label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B
|
POST: Does anyone have any positive examples of how your institution has handled the COVID-19 situation for students and staff? A lot of bad things have happened due to this situation. On the other hand, I've heard of some institutions giving staff paid mental health days off. What are some positive things or policies your institution has enacted?
RESPONSE A: There are a few labs in my department that have stopped having group meetings and turning individual meetings into "check-ins" This is to reduce pressure for people to physically come into lab. Coding, writing etc ate still being since along with a few high priority experiments that can be conducted by 1 person.
RESPONSE B: Overall, I'd say we're doing horribly. But one thing I really liked was that they decided mid July to go fully online for the fall. I know this seems like a low bar but I really did not think my University would be able to realize "hey we won't be able to control this thing." They also gave us 1.5 months to get our shit together. I have friends at other universities in my city who still don't even know if they will be returning to campus yet. Classes start in 2.5 weeks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does anyone have any positive examples of how your institution has handled the COVID-19 situation for students and staff? A lot of bad things have happened due to this situation. On the other hand, I've heard of some institutions giving staff paid mental health days off. What are some positive things or policies your institution has enacted?
RESPONSE A: Overall, I'd say we're doing horribly. But one thing I really liked was that they decided mid July to go fully online for the fall. I know this seems like a low bar but I really did not think my University would be able to realize "hey we won't be able to control this thing." They also gave us 1.5 months to get our shit together. I have friends at other universities in my city who still don't even know if they will be returning to campus yet. Classes start in 2.5 weeks.
RESPONSE B: I have to say, our school absolutely rocked it in March, when we had to send the students home. We put off announcing the decision for a couple of days, so that information and resources could be immediately available; the students got what they needed in order to know what had to happen, figure out how to make it happen, and put the resources together. We then pivoted to making the transition to remote learning, which came off as well as it did anywhere. The students got what they needed, and we (everyone up to the president) worked 14 hour days through two weekends to make it all happen, pretty much without complaint. Since then, the school has pretty much shit the bed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: VID-19 situation for students and staff? A lot of bad things have happened due to this situation. On the other hand, I've heard of some institutions giving staff paid mental health days off. What are some positive things or policies your institution has enacted?
RESPONSE A: I cant speak for my university, as I am writing up and havent been on campus in months. But the place I'm working at is research oriented. Theyve been pretty good. We are just ramping up return to work. We have been divided into two shifts that alternate between early and evening shifts. The entrance to the building has been divided so its all one way traffic (leave through fire exit). There is also a wall mounted thermometer at the entrance and sanitizing gel everywhere. Each researcher has their own tupperware box of PPE: Labcoat, set of disposable facemasks, goggles, and facemask. That way no chance of cross-contamination. We divide up tasks to ensure not too many people congregate in one area of the lab at once, writing up space has been separated so we each work 6 ft away. Toilets have been divided for each shift and they hired cleaners to disinfect every surface every day. We're also encouraged to work from home whenever we can, if any of us are feeling ill or have a temperature we are asked to work from home until we can confirm we do not have corona. I think I'm a bit lucky with where I work, they really pulled out all the stops for us. We have a few scientists and engineers who are shielding or have serious medical issues. Admin have basically let them work from home with full pay.
RESPONSE B: Overall, I'd say we're doing horribly. But one thing I really liked was that they decided mid July to go fully online for the fall. I know this seems like a low bar but I really did not think my University would be able to realize "hey we won't be able to control this thing." They also gave us 1.5 months to get our shit together. I have friends at other universities in my city who still don't even know if they will be returning to campus yet. Classes start in 2.5 weeks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Does anyone have any positive examples of how your institution has handled the COVID-19 situation for students and staff? A lot of bad things have happened due to this situation. On the other hand, I've heard of some institutions giving staff paid mental health days off. What are some positive things or policies your institution has enacted?
RESPONSE A: My institution at large, not so much (Florida) but my department has been lovely. The institution had faculty and GTAs apply for Alternative Work by providing heath documentation for a slim number of medical issues when most GTAs don’t have heath insurance and haven’t seen a doctor. However, the English department gave remote class assignments to those who asked and only in person to those who are willing.
RESPONSE B: Overall, I'd say we're doing horribly. But one thing I really liked was that they decided mid July to go fully online for the fall. I know this seems like a low bar but I really did not think my University would be able to realize "hey we won't be able to control this thing." They also gave us 1.5 months to get our shit together. I have friends at other universities in my city who still don't even know if they will be returning to campus yet. Classes start in 2.5 weeks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does anyone have any positive examples of how your institution has handled the COVID-19 situation for students and staff? A lot of bad things have happened due to this situation. On the other hand, I've heard of some institutions giving staff paid mental health days off. What are some positive things or policies your institution has enacted?
RESPONSE A: Overall, I'd say we're doing horribly. But one thing I really liked was that they decided mid July to go fully online for the fall. I know this seems like a low bar but I really did not think my University would be able to realize "hey we won't be able to control this thing." They also gave us 1.5 months to get our shit together. I have friends at other universities in my city who still don't even know if they will be returning to campus yet. Classes start in 2.5 weeks.
RESPONSE B: My school is involved in setting epidemiological guidelines used elsewhere and in developing a vaccine, ha. So that's good. Also, both my school and my wife's told staff (which we are) not to expect to return to campus until at least January. That's been a huge help for parents sorting through the uncertainty of their kids' returning to school and whether to pay for afterschool.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Dear academics, what are the worst press articles about scientific studies you've ever read?
RESPONSE A: Every article ever about a paper describing a new approach to clean energy production.
RESPONSE B: Any article that takes an academic finding of 'this drug was able to suppress tumors in mice' to 'a cure for cancer is on the horizon!'
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Dear academics, what are the worst press articles about scientific studies you've ever read?
RESPONSE A: Any article that takes an academic finding of 'this drug was able to suppress tumors in mice' to 'a cure for cancer is on the horizon!'
RESPONSE B: Here's one from yesterday. Classic correlation-causation mixup in the media article.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Dear academics, what are the worst press articles about scientific studies you've ever read?
RESPONSE A: I do radio astronomy. Every article about my topic will have an article about “is X new discovery aliens?” In fact, I read The NY Times article once discussing the first ever detection of radio signals from space, and even in that they quote the scientist as confirming it’s not aliens!
RESPONSE B: "Bras cause breast sagging" was literally reported everywhere. This guy went around asking women "do you wear a bra or not?" and measuring breasts. He found that women who said they wear bras had more breast sagging over 15 years. Unfortunately, the guy never controlled for breast size, so most of the women that said they didn't wear bras were on the flat chested end of the range and the women who never left home without a bra were bustier. The headline should have been "Large breasts sag more than small ones."
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Dear academics, what are the worst press articles about scientific studies you've ever read?
RESPONSE A: Any scientific press release or announcement that contains the words "cure" or "revolutionize." Sure, occasionally a medical breakthrough does cure something, and occasionally a scientific discovery truly does unleash a revolution in human understanding. However, 99.9999999% of science proceeds incrementally, so words like "cure" and "revolutionize" almost always indicate exaggeration and hype.
RESPONSE B: "Bras cause breast sagging" was literally reported everywhere. This guy went around asking women "do you wear a bra or not?" and measuring breasts. He found that women who said they wear bras had more breast sagging over 15 years. Unfortunately, the guy never controlled for breast size, so most of the women that said they didn't wear bras were on the flat chested end of the range and the women who never left home without a bra were bustier. The headline should have been "Large breasts sag more than small ones."
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Dear academics, what are the worst press articles about scientific studies you've ever read?
RESPONSE A: "Bras cause breast sagging" was literally reported everywhere. This guy went around asking women "do you wear a bra or not?" and measuring breasts. He found that women who said they wear bras had more breast sagging over 15 years. Unfortunately, the guy never controlled for breast size, so most of the women that said they didn't wear bras were on the flat chested end of the range and the women who never left home without a bra were bustier. The headline should have been "Large breasts sag more than small ones."
RESPONSE B: Every article ever about a paper describing a new approach to clean energy production.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is the best workshop on scientific writing? I am looking for an interactive workshop that will help undergraduate, master and PhD students with their scientific writing. In particular, I would like to know the best workshops in scientific writing for the field of physics, astrophysics, machine learning and AI.
RESPONSE A: One of my favourites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIzMaLkCaM&ab_channel=UChicagoSocialSciences
RESPONSE B: I think in general, George Gopen puts on a great workshop called The Science of Scientific Writing. Not sure if it's occurred since covid though. It's worth a search.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best workshop on scientific writing? I am looking for an interactive workshop that will help undergraduate, master and PhD students with their scientific writing. In particular, I would like to know the best workshops in scientific writing for the field of physics, astrophysics, machine learning and AI.
RESPONSE A: Not a workshop, but a good book to read is "Eloquent Science: A Practical Guide to Becoming a Better Writer, Speaker, and Atmospheric Scientist" by David Schultz. While written for Atmospheric scientists, it is pretty universally applicable for most of what he talks about in it.
RESPONSE B: Just a short youtube video, but I thought that this was a particularly encouraging video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY7sVKJPTMA How to Write a Paper in a Weekend (By Prof. Pete Carr) Recommended to me by a postdoc. I watched it today.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best research paper you have ever read? Not just because you are interested in the topic but just an overall really interesting impactful paper.
RESPONSE A: When I was just a baby 1st year they made us read all these 'mind opening' paper and ever since it's been a toss up between Nagel's Bat paper and Belk's envy paper. Not because they're fabulous or anything but more about how they made me think to see things differently. The Belk paper, for example, reconceptualizes Cinderella as a story about upward social mobility and consumer behavior (i.e Cindy uses the fairy tale equivalent of a credit card to leverage herself enough to be able to attract an investor): https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183914?seq=1#metadata\_info\_tab\_contents https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13162-011-0018-x
RESPONSE B: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/23.6.121 This changed the scope and presuppositions of epistemology drastically, and it’s like 3 pages.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best research paper you have ever read? Not just because you are interested in the topic but just an overall really interesting impactful paper.
RESPONSE A: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21491357/ It was a very unique topic and I learned many things I was completely unaware of. Long story short, I was interested in the slight similarities between John Goodman and Jeff Garlin’s voice and wondered if it had to do with their weight. It (probably) does.
RESPONSE B: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/23.6.121 This changed the scope and presuppositions of epistemology drastically, and it’s like 3 pages.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is the best research paper you have ever read? Not just because you are interested in the topic but just an overall really interesting impactful paper.
RESPONSE A: The draft I submit to a journal. And every time im shocked to see what the reviewers find.
RESPONSE B: When I was just a baby 1st year they made us read all these 'mind opening' paper and ever since it's been a toss up between Nagel's Bat paper and Belk's envy paper. Not because they're fabulous or anything but more about how they made me think to see things differently. The Belk paper, for example, reconceptualizes Cinderella as a story about upward social mobility and consumer behavior (i.e Cindy uses the fairy tale equivalent of a credit card to leverage herself enough to be able to attract an investor): https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183914?seq=1#metadata\_info\_tab\_contents https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13162-011-0018-x
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is the best research paper you have ever read? Not just because you are interested in the topic but just an overall really interesting impactful paper.
RESPONSE A: The draft I submit to a journal. And every time im shocked to see what the reviewers find.
RESPONSE B: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21491357/ It was a very unique topic and I learned many things I was completely unaware of. Long story short, I was interested in the slight similarities between John Goodman and Jeff Garlin’s voice and wondered if it had to do with their weight. It (probably) does.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is the best research paper you have ever read? Not just because you are interested in the topic but just an overall really interesting impactful paper.
RESPONSE A: The draft I submit to a journal. And every time im shocked to see what the reviewers find.
RESPONSE B: Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice by James G. March, 1978. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3003600?seq=1 "Rational choice involves two guesses, a guess about uncertain future consequences and a guess about uncertain future preferences. Partly as a result of behavioral studies of choice over a twenty-year period, modifications in the way the theory deals with the first guess have become organized into conceptions of bounded rationality. Recently behavioral studies of choice have examined the second guess, the way preferences are processed in choice behavior. These studies suggest possible modifications in standard assumptions about taste and their role in choice. This paper examines some of those modifications, some possible approaches to working on them, and some complications."
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are the biggest challenges you face teaching online? I'm doing some research into how teachers and professors are finding the sudden move from teaching in person to being online. Would really love to know how you're finding it, what resources you're using, where you think things are going well and where they could be better.
RESPONSE A: I think adjusting the very hands-on physical labs to a remote format hasn’t been too challenging, which is what I’d reckoned to be trickiest before the quarter started, since we got a free license for some “virtual” labs and I’d already made several computational labs the last time I taught this course (on evolutionary primatology). More tricky for me has been the lecturing — feels weird to do formative assessments in an asynchronous format, and I’ve always *hated* talking to webcams and have no idea how many of my jokes are landing lol.
RESPONSE B: There’s pretty much no way to enforce academic integrity in a math course. I’m using lockdown browser with respondus monitor and it’s still a joke.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are the biggest challenges you face teaching online? I'm doing some research into how teachers and professors are finding the sudden move from teaching in person to being online. Would really love to know how you're finding it, what resources you're using, where you think things are going well and where they could be better.
RESPONSE A: I realize that having a class full of students help me focus, and helped provide some energy for the session. I could read body language, and adjust explanation, examples, humor and provocative questions accordingly. We were thrown hundreds of links and now there is a never ending series of emails about webinars. Too much, esp since many contained links to hour long training that was marginally relevant. We had a month left in the semester when we closed campus, so it didn't seem time to learn too many new tricks - both for my sake and the students'. But the 75 minute lecture doesn't translate into 3 x 25 minute videos. So I feel like I'm delivering a bare bones class and content that is difficult to be excited about. The university is predominantly first generation to college. Many students haven't done an online class, and now they have 6. Many worked in restaurants, bar and retail, so they are now out of work and stressed about finances.
RESPONSE B: I think adjusting the very hands-on physical labs to a remote format hasn’t been too challenging, which is what I’d reckoned to be trickiest before the quarter started, since we got a free license for some “virtual” labs and I’d already made several computational labs the last time I taught this course (on evolutionary primatology). More tricky for me has been the lecturing — feels weird to do formative assessments in an asynchronous format, and I’ve always *hated* talking to webcams and have no idea how many of my jokes are landing lol.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does getting a Master's degree online make you seem less legitimate? I'm considering graduate school, but I want to still live in my home state. Will getting an online degree impact how I'm viewed by future employers?
RESPONSE A: It depends quite a lot on the program, IMO. For example, the Johns Hopkins distance-learning Public Health grad programs are very well-respected.
RESPONSE B: If it’s only an online school some people may see it as being less legit than an online program that is run by a brick and mortar uni.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does getting a Master's degree online make you seem less legitimate? I'm considering graduate school, but I want to still live in my home state. Will getting an online degree impact how I'm viewed by future employers?
RESPONSE A: It depends quite a lot on the program, IMO. For example, the Johns Hopkins distance-learning Public Health grad programs are very well-respected.
RESPONSE B: I think (in my field anyways) an online degree seems less impressive than an actual one. But I don’t think it’s THAT big of a deal - since I’d rather do online and have less debt than the opposite. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does getting a Master's degree online make you seem less legitimate? I'm considering graduate school, but I want to still live in my home state. Will getting an online degree impact how I'm viewed by future employers?
RESPONSE A: It depends quite a lot on the program, IMO. For example, the Johns Hopkins distance-learning Public Health grad programs are very well-respected.
RESPONSE B: Yes
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does getting a Master's degree online make you seem less legitimate? I'm considering graduate school, but I want to still live in my home state. Will getting an online degree impact how I'm viewed by future employers?
RESPONSE A: I just got my Masters online. It just says UT of Arlington. Not UT online.
RESPONSE B: I think (in my field anyways) an online degree seems less impressive than an actual one. But I don’t think it’s THAT big of a deal - since I’d rather do online and have less debt than the opposite. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does getting a Master's degree online make you seem less legitimate? I'm considering graduate school, but I want to still live in my home state. Will getting an online degree impact how I'm viewed by future employers?
RESPONSE A: I’ve worked for both brick and mortar and online universities. If you are looking at working in academia you should probably stick with a brick and mortar. If you are going into industry, you can probably look at online depending on the industry. I think you said psychology, correct? If you are going into therapy or human services, then you are fine with online. If you are looking at doing research or teaching in higher ed go for brick and mortar.
RESPONSE B: If it’s only an online school some people may see it as being less legit than an online program that is run by a brick and mortar uni.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How can a university support students with mental health issues/crisis There was a tragic loss in the dorms last week, and the school handled it horribly. This is not the first time this has happened. There was even a law suite a few years ago. The wait to get into the counseling center is 5 months, and it seems like all the school is doing is sending a crisis line phone number. I sent the dean an angry-ish email asking about what they planned to do to support students who are struggling. I wasn’t expecting a response, but she actually did! She wants to meet with me to talk about what they can do to help students in crisis. I am asking everyone and anyone who have struggled during school. Any ideas?
RESPONSE A: It sounds like there are resource issues at your university so not sure how relevant my suggestion will be. One of the schools I went to for undergraduate gave all of us 6 free counseling sessions that we could use at any point during our 4 years. I feel like this removes an access barrier such that if students do need more than 6 sessions, at least the counseling services can help them coordinate that care (with regards to referrals, health insurance, etc).
RESPONSE B: Our counseling center was overwhelmed, so the university purchased a subscription to an online counseling service that students can access, so that might be something to look into it. But ultimately I think this is a societal level problem and I'm skeptical colleges can have much of an impact.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Probably aimed at STEM fields: At what point in your career, if ever, do you stop creating quick an dirty hacks to do things instead of neatly automated and documented systems? My work involves a lot of coding and data analysis, often repeatedly doing the same things on different data sets, or adapting a simple method to my specific case. I'm just starting my first postdoc and very much feeling like I need to get some results as quickly as possible and get a paper out, so I keep making small badly written hacky codes to do a bit of analysis and then losing them or having to adapt a lot or start from scratch when I want to do something similar later on. ​ I know I should make neatly commented code that is more automated and adaptable to different inputs, and give it a sensible name and save everything in some sensible structure, but I feel like I don't have the time! ​ So I was wondering if there is a point in your career when you finally feel like you DO have time to do it properly, or whether we are all just making badly designed hacky codes every day for eternity instead of allowing ourselves the time at an early stage to build a sensible data structure and analysis routine which would save time in the long run?
RESPONSE A: When I was in my post doc. I didn’t really have that much to do so I spent time perfecting all my records. Gone back to hacks now though as I don’t have enough time for that.
RESPONSE B: If the code is for yourself, be as hacky as you'd like. If it's for other people, make it good. Good opensource code can go a *long* way for citations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: in some sensible structure, but I feel like I don't have the time! ​ So I was wondering if there is a point in your career when you finally feel like you DO have time to do it properly, or whether we are all just making badly designed hacky codes every day for eternity instead of allowing ourselves the time at an early stage to build a sensible data structure and analysis routine which would save time in the long run?
RESPONSE A: I started organizing my projects during the 3rd year of my PhD. I keep everything organized in Rstudio projects. I have separate subdirectories for code, related papers, results, data, and manuscript drafts. I back up everything except data on Github. I write all my code so I can pick it up and run it on another computer without rewriting anything; the Here and Packrat packages are great for this. I also write my R code with the tTdyverse style guidelines in mind. I started doing this after I had to dig though old files to make changes to a year old project. Resources: Github and Rstudio: http://happygitwithr.com/rstudio-git-github.html Here() for Portability: https://github.com/jennybc/here_here Packrat to make sure my code works with R updates: https://rstudio.github.io/packrat/ Tidyverse Style Guide: https://style.tidyverse.org LaTex and Sublime Text: http://individual.utoronto.ca/dobronyi/latexsublime.html
RESPONSE B: Dude, I will share my experience from the industry. Every ambitious project starts with a quick and dirty code, obviously no one cares. Management just needs to present that stuff to get funds for the project and hardly worried about code quality. And when devs are later asked to productize that stuff, it feels really stupid to code that logic again. And there you go. I have seen dirty code being shipped in premium products. I have set myself a thumb rule. If ever in future, there is even a slightest chance that someone else might contibute I will code my best.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: things instead of neatly automated and documented systems? My work involves a lot of coding and data analysis, often repeatedly doing the same things on different data sets, or adapting a simple method to my specific case. I'm just starting my first postdoc and very much feeling like I need to get some results as quickly as possible and get a paper out, so I keep making small badly written hacky codes to do a bit of analysis and then losing them or having to adapt a lot or start from scratch when I want to do something similar later on. ​ I know I should make neatly commented code that is more automated and adaptable to different inputs, and give it a sensible name and save everything in some sensible structure, but I feel like I don't have the time! ​ So I was wondering if there is a point in your career when you finally feel like you DO have time to do it properly, or whether we are all just making badly designed hacky codes every day for eternity instead of allowing ourselves the time at an early stage to build a sensible data structure and analysis routine which would save time in the long run?
RESPONSE A: Dude, I will share my experience from the industry. Every ambitious project starts with a quick and dirty code, obviously no one cares. Management just needs to present that stuff to get funds for the project and hardly worried about code quality. And when devs are later asked to productize that stuff, it feels really stupid to code that logic again. And there you go. I have seen dirty code being shipped in premium products. I have set myself a thumb rule. If ever in future, there is even a slightest chance that someone else might contibute I will code my best.
RESPONSE B: For me it depends how often I'll be doing something. If its a one-off, it's pretty hacky. But if its something I do often, iterating on the hacky code turns into a neat(ish) set of functions which I keep in one place, and load as a package (python) or just source (R) when I use them. This makes my scripts all take a similar structure as well, which is useful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Probably aimed at STEM fields: At what point in your career, if ever, do you stop creating quick an dirty hacks to do things instead of neatly automated and documented systems? My work involves a lot of coding and data analysis, often repeatedly doing the same things on different data sets, or adapting a simple method to my specific case. I'm just starting my first postdoc and very much feeling like I need to get some results as quickly as possible and get a paper out, so I keep making small badly written hacky codes to do a bit of analysis and then losing them or having to adapt a lot or start from scratch when I want to do something similar later on. ​ I know I should make neatly commented code that is more automated and adaptable to different inputs, and give it a sensible name and save everything in some sensible structure, but I feel like I don't have the time! ​ So I was wondering if there is a point in your career when you finally feel like you DO have time to do it properly, or whether we are all just making badly designed hacky codes every day for eternity instead of allowing ourselves the time at an early stage to build a sensible data structure and analysis routine which would save time in the long run?
RESPONSE A: I've cursed past me enough times to start improving my coding practices. Good variable and script names, a reasonable directory structure, and a good README are all fairly simple when you are in the midst of a project and go a long way to helping your future self when you inevitably come back to the project.
RESPONSE B: Dude, I will share my experience from the industry. Every ambitious project starts with a quick and dirty code, obviously no one cares. Management just needs to present that stuff to get funds for the project and hardly worried about code quality. And when devs are later asked to productize that stuff, it feels really stupid to code that logic again. And there you go. I have seen dirty code being shipped in premium products. I have set myself a thumb rule. If ever in future, there is even a slightest chance that someone else might contibute I will code my best.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I just got my first full day interview for TT research professor. I have a few questions about what is expected. Apologies if this is the incorrect forum, please let me know if so. Specifically, they asked for a 1 hour formal seminar on my research. It has been a while since I've been to one of these, but is there an appropriate split between previous and future research? Should I only focus on the story leading to my research proposal or discuss my interests more broadly? Also any advice for the chalk talk would also be appreciated, but I figure that should be easier since I am comfortable in my current research and where it may grow in the future. After 2 years of 15-30 minute interviews and no follow up I'm excited for the opportunity. ​ Edit: Also is it appropriate to ask the chair that emailed me about the interview if they have specific requests for the questions in the first paragraph?
RESPONSE A: You might also want to post in thefora.com’s job category to see what people say. That site has been really helpful for me.
RESPONSE B: I would definitely email someone on the hiring committee to ask about the focus of your talk, since expectations can vary widely. If you don't get a clear answer, then prepare to talk mostly (90%) about previous/current research. The chalk talk is the time to talk about your future plans in detail. For the chalk talk, my best advice is to practice with a critical audience. If you can, reach out to recent hires to ask about their experience and what questions they were asked.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I just got my first full day interview for TT research professor. I have a few questions about what is expected. Apologies if this is the incorrect forum, please let me know if so. Specifically, they asked for a 1 hour formal seminar on my research. It has been a while since I've been to one of these, but is there an appropriate split between previous and future research? Should I only focus on the story leading to my research proposal or discuss my interests more broadly? Also any advice for the chalk talk would also be appreciated, but I figure that should be easier since I am comfortable in my current research and where it may grow in the future. After 2 years of 15-30 minute interviews and no follow up I'm excited for the opportunity. ​ Edit: Also is it appropriate to ask the chair that emailed me about the interview if they have specific requests for the questions in the first paragraph?
RESPONSE A: In my experience, the public seminar is to show off what you've done, with a little sneak peak of what you want to bring to their department. The chalk talk will be a detailed conversation about exactly what you plan to do and how you plan to do it in their department. Advice for the chalk talk: be as detailed as you can be. Make sure that the department has access to the kind of technology / equipment / infrastructure you need in order to do what you're proposing. Talk about the exact grant mechanisms you'll apply for, the kind of staff necessary to support the project (1 postdoc? 1 grad student? 1 postdoc + 1 technician?)
RESPONSE B: You might also want to post in thefora.com’s job category to see what people say. That site has been really helpful for me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: what I should do. I'm in the last semester of my PhD (I hope). My department is kind of an omnishambles, and there's a lot of political maneuvering that is affecting my situation. Recently, my department advisor tried to asset control over my work by forbidding me to going to the lab that funds me. My co-advisor, who is my lab supervisor, very nearly cut my funding after my advisor called him to tell him I wasn't going to work in the lab anymore. (I met with him separately later to tell him I would still work there, regardless of what she said.) My advisor thinks my research, and my dissertation, is in a much worse off place than it is. She thinks that I need to spend 10 hours a day for a month non-stop writing, but also admits to not having read anything I have sent to her save one chapter. As of this post, I have about 8 chapters, 150-odd pages, all cited, formatted to the university's standards, figures and tables inserted, etc. I'm not sure if my advisor's behavior is in the scope of normal. The graduate program director has also told me I shouldn't be going to the lab, so I think my advisor catastophized my work to the director. I'm not sure if I should just let it slide and ignore my advisor, but she wants to meet me weekly before I hand my dissertation into my committee. According to my co-advisor and lab supervisor I'm doing fine and he thinks my other advisor is being needlessly negative. Any advice would be helpful. I honestly don't know what I should do in this situation.
RESPONSE A: Go to your campus ombudsperson, usually there is one specifically for the graduate school.
RESPONSE B: Just curious...why do you need to be in the lab? With you at the very end of your PhD, and you having seemingly 8 chapters (that’s a ton for a PhD thesis, although 150 pages isn’t very long) worth of data already collected...it seems like you should be done in the lab? Is the stuff you want to do in the lab PhD related, or additional experiments?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: advisor is trying to forbid me from going to the lab. I feel like I'm in a bit of a weird situation, and I could use some other thoughts about what I should do. I'm in the last semester of my PhD (I hope). My department is kind of an omnishambles, and there's a lot of political maneuvering that is affecting my situation. Recently, my department advisor tried to asset control over my work by forbidding me to going to the lab that funds me. My co-advisor, who is my lab supervisor, very nearly cut my funding after my advisor called him to tell him I wasn't going to work in the lab anymore. (I met with him separately later to tell him I would still work there, regardless of what she said.) My advisor thinks my research, and my dissertation, is in a much worse off place than it is. She thinks that I need to spend 10 hours a day for a month non-stop writing, but also admits to not having read anything I have sent to her save one chapter. As of this post, I have about 8 chapters, 150-odd pages, all cited, formatted to the university's standards, figures and tables inserted, etc. I'm not sure if my advisor's behavior is in the scope of normal. The graduate program director has also told me I shouldn't be going to the lab, so I think my advisor catastophized my work to the director. I'm not sure if I should just let it slide and ignore my advisor, but she wants to meet me weekly before I hand my dissertation into my committee. According to my co-advisor and lab supervisor I'm doing fine and he thinks my other advisor is being needlessly negative. Any advice would be helpful. I honestly don't know what I should do in this situation.
RESPONSE A: Why do you think she's doing that? What are the costs and benefits of you spending time in the lab right now? Yes, her behavior sounds weird (and possibly extremely so), but I think we're missing a lot of context.
RESPONSE B: Go to your campus ombudsperson, usually there is one specifically for the graduate school.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: supervisor, very nearly cut my funding after my advisor called him to tell him I wasn't going to work in the lab anymore. (I met with him separately later to tell him I would still work there, regardless of what she said.) My advisor thinks my research, and my dissertation, is in a much worse off place than it is. She thinks that I need to spend 10 hours a day for a month non-stop writing, but also admits to not having read anything I have sent to her save one chapter. As of this post, I have about 8 chapters, 150-odd pages, all cited, formatted to the university's standards, figures and tables inserted, etc. I'm not sure if my advisor's behavior is in the scope of normal. The graduate program director has also told me I shouldn't be going to the lab, so I think my advisor catastophized my work to the director. I'm not sure if I should just let it slide and ignore my advisor, but she wants to meet me weekly before I hand my dissertation into my committee. According to my co-advisor and lab supervisor I'm doing fine and he thinks my other advisor is being needlessly negative. Any advice would be helpful. I honestly don't know what I should do in this situation.
RESPONSE A: None of this post makes sense to me. How is your department advisor capable of forbidding you from going into lab? Why would you want to? What's so horrible about working 10 hours a day for a month?
RESPONSE B: Go to your student ombudsperson. If you're having trouble finding out who that is, try your campus research integrity officer, they will know who the ombuds is. This sounds like a situation that could go bad quickly, and I don't think you should try to push through it alone without some support. Your graduate program staff would usually be the next place to turn but it sounds like you don't think they will be unbiased, so pull in the ombuds ASAP and let them help de-escalate whatever has gone wrong here. What you're describing is not normal but from the information provided we can't say where the problem is.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: to spend 10 hours a day for a month non-stop writing, but also admits to not having read anything I have sent to her save one chapter. As of this post, I have about 8 chapters, 150-odd pages, all cited, formatted to the university's standards, figures and tables inserted, etc. I'm not sure if my advisor's behavior is in the scope of normal. The graduate program director has also told me I shouldn't be going to the lab, so I think my advisor catastophized my work to the director. I'm not sure if I should just let it slide and ignore my advisor, but she wants to meet me weekly before I hand my dissertation into my committee. According to my co-advisor and lab supervisor I'm doing fine and he thinks my other advisor is being needlessly negative. Any advice would be helpful. I honestly don't know what I should do in this situation.
RESPONSE A: A semester out from submitting there should be no reason for you to have to be going to the lab; at this point you should be writing up, and maybe trying to get a last paper out. Now is not the time for more data gathering. Your advisors stance seems perfectly reasonable to me. It sounds like your lab supervisor wants you to keep going in to the la simply to get more of the groups/their prioritised work done. Your advisor is quite correctly stepping in because *your* priority at this point should be getting *your* PhD finished, not doing donkey work for your lab.
RESPONSE B: Go to your student ombudsperson. If you're having trouble finding out who that is, try your campus research integrity officer, they will know who the ombuds is. This sounds like a situation that could go bad quickly, and I don't think you should try to push through it alone without some support. Your graduate program staff would usually be the next place to turn but it sounds like you don't think they will be unbiased, so pull in the ombuds ASAP and let them help de-escalate whatever has gone wrong here. What you're describing is not normal but from the information provided we can't say where the problem is.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: 't going to work in the lab anymore. (I met with him separately later to tell him I would still work there, regardless of what she said.) My advisor thinks my research, and my dissertation, is in a much worse off place than it is. She thinks that I need to spend 10 hours a day for a month non-stop writing, but also admits to not having read anything I have sent to her save one chapter. As of this post, I have about 8 chapters, 150-odd pages, all cited, formatted to the university's standards, figures and tables inserted, etc. I'm not sure if my advisor's behavior is in the scope of normal. The graduate program director has also told me I shouldn't be going to the lab, so I think my advisor catastophized my work to the director. I'm not sure if I should just let it slide and ignore my advisor, but she wants to meet me weekly before I hand my dissertation into my committee. According to my co-advisor and lab supervisor I'm doing fine and he thinks my other advisor is being needlessly negative. Any advice would be helpful. I honestly don't know what I should do in this situation.
RESPONSE A: Sounds like you are in a high-stress situation. Take the weekly meetings, attend them. Talk and discuss things. Keep working and turning up. To me it sounds like your advisor hasn't been able to keep a good track of your progress, or perhaps that there hasn't been good communication between the two of you. It's vital you maintain as much regular communication as possible.
RESPONSE B: A semester out from submitting there should be no reason for you to have to be going to the lab; at this point you should be writing up, and maybe trying to get a last paper out. Now is not the time for more data gathering. Your advisors stance seems perfectly reasonable to me. It sounds like your lab supervisor wants you to keep going in to the la simply to get more of the groups/their prioritised work done. Your advisor is quite correctly stepping in because *your* priority at this point should be getting *your* PhD finished, not doing donkey work for your lab.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: isn’t the case, I have further questions. Tl;dr: I suspect some sciences don’t talk about or study things that might upset the sociopolitical status-quo.
RESPONSE A: You're probably talking about creationism, flat Earth, or things akin to both (ex. phrenology.) The problem is that these things aren't science: they have no explanatory power or predictive ability, they are only post-hoc rationalizations for observed phenomena. In the scientific community, people are not rewarded for discoveries supporting the status quo. Quite the opposite, the status quo is defined by *things we already know* and science is the study of what we don't. No-one's awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering Newtonian physics again. People like Einstein, Tesla, Hawking became famous because they upended the status quo and, just as they did, there will be others in the future who change how science is practiced. People who believe the Earth is flat, that God created everything, that skull shape determines personality or changes based upon skin color, aren't like Einstein. They aren't smart or revolutionary. These ideas are, far from new, *so old* and boring. They work backwards from a conclusion, and find things that they think justify it, and that's part of why the things they 'find' have no explanatory or predictive ability. Naturally. It isn't science, isn't treated like science, and isn't upending any model of the universe to provide a better one.
RESPONSE B: I think people who aren't in science don't really appreciate the hyper competitiveness of the current funding system coupled with the large number of researchers. Almost any researcher dreams of being the person to kill the sacred cow because guess what?, now \*you're\* the person getting all of the attention, citations, and funding. A lot of deniers claim that there's a 'global conspiracy' keeping the climate change story alive when, in reality, if one credibly researcher could definitively prove it's all wrong and overturn all of that, I guarantee you they would.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do sciences feel pressure not to undermine the status quo? Does anyone else notice, or have evidence to prove, that some fields of science tread far too lightly around certain topics — perhaps seeking to avoid upending prevailing narratives or bringing attention to uncomfortable truths? (Yes, this post is terribly reductionist, I know..) I’m not talking about anything specific because I’ve pondered multiple diverse potential examples. I hesitate to give examples for fear of narrowing the discussion to a few partisan footballs. Or perhaps the ‘uncomfortable’ parts are just left out of public discourse? Why, exactly? If it is the case, either way, I think it would be terribly irresponsible. An informed public is an empowered public, and an unempowered public is a dangerous and anarchic one. If it isn’t the case, I have further questions. Tl;dr: I suspect some sciences don’t talk about or study things that might upset the sociopolitical status-quo.
RESPONSE A: I think people who aren't in science don't really appreciate the hyper competitiveness of the current funding system coupled with the large number of researchers. Almost any researcher dreams of being the person to kill the sacred cow because guess what?, now \*you're\* the person getting all of the attention, citations, and funding. A lot of deniers claim that there's a 'global conspiracy' keeping the climate change story alive when, in reality, if one credibly researcher could definitively prove it's all wrong and overturn all of that, I guarantee you they would.
RESPONSE B: My labmate had his paper rejected because it used existing tools to answer a simple problem (reaction mechanism of a molecule) without offering new tools or stress-testing uncertain tools. We ended up having to go from a Q1 to a Q3 journal to publish it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do sciences feel pressure not to undermine the status quo? Does anyone else notice, or have evidence to prove, that some fields of science tread far too lightly around certain topics — perhaps seeking to avoid upending prevailing narratives or bringing attention to uncomfortable truths? (Yes, this post is terribly reductionist, I know..) I’m not talking about anything specific because I’ve pondered multiple diverse potential examples. I hesitate to give examples for fear of narrowing the discussion to a few partisan footballs. Or perhaps the ‘uncomfortable’ parts are just left out of public discourse? Why, exactly? If it is the case, either way, I think it would be terribly irresponsible. An informed public is an empowered public, and an unempowered public is a dangerous and anarchic one. If it isn’t the case, I have further questions. Tl;dr: I suspect some sciences don’t talk about or study things that might upset the sociopolitical status-quo.
RESPONSE A: No, not really. Funding can be difficult if it's something out there with no evidence. Challenging major theories can be get pushback (though journals *love* the buzz of that) but not because of discomfort or any larger sociopolitical situation, but because you're usually making claims against a lot of evidence so you need solid work. There's a ton of work I'd consider "uncomfortable" in the sense that it's discussing and trying to address societal problems, but that's usually strongly encouraged as far as funding.
RESPONSE B: I think people who aren't in science don't really appreciate the hyper competitiveness of the current funding system coupled with the large number of researchers. Almost any researcher dreams of being the person to kill the sacred cow because guess what?, now \*you're\* the person getting all of the attention, citations, and funding. A lot of deniers claim that there's a 'global conspiracy' keeping the climate change story alive when, in reality, if one credibly researcher could definitively prove it's all wrong and overturn all of that, I guarantee you they would.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do sciences feel pressure not to undermine the status quo? Does anyone else notice, or have evidence to prove, that some fields of science tread far too lightly around certain topics — perhaps seeking to avoid upending prevailing narratives or bringing attention to uncomfortable truths? (Yes, this post is terribly reductionist, I know..) I’m not talking about anything specific because I’ve pondered multiple diverse potential examples. I hesitate to give examples for fear of narrowing the discussion to a few partisan footballs. Or perhaps the ‘uncomfortable’ parts are just left out of public discourse? Why, exactly? If it is the case, either way, I think it would be terribly irresponsible. An informed public is an empowered public, and an unempowered public is a dangerous and anarchic one. If it isn’t the case, I have further questions. Tl;dr: I suspect some sciences don’t talk about or study things that might upset the sociopolitical status-quo.
RESPONSE A: I suppose it depends on the field, but in general I would say the opposite is true. A surprising finding is more likely to be published in high-impact journals and is more likely to be cited, so scientists have a strong incentive to upset the status quo.
RESPONSE B: What you are describing mostly applies to fields that are (a) small and (b) in which researchers don't actually care that much about the results. In these fields, there are strong incentives to do incremental work and cite each other regularly along the way. If you were challenging the existing way of doing things, you would just make everyone's life harder, so since no one cares anyway, no one does. But if we're talking about topics of public interest, things work very differently. You have strong incentives to innovate because this is what gives you public attention, which in turn helps your career in a lot of ways. If you believe that people avoid bringing up certain claims, it's probably not because they avoid challenging the status quo, but because those claims are simply bullshit and wouldn't stand up to scrutiny even in the long run.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Completion rate for PhDs by department? Does anyone know where to find data on completion rate and average time to completion for PhD/MS by department? I have looked around, but I have only managed to find this data broken down by field, not department.
RESPONSE A: This is not like undergraduate 4-yr/6-yr graduation data. Small sample sets and great heterogeneity! As the (non-student) driving force for completion is usually **the advisor**, this data would be meaningless....in all but the most extreme cases of dysfunctional/"super-functional" departments.
RESPONSE B: You could tactfully ask during a campus visit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Completion rate for PhDs by department? Does anyone know where to find data on completion rate and average time to completion for PhD/MS by department? I have looked around, but I have only managed to find this data broken down by field, not department.
RESPONSE A: Could you share the by field data you found?
RESPONSE B: This is not like undergraduate 4-yr/6-yr graduation data. Small sample sets and great heterogeneity! As the (non-student) driving force for completion is usually **the advisor**, this data would be meaningless....in all but the most extreme cases of dysfunctional/"super-functional" departments.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Completion rate for PhDs by department? Does anyone know where to find data on completion rate and average time to completion for PhD/MS by department? I have looked around, but I have only managed to find this data broken down by field, not department.
RESPONSE A: phds.org The data is a little old, but should give you a good general idea of what you're looking at.
RESPONSE B: You could tactfully ask during a campus visit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Completion rate for PhDs by department? Does anyone know where to find data on completion rate and average time to completion for PhD/MS by department? I have looked around, but I have only managed to find this data broken down by field, not department.
RESPONSE A: Could you share the by field data you found?
RESPONSE B: phds.org The data is a little old, but should give you a good general idea of what you're looking at.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Any advice on what to do when you are scooped by a prominent historical writer in your field? I've been working on a humanities research/writing project for a year and was planning to eventually bring it to publication. It's become clear later in the research process that a prominent 20th century writer in my field already published on very similar topics and made very similar claims and discussions. My first impression was I could still publish, but would need to add a lot of "Person X has also discussed this in Y", focus more on how my account differs from Person Y's, and add many citations. With that being said, I'm concerned that at this point it won't be clear I'm bringing anything new to the table. It will look like I read Person Y's account first and chose some quibbles to disagree on, rather than having constructed independently a theory which overlaps with his. Worse still, it might seem like I'm not attributing all of my thought processes to him when I should be, since people who don't know me may assume I didn't produce any of it originally. Does anyone have advice on what to do in this situation?
RESPONSE A: All is not lost. Just focus on the nuance and update the field on the developments of this idea since professor X published it in the 80s. Call for renewed focus on the concept because of its applicability to the problems of 2021 and beyond.
RESPONSE B: ahhh, a year! only a year.... This happens quite often, actually. (historical research takes a LONG time. A book can take 10 years from idea to publication...) There are many things you can do... but it all depends entirely on the details. (i.e. can you challenge the publication? Can you add a new angle? Can you add a new social/cultural/geographical dimension? Can you add more detail/evidence? Can you add....?) But if you've only been at it only a year (no offense), you probably don't have enough to really take a new direction...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How much were you able to save towards retirement during graduate school? I am trying to figure out how to approach saving for retirement while being in graduate school. What have you been able to do? I am not in school yet but planning for the future. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/40ixmd/how_to_save_for_retirement_as_a_phd_student/?sort=confidence
RESPONSE A: I think I paid off all my credit card debt from college somewhere in my 3rd year of my PhD, and promptly opened a Roth IRA. About 4 years later (in my second year out of grad school) I've only contributed about $9k to it. Others in my program didn't go to college in high COL areas or were commuters, and came in with no debt. They were able to do things like replace their cars that died during grad school or dump the full $5500 into their IRAs each year. Everyone's conditions are different. If you come out of grad school with no debt and an emergency fund, I think you're off to a fine start.
RESPONSE B: I finished graduate school with 63 cents in the bank. Starting my first postdoc, I got a letter after about a month about how I now had a pension that would pay me about £1.80/month when I retired. Lord alive, I had never felt like such an adult.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How much were you able to save towards retirement during graduate school? I am trying to figure out how to approach saving for retirement while being in graduate school. What have you been able to do? I am not in school yet but planning for the future. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/40ixmd/how_to_save_for_retirement_as_a_phd_student/?sort=confidence
RESPONSE A: I was able to accrue tens of thousands of dollars in loan interest. Who the hell can save for retirement in grad school? I envy those people.
RESPONSE B: Probably around 15-20K over the entirety of graduate school.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How much were you able to save towards retirement during graduate school? I am trying to figure out how to approach saving for retirement while being in graduate school. What have you been able to do? I am not in school yet but planning for the future. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/40ixmd/how_to_save_for_retirement_as_a_phd_student/?sort=confidence
RESPONSE A: I think I paid off all my credit card debt from college somewhere in my 3rd year of my PhD, and promptly opened a Roth IRA. About 4 years later (in my second year out of grad school) I've only contributed about $9k to it. Others in my program didn't go to college in high COL areas or were commuters, and came in with no debt. They were able to do things like replace their cars that died during grad school or dump the full $5500 into their IRAs each year. Everyone's conditions are different. If you come out of grad school with no debt and an emergency fund, I think you're off to a fine start.
RESPONSE B: I was able to accrue tens of thousands of dollars in loan interest. Who the hell can save for retirement in grad school? I envy those people.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How much were you able to save towards retirement during graduate school? I am trying to figure out how to approach saving for retirement while being in graduate school. What have you been able to do? I am not in school yet but planning for the future. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/40ixmd/how_to_save_for_retirement_as_a_phd_student/?sort=confidence
RESPONSE A: I think I paid off all my credit card debt from college somewhere in my 3rd year of my PhD, and promptly opened a Roth IRA. About 4 years later (in my second year out of grad school) I've only contributed about $9k to it. Others in my program didn't go to college in high COL areas or were commuters, and came in with no debt. They were able to do things like replace their cars that died during grad school or dump the full $5500 into their IRAs each year. Everyone's conditions are different. If you come out of grad school with no debt and an emergency fund, I think you're off to a fine start.
RESPONSE B: My assistantship paid me $9,000/year, and my spouse's assistantship paid the same (with full tuition waivers). We spent 99.9% of that on rent and other living expenses, and graduated in the black. No retirement money was saved.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How much were you able to save towards retirement during graduate school? I am trying to figure out how to approach saving for retirement while being in graduate school. What have you been able to do? I am not in school yet but planning for the future. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/40ixmd/how_to_save_for_retirement_as_a_phd_student/?sort=confidence
RESPONSE A: My assistantship paid me $9,000/year, and my spouse's assistantship paid the same (with full tuition waivers). We spent 99.9% of that on rent and other living expenses, and graduated in the black. No retirement money was saved.
RESPONSE B: I've managed to save about 8-10k a year. I grew up poor so I'm used to living a cheap lifestyle. I also made friends who don't spend a lot, so we hang out at each other's apartments or go hiking instead of spending money. I honestly don't find it that hard, but it's how I was raised.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Did you feel financially educated before graduating from grad school? I just feel like a lot of us go through so many years of schooling, yet once we get our first full time job, a lot of us just have no idea how to better manage our money, esp if you have massive student loans. Do you guys think that they should require personal finance classes in universities?
RESPONSE A: By the time you are at university, let alone grad school, you are supposed to be an adult. Telling you how to put money in a bank account and set up direct debits is not the purview of a university.
RESPONSE B: At least at my institution, there are tons of personal finance seminars specifically geared toward during and post grad school. There are also many free online resources, especially now. It's not the responsibility of the university to provide you with---never mind *require*\---formal personal finance classes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Did you feel financially educated before graduating from grad school? I just feel like a lot of us go through so many years of schooling, yet once we get our first full time job, a lot of us just have no idea how to better manage our money, esp if you have massive student loans. Do you guys think that they should require personal finance classes in universities?
RESPONSE A: No. That's way too late to do this - it's like moving out, and then complaining five years later that you've been forced to use disposable plates for half a decade because no one taught you how to do dishes. Basic finance should be something you learn about *before* taking on student loans, not afterwards. By the time you're in grad school, it's too late to use that information to inform your decisions. Plus, by that point you're more than capable of identifying that you're missing some basic information, and looking it up yourself.
RESPONSE B: By the time you are at university, let alone grad school, you are supposed to be an adult. Telling you how to put money in a bank account and set up direct debits is not the purview of a university.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Did you feel financially educated before graduating from grad school? I just feel like a lot of us go through so many years of schooling, yet once we get our first full time job, a lot of us just have no idea how to better manage our money, esp if you have massive student loans. Do you guys think that they should require personal finance classes in universities?
RESPONSE A: LOL. There was NO financial education at the university. Fortunately, I was raised in a family that had an aversion to paying taxes beyond the legal requirement and so with the very first paycheck I earned as TT I put money into an IRA to delay the taxes. And continued to do so over my career, taking each raise and splitting it between spending and additional savings for retirement. Doing that for 38 years has left us fine. But, it was not due to anything that I learned in grad school. Quite frankly, if you're smart enough to earn a PhD, you're smart enough to figure out your financial life to a great degree.
RESPONSE B: By the time you are at university, let alone grad school, you are supposed to be an adult. Telling you how to put money in a bank account and set up direct debits is not the purview of a university.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Did you feel financially educated before graduating from grad school? I just feel like a lot of us go through so many years of schooling, yet once we get our first full time job, a lot of us just have no idea how to better manage our money, esp if you have massive student loans. Do you guys think that they should require personal finance classes in universities?
RESPONSE A: By the time you are at university, let alone grad school, you are supposed to be an adult. Telling you how to put money in a bank account and set up direct debits is not the purview of a university.
RESPONSE B: I’m torn because on the one hand that’s really useful info but on the other hand it’s really easy to educate yourself on that kind of stuff if you take even the tiniest bit of initiative. I think some of that stuff should be taught at the high school level—but I actually think much of it is taught and we just don’t remember or care at the time. Like we learned budgeting and balancing a checkbook and how loan interest rates work and we did a mock stock market investment (the last one was in business class but the others were in math and health classes actually). Kids wouldn’t want to do tax stuff, even tho everyone says that’s always something they wished they’d learned. In university they could offer some 1 credit course on this kind of stuff, but I wouldn’t want it to be required. Again, it’s easy enough to figure this stuff out on your own... the hard part is just sticking to whatever financial plan you come up with, and that’s not something a class can help you with.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What do you wish you knew about Grad School admissions during your undergraduate years?
RESPONSE A: Don't push "I want to teach" as the central part of your applications, even if it's true, as it will be read as "not interested in scholarship." That wasn't a problem for my MA applications but for PhD programs it was...or at least my results went from universal acceptance at top programs for the MA to about a 20% success rate, despite success at a top MA program and great LORs/test scores. I later talked with my advisor about it and he said "Yeah, that probably wasn't the best approach but I think it's important for our field to produce great teachers as well as scholars." Good thing, as he was a major figure in the field and accepted very few advisees...I got lucky.
RESPONSE B: - If you don’t get it at your first try that’s OK. It doesn’t mean that the second year will be the same. - The important of a great fit can’t be stressed enough. - A rubbish GPA doesn’t mean the end.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What do you wish you knew about Grad School admissions during your undergraduate years?
RESPONSE A: That it wasn’t in the cards for me and I was stressing over nothing.
RESPONSE B: - If you don’t get it at your first try that’s OK. It doesn’t mean that the second year will be the same. - The important of a great fit can’t be stressed enough. - A rubbish GPA doesn’t mean the end.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What do you wish you knew about Grad School admissions during your undergraduate years?
RESPONSE A: Not only are they deciding whether to choose you or not, you also have the option to choose them. Just because you’re accepted to a program doesn’t mean you have to say yes unless you feel like it’s a good fit for you too!
RESPONSE B: That it wasn’t in the cards for me and I was stressing over nothing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What do you wish you knew about Grad School admissions during your undergraduate years?
RESPONSE A: Email the professors. That's an important key step.
RESPONSE B: This doesn't exactly answer your question, but think about going abroad for a masters (if you're in the US). I did my masters in Ireland, and while it was still pricey (€9,000 for the program), it was cheaper than anything I found in the US and well worth it. The application process involved a single essay, which was more like a coveretter, and one short phone screen. You can get US federal loans as well. The program itself set me up to get accepted into a PhD before I graduated.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: is a follow up to my previous work that is headed for a fairly niche journal anyways, the pending manuscript is unlikely to impact my own publication plans (though it admittedly may affect the impact whenever we do publish). On the one hand, I have specific expertise on the pending manuscript's subject matter and can likely provide valuable insight during the review process. Even though it may affect the perceived novelty of my own work, I am committed to publishing good science (no matter what group it comes from) and see great value in having more buzz in the area I'm working. On the flip side, no matter how committed I am to ethically reviewing this work, I recognize that it will likely have some influence on my current project, even if it is subconscious. It also may be very easy to construe my feedback, no matter how valid, as trying to inflate my own work (e.g. this manuscript definitely should reference my previous publications, but suggesting as much could be seen as an unethical attempt to inflate their impact). This is my first time encountering this issue, and my gut is to fully explain the situation to the editor and ask for their guidance. Has anyone dealt with a similar situation before? And even if not, how would you handle this?
RESPONSE A: This is completely normal. You will be asked to review the work that builds on your work. That's what makes you a "peer" and qualified to review their work. They absolutely should reference your work, and you are quite within your rights to say so. Most likely they already did and that is why the editors chose you as a reviewer. (This is more common than authors suggesting reviewers in my experience, but it may vary in different fields.) And it's absolutely right that the work that other researchers in the same area should influence your work. You acknowledge this by giving them a citation in your "Related Work" section, and saying clearly which ideas of theirs you used if any. Research is supposed to be collaborative. We're supposed to build on each other's results. This is how it's supposed to work.
RESPONSE B: Search for the title to see if it's online as a preprint if you want to read it before deciding whether to review.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: at the same application. Regardless, since what I'm working on is a follow up to my previous work that is headed for a fairly niche journal anyways, the pending manuscript is unlikely to impact my own publication plans (though it admittedly may affect the impact whenever we do publish). On the one hand, I have specific expertise on the pending manuscript's subject matter and can likely provide valuable insight during the review process. Even though it may affect the perceived novelty of my own work, I am committed to publishing good science (no matter what group it comes from) and see great value in having more buzz in the area I'm working. On the flip side, no matter how committed I am to ethically reviewing this work, I recognize that it will likely have some influence on my current project, even if it is subconscious. It also may be very easy to construe my feedback, no matter how valid, as trying to inflate my own work (e.g. this manuscript definitely should reference my previous publications, but suggesting as much could be seen as an unethical attempt to inflate their impact). This is my first time encountering this issue, and my gut is to fully explain the situation to the editor and ask for their guidance. Has anyone dealt with a similar situation before? And even if not, how would you handle this?
RESPONSE A: decline to review. reason: conflicting lab/pi/investigator
RESPONSE B: This is completely normal. You will be asked to review the work that builds on your work. That's what makes you a "peer" and qualified to review their work. They absolutely should reference your work, and you are quite within your rights to say so. Most likely they already did and that is why the editors chose you as a reviewer. (This is more common than authors suggesting reviewers in my experience, but it may vary in different fields.) And it's absolutely right that the work that other researchers in the same area should influence your work. You acknowledge this by giving them a citation in your "Related Work" section, and saying clearly which ideas of theirs you used if any. Research is supposed to be collaborative. We're supposed to build on each other's results. This is how it's supposed to work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: off of our published work, or if they've arrived independently at the same application. Regardless, since what I'm working on is a follow up to my previous work that is headed for a fairly niche journal anyways, the pending manuscript is unlikely to impact my own publication plans (though it admittedly may affect the impact whenever we do publish). On the one hand, I have specific expertise on the pending manuscript's subject matter and can likely provide valuable insight during the review process. Even though it may affect the perceived novelty of my own work, I am committed to publishing good science (no matter what group it comes from) and see great value in having more buzz in the area I'm working. On the flip side, no matter how committed I am to ethically reviewing this work, I recognize that it will likely have some influence on my current project, even if it is subconscious. It also may be very easy to construe my feedback, no matter how valid, as trying to inflate my own work (e.g. this manuscript definitely should reference my previous publications, but suggesting as much could be seen as an unethical attempt to inflate their impact). This is my first time encountering this issue, and my gut is to fully explain the situation to the editor and ask for their guidance. Has anyone dealt with a similar situation before? And even if not, how would you handle this?
RESPONSE A: This is completely normal. You will be asked to review the work that builds on your work. That's what makes you a "peer" and qualified to review their work. They absolutely should reference your work, and you are quite within your rights to say so. Most likely they already did and that is why the editors chose you as a reviewer. (This is more common than authors suggesting reviewers in my experience, but it may vary in different fields.) And it's absolutely right that the work that other researchers in the same area should influence your work. You acknowledge this by giving them a citation in your "Related Work" section, and saying clearly which ideas of theirs you used if any. Research is supposed to be collaborative. We're supposed to build on each other's results. This is how it's supposed to work.
RESPONSE B: Decline
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: we recently published proof of concept for this novel idea and are working on demonstrating that the idea can be extended to other avenues; the current project I'm working on, and subject of the pending manuscript in question, is one of those avenues). Without reading the main text of the manuscript, it is impossible to tell whether they are working off of our published work, or if they've arrived independently at the same application. Regardless, since what I'm working on is a follow up to my previous work that is headed for a fairly niche journal anyways, the pending manuscript is unlikely to impact my own publication plans (though it admittedly may affect the impact whenever we do publish). On the one hand, I have specific expertise on the pending manuscript's subject matter and can likely provide valuable insight during the review process. Even though it may affect the perceived novelty of my own work, I am committed to publishing good science (no matter what group it comes from) and see great value in having more buzz in the area I'm working. On the flip side, no matter how committed I am to ethically reviewing this work, I recognize that it will likely have some influence on my current project, even if it is subconscious. It also may be very easy to construe my feedback, no matter how valid, as trying to inflate my own work (e.g. this manuscript definitely should reference my previous publications, but suggesting as much could be seen as an unethical attempt to inflate their impact). This is my first time encountering this issue, and my gut is to fully explain the situation to the editor and ask for their guidance. Has anyone dealt with a similar situation before? And even if not, how would you handle this?
RESPONSE A: Search for the title to see if it's online as a preprint if you want to read it before deciding whether to review.
RESPONSE B: Hmmm. Whatever your choice you should be transparent to the review comittee head about a conflict of interest, even if you're not sure it is one. Usually even if it's just perceived, that needs to be disclosed. It might not be a problem though, maybe the publisher/editors asked you because of your experience in the subject?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: to work I've previously published (without going into too much detail, we recently published proof of concept for this novel idea and are working on demonstrating that the idea can be extended to other avenues; the current project I'm working on, and subject of the pending manuscript in question, is one of those avenues). Without reading the main text of the manuscript, it is impossible to tell whether they are working off of our published work, or if they've arrived independently at the same application. Regardless, since what I'm working on is a follow up to my previous work that is headed for a fairly niche journal anyways, the pending manuscript is unlikely to impact my own publication plans (though it admittedly may affect the impact whenever we do publish). On the one hand, I have specific expertise on the pending manuscript's subject matter and can likely provide valuable insight during the review process. Even though it may affect the perceived novelty of my own work, I am committed to publishing good science (no matter what group it comes from) and see great value in having more buzz in the area I'm working. On the flip side, no matter how committed I am to ethically reviewing this work, I recognize that it will likely have some influence on my current project, even if it is subconscious. It also may be very easy to construe my feedback, no matter how valid, as trying to inflate my own work (e.g. this manuscript definitely should reference my previous publications, but suggesting as much could be seen as an unethical attempt to inflate their impact). This is my first time encountering this issue, and my gut is to fully explain the situation to the editor and ask for their guidance. Has anyone dealt with a similar situation before? And even if not, how would you handle this?
RESPONSE A: Hmmm. Whatever your choice you should be transparent to the review comittee head about a conflict of interest, even if you're not sure it is one. Usually even if it's just perceived, that needs to be disclosed. It might not be a problem though, maybe the publisher/editors asked you because of your experience in the subject?
RESPONSE B: decline to review. reason: conflicting lab/pi/investigator
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How difficult would be a PhD straight out of undergrad? Those who went to do PhD straight from undergrad, how difficult was it to get accustomed to PhD without a master's degree? How big of a jump would it be to go to PhD straight from undergrad? How difficult would a PhD be if I went straight out of undergrad compared to completing Master's and then going for PhD? (PhD in Economics to be exact but any insight from any discipline would be very helpful).
RESPONSE A: Depends on how rigorous your undergrad was. Are you used to doing a lot of independent work?
RESPONSE B: Are you in the US? Most PhD program start with a year or two of coursework first which is a master's degree. That why you can "master out" of many programs where you complete the courses but don't pass the comps/quals to move into doctoral candidacy. So basically, the master's is built in. Doing a separate master's degree often means it will take you longer to graduate (you will repeat course work in your doc program) and cost you more (master's programs rarely give assistantships).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How difficult would be a PhD straight out of undergrad? Those who went to do PhD straight from undergrad, how difficult was it to get accustomed to PhD without a master's degree? How big of a jump would it be to go to PhD straight from undergrad? How difficult would a PhD be if I went straight out of undergrad compared to completing Master's and then going for PhD? (PhD in Economics to be exact but any insight from any discipline would be very helpful).
RESPONSE A: I found it quite a jump. If I'm honest I do regret not doing a masters; my writing wasn't at the level it needed to be for PhD and it was hard getting there! I think research skills from undergraduate dissertation help, but going from a 10k project to 80k was no small feat! (PhD literature)
RESPONSE B: Are you in the US? Most PhD program start with a year or two of coursework first which is a master's degree. That why you can "master out" of many programs where you complete the courses but don't pass the comps/quals to move into doctoral candidacy. So basically, the master's is built in. Doing a separate master's degree often means it will take you longer to graduate (you will repeat course work in your doc program) and cost you more (master's programs rarely give assistantships).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How difficult would be a PhD straight out of undergrad? Those who went to do PhD straight from undergrad, how difficult was it to get accustomed to PhD without a master's degree? How big of a jump would it be to go to PhD straight from undergrad? How difficult would a PhD be if I went straight out of undergrad compared to completing Master's and then going for PhD? (PhD in Economics to be exact but any insight from any discipline would be very helpful).
RESPONSE A: Are you in the US? Most PhD program start with a year or two of coursework first which is a master's degree. That why you can "master out" of many programs where you complete the courses but don't pass the comps/quals to move into doctoral candidacy. So basically, the master's is built in. Doing a separate master's degree often means it will take you longer to graduate (you will repeat course work in your doc program) and cost you more (master's programs rarely give assistantships).
RESPONSE B: It can be done! I know quite a few people in my own PhD program who came straight from undergrad, and I’m always very impressed by them. For my own part, though, it would have been a shocking change for me to come without the MA. In fact, the MA was itself a shocking change for me because I was coming from a relatively unknown liberal arts college to an extremely high-ranked department in my field. Those two years were transformative for me, actually, in a way that my PhD experience really hasn’t been. But that’s me. Lots of people apply to both kinds of programs in a single season to see how they stand. I think that’s a great idea, if you can afford it!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How difficult would be a PhD straight out of undergrad? Those who went to do PhD straight from undergrad, how difficult was it to get accustomed to PhD without a master's degree? How big of a jump would it be to go to PhD straight from undergrad? How difficult would a PhD be if I went straight out of undergrad compared to completing Master's and then going for PhD? (PhD in Economics to be exact but any insight from any discipline would be very helpful).
RESPONSE A: Are you in the US? Most PhD program start with a year or two of coursework first which is a master's degree. That why you can "master out" of many programs where you complete the courses but don't pass the comps/quals to move into doctoral candidacy. So basically, the master's is built in. Doing a separate master's degree often means it will take you longer to graduate (you will repeat course work in your doc program) and cost you more (master's programs rarely give assistantships).
RESPONSE B: I did that and it was fine. You do the Ms along the way, so it’s not like you’re skipping that process. And you’re not locked into anything, so you can always stop after your MS if you decide you’re not up to the PhD. But if you do continue on, it’s streamlined quite nicely.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How are published review articles regarded as an undergrad, as opposed to primary/lab research? Hello everyone, I hope this is the right place to ask, and thanks for reading! Due to covid, I didn't get the chance to do real experimental research for my final year project in STEM-research. Therefore, I wrote a (narrative) review, and I got the opportunity to publish it in an academic journal. However, I didn't learn any real lab skills or experiments during undergrad (except a week-long course during which we did some basic pipetting) How would you regard this if someone applied to an internship in a lab, or for an internship project? Would such an article still give the indication that someone could do research, even if there are no 'hard' research skills? Or would you prefer candidates who did more experimental stuff? I'm applying to research internships currently, and I am trying to get an indication of where I stand/what I could apply to. Thank you in advance!
RESPONSE A: I think it depends on who your coauthors are. It will be obvious that you haven't done research on that topic on your own so some people might see that paper as 'another paper for the sake of having a paper'. So, I would advise to be careful there.
RESPONSE B: There are a lot of people out there considered to be "authorities" because they crank out review after review. This is not something to emulate but at your stage, any publication is viewed very positively by prospective grad school mentors. Go for it. Do a good read of your topic and identify a gap in knowledge and proper some hypotheses for experiments that would address that gap.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: When am I a Dr? I passed my thesis defence last week! When can I use Dr as a title? Or PhD after my name? (uk)
RESPONSE A: I started using it when my corrections were accepted But congratulations doctor, well done!
RESPONSE B: Well after you passed your PhD you are a doctor, Dr.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: When am I a Dr? I passed my thesis defence last week! When can I use Dr as a title? Or PhD after my name? (uk)
RESPONSE A: There are no "doctor police". If you use it after your defense or wait until graduation both are fine. Do whatever you like.
RESPONSE B: Well after you passed your PhD you are a doctor, Dr.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: When am I a Dr? I passed my thesis defence last week! When can I use Dr as a title? Or PhD after my name? (uk)
RESPONSE A: Technically? I suppose not until the degree is conferred. But you should definitely revel in your mom and proud supervisor and others calling you doctor in the interim.
RESPONSE B: so I passed my defense more than two weeks ago and was explicitly told I cannot yet use the title (in fact, it was mentioned three times at the end of my defense) so imma wait impatiently ahhhhh bottom line: it depends, did they tell you something? and contrary to what some people mentioned, some unis like mine to have (sadly) the doctor police 😅
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: When am I a Dr? I passed my thesis defence last week! When can I use Dr as a title? Or PhD after my name? (uk)
RESPONSE A: When your corrections are accepted and the uni tells you the degree has been conferred. But also whenever since no one is going to police you on this, so congrats on passing Dr Guilty_Ad_9651!
RESPONSE B: Technically? I suppose not until the degree is conferred. But you should definitely revel in your mom and proud supervisor and others calling you doctor in the interim.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: When am I a Dr? I passed my thesis defence last week! When can I use Dr as a title? Or PhD after my name? (uk)
RESPONSE A: Well after you passed your PhD you are a doctor, Dr.
RESPONSE B: Technically? I suppose not until the degree is conferred. But you should definitely revel in your mom and proud supervisor and others calling you doctor in the interim.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to choose between research, teaching or industry following a PhD? Nearing the end of the PhD now and have offers for a postdoc, a lectureship (teaching only) and an industry position. Genuinely no idea how to choose though, so if in doubt - turn to Reddit. Industry offers security and (maybe) better job progression, but not sure it satisfies the curiosity side of academia. I’ve taught a LOT on the PhD and enjoy it. I’ve also done a lot of research and am good at the niche skill I do, so a postdoc would work too. My question is how do I go about working out which is the right path for me? I’m not asking you to choose for me, just help me with the questions I should be asking myself. Really appreciate the help in advance! Yours, A completely lost PhD student.
RESPONSE A: Do you like money? Take industry. Do you like interacting with young kids? Take teaching. Do you want to be 10X depressed? Take research.
RESPONSE B: postdoc-> want to keep training/pursue academia teaching-> like teaching industry-> depends on the job, but pay is a hell of a lot better
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to choose between research, teaching or industry following a PhD? Nearing the end of the PhD now and have offers for a postdoc, a lectureship (teaching only) and an industry position. Genuinely no idea how to choose though, so if in doubt - turn to Reddit. Industry offers security and (maybe) better job progression, but not sure it satisfies the curiosity side of academia. I’ve taught a LOT on the PhD and enjoy it. I’ve also done a lot of research and am good at the niche skill I do, so a postdoc would work too. My question is how do I go about working out which is the right path for me? I’m not asking you to choose for me, just help me with the questions I should be asking myself. Really appreciate the help in advance! Yours, A completely lost PhD student.
RESPONSE A: Do you like money? Take industry. Do you like interacting with young kids? Take teaching. Do you want to be 10X depressed? Take research.
RESPONSE B: If you do a post-doc you can also teach. I guess the question you need to answer is what you are interested in. You said you did a lot of teaching and enjoy it and that you have a niche skill that you’re good at- it does not sound like you want to be a researcher. As far as academia vs industry, that’s also going to be a personal decision.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to choose between research, teaching or industry following a PhD? Nearing the end of the PhD now and have offers for a postdoc, a lectureship (teaching only) and an industry position. Genuinely no idea how to choose though, so if in doubt - turn to Reddit. Industry offers security and (maybe) better job progression, but not sure it satisfies the curiosity side of academia. I’ve taught a LOT on the PhD and enjoy it. I’ve also done a lot of research and am good at the niche skill I do, so a postdoc would work too. My question is how do I go about working out which is the right path for me? I’m not asking you to choose for me, just help me with the questions I should be asking myself. Really appreciate the help in advance! Yours, A completely lost PhD student.
RESPONSE A: I’m in the same situation (but no offers!). I’m not sure how to make the decision. Though, I know I don’t want full teaching.
RESPONSE B: Do you like money? Take industry. Do you like interacting with young kids? Take teaching. Do you want to be 10X depressed? Take research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to choose between research, teaching or industry following a PhD? Nearing the end of the PhD now and have offers for a postdoc, a lectureship (teaching only) and an industry position. Genuinely no idea how to choose though, so if in doubt - turn to Reddit. Industry offers security and (maybe) better job progression, but not sure it satisfies the curiosity side of academia. I’ve taught a LOT on the PhD and enjoy it. I’ve also done a lot of research and am good at the niche skill I do, so a postdoc would work too. My question is how do I go about working out which is the right path for me? I’m not asking you to choose for me, just help me with the questions I should be asking myself. Really appreciate the help in advance! Yours, A completely lost PhD student.
RESPONSE A: If you do a post-doc you can also teach. I guess the question you need to answer is what you are interested in. You said you did a lot of teaching and enjoy it and that you have a niche skill that you’re good at- it does not sound like you want to be a researcher. As far as academia vs industry, that’s also going to be a personal decision.
RESPONSE B: postdoc-> want to keep training/pursue academia teaching-> like teaching industry-> depends on the job, but pay is a hell of a lot better
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: much research did you actually do the year you went up for tenure? Well it's the new year, and it's T-year for me. My documents have all been submitted, my colleagues are checking them out right now, and the vote is in 2 weeks. I am 99% sure I will get tenure (I would say 100% but I don't want to jinx myself). And now this semester begins. What I guess is my first post-tenure track semester/some weird purgatory year. I have one semester 'off' before I take over as undergrad chair for my department (yay tenure). I have a book chapter due in mid November and ideally would like to get out a grant proposal in November as well, but that's my only external deadlines this semester (or this year) and they are both coauthored and I feel like each will take 2 weeks max. So yesterday wasn't a teaching day, didn't have any meetings on campus for once. So for the first time in years, on a weekday during the semester, I just stayed home and didn't do shit. I don't want to fall in the trap I've seen some people fall into, of giving up on research after tenure for years on end (I'm at an R2, so some people just give up on it entirely and don't ever get to full). But I also feel like it should be ok to take it a little easy this semester after 6 years on the tenure track + 10 years of higher ed/working my ass off constantly before that to get to this point. (especially since I get to spend the next 3.5 years after this semester advising 500 undergrads which is not going to be fun either). What is a good balance? What did you actually accomplish in tenure year and what would you have done differently?
RESPONSE A: I'm a grad student, but the author of a blog I read has recently got tenure and been talking about some of the things she plans to do.
RESPONSE B: I did a lot. I shifted into "What do I *want* to do with my work now?" , Instead of "What will get me funded or published?" It's much more fun and rewarding.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: in November as well, but that's my only external deadlines this semester (or this year) and they are both coauthored and I feel like each will take 2 weeks max. So yesterday wasn't a teaching day, didn't have any meetings on campus for once. So for the first time in years, on a weekday during the semester, I just stayed home and didn't do shit. I don't want to fall in the trap I've seen some people fall into, of giving up on research after tenure for years on end (I'm at an R2, so some people just give up on it entirely and don't ever get to full). But I also feel like it should be ok to take it a little easy this semester after 6 years on the tenure track + 10 years of higher ed/working my ass off constantly before that to get to this point. (especially since I get to spend the next 3.5 years after this semester advising 500 undergrads which is not going to be fun either). What is a good balance? What did you actually accomplish in tenure year and what would you have done differently?
RESPONSE A: The year I went up I mainly just wrote that crappy novel I've always wanted to write. No reason not to take some time for you. You've earned it. I probably would have done more academic work, but I was pretty disaffected, being in Wisconsin watching tenure erode as my binder advanced from committee to committee. In the end, I enjoyed the full protection of tenure for 9 minutes. The same board meeting awarded me tenure and voted on the plan to soften tenure pretty much back-to-back. That got dark. Sorry! I'm back to churning out the articles at the same rate or better, btw. It is totally possible to take some time and jump back into things.
RESPONSE B: Dr ink has it. Take a well deserved few days to breathe then: >I did a lot. I shifted into "What do I want to do with my work now?" , Instead of "What will get me funded or published?" Although you may want to *balance* funding/publishability with Ultimate Intellectual Desire especially if that desire requires resources...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you compare work life balance and overall happiness during PhD vs Postdoc vs Pre-tenure vs Post-tenure Okay I spend a lot of energy and time doing a PhD under a student salary. About to start a post-doc in a week. And hopefully a tenure track position after the postdoc. The thought of postdoc life being even more stressful than PhD life is so scary to me. And then the pre-tenure hectic life! How do you compare these stages of your career? Is it going to just get more stressful and stressful and more work for the next 8-10 years until I get tenured (if I am lucky)?
RESPONSE A: I am a PhD candidate finishing up and I am 100% invested in seeing how others respond to this question.
RESPONSE B: PhD - Typical levels of stress that most feel- worried about projects, experiments not working, mistakes, talks, writing, etc. Balanced with great colleagues, other PhD students to commiserate with. Had outlets for the stress with sports/hobbies. Postdoc- More stressful than PhD, but better work-life balance. Stress due to the expectations/worry of getting papers to be competitive on the TT track one day. Better work/life balance because I was more efficient at the experiments + saved time. Still had late nights of working, but less frequently. Great colleagues made the work easier + kept up with the stress outlets. Assistant Professor- More stressful than postdoc, but from different sources. Not too far into the process now, but advice from many senior PIs has been to enjoy it, because more administrative things get piled on after tenure, and you get less time to enjoy the science. Unsolicited advice? Embrace whatever stage you're at and find the fun in it. There will be stress no matter what, and it escalates at each stage. But you become better at handling it, the pay raises reduce some worries (student pay and levels of debt are obscene). Find good colleagues and good people outside of science. Find a way to handle stress. tl;dr - It doesn't necessarily get better at any stage, but you get better at handling it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: -tenure Okay I spend a lot of energy and time doing a PhD under a student salary. About to start a post-doc in a week. And hopefully a tenure track position after the postdoc. The thought of postdoc life being even more stressful than PhD life is so scary to me. And then the pre-tenure hectic life! How do you compare these stages of your career? Is it going to just get more stressful and stressful and more work for the next 8-10 years until I get tenured (if I am lucky)?
RESPONSE A: PhD, Post-Doc, and starting my first academic appointment........its all be 8-5 work hours, M-F. Very rarely do I go over those hours. Not because I am not busy, its because my work and my life are 2 separate things, and should be treated like such.
RESPONSE B: PhD - Typical levels of stress that most feel- worried about projects, experiments not working, mistakes, talks, writing, etc. Balanced with great colleagues, other PhD students to commiserate with. Had outlets for the stress with sports/hobbies. Postdoc- More stressful than PhD, but better work-life balance. Stress due to the expectations/worry of getting papers to be competitive on the TT track one day. Better work/life balance because I was more efficient at the experiments + saved time. Still had late nights of working, but less frequently. Great colleagues made the work easier + kept up with the stress outlets. Assistant Professor- More stressful than postdoc, but from different sources. Not too far into the process now, but advice from many senior PIs has been to enjoy it, because more administrative things get piled on after tenure, and you get less time to enjoy the science. Unsolicited advice? Embrace whatever stage you're at and find the fun in it. There will be stress no matter what, and it escalates at each stage. But you become better at handling it, the pay raises reduce some worries (student pay and levels of debt are obscene). Find good colleagues and good people outside of science. Find a way to handle stress. tl;dr - It doesn't necessarily get better at any stage, but you get better at handling it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you compare work life balance and overall happiness during PhD vs Postdoc vs Pre-tenure vs Post-tenure Okay I spend a lot of energy and time doing a PhD under a student salary. About to start a post-doc in a week. And hopefully a tenure track position after the postdoc. The thought of postdoc life being even more stressful than PhD life is so scary to me. And then the pre-tenure hectic life! How do you compare these stages of your career? Is it going to just get more stressful and stressful and more work for the next 8-10 years until I get tenured (if I am lucky)?
RESPONSE A: PhD - Typical levels of stress that most feel- worried about projects, experiments not working, mistakes, talks, writing, etc. Balanced with great colleagues, other PhD students to commiserate with. Had outlets for the stress with sports/hobbies. Postdoc- More stressful than PhD, but better work-life balance. Stress due to the expectations/worry of getting papers to be competitive on the TT track one day. Better work/life balance because I was more efficient at the experiments + saved time. Still had late nights of working, but less frequently. Great colleagues made the work easier + kept up with the stress outlets. Assistant Professor- More stressful than postdoc, but from different sources. Not too far into the process now, but advice from many senior PIs has been to enjoy it, because more administrative things get piled on after tenure, and you get less time to enjoy the science. Unsolicited advice? Embrace whatever stage you're at and find the fun in it. There will be stress no matter what, and it escalates at each stage. But you become better at handling it, the pay raises reduce some worries (student pay and levels of debt are obscene). Find good colleagues and good people outside of science. Find a way to handle stress. tl;dr - It doesn't necessarily get better at any stage, but you get better at handling it.
RESPONSE B: I am very curious about this too. I'm somewhat banking on having a better work life balance post-PhD lol
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: then the pre-tenure hectic life! How do you compare these stages of your career? Is it going to just get more stressful and stressful and more work for the next 8-10 years until I get tenured (if I am lucky)?
RESPONSE A: PhD, Post-Doc, and starting my first academic appointment........its all be 8-5 work hours, M-F. Very rarely do I go over those hours. Not because I am not busy, its because my work and my life are 2 separate things, and should be treated like such.
RESPONSE B: I went from a decent but not top tier org psych PhD program to a TT position in a business school at an SLAC. PhD was way more stressful than pre-tenure, and now that I'm post-tenure my life is pretty chill. Don't get me wrong, I still have to work long hours sometimes but everything feels very low pressure. I could really screw up one or two semesters and probably still get promoted. Bad news is we've had pay freezes four of the last five years and my publication record is probably not competitive enough to get a TT job elsewhere. Good news is I'm set to meet my research requirements for full professor by the end of this year (four years early), I teach the same courses every year and they're all prepped at this point, and I've got a ton of service on my record. Looking forward to being deadwood starting in August. My wife and I are trying for a kiddo and the plan is for me to be the primary caregiver, and I'm stoked about that. Eventually I want to figure out some side gigs to pad my income, but I'm doing okay financially, mostly due to the fact that business professors have higher salaries, and that I've got a rent controlled apartment and a 15-year-old Honda CRV. My wife's income is decent as well. I'm not the badass researcher I dreamed of being in grad school, but I haven't set a wake-up alarm in about seven years, and since we're doing committee meetings virtually now I only have to be on campus twice a week. Life could be worse.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academics, what is good about being in academia as opposed to any other industry?
RESPONSE A: Freedom. Freedom to pursue your own interests to a greater degree than industry will generally allow, freedom to build your work schedule around your own requirements to a greater degree than the industry will generally allow, and freedom from being told what to do to a very great degree. It's also one of the only jobs where you get to be an expert in your field, and communicate that knowledge to a constant stream of new students. That mix of driving your own research and simultaneously teaching and working with students is a pretty great place to be for some people. In academia there are a number of things you need to do, and a series of deadlines by which things need to be done. How you go about everything in the middle is pretty much up to you.
RESPONSE B: Clear roles, rules, and expectations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academics, what is good about being in academia as opposed to any other industry?
RESPONSE A: Complete autonomy. Okay maybe not COMPLETE autonomy but more autonomy than in most other jobs.
RESPONSE B: Clear roles, rules, and expectations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Academics, what is good about being in academia as opposed to any other industry?
RESPONSE A: Clear roles, rules, and expectations.
RESPONSE B: I happen to be the sole person in my field on my campus. The amount of trust, respect, and deference that I get when the ball is my court is great. In my experience working in a large company, the standard operating practice was to trust no one, provide no open-ending decision making, and to heavily critique everything in order to prevent a person from being complacent. I know some organizations can work the same way, but my friends that left academia for industry tended to gravitate to small organizations because they are more likely to offer those benefits. By far, my favorite part about working in academia is the first week of the semester. Three times a year (I teach during summer, as well), there's an incredible energy and excitement across campus during that week, and it recharges my batteries in a way that no other job did. It seems like a small detail, but I think the first week of the semester is a humanizing experience for all involved, and my work in industry jobs were basically the opposite. Everyone was just excited for vacations and holidays.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academics, what is good about being in academia as opposed to any other industry?
RESPONSE A: Flexible scheduling and getting a do-over each semester. I just wish quarters were more popular.
RESPONSE B: Clear roles, rules, and expectations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academics, what is good about being in academia as opposed to any other industry?
RESPONSE A: The cycle of semesters keeps things fresh. I love the freedom. It's real.
RESPONSE B: Clear roles, rules, and expectations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What big debates are going on in academia right now? Often for a bunch of different subject’s histories hear about big debates defining for the field. In physics the Einstein Bohr debates. In mathematics the foundational crisis. I guess you could look at the continental analytical divide in philosophy. What debates like these are happening right now in academia?
RESPONSE A: Ethics and bias in machine learning and AI really spilled over into the mainstream discourse with the firing of Timnit Gebru from Google.
RESPONSE B: I don't know, but I wonder how Einstein Bohr (or Newtonians v Einstein before that) and analytical v continental philosophy were perceived at the time. Major paradigm shifts are quite blurry for the contemporary, and it isn't until the dust settles (sometimes decades later) that people get to point to them and name them as such.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What big debates are going on in academia right now? Often for a bunch of different subject’s histories hear about big debates defining for the field. In physics the Einstein Bohr debates. In mathematics the foundational crisis. I guess you could look at the continental analytical divide in philosophy. What debates like these are happening right now in academia?
RESPONSE A: In chemistry and chemical engineering how to make biobased consumer chemicals and products is one area of debate. The question is more which methods versus whether it's important. One example is: do we try to get one target chemical from a type of waste or focus on separating out the different chemicals present. More specifically I think of lignin from wood waste: should we make a chemical found in petroleum which is already used or try to use the aromatics native to lignin.
RESPONSE B: But seriously tho, do we even need to go back to the office?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: , and after the completion of my summer class, I will have graduated with an Associate of Arts degree with honors. I will be transferring to George Mason University in the fall to pursue a B.A. in Philosophy and a B.S. in Economics with a minor in Mathematics. I am expecting my undergraduate studies to be complete in three years, though I would still be comfortable with it taking four (putting me in a six-year graduation demographic). After undergrad, I am planning on enrolling in a PhD program, most likely in Economics. My current aspiration is to work as a professor in academia or as a policy analyst. Upon considering grad school, I have heard a lot of people say that many of them are fully-funded and virtually debt-free. Firstly, how does that even happen? All my life I've been told that grad school is exceedingly costly. Secondly, how would I qualify for a sponsorship/endorsement/whatever? Is it only available at top schools, or do many people claim these benefits? Is it scarce, or should I be confident in my ability to obtain one? I apologize if this question is a bit elementary. Like I said, I am not so knowledgeable about the college process. Regardless, thank you for the insight.
RESPONSE A: I'm in a fully funded program. All our PhD students are fully funded, so there's no special qualification, you just get it when you're accepted. Its an Ivy, so they have money.
RESPONSE B: Most PhD programs will fully fund you or have you teach for them. What you're paying is *salary loss* - if you're bright enough to get into a PhD program you could have also spent those 5-7 years of your 20's making actual money, contributing to a retirement account and amassing job skills and experience instead of taking home a bare-bones stipend which disappears after you pay rent and buy groceries. That's the cost. *EDIT: I sound pretty bitter - I'm not, I love my program and I'm happy with my decision to pursue a PhD, I just want to be sure OP is considering the full picture.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I would still be comfortable with it taking four (putting me in a six-year graduation demographic). After undergrad, I am planning on enrolling in a PhD program, most likely in Economics. My current aspiration is to work as a professor in academia or as a policy analyst. Upon considering grad school, I have heard a lot of people say that many of them are fully-funded and virtually debt-free. Firstly, how does that even happen? All my life I've been told that grad school is exceedingly costly. Secondly, how would I qualify for a sponsorship/endorsement/whatever? Is it only available at top schools, or do many people claim these benefits? Is it scarce, or should I be confident in my ability to obtain one? I apologize if this question is a bit elementary. Like I said, I am not so knowledgeable about the college process. Regardless, thank you for the insight.
RESPONSE A: People have already explained funding. I want to add something else. Most people who work in academics end up at a lesser ranked school that the one they received their phd from. So, if I went to the University of Minnesota, it is most likely that's you will get a job at a school ranked lower than u of mn. You can see the rankings http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/economics-rankings Now, when you are in the top schools, this is less true. But if you aren't looking at Ivys, make sure to consider this when choosing schools. Also, I am a professor in physics at a small, low-ranked liberal arts college. I have recently helped 5 of our majors go on to phd programs, most of these were first generation college students. If you want to message me with any other specific questions, feel free.
RESPONSE B: I'm in a fully funded program. All our PhD students are fully funded, so there's no special qualification, you just get it when you're accepted. Its an Ivy, so they have money.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Had a great interview for a lecturer position last week, they said they'd be making me an offer, now the job has been re-posted on HigherEdJobs. School starts next Wednesday. I didn't get the position, did I? Man, this feels worse than my last break-up. :(
RESPONSE A: Maybe not, but you should contact the interviewer to be sure. In many colleges and universities, the job postings are handled by the Human Resources department, while the interviews and the hiring decisions are made by academics. It doesn't hurt to check. (Or rather, it only hurts your feelings; about which I am sorry.)
RESPONSE B: I'm sorry :( Your username is bomb tho!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Had a great interview for a lecturer position last week, they said they'd be making me an offer, now the job has been re-posted on HigherEdJobs. School starts next Wednesday. I didn't get the position, did I? Man, this feels worse than my last break-up. :(
RESPONSE A: Email them.
RESPONSE B: Maybe not, but you should contact the interviewer to be sure. In many colleges and universities, the job postings are handled by the Human Resources department, while the interviews and the hiring decisions are made by academics. It doesn't hurt to check. (Or rather, it only hurts your feelings; about which I am sorry.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Had a great interview for a lecturer position last week, they said they'd be making me an offer, now the job has been re-posted on HigherEdJobs. School starts next Wednesday. I didn't get the position, did I? Man, this feels worse than my last break-up. :(
RESPONSE A: I'm sorry :( Your username is bomb tho!
RESPONSE B: Very strange indeed. Ask HR; realize the committee will most likely be informed that you asked. If this was an adjunct position (you didn't say) it could be they need more than one or someone else for next semester too. Hard to guess. Just ask and know for sure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Had a great interview for a lecturer position last week, they said they'd be making me an offer, now the job has been re-posted on HigherEdJobs. School starts next Wednesday. I didn't get the position, did I? Man, this feels worse than my last break-up. :(
RESPONSE A: Very strange indeed. Ask HR; realize the committee will most likely be informed that you asked. If this was an adjunct position (you didn't say) it could be they need more than one or someone else for next semester too. Hard to guess. Just ask and know for sure.
RESPONSE B: Email them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Had a great interview for a lecturer position last week, they said they'd be making me an offer, now the job has been re-posted on HigherEdJobs. School starts next Wednesday. I didn't get the position, did I? Man, this feels worse than my last break-up. :(
RESPONSE A: I'm sorry :( Your username is bomb tho!
RESPONSE B: I've had this happen to me several times. I think a lot of hiring committees, for whatever reason, don't instruct people to not issue these kinds of statements. I had two campus visits at which I was told to expect a letter of offer in two weeks or so only to hear that another candidate got the job. I was angry both of those times, but now understand from my own experiences on a hiring committee that most professors have surprisingly little HR experience. It's unprofessional and foolish of them, and it's unfortunately very common. I make it a huge point to bring this up on hiring committees I'm serving on so that people get that it's unprofessional and foolish.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Who has no/little interest in their research? And if you don't, do you pretend you do?
RESPONSE A: Here. I took this job as an opportunity, and most of the project was already defined when I joined. I don't find the discipline or empirical setting very interesting - though I do find some of the phenomena within these interesting, sometimes. 3.5 years in, it's a bit of a slog but any other job would also be a slog, just in different ways. But the point of taking this job, as an immigrant, was establishing stability here. I do pretend to find the whole thing interesting when it makes political sense to do so, but that's become more infrequent as I've been nearing the end. Thankfully, my supervisors and I have a pretty good workflow. This is most crucial, in that it would be unbearable elseways.
RESPONSE B: I have interest in the topics. However, I'm not paid to do it currently and have way too large a teaching load to have that kind of energy. If I ever had a professional incentive again, I would do it. For the purposes of job apps, I do have an agenda I can talk about and dive back into. Also, the entire system just seems like a Ponzi scheme to me. Publishers who aren't academics make infinite dollars posting digital articles almost no one reads on websites almost no one has access to and pay the people doing all the work nothing. The old, "well you have tenure and are paid by your institution," line is both false and never really justified it in the first place. If we're all gonna spend that kind of time on something, we should be able to put it somewhere accessible and be able to directly benefit from its access. Academics cannot afford to continue being gaslit by admins and publishers over our passion for research and teaching.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Who has no/little interest in their research? And if you don't, do you pretend you do?
RESPONSE A: If you have no/little interest in your research, why are you even doing it? You chose it! You wrote the proposal, you wrote the grant, you chose to select that topic. If you have no interest in it get out
RESPONSE B: I have interest in the topics. However, I'm not paid to do it currently and have way too large a teaching load to have that kind of energy. If I ever had a professional incentive again, I would do it. For the purposes of job apps, I do have an agenda I can talk about and dive back into. Also, the entire system just seems like a Ponzi scheme to me. Publishers who aren't academics make infinite dollars posting digital articles almost no one reads on websites almost no one has access to and pay the people doing all the work nothing. The old, "well you have tenure and are paid by your institution," line is both false and never really justified it in the first place. If we're all gonna spend that kind of time on something, we should be able to put it somewhere accessible and be able to directly benefit from its access. Academics cannot afford to continue being gaslit by admins and publishers over our passion for research and teaching.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Who has no/little interest in their research? And if you don't, do you pretend you do?
RESPONSE A: I have interest in the topics. However, I'm not paid to do it currently and have way too large a teaching load to have that kind of energy. If I ever had a professional incentive again, I would do it. For the purposes of job apps, I do have an agenda I can talk about and dive back into. Also, the entire system just seems like a Ponzi scheme to me. Publishers who aren't academics make infinite dollars posting digital articles almost no one reads on websites almost no one has access to and pay the people doing all the work nothing. The old, "well you have tenure and are paid by your institution," line is both false and never really justified it in the first place. If we're all gonna spend that kind of time on something, we should be able to put it somewhere accessible and be able to directly benefit from its access. Academics cannot afford to continue being gaslit by admins and publishers over our passion for research and teaching.
RESPONSE B: I think interest can change quickly depending on perspective and utilitarian context. It's often a balance between 'what I am doing' and 'how I am doing it' that is important.
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.