would still make you a good hire in the right environment. That would certainly work like this in my field (exercise physiology), afaik. best of luck
RESPONSE B: Dude, I'm a programmer, I've been one for over 20 years and think I'm pretty good at it and so do others. The stuff I write daily is written with a "great deal of help from google and better programmers", exactly as you wrote. It's normal and exactly how it's supposed to be.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Advice please -- I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc in my field I'll be graduating within a year and the job market is looming. At this point in my career, I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc. I can get specific if you think it's relevant, but what it comes down to is that there are some skills that are essential to succeeding in my field, and I am just not very good at them (e.g., programming). I am a smart person and I know my field inside and out, but I'm just not very good at these things. If something depends on it I can limp through and get a program written with a great deal of help from google and better programmers, but it will never be as good as one written by someone who knows what they're doing. I always thought I would develop these skills as a grad student but the truth is 5 years have passed and I'm still barely competent. I wouldn't hire me as a postdoc knowing how bad I am at these things. I don't know what to do. My PI is no help. Any advice would be appreciated.
RESPONSE A: How about doing something more research related, which might entail less programming?
RESPONSE B: Dude, I'm a programmer, I've been one for over 20 years and think I'm pretty good at it and so do others. The stuff I write daily is written with a "great deal of help from google and better programmers", exactly as you wrote. It's normal and exactly how it's supposed to be.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Advice please -- I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc in my field I'll be graduating within a year and the job market is looming. At this point in my career, I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc. I can get specific if you think it's relevant, but what it comes down to is that there are some skills that are essential to succeeding in my field, and I am just not very good at them (e.g., programming). I am a smart person and I know my field inside and out, but I'm just not very good at these things. If something depends on it I can limp through and get a program written with a great deal of help from google and better programmers, but it will never be as good as one written by someone who knows what they're doing. I always thought I would develop these skills as a grad student but the truth is 5 years have passed and I'm still barely competent. I wouldn't hire me as a postdoc knowing how bad I am at these things. I don't know what to do. My PI is no help. Any advice would be appreciated.
RESPONSE A: just a fellow phd student, so I am clueless. But I do have a question: if programming is an added value to your professional profile but is not the main focus of your domain, maybe that is a good justification to do a postdoc? If you are bringing a strong theoretical knowledge and commit to get better at programming, I would think (with my partial understanding of what a postdoc can be) that would still make you a good hire in the right environment. That would certainly work like this in my field (exercise physiology), afaik. best of luck
RESPONSE B: How about doing something more research related, which might entail less programming?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Advice please -- I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc in my field I'll be graduating within a year and the job market is looming. At this point in my career, I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc. I can get specific if you think it's relevant, but what it comes down to is that there are some skills that are essential to succeeding in my field, and I am just not very good at them (e.g., programming). I am a smart person and I know my field inside and out, but I'm just not very good at these things. If something depends on it I can limp through and get a program written with a great deal of help from google and better programmers, but it will never be as good as one written by someone who knows what they're doing. I always thought I would develop these skills as a grad student but the truth is 5 years have passed and I'm still barely competent. I wouldn't hire me as a postdoc knowing how bad I am at these things. I don't know what to do. My PI is no help. Any advice would be appreciated.
RESPONSE A: How about doing something more research related, which might entail less programming?
RESPONSE B: You'll get to your postdoc site and look around and realize it's the same bunch of idiots that your fellow grad students were. Then you'll get to your assistant professor university and realize it's the same bunch of idiots that your fellow postdocs were. But then you'll teach undergrads and beginning grad students and realize that you're pretty smart. Then you'll live the rest of your life feeling pretty smug.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Advice please -- I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc in my field I'll be graduating within a year and the job market is looming. At this point in my career, I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc. I can get specific if you think it's relevant, but what it comes down to is that there are some skills that are essential to succeeding in my field, and I am just not very good at them (e.g., programming). I am a smart person and I know my field inside and out, but I'm just not very good at these things. If something depends on it I can limp through and get a program written with a great deal of help from google and better programmers, but it will never be as good as one written by someone who knows what they're doing. I always thought I would develop these skills as a grad student but the truth is 5 years have passed and I'm still barely competent. I wouldn't hire me as a postdoc knowing how bad I am at these things. I don't know what to do. My PI is no help. Any advice would be appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Sounds like imposter syndrome, but even if you were right, isn't learning those skills what a postdoc is for? A postdoc is a temporary position (at least in my field). If you aren't going to get anything out of a postdoc, you don't need one.
RESPONSE B: You'll get to your postdoc site and look around and realize it's the same bunch of idiots that your fellow grad students were. Then you'll get to your assistant professor university and realize it's the same bunch of idiots that your fellow postdocs were. But then you'll teach undergrads and beginning grad students and realize that you're pretty smart. Then you'll live the rest of your life feeling pretty smug.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Just passed my defense and want to get my advisor a gift. He's been extremely supportive (financially and otherwise), so I need it to be really good. Any ideas? I just passed my dissertation defense this week. My chair has gone above and beyond these past few years--mentoring me, co-authoring with me, reading and improving my work, and even giving me financial support ($9K) out of his chair position, which would have otherwise gone to his salary, and which allowed me to stay another year and finish the program. I want to do something special for him to thank him for everything, but all my ideas are inadequate. He likes tennis, vacationing in the Northeast U.S. (where he's from), and reading up on business news. Any ideas on what I could do for him? Price limit would be around $1,000. It doesn't necessarily have to be related to any of the above interests.
RESPONSE A: Don't give a $1000 gift. It would be very very awkward and unexpected in my field at least. I recommend a fancy bottle of something, or very nice chocolates, or a fancy gift basket if you want to go all out. Something that is max $150 or so. I would be shocked to hear of a "bigger" gift than that being given.
RESPONSE B: A subscription to The Economist?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Just passed my defense and want to get my advisor a gift. He's been extremely supportive (financially and otherwise), so I need it to be really good. Any ideas? I just passed my dissertation defense this week. My chair has gone above and beyond these past few years--mentoring me, co-authoring with me, reading and improving my work, and even giving me financial support ($9K) out of his chair position, which would have otherwise gone to his salary, and which allowed me to stay another year and finish the program. I want to do something special for him to thank him for everything, but all my ideas are inadequate. He likes tennis, vacationing in the Northeast U.S. (where he's from), and reading up on business news. Any ideas on what I could do for him? Price limit would be around $1,000. It doesn't necessarily have to be related to any of the above interests.
RESPONSE A: A subscription to The Economist?
RESPONSE B: As others have said, really do not get such an expensive gift. On top of it looking some what hinky, your university or department may frown heavily on it (some even consider bringing snacks to your defense "bribery"). Also, you run the risk of creating the feeling of obligation on those that follow you, they might not mind, but your adviser likely would. I would. Now what can you do to show your appreciation appropriately? You know that he likes tennis? A high quality can of balls with a heart felt hand written thank you. If he likes wine or whatever, that's fine too, but the tennis balls would be more personal and very memorable, just a suggestion. Also, one that is most meaning full to me: walk in your graduation ceremony and let him hood you. I'm amazed at how few students want to go to their PhD graduations. This is definitely a personal preference of mine, but I love going to graduations generally and specifically for my own group nothing quite caps off the feeling of pride I have in watching my students succeed as participating in a meaningful tradition that honors their hard work and marks their passage from student to peer. *edit: a word*
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Just passed my defense and want to get my advisor a gift. He's been extremely supportive (financially and otherwise), so I need it to be really good. Any ideas? I just passed my dissertation defense this week. My chair has gone above and beyond these past few years--mentoring me, co-authoring with me, reading and improving my work, and even giving me financial support ($9K) out of his chair position, which would have otherwise gone to his salary, and which allowed me to stay another year and finish the program. I want to do something special for him to thank him for everything, but all my ideas are inadequate. He likes tennis, vacationing in the Northeast U.S. (where he's from), and reading up on business news. Any ideas on what I could do for him? Price limit would be around $1,000. It doesn't necessarily have to be related to any of the above interests.
RESPONSE A: If you ever publish a book dedicate it to him.
RESPONSE B: As others have said, really do not get such an expensive gift. On top of it looking some what hinky, your university or department may frown heavily on it (some even consider bringing snacks to your defense "bribery"). Also, you run the risk of creating the feeling of obligation on those that follow you, they might not mind, but your adviser likely would. I would. Now what can you do to show your appreciation appropriately? You know that he likes tennis? A high quality can of balls with a heart felt hand written thank you. If he likes wine or whatever, that's fine too, but the tennis balls would be more personal and very memorable, just a suggestion. Also, one that is most meaning full to me: walk in your graduation ceremony and let him hood you. I'm amazed at how few students want to go to their PhD graduations. This is definitely a personal preference of mine, but I love going to graduations generally and specifically for my own group nothing quite caps off the feeling of pride I have in watching my students succeed as participating in a meaningful tradition that honors their hard work and marks their passage from student to peer. *edit: a word*
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Just passed my defense and want to get my advisor a gift. He's been extremely supportive (financially and otherwise), so I need it to be really good. Any ideas? I just passed my dissertation defense this week. My chair has gone above and beyond these past few years--mentoring me, co-authoring with me, reading and improving my work, and even giving me financial support ($9K) out of his chair position, which would have otherwise gone to his salary, and which allowed me to stay another year and finish the program. I want to do something special for him to thank him for everything, but all my ideas are inadequate. He likes tennis, vacationing in the Northeast U.S. (where he's from), and reading up on business news. Any ideas on what I could do for him? Price limit would be around $1,000. It doesn't necessarily have to be related to any of the above interests.
RESPONSE A: Do not give a $1000 gift. Nominate him for a supervision award.
RESPONSE B: I just defended and got mine a small bottle of scotch. Very well received. Congratulations!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 30s upon finishing the PhD. Extending the PhD would not be ideal, I’d prefer to just finish it and get it out of the way so that I can start working. 2. My main aim here is to get the PhD and go start making money in industry because I have been a broke public service employee/student since leaving school, and want to make some real income to fund an enjoyable lifestyle. I find my research area interesting, and there’s a lot that can be done, but it’s also difficult. Often, I feel like the dumbest person in the room. My PI says that a PhD opens a lot of doors, but then I see lots of people without them doing just as well if not better. What is special about a PhD that it’s worth undertaking? 3. I need some semblance of work life balance in the long term. In the MSc it was very ‘pump and dump’ in terms of coursework, with periods of insane work and then some downtime. Is a PhD like this? My last job was insane levels of stress and very high accountability for low pay. What’s the likelihood of experiencing a more or less consistent workload? Would appreciate hearing about people’s experiences, regrets, advice.
RESPONSE A: a masters is a more intense workload. a phd is a more psychological challenge where your success is largely based on your effort, skill, and luck.
RESPONSE B: PhD is as much work as you want it to be. I say give it a go and see what happens. You can always leave the PhD, you won't be always able to get the opportunity to do one. If you're assertive and can set boundaries for yourself and others (e.g., your PI), you will be able to have a reasonable work-life balance. If you don't set the boundaries and make a clear plan, you will live at work. Its all up to YOU! Do not rely on anyone else. If PI tells you that he expects you to finish this and that by the end of today and it would take you an all-nighter, you tell him no. Simple as that. You are more important than your PhD/job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: is to get the PhD and go start making money in industry because I have been a broke public service employee/student since leaving school, and want to make some real income to fund an enjoyable lifestyle. I find my research area interesting, and there’s a lot that can be done, but it’s also difficult. Often, I feel like the dumbest person in the room. My PI says that a PhD opens a lot of doors, but then I see lots of people without them doing just as well if not better. What is special about a PhD that it’s worth undertaking? 3. I need some semblance of work life balance in the long term. In the MSc it was very ‘pump and dump’ in terms of coursework, with periods of insane work and then some downtime. Is a PhD like this? My last job was insane levels of stress and very high accountability for low pay. What’s the likelihood of experiencing a more or less consistent workload? Would appreciate hearing about people’s experiences, regrets, advice.
RESPONSE A: PhD is as much work as you want it to be. I say give it a go and see what happens. You can always leave the PhD, you won't be always able to get the opportunity to do one. If you're assertive and can set boundaries for yourself and others (e.g., your PI), you will be able to have a reasonable work-life balance. If you don't set the boundaries and make a clear plan, you will live at work. Its all up to YOU! Do not rely on anyone else. If PI tells you that he expects you to finish this and that by the end of today and it would take you an all-nighter, you tell him no. Simple as that. You are more important than your PhD/job.
RESPONSE B: I think it depends on what you would like to do in industry. It seems like there's some sort of a ceiling in industry if you don't have a PhD - for example, it would probably be pretty hard to get to a Director level at a big pharma without a PhD. But you can definitely make a good living as a bench scientist without one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: take a break. However, I’m having doubts for more reasons than just burnout. 1. I want to have children, and will be in my early 30s upon finishing the PhD. Extending the PhD would not be ideal, I’d prefer to just finish it and get it out of the way so that I can start working. 2. My main aim here is to get the PhD and go start making money in industry because I have been a broke public service employee/student since leaving school, and want to make some real income to fund an enjoyable lifestyle. I find my research area interesting, and there’s a lot that can be done, but it’s also difficult. Often, I feel like the dumbest person in the room. My PI says that a PhD opens a lot of doors, but then I see lots of people without them doing just as well if not better. What is special about a PhD that it’s worth undertaking? 3. I need some semblance of work life balance in the long term. In the MSc it was very ‘pump and dump’ in terms of coursework, with periods of insane work and then some downtime. Is a PhD like this? My last job was insane levels of stress and very high accountability for low pay. What’s the likelihood of experiencing a more or less consistent workload? Would appreciate hearing about people’s experiences, regrets, advice.
RESPONSE A: Good luck young padawan
RESPONSE B: PhD is as much work as you want it to be. I say give it a go and see what happens. You can always leave the PhD, you won't be always able to get the opportunity to do one. If you're assertive and can set boundaries for yourself and others (e.g., your PI), you will be able to have a reasonable work-life balance. If you don't set the boundaries and make a clear plan, you will live at work. Its all up to YOU! Do not rely on anyone else. If PI tells you that he expects you to finish this and that by the end of today and it would take you an all-nighter, you tell him no. Simple as that. You are more important than your PhD/job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: ll preface this by saying I am TIRED. This whole year I’ve been firing on all cylinders, barely any time for hobbies and friends, just like the rest of my cohort. So I appreciate that it’s a caveat and a lot of advice will be for me to take a break. However, I’m having doubts for more reasons than just burnout. 1. I want to have children, and will be in my early 30s upon finishing the PhD. Extending the PhD would not be ideal, I’d prefer to just finish it and get it out of the way so that I can start working. 2. My main aim here is to get the PhD and go start making money in industry because I have been a broke public service employee/student since leaving school, and want to make some real income to fund an enjoyable lifestyle. I find my research area interesting, and there’s a lot that can be done, but it’s also difficult. Often, I feel like the dumbest person in the room. My PI says that a PhD opens a lot of doors, but then I see lots of people without them doing just as well if not better. What is special about a PhD that it’s worth undertaking? 3. I need some semblance of work life balance in the long term. In the MSc it was very ‘pump and dump’ in terms of coursework, with periods of insane work and then some downtime. Is a PhD like this? My last job was insane levels of stress and very high accountability for low pay. What’s the likelihood of experiencing a more or less consistent workload? Would appreciate hearing about people’s experiences, regrets, advice.
RESPONSE A: Good luck young padawan
RESPONSE B: What do you want to do in industry? If you want pharma it will depend on role: -Industry bench work - dont need PhD unless you want to move up and manage/direct labs. In that case you do. -Industry medical affairs - you need a PhD or PharmD unless you want an administrative role like project manager -Industry clinical development - you need a PhD or MD -Regulatory or Clinical medical writing - PhD preferred and often required
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: year I’ve been firing on all cylinders, barely any time for hobbies and friends, just like the rest of my cohort. So I appreciate that it’s a caveat and a lot of advice will be for me to take a break. However, I’m having doubts for more reasons than just burnout. 1. I want to have children, and will be in my early 30s upon finishing the PhD. Extending the PhD would not be ideal, I’d prefer to just finish it and get it out of the way so that I can start working. 2. My main aim here is to get the PhD and go start making money in industry because I have been a broke public service employee/student since leaving school, and want to make some real income to fund an enjoyable lifestyle. I find my research area interesting, and there’s a lot that can be done, but it’s also difficult. Often, I feel like the dumbest person in the room. My PI says that a PhD opens a lot of doors, but then I see lots of people without them doing just as well if not better. What is special about a PhD that it’s worth undertaking? 3. I need some semblance of work life balance in the long term. In the MSc it was very ‘pump and dump’ in terms of coursework, with periods of insane work and then some downtime. Is a PhD like this? My last job was insane levels of stress and very high accountability for low pay. What’s the likelihood of experiencing a more or less consistent workload? Would appreciate hearing about people’s experiences, regrets, advice.
RESPONSE A: Figure out what job you want and figure out if a PhD will help you get there.
RESPONSE B: What do you want to do in industry? If you want pharma it will depend on role: -Industry bench work - dont need PhD unless you want to move up and manage/direct labs. In that case you do. -Industry medical affairs - you need a PhD or PharmD unless you want an administrative role like project manager -Industry clinical development - you need a PhD or MD -Regulatory or Clinical medical writing - PhD preferred and often required
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: before faculty and first-year students listened to the MA research of the second-years. It gives me bad flashbacks of grad orientation when we all met outside and ate cookies and had beverages. We hardly knew each other. How can I can get over this anxious feeling? If i’m going to continue to be in academia I wish to know how to function normally. Am I the only one who feels this way? I’m in therapy and it helps a little.
RESPONSE A: I function best when I have a job to do or role to play. I keep a mental list of sentence stems and questions with me. Most people want to talk about themselves anyway. Greetings: Good (morning/afternoon/evening) It is nice to see you (instead of meet in case you already met) What a beautiful (afternoon)! Question: What are you most excited about (event)? What are you hoping to learn/take away from this? Have you been to many events like this? What are you currently working on? How are you feeding your creative bank account these days? Any big plans coming up? Do you think you’ll travel to any conferences this year? Generally once you ask a question you can ask another and then another. “Oh, say more about that!” Works also. I love networking because I can see patterns between people and their skill sets and objectives. I try to introduce people. If they end up making a connection I look good. They both are more likely to remember me. I end up getting to know a lot of people. I’ll introduce myself around. I look for people who aren’t with someone and bring them into a conversation. Playing hostess works for me. If I don’t have a role I’m far too internally focused.
RESPONSE B: Social anxiety is def something therapy is equipped to help with. Figure out with ur therapist what part of it actually makes you nervous and work on it basically. Super glad you're already established in therapy! You also get more used to that part of the events over time (you said you're a first year, I'm in my 3rd year of PhD studies and they don't phase me anymore)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Anyone else get a bit lost after PhD? Hi, I am lucky enough to be a full time research fellow in a university here in Australia. I love the project I am on and my supervisor is wonderful but I find myself missing structured learning. I have been looking at grad cert courses in different fields (I am in criminology). Please tell me I am not the only one who goes through this kind of post-PhD mania/boredom?
RESPONSE A: Like another commenter said, you can make your own structure. My PI was completely hands off during my PhD which I found challenging, so I requested weekly meetings - purely to give myself regular deadlines by which to produce data. That made me structure my learning overall. You can sign up for courses like you mentioned, attend conferences and give yourself learning and/or networking goals... Whatever works best for you!
RESPONSE B: Evidentally this is one area of life where I am ahead of the curve, because I'm not even finished with my PhD and already feel lost
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Anyone else get a bit lost after PhD? Hi, I am lucky enough to be a full time research fellow in a university here in Australia. I love the project I am on and my supervisor is wonderful but I find myself missing structured learning. I have been looking at grad cert courses in different fields (I am in criminology). Please tell me I am not the only one who goes through this kind of post-PhD mania/boredom?
RESPONSE A: Depending on your field, I would recommend exploring a more "9-5" job outside of a traditional research setting. Industry, publishing, anything that is still engaging your scientific mind but from a much different perspective. It helps contextualize your abilities and your desire to either stay in research longer or transition into a different line of work.
RESPONSE B: I had a feeling that I lost the point of my existence for a couple of years after graduating. Focusing on new research and papers helped
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I am thinking about starting to send reviews of papers and personal investigations to academic newspapers as a carrer launching My dear academic redditers, I am currently in a Master of International Politics, and I am passing through some blockings thinking what I can do after the Master, but in the meantime I had this idea: Since I have several different interests within international politics and it is difficult for me to specialize in just one field, what do you think I start sending the reviews I normally do of scientific papers and even sending my own investigations and papers about varied subjects related to Politics and Society? Since I don't miss a thing in doing so, do you think it is possible to start launching a career in this more "individualistic" way? Can I publish papers while such a newbie in academia and which journals are the best for me to publish on? Some of my courses made me make some prototypes of scientific papers, and I am thinking about upgrading them a bit and then trying to publish it.
RESPONSE A: Start an academic blog and go from there. It is not the best strategy for making a career (and it won't make you any money in itself), but it will make you a better writer and maybe more known writer which can help your career. It has certainly helped me.
RESPONSE B: I believe there’s a model of something like this in law academia. Law professors often have blogs in which they discuss cases in a somewhat entertaining or nuanced way. The blogs in law spheres and particular niches can become quite popular especially if they get multiple colleagues with similar or complementary expertise to contribute. Law students cite them or use them to study as do firms. They can then make money for their expertise or get invited reviews from journals because people know their work and that they can write in an way that will be entertaining.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Paper from my undergrad got accepted to a conference. I'm now a grad student at a another school. Is it appropriate to ask my former advisor for funding support? Mainly the title. I am the first author on the paper, and my advisor is also on an author. There are two components to the cost: registration fee (couple hundred) and an international flight/lodging. The conference states that at least one author must register. Not sure if I should just eat the costs myself or ask for support on part of the cost? Some insight would be much appreciated, thank you in advance!
RESPONSE A: I would seek funding at your current institution. Usually, there are travel awards for students presenting at conferences.
RESPONSE B: I think it's reasonable to ask, but I am doubtful your previous advisor will be able to fund you. In my experience, once you are no longer associated with the university, it becomes difficult to justify these expenses to the budgeting department (they worry about auditing). I've known students who have graduated and moved to industry, and had to pay their own way to present their work after graduation. Regardless, it doesn't hurt to ask.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Paper from my undergrad got accepted to a conference. I'm now a grad student at a another school. Is it appropriate to ask my former advisor for funding support? Mainly the title. I am the first author on the paper, and my advisor is also on an author. There are two components to the cost: registration fee (couple hundred) and an international flight/lodging. The conference states that at least one author must register. Not sure if I should just eat the costs myself or ask for support on part of the cost? Some insight would be much appreciated, thank you in advance!
RESPONSE A: As a grad student, I once needed money for a conference travel, my advisor had none, so I requested department chair and he agreed to cover just the flight, then I talked to the graduate school and they agreed to cover the hotel stay, finally my advisor paid for registration, so ask around as there are many hidden places at a university that might help you.
RESPONSE B: In my experience institutions only pay only if their name will be on the byline. Since you have already moved, they will have no incentive to fund you. Second, even though your advisor's name is on the paper as well, typically Unis will only fund those who actually present the paper. It seems to me the only way your advisor to fund you is to use his funding (i.e from his grant, discretionary research fund or whatever), but ymmv. As others said, doesn't cost to ask.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: To PIs and grad students: do you think labs will reopen for undergrad research this summer? I'm a stuck-at-home undergrad because of COVID, and while I think it is still early, the lockdown is starting to lift in CA. Are there any labs that are allowing undergrads to return?
RESPONSE A: Undergrads are probably the last priority. When labs reopen, they will have to follow social distancing guidelines which may involve limiting the number of people inside the lab at a given time. Labs would prioritize grad students and postdocs working on crucial experiments, so I doubt most labs would open for undergrads this summer. If you are concerned about research experience, try arranging a small bioinformatics project with your PI/mentors.
RESPONSE B: 50/50, and if so it will be late. We're still in the planning/waiting for an OK phase at my school. I had a full slate of undergrads planning on working in my lab, but they're all on hold and we're trying to come up with some remote options (not ideal, we're a wet lab) so they get at least something, and if they can get back on campus we will. From universities in states that have re-opened, most I've seen are not allowing undergraduates back in the lab, some are also restricting it to only PhD students/Postdocs, and not even open to MS students.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: To PIs and grad students: do you think labs will reopen for undergrad research this summer? I'm a stuck-at-home undergrad because of COVID, and while I think it is still early, the lockdown is starting to lift in CA. Are there any labs that are allowing undergrads to return?
RESPONSE A: No undergrads - just my two cents. My University barely letting grad students even work.
RESPONSE B: Honestly no
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academic workers strike part II: Would you still support the strike if it led to a substantial reduction in academic worker positions? I saw on the previous post that there is overwhelming support for the strike. I am a supporter, but the one thing has given me pause is concerns from PIs that there would be layoffs and reductions in the number of personnel. This might ultimately be good for the field (to reduce the number of workers) but it certainly comes at a cost. So, follow-up hypothetical: **Would you still support the UC academic workers' demands if it led to high (say 25-50%) rates of layoffs for current graduate students, postdocs, and other academic workers, and commensurate reductions in the number of available academic worker positions going forward?**
RESPONSE A: Yes absolutely. The solution to the low standard of living for PhD students and post docs has always been to hire fewer and pay more. If you used to hire 8 PhD students at 30k each, hire 6 at 40k. If you used to hire 3 Postdoc at 60k each, hire 2 at 90k each. The fact is that universities view us as cheap labor, and so their incentive is always to have as many of us as possible given the available budget. We need organized labor, but we also need to be realistic. We can have a two birds one stone solution to low standard of living AND the over-saturation of the academic job market, but that will necessarily mean that these positions will be more competitive (which they should be).
RESPONSE B: Your hypothetical is silly. 25-50% reduction now and moving forward isn’t going to happen. Stop trying to scare people with this bullshit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academic workers strike part II: Would you still support the strike if it led to a substantial reduction in academic worker positions? I saw on the previous post that there is overwhelming support for the strike. I am a supporter, but the one thing has given me pause is concerns from PIs that there would be layoffs and reductions in the number of personnel. This might ultimately be good for the field (to reduce the number of workers) but it certainly comes at a cost. So, follow-up hypothetical: **Would you still support the UC academic workers' demands if it led to high (say 25-50%) rates of layoffs for current graduate students, postdocs, and other academic workers, and commensurate reductions in the number of available academic worker positions going forward?**
RESPONSE A: Yes absolutely. The solution to the low standard of living for PhD students and post docs has always been to hire fewer and pay more. If you used to hire 8 PhD students at 30k each, hire 6 at 40k. If you used to hire 3 Postdoc at 60k each, hire 2 at 90k each. The fact is that universities view us as cheap labor, and so their incentive is always to have as many of us as possible given the available budget. We need organized labor, but we also need to be realistic. We can have a two birds one stone solution to low standard of living AND the over-saturation of the academic job market, but that will necessarily mean that these positions will be more competitive (which they should be).
RESPONSE B: Probably. If anything it would probably mean better mentorship/greater project success for grad students and postdocs. I can say some professors can be terrible mentors and absolutely should not be mentoring or collaborating with grad students/postdocs as they would be a drag on their projects.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academic workers strike part II: Would you still support the strike if it led to a substantial reduction in academic worker positions? I saw on the previous post that there is overwhelming support for the strike. I am a supporter, but the one thing has given me pause is concerns from PIs that there would be layoffs and reductions in the number of personnel. This might ultimately be good for the field (to reduce the number of workers) but it certainly comes at a cost. So, follow-up hypothetical: **Would you still support the UC academic workers' demands if it led to high (say 25-50%) rates of layoffs for current graduate students, postdocs, and other academic workers, and commensurate reductions in the number of available academic worker positions going forward?**
RESPONSE A: Absolutely. Universities crank out too many PhDs, and the academic job market is suffering as a result. Fewer people competing for tenured positions + proper compensation for pre- and non-tenure academic jobs is a net positive.
RESPONSE B: Your hypothetical is silly. 25-50% reduction now and moving forward isn’t going to happen. Stop trying to scare people with this bullshit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: , but the one thing has given me pause is concerns from PIs that there would be layoffs and reductions in the number of personnel. This might ultimately be good for the field (to reduce the number of workers) but it certainly comes at a cost. So, follow-up hypothetical: **Would you still support the UC academic workers' demands if it led to high (say 25-50%) rates of layoffs for current graduate students, postdocs, and other academic workers, and commensurate reductions in the number of available academic worker positions going forward?**
RESPONSE A: I think academics tend to “scarcity mentality” themselves out of a better world. The major funder in my field has issued guidance recently on pay for undergrads, grads, and postdocs. I wrote in the numbers they want to see. I requested the same number of positions as before the increase. And I got them. Since I don’t hire undergrads or postdocs without funding, and I prefer to keep grads off of TAships as much as possible, this doesn’t affect me much. Numbers of awards for the major programs in my field have not meaningfully changed. Whenever I’ve been a grant reviewer, I’ve always gotten the instruction not to focus on the budget, but to make sure staffing and resources are conducive to doing the work. I think a lot of academics feel like if they keep the ask small, they’re more likely to be funded, but I don’t think that’s the case. That said, we have a lot of people in our department who never have grants but always have students. They probably would be affected by fewer TAs at a higher pay rate. But I think many of them also need to consider how well they’re serving students by bringing them in and making them TA every single semester. Some students do great with that; some don’t and fail to secure positions. But I don’t inherently see fewer low-pay instructional positions as a bad thing.
RESPONSE B: Your hypothetical is silly. 25-50% reduction now and moving forward isn’t going to happen. Stop trying to scare people with this bullshit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: This might ultimately be good for the field (to reduce the number of workers) but it certainly comes at a cost. So, follow-up hypothetical: **Would you still support the UC academic workers' demands if it led to high (say 25-50%) rates of layoffs for current graduate students, postdocs, and other academic workers, and commensurate reductions in the number of available academic worker positions going forward?**
RESPONSE A: Probably. If anything it would probably mean better mentorship/greater project success for grad students and postdocs. I can say some professors can be terrible mentors and absolutely should not be mentoring or collaborating with grad students/postdocs as they would be a drag on their projects.
RESPONSE B: I think academics tend to “scarcity mentality” themselves out of a better world. The major funder in my field has issued guidance recently on pay for undergrads, grads, and postdocs. I wrote in the numbers they want to see. I requested the same number of positions as before the increase. And I got them. Since I don’t hire undergrads or postdocs without funding, and I prefer to keep grads off of TAships as much as possible, this doesn’t affect me much. Numbers of awards for the major programs in my field have not meaningfully changed. Whenever I’ve been a grant reviewer, I’ve always gotten the instruction not to focus on the budget, but to make sure staffing and resources are conducive to doing the work. I think a lot of academics feel like if they keep the ask small, they’re more likely to be funded, but I don’t think that’s the case. That said, we have a lot of people in our department who never have grants but always have students. They probably would be affected by fewer TAs at a higher pay rate. But I think many of them also need to consider how well they’re serving students by bringing them in and making them TA every single semester. Some students do great with that; some don’t and fail to secure positions. But I don’t inherently see fewer low-pay instructional positions as a bad thing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: CV with nothing to show for it. I’m single, I can’t have children, I don’t have property or connections. Academia was always the thing I was good at, the thing that made up for how bad I am at being a human being. Even if I wasn’t passionate about my PhD, it was the only thing I had to be proud of. Without it, I don’t know who I am. Has anyone here experienced something similar? Or have any advise for how to live as an ex-academic?
RESPONSE A: Totally agree with all of the suggestions and comments. Do not let your self down this way. A career path doesn’t describe you as a person. My suggestion is mentioned before but I will mention it again so that you understand the importance of it without rejecting the rest and again this is the thing that worked for me. I also believe that works for everybody. I am speaking from personal experience. Start to go out more and hung out with friends. Do not stay and overthink but instead take action and do it. Put your shoes on and go for a walk, a beer or just to talk with friends about whatever stuff. If you don’t feel like it on that day, that’s ok. Forgive yourself and make yourself a promise that tomorrow things are going to be different. This process requires patience but it is effective. Listen to your feelings and they won’t let you down, I know that for sure
RESPONSE B: I think many PhD students who fall out of love with academia end up in this situation. Where is my value when I am not on this path? When it has been your job to be a Good Student for 20+ years, it becomes hard to separate you as a person from you as the Good Student. This is the time to start exploring who you are outside of school. It's not easy or quick, but it's the first step to finding something to live for besides school. Are you speaking to a counselor, therapist, mentor, or coach about this situation? I think you would really benefit from speaking with someone who can listen and give you some guidance during this self-exploration phase. Feel free to DM me to chat if you don't have anyone else to speak with. Good luck!
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.