label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A | POST: Just got tenure. Want to let my gender fluidity come out in professional environments. What do you think? I'd like to let my gender fluidity be present at work, but I am hesitant. I'm not in gender studies or similar, and it will be a surprise for most. Do I send an email to the faculty? Do I explain "gender" to students the first day of class even though it has nothing to do with the class? I'd definitely keep my clothes professional but I'm a 35 y.o. dude, and while teaching or presenting in a conference as my authentic self sounds exhilarating, I know it's an image I can't take back--especially if it's one of those 300-student survey. I'm wondering if anyone has any related experiences or feedback. Would you care if a male professor in your department suddenly would show up here and there in feminine clothing? Hesitant to see him/her representing the department?
RESPONSE A: Don't send out a mass email, that would be very odd and unprofessional. If you think this is going to cause excessive attention then perhaps bring it up with your departmental administrator. I think it will depend very much on the culture of your country and university/department as to how much disruption this would cause (if any).
RESPONSE B: I don't see what your gender has to do with your work environment. If someone asks you, you can choose to talk about it but sending mass email about it seems really inappropriate in a professional environment. If a male comes in feminine's clothing that's his choice and if people are curious they can talk to you about it. And I am one of those that after your phd if you choose to it is not him or her anymore but Dr.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Just got tenure. Want to let my gender fluidity come out in professional environments. What do you think? I'd like to let my gender fluidity be present at work, but I am hesitant. I'm not in gender studies or similar, and it will be a surprise for most. Do I send an email to the faculty? Do I explain "gender" to students the first day of class even though it has nothing to do with the class? I'd definitely keep my clothes professional but I'm a 35 y.o. dude, and while teaching or presenting in a conference as my authentic self sounds exhilarating, I know it's an image I can't take back--especially if it's one of those 300-student survey. I'm wondering if anyone has any related experiences or feedback. Would you care if a male professor in your department suddenly would show up here and there in feminine clothing? Hesitant to see him/her representing the department?
RESPONSE A: Kinda seems unnecessary to me tbh as this information doesn’t effect your work. Why not just have it on your website, that’s how my profs openly share this or an lgbtq poster on your door
RESPONSE B: Don't send out a mass email, that would be very odd and unprofessional. If you think this is going to cause excessive attention then perhaps bring it up with your departmental administrator. I think it will depend very much on the culture of your country and university/department as to how much disruption this would cause (if any).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: surprise for most. Do I send an email to the faculty? Do I explain "gender" to students the first day of class even though it has nothing to do with the class? I'd definitely keep my clothes professional but I'm a 35 y.o. dude, and while teaching or presenting in a conference as my authentic self sounds exhilarating, I know it's an image I can't take back--especially if it's one of those 300-student survey. I'm wondering if anyone has any related experiences or feedback. Would you care if a male professor in your department suddenly would show up here and there in feminine clothing? Hesitant to see him/her representing the department?
RESPONSE A: Just be yourself. If they want to, the students will figure it out. Making an announcement wouldn't really be appropriate during a class. Personal anecdotes are fine but I was always taught that, as a rule, never say "I am a... (Insert religion, ethnicity, sexuality, etc here)" unless it is DIRECTLY related to the course and the students would need to know for some reason.
RESPONSE B: I'm only a PhD student but I'm also a non-binary person in science.... I don't think you should go down the "big reveal" route, and definitely don't send a mass email or make an announcement in front of a class. Personally I just gradually began to transition as I became more confident over the last couple of years. When I joined my program I wore strictly masculine clothing, and gradually became more feminine over time. If you're gradual then in the beginning everyone will write off your slight femininity as 'fashion'. After a while if you start wearing women's clothing items then no one will blink an eye because they're already used to you having a feminine appearance. If you just suddenly come to work wearing a skirt after having always previously worn men's clothes then it's going to be jarring. I can understand the urge to 'come out' but I'd keep that for your private life - at work I'd only mention it directly if asked.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: it being an unfair system. I defended a PhD without knowing I was supposed to cultivate a network. I received messaging that academia was (1) competitive (so why would people be interested in helping each other?) and (2) academics ought to be independent researchers who didn’t need hand-holding (so why ask for help or direction?). Also, how did you learn about academic networking? Did you have to be taught? By who? How explicit was it that you were being shown how to network?
RESPONSE A: Any professional job, within or outside academia will benefit from networking. In academia you can think of it more in terms of potential future collaborations. Eg if you are researching tents and I’m researching tents from a different perspective maybe we could work on a project about tents together in the future. Also, if you are the lead of a tents research lab and are looking for a postdoc, if you met a person before at a conference and shared common goals it is more likely that you will share job opportunities (many of which are not widely advertised). I don’t remember being taught about networking, it’s something I’ve developed over the years of working in healthcare and now academia.
RESPONSE B: My PhD advisor, before she passed, made me promise that I would attend the national professional conference in my major research area. I'm pretty introverted, and the idea of attending a conference was very unappealing, but I had promised her so I went. Ended up interviewing for my first academic position at that conference that year, and got the job. I made sure to attend sessions I found interesting, not just in my research area, and I also attended the business meetings for those groups. Through attending the business meetings I was able to get minor (then later major) service opportunities I needed for my position. When the time came to go up for promotion, individuals I had served with on those committees made up the majority of my external reviewers. I never had to struggle to find external reviewers who knew me. I never "networked" purposely and I'm horrible at small talk, but showing up and volunteering at conferences has made all the difference in my career (and personal life, as I met my husband at my first academic job).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How does academic networking work? How did you learn this? Academia appealed to me because I thought it was based on objective merit - good research gets published; worthy applications get grants; expertise means you will be asked to contribute book chapters and present at conferences; all that produces a strong CV which leads to a TT job. Where does the benefit of networking come in? I’ve read that professional networks provide ‘support’ and ‘opportunities’. Could you give some concrete examples of this? Most descriptions I’ve encountered sound like favouritism but said in a way which tries to downplay that. It seems to be some kind of mutual support but I don't get what resources are being provided without it being an unfair system. I defended a PhD without knowing I was supposed to cultivate a network. I received messaging that academia was (1) competitive (so why would people be interested in helping each other?) and (2) academics ought to be independent researchers who didn’t need hand-holding (so why ask for help or direction?). Also, how did you learn about academic networking? Did you have to be taught? By who? How explicit was it that you were being shown how to network?
RESPONSE A: Academic networking happens through functional alcoholism at conferences. I was taught by my undergraduate supervisor.
RESPONSE B: It's less favoritism and more just straight up knowing that you exist. There's too much research out there for everyone to read everything. If people know who you are (even if that's just from an insightful comment at their poster or whatever), they'll read your work when it comes out, or think of you when people ask for award nominations, invite people for a special issue, etc, etc. If you strike up a friendship and they hear about a position that might be a good fit, maybe they'll forward it. Little things.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How does academic networking work? How did you learn this? Academia appealed to me because I thought it was based on objective merit - good research gets published; worthy applications get grants; expertise means you will be asked to contribute book chapters and present at conferences; all that produces a strong CV which leads to a TT job. Where does the benefit of networking come in? I’ve read that professional networks provide ‘support’ and ‘opportunities’. Could you give some concrete examples of this? Most descriptions I’ve encountered sound like favouritism but said in a way which tries to downplay that. It seems to be some kind of mutual support but I don't get what resources are being provided without it being an unfair system. I defended a PhD without knowing I was supposed to cultivate a network. I received messaging that academia was (1) competitive (so why would people be interested in helping each other?) and (2) academics ought to be independent researchers who didn’t need hand-holding (so why ask for help or direction?). Also, how did you learn about academic networking? Did you have to be taught? By who? How explicit was it that you were being shown how to network?
RESPONSE A: I found Phil Agre's "Networking on the Network: A Guide to Professional Skills for PhD Students" to be really insighful on this topic. This is a really old piece that was first written when the internet was new to academics and aimed to explain how email can contribute to professional networking in academia. I think it gets at very important points about academia as an inter-personal activity. If we want to develop ideas then we need to discuss them with others. It paints a much less cynical view of networking than what one might get from thinking about networking in business circles or popular media.
RESPONSE B: Academic networking happens through functional alcoholism at conferences. I was taught by my undergraduate supervisor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How does academic networking work? How did you learn this? Academia appealed to me because I thought it was based on objective merit - good research gets published; worthy applications get grants; expertise means you will be asked to contribute book chapters and present at conferences; all that produces a strong CV which leads to a TT job. Where does the benefit of networking come in? I’ve read that professional networks provide ‘support’ and ‘opportunities’. Could you give some concrete examples of this? Most descriptions I’ve encountered sound like favouritism but said in a way which tries to downplay that. It seems to be some kind of mutual support but I don't get what resources are being provided without it being an unfair system. I defended a PhD without knowing I was supposed to cultivate a network. I received messaging that academia was (1) competitive (so why would people be interested in helping each other?) and (2) academics ought to be independent researchers who didn’t need hand-holding (so why ask for help or direction?). Also, how did you learn about academic networking? Did you have to be taught? By who? How explicit was it that you were being shown how to network?
RESPONSE A: Ideas move on social networks. The more researchers you are actively connected to, the more ideas you will get in touch with. ​ Being in contact with many people could help you notice career opportunities that you otherwise might not notice. ​ Discussing ideas with other people usually prunes away the biases and makes those ideas more stable. ​ Moreover, I believe that in many fields research isn't anymore an individual task. You could need the opinion or even the help of others if you decide to work at an interdisciplinary or very ambitious project.
RESPONSE B: Academic networking happens through functional alcoholism at conferences. I was taught by my undergraduate supervisor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do people subscribed to Science and Nature find the time and energy to read all the papers not on their topic? I'm a PhD student in a Biology department, and I specialize in molecular biology and biochemistry so I feel like I'm the target audience for these journals, but I can only get through the first half easily. How the hell do people read the second half on a regular basis every week? It takes me several hours to get through a paper on a topic that I'm not familiar with. And people are definitely reading them, the department delivers them every week to people who have subscribed, and there's quite a few. Mine are just piling up and I am honestly considering tossing them since the new ones are constantly coming in and by the time I read through the backlog they will be irrelevant anyway.
RESPONSE A: They don't. Grab a subscription to a journal focusing on your field (broadly or narrowly) and try to read the papers relevant to your subfield and interests. There is too much science being published in our own subfields to keep up with, let alone others. The news and commentary articles are good to peruse in Nature/Science though.
RESPONSE B: I PREFER the papers not from my field!!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do people subscribed to Science and Nature find the time and energy to read all the papers not on their topic? I'm a PhD student in a Biology department, and I specialize in molecular biology and biochemistry so I feel like I'm the target audience for these journals, but I can only get through the first half easily. How the hell do people read the second half on a regular basis every week? It takes me several hours to get through a paper on a topic that I'm not familiar with. And people are definitely reading them, the department delivers them every week to people who have subscribed, and there's quite a few. Mine are just piling up and I am honestly considering tossing them since the new ones are constantly coming in and by the time I read through the backlog they will be irrelevant anyway.
RESPONSE A: Man when someone teaches you about abstracts it's gonna blow your mind.
RESPONSE B: They don't. Grab a subscription to a journal focusing on your field (broadly or narrowly) and try to read the papers relevant to your subfield and interests. There is too much science being published in our own subfields to keep up with, let alone others. The news and commentary articles are good to peruse in Nature/Science though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do people subscribed to Science and Nature find the time and energy to read all the papers not on their topic? I'm a PhD student in a Biology department, and I specialize in molecular biology and biochemistry so I feel like I'm the target audience for these journals, but I can only get through the first half easily. How the hell do people read the second half on a regular basis every week? It takes me several hours to get through a paper on a topic that I'm not familiar with. And people are definitely reading them, the department delivers them every week to people who have subscribed, and there's quite a few. Mine are just piling up and I am honestly considering tossing them since the new ones are constantly coming in and by the time I read through the backlog they will be irrelevant anyway.
RESPONSE A: You don't read entire journals, you only read the relevant articles for you and maybe the abstracts of the other fields if you are curious. It's not a novel, you don't read journals in order and page by page.
RESPONSE B: Man when someone teaches you about abstracts it's gonna blow your mind.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are your views on reducing core curriculum requirements and eliminating required courses? I was speaking to a friend who works at the University of Alabama, and he told me about proposed changes to their core curriculum. You can read about them here Notable changes I found intriguing were: * Humanities, literature, and fine arts are reduced from 12 to 9 hours. Literature is no longer required as the other options can fully satisfy the requirement. * Writing courses (comp) are reduced from 6 to 3 hours meaning only one writing-focused course is required. * History and social/behavioral courses are reduced from 12 to 9 hours. The social/behavioral courses can fully satisfy the requirement, so no history course is required. * Overall reduction of core requirements from 53-55 hours to 37-38 hours. More hours will be added to major requirements. My friend said he and a lot of his colleagues are up in arms about it. He also mentioned that statistics will satisfy the core curriculum math requirement. I'm conflicted on my personal feelings on this. I like that students have more choice, but it feels like it's pushing the university experience to be more focused on "job training" rather than a liberal education. I'm an idealist though.
RESPONSE A: Colleges in the US have had to step in to give students the general skills other countries provide in secondary school. With no national secondary curriculum and wildly different standards even within state boards of education, I can't help but feel like changes like this are going to create a further divide between students who have had the benefit of a high-quality secondary education and those who didn't. It's something we already see in my college in first year classes where about half of the students can't properly understand or respond to an argument being made and the other half feel (correctly) that they are wasting their time.
RESPONSE B: Aside from eliminating the humanities, which this policy would move closer to achieving, would most departments even be able to offer more major courses? My department would love to offer more major courses, but we barely have enough faculty to offer the current number of courses. We rely on the gen-ed requirements to fulfill the total-credit graduation requirement.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: than a liberal education. I'm an idealist though.
RESPONSE A: Good luck with the specific job training when your applicants can't write, tell a good source of info from a bad one, do algebra or any other math, don't know natural limitation of physics chemistry, or biology, have no insight into another point of view because they never even read one good story , and condemn all the rest of us to repeat history forever because they have the collective memory of a gold fish As someone who also teaches "job training" for nurses and pharm tech and medical transcription etc , the lack of both foundational skills and the soft skills you get while acquiring those foundational skills is not surmountable for many of those people. Why the onus is not on companies to take a a reasonably educated person and train them for highly specific job skills is perhaps a better question. You are going to have to make primary and HS a lot better in the US if you think you can get away with adding more major requirements and having them just not flounder in those . They are already often floundering in those major requirements with the core courses, Since the students can't see into the future, the fact that they have an apparent choice is not the blessing you imagine. The students wanted a course in statistics for researchers without any programming or math. And could it be half on zoom and only use google sheets. They have that apparent choice now, but without understanding that they are going to be fucked by in later when they have an apparent class under their belt and don't know how to use any of the tools or concepts they need for their actual research.
RESPONSE B: Colleges in the US have had to step in to give students the general skills other countries provide in secondary school. With no national secondary curriculum and wildly different standards even within state boards of education, I can't help but feel like changes like this are going to create a further divide between students who have had the benefit of a high-quality secondary education and those who didn't. It's something we already see in my college in first year classes where about half of the students can't properly understand or respond to an argument being made and the other half feel (correctly) that they are wasting their time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are your views on reducing core curriculum requirements and eliminating required courses? I was speaking to a friend who works at the University of Alabama, and he told me about proposed changes to their core curriculum. You can read about them here Notable changes I found intriguing were: * Humanities, literature, and fine arts are reduced from 12 to 9 hours. Literature is no longer required as the other options can fully satisfy the requirement. * Writing courses (comp) are reduced from 6 to 3 hours meaning only one writing-focused course is required. * History and social/behavioral courses are reduced from 12 to 9 hours. The social/behavioral courses can fully satisfy the requirement, so no history course is required. * Overall reduction of core requirements from 53-55 hours to 37-38 hours. More hours will be added to major requirements. My friend said he and a lot of his colleagues are up in arms about it. He also mentioned that statistics will satisfy the core curriculum math requirement. I'm conflicted on my personal feelings on this. I like that students have more choice, but it feels like it's pushing the university experience to be more focused on "job training" rather than a liberal education. I'm an idealist though.
RESPONSE A: Colleges in the US have had to step in to give students the general skills other countries provide in secondary school. With no national secondary curriculum and wildly different standards even within state boards of education, I can't help but feel like changes like this are going to create a further divide between students who have had the benefit of a high-quality secondary education and those who didn't. It's something we already see in my college in first year classes where about half of the students can't properly understand or respond to an argument being made and the other half feel (correctly) that they are wasting their time.
RESPONSE B: it would be outrageous to expect graduates to have only had 3cr hrs of writing practice
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are your views on reducing core curriculum requirements and eliminating required courses? I was speaking to a friend who works at the University of Alabama, and he told me about proposed changes to their core curriculum. You can read about them here Notable changes I found intriguing were: * Humanities, literature, and fine arts are reduced from 12 to 9 hours. Literature is no longer required as the other options can fully satisfy the requirement. * Writing courses (comp) are reduced from 6 to 3 hours meaning only one writing-focused course is required. * History and social/behavioral courses are reduced from 12 to 9 hours. The social/behavioral courses can fully satisfy the requirement, so no history course is required. * Overall reduction of core requirements from 53-55 hours to 37-38 hours. More hours will be added to major requirements. My friend said he and a lot of his colleagues are up in arms about it. He also mentioned that statistics will satisfy the core curriculum math requirement. I'm conflicted on my personal feelings on this. I like that students have more choice, but it feels like it's pushing the university experience to be more focused on "job training" rather than a liberal education. I'm an idealist though.
RESPONSE A: >My friend said he and a lot of his colleagues are up in arms about it. This reaction is driven by: 1. Conflation of self-identity with one's job. 2. Fear that one's job will be eliminated. The USA is the only country in the world that I know of where post-secondary students are forced to purchase courses about subjects that they have absolutely zero interest in.
RESPONSE B: Colleges in the US have had to step in to give students the general skills other countries provide in secondary school. With no national secondary curriculum and wildly different standards even within state boards of education, I can't help but feel like changes like this are going to create a further divide between students who have had the benefit of a high-quality secondary education and those who didn't. It's something we already see in my college in first year classes where about half of the students can't properly understand or respond to an argument being made and the other half feel (correctly) that they are wasting their time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: read about them here Notable changes I found intriguing were: * Humanities, literature, and fine arts are reduced from 12 to 9 hours. Literature is no longer required as the other options can fully satisfy the requirement. * Writing courses (comp) are reduced from 6 to 3 hours meaning only one writing-focused course is required. * History and social/behavioral courses are reduced from 12 to 9 hours. The social/behavioral courses can fully satisfy the requirement, so no history course is required. * Overall reduction of core requirements from 53-55 hours to 37-38 hours. More hours will be added to major requirements. My friend said he and a lot of his colleagues are up in arms about it. He also mentioned that statistics will satisfy the core curriculum math requirement. I'm conflicted on my personal feelings on this. I like that students have more choice, but it feels like it's pushing the university experience to be more focused on "job training" rather than a liberal education. I'm an idealist though.
RESPONSE A: Colleges in the US have had to step in to give students the general skills other countries provide in secondary school. With no national secondary curriculum and wildly different standards even within state boards of education, I can't help but feel like changes like this are going to create a further divide between students who have had the benefit of a high-quality secondary education and those who didn't. It's something we already see in my college in first year classes where about half of the students can't properly understand or respond to an argument being made and the other half feel (correctly) that they are wasting their time.
RESPONSE B: I think that it is impossible to effectively teach someone something they don't want to learn. In an ideal world, I too would want every graduate to know math, to be scientifically literate, to understand and appreciate the humanities. But in practice, students memorize their way through most geneds and come out the other side with a poor understanding of the subject as well as a distaste for it. Ask your typical non-STEM college graduate how much they got from their mandatory math courses and see how effective you think they were. We may as well just not. The time is better spent working on something they care about.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What did you do during graduate school to fully take advantage of your time there? Hi everyone! I'm a STEM master's student in Canada and about a year into my degree. I couldn't really find a good discussion on the topic, so, like the title says, I'm curious to know about what you did during grad school that you felt help you stand out? Did you join a graduate council or a field-related organization? Did you teach yourself skills that aren't necessarily related to your work? Did you start an initiative of some sort? Apply for awards? I feel like I could be doing more, but with COVID, and working entirely remotely, it's hard to get new perspectives and ideas. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I climbed a lot, traveled internationally quite a bit, fell in love, got married, and had a kid. Don't underestimate the importance of actually having a life at this time. Also published in Nature as a first author so that was cool but honestly it isn't even in my top 10 experiences during my PhD.
RESPONSE B: Enjoyed my life. I came to grad school (PhD program in engineering) 2 months after a long deployment to Afghanistan in a combat arms role. As such, grad school seemed like a vacation from previous hardships and I had a absolute blast doing research and taking advantage of everyday lifestyle (walking on a safe sidewalk to work, eating out, having some beers casually).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What did you do during graduate school to fully take advantage of your time there? Hi everyone! I'm a STEM master's student in Canada and about a year into my degree. I couldn't really find a good discussion on the topic, so, like the title says, I'm curious to know about what you did during grad school that you felt help you stand out? Did you join a graduate council or a field-related organization? Did you teach yourself skills that aren't necessarily related to your work? Did you start an initiative of some sort? Apply for awards? I feel like I could be doing more, but with COVID, and working entirely remotely, it's hard to get new perspectives and ideas. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I did most of the things you mentioned. I wanted to make sure I had a well-rounded resume.
RESPONSE B: I climbed a lot, traveled internationally quite a bit, fell in love, got married, and had a kid. Don't underestimate the importance of actually having a life at this time. Also published in Nature as a first author so that was cool but honestly it isn't even in my top 10 experiences during my PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , it's hard to get new perspectives and ideas. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Enjoyed my life. I came to grad school (PhD program in engineering) 2 months after a long deployment to Afghanistan in a combat arms role. As such, grad school seemed like a vacation from previous hardships and I had a absolute blast doing research and taking advantage of everyday lifestyle (walking on a safe sidewalk to work, eating out, having some beers casually).
RESPONSE B: The answer will depend a lot on what your goals are. People are going to grad school for reasons beyond attempting a career as an R1 researcher these days, and for those "alternative" careers, publications will not be all that matters (though publications do help in essentially all careers that follow grad school). For instance, I knew I wanted to teach at a PUI after finishing my PhD. Because of this, I picked a school with a specialization in biology education and an advisor who promised me that I could do as much teaching as I wanted as long as I met her standards for productivity. I ended up taking a few classes in pedagogy, earned a tack-on "teaching certificate" with my degree, and by making it known in my department that I wanted to teach I was given a lecture course as instructor of record during my last year. That lecture course is the biggest reason I landed my current position at a small liberal arts college right out of my PhD. Another example: my office-mate in grad school wanted to work in industry and wanted to keep options open for science communication. He started science outreach programs, worked with multiple groups across the large university to get involved in as many opportunities for collaborative projects as he could, and he networked his butt off. He's now working in an industry position and keeps active in communication where he can. The biggest advice I would give: ***talk to people who have the job you want and especially listen to those who got those jobs within the last 5ish years***. Place all advice in the context of who is giving it to you. I mostly say that because R1 professors have rarely worked outside of R1 universities and thus often only really know how to get jobs the same way they did.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: work? Did you start an initiative of some sort? Apply for awards? I feel like I could be doing more, but with COVID, and working entirely remotely, it's hard to get new perspectives and ideas. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I got married and dropped out after my Master's degree. I decided I wouldn't take another 6 years of abuse. For me, that's what making the most of grad school looked like, and looking back it was absolutely the right decision.
RESPONSE B: The answer will depend a lot on what your goals are. People are going to grad school for reasons beyond attempting a career as an R1 researcher these days, and for those "alternative" careers, publications will not be all that matters (though publications do help in essentially all careers that follow grad school). For instance, I knew I wanted to teach at a PUI after finishing my PhD. Because of this, I picked a school with a specialization in biology education and an advisor who promised me that I could do as much teaching as I wanted as long as I met her standards for productivity. I ended up taking a few classes in pedagogy, earned a tack-on "teaching certificate" with my degree, and by making it known in my department that I wanted to teach I was given a lecture course as instructor of record during my last year. That lecture course is the biggest reason I landed my current position at a small liberal arts college right out of my PhD. Another example: my office-mate in grad school wanted to work in industry and wanted to keep options open for science communication. He started science outreach programs, worked with multiple groups across the large university to get involved in as many opportunities for collaborative projects as he could, and he networked his butt off. He's now working in an industry position and keeps active in communication where he can. The biggest advice I would give: ***talk to people who have the job you want and especially listen to those who got those jobs within the last 5ish years***. Place all advice in the context of who is giving it to you. I mostly say that because R1 professors have rarely worked outside of R1 universities and thus often only really know how to get jobs the same way they did.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: useful for medical/pharmacy fields). I just want out I can't do this anymore.
RESPONSE A: My postdoc ended in June. I got a temporary "assistant research scientist" position because the pandemic killed my in-progress interviews last spring. My background is neuroscience/computer science and I ended up getting a data analyst position in finance. For the most part, all you really have to say is that you realized that the academic track doesn't fit your life goals and that you want X (where X is something that the new position offers). This doubles as an explanation for why you're interested in the position they have available. My current position has nice set hours, an enjoyable work environment, and no looming make-or-break deadlines decided on in a completely arbitrary fashion. It's a lot less stressful, if perhaps not as stimulating. The pay is, unfortunately, on-par with my post-doc, however. That \*should\* change, but it's also important to consider that you may need to spend a year or two building skills to match what industry wants.
RESPONSE B: >How do I explain why I want to transition out of academia without explicitly saying that I hate the career path, the long hours, ~~little pay~~, and endless stress? Better work / life balance. Low pay is the postdoc. All roads lead to better pay. Everyone in industry understands that. No need to bring it up. When pay does come up, it will be with a recruiter or HR as they go over potential salary range. Do your homework to know what that will likely be ahead of time and that is the pay you discuss (if needed). >Anyone successfully leave their postdoc for industry? Yep. Though the transition is different depending on if you are looking for a bench vs non-bench role. I've only now caught up to my fellow bench scientist colleagues salaries with comparable experience - took about five years in industry. Any ideas what you want to do in industry? I'm in genomics now. But not at the bench. I left the postdoc for similar reasons. Worked mainly with C. Elegans during that time. So don't feel like it limits you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Took a postdoc after PhD but I want out. How to transition successfully into industry? How do I approach jobs that might view me as over qualified? How do I explain why I want to transition out of academia without explicitly saying that I hate the career path, the long hours, little pay, and endless stress? Anyone successfully leave their postdoc for industry? My background is in genomics (worked with fish so not even humans or viruses or anything useful for medical/pharmacy fields). I just want out I can't do this anymore.
RESPONSE A: >How do I explain why I want to transition out of academia without explicitly saying that I hate the career path, the long hours, ~~little pay~~, and endless stress? Better work / life balance. Low pay is the postdoc. All roads lead to better pay. Everyone in industry understands that. No need to bring it up. When pay does come up, it will be with a recruiter or HR as they go over potential salary range. Do your homework to know what that will likely be ahead of time and that is the pay you discuss (if needed). >Anyone successfully leave their postdoc for industry? Yep. Though the transition is different depending on if you are looking for a bench vs non-bench role. I've only now caught up to my fellow bench scientist colleagues salaries with comparable experience - took about five years in industry. Any ideas what you want to do in industry? I'm in genomics now. But not at the bench. I left the postdoc for similar reasons. Worked mainly with C. Elegans during that time. So don't feel like it limits you.
RESPONSE B: You have a Ph.D. + postdoc in a computational discipline? Congrats, you are a rare specimen that finally satisfies those crazy LinkedIn Data Science job requirements... start applying. Don't mention the fish, state that you worked in computational genomics. You are hungry and highly qualified. They will grab you eventually. If it gets tricky do a course in web development. That will prime you up for recruiters.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: ? How do I explain why I want to transition out of academia without explicitly saying that I hate the career path, the long hours, little pay, and endless stress? Anyone successfully leave their postdoc for industry? My background is in genomics (worked with fish so not even humans or viruses or anything useful for medical/pharmacy fields). I just want out I can't do this anymore.
RESPONSE A: I went from postdoc, to startup, back to postdoc, now applying for professorships. Got a few industry job offers before 2nd postdoc as well. Your skills will translate well in industry, there are lots of people looking for basic bioinformaticians. I did frog genomics for example. You'll need to learn how to sell yourself to each company, generally you'll need to show you have the skills in Python, R, etc, and understand how to do the basic analyses needed. Sometimes that is population genetics (GATK or freebayes with a sample data set can teach you what you need), or just being able to do hardcore stats in R. Whatever your specialty is between those focus on jobs asking for those skills. ​ Don't say you hate academia, but you can say you wanted to apply your skills in a more practical manner, etc. Basically you can say you know you want to leave academia because you don't see a future there, but it has to be phrased as "your company fits what I would like my career to go into". This is part of learning to sell yourself, it didn't come to me easily but after failing a few times I got good at the interviews. That may seem a bit depressing, but I assure you its less failures before seeing success than I've had interviewing for TT positions.
RESPONSE B: You have a Ph.D. + postdoc in a computational discipline? Congrats, you are a rare specimen that finally satisfies those crazy LinkedIn Data Science job requirements... start applying. Don't mention the fish, state that you worked in computational genomics. You are hungry and highly qualified. They will grab you eventually. If it gets tricky do a course in web development. That will prime you up for recruiters.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Took a postdoc after PhD but I want out. How to transition successfully into industry? How do I approach jobs that might view me as over qualified? How do I explain why I want to transition out of academia without explicitly saying that I hate the career path, the long hours, little pay, and endless stress? Anyone successfully leave their postdoc for industry? My background is in genomics (worked with fish so not even humans or viruses or anything useful for medical/pharmacy fields). I just want out I can't do this anymore.
RESPONSE A: if you did genomics in anything you can apply it to any genomics subject. the tooling is common.
RESPONSE B: Leaving academia is NORMAL. That’s what most people do. Start looking at job descriptions (just search “PhD” or other relevant words for your skill set in LinkedIn Jobs) to find out what you like.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to transition successfully into industry? How do I approach jobs that might view me as over qualified? How do I explain why I want to transition out of academia without explicitly saying that I hate the career path, the long hours, little pay, and endless stress? Anyone successfully leave their postdoc for industry? My background is in genomics (worked with fish so not even humans or viruses or anything useful for medical/pharmacy fields). I just want out I can't do this anymore.
RESPONSE A: I did this. I went into industry after doing a year of a postdoc. My field is in the social sciences, and I transitioned into UX research in the technology industry. Before you can transition out successfully, you need to figure out what you want to transition *to*. It's not enough to just know you want to leave: what do you want to do? Since you know you want to leave, begin to safely scale back your work as much as you can so you can devote some cycles to investigating other job options for people in your field, with your background. There are some jobs that will directly use your skills in industry, particularly in national labs or government agency research, and some that will engage them more indirectly, like management/strategy consulting or data science. Consider joining a professional organization in your current city (or online) in fields in which you're interested; in my field, the equivalents are groups like UX Professionals Association and SIG-CHI. They sometimes will let you know about jobs before they are posted, and you can meet professionals in whatever field you're interested in and do informational interviews. Your undergrad or graduate university career center may still offer their services to alumni, so I'd check to see if they can do resume review or if they have an alumni job listserv (and if either of them are any good). Or the career services offices at your current institution might welcome postdocs at their events. Many large universities with graduate programs have non-academic career fairs and events for doctoral students.
RESPONSE B: Leaving academia is NORMAL. That’s what most people do. Start looking at job descriptions (just search “PhD” or other relevant words for your skill set in LinkedIn Jobs) to find out what you like.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do some professors (in the US) earn half a million dollars? So information about compensation is public information. E.g., Purdue Salary Compensation I browsed through various departments (STEM specifically) and found that some professors absolutely make a killing. Is the grant funding included? If not, then how do they get so much money?
RESPONSE A: Soft money positions can make a lot more. I know some soft money professors at UCLA make 500k+ because they pull in so many grants. Also, industries that pay a lot (e.g., econ, medicine) have some departments that pay their top-tier professors a lot because they want those professors, and those professors could get a lot of money working in industry. Competing offers are always the best way to raise salary.
RESPONSE B: And the first page of top salaries is all coaches and executives…
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do some professors (in the US) earn half a million dollars? So information about compensation is public information. E.g., Purdue Salary Compensation I browsed through various departments (STEM specifically) and found that some professors absolutely make a killing. Is the grant funding included? If not, then how do they get so much money?
RESPONSE A: If you are given the designation of Distinguished professor or earn a chair or endowed seat that can come with $ on top of what was before. My boss at a public school in the Midwest was making >300k but was also running an entire research center as well.
RESPONSE B: Soft money positions can make a lot more. I know some soft money professors at UCLA make 500k+ because they pull in so many grants. Also, industries that pay a lot (e.g., econ, medicine) have some departments that pay their top-tier professors a lot because they want those professors, and those professors could get a lot of money working in industry. Competing offers are always the best way to raise salary.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do some professors (in the US) earn half a million dollars? So information about compensation is public information. E.g., Purdue Salary Compensation I browsed through various departments (STEM specifically) and found that some professors absolutely make a killing. Is the grant funding included? If not, then how do they get so much money?
RESPONSE A: Could be lots of ways, they may have consulting or spin off companies that get paid through the university, many universities have some sort of IP profit sharing scheme for stuff developed 'during the course of your employment' that strictly speaking the university could keep 100%
RESPONSE B: Soft money positions can make a lot more. I know some soft money professors at UCLA make 500k+ because they pull in so many grants. Also, industries that pay a lot (e.g., econ, medicine) have some departments that pay their top-tier professors a lot because they want those professors, and those professors could get a lot of money working in industry. Competing offers are always the best way to raise salary.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do some professors (in the US) earn half a million dollars? So information about compensation is public information. E.g., Purdue Salary Compensation I browsed through various departments (STEM specifically) and found that some professors absolutely make a killing. Is the grant funding included? If not, then how do they get so much money?
RESPONSE A: 1. Admin work. Deans and deanlets make more money. If you're a dean of a big-time program like a B-school, you will get paid a ton. At places like Purdue, many of the deans/deanlets are technically still 'faculty'. 2. Grants. These often get processed through the university, so the additional compensation from a grant often appears on these kinds of salary lists. 3. Endowed chairs/professorships of blabity blah. Usually funded by donors who can set parameters for salary and the kinds of people they want to fill the role. 4. Perceived market value. Universities will offer salary comparable to industry salaries to try and recruit/retain faculty. This is why faculty in business and some STEM fields have ridiculously high salaries compared with faculty in other departments. 5. Institution type. Purdue is an R1 that cares about their national/international ranking. Hence, they will pay to get faculty that they believe will improve their ranking. Although COL is low, West Lafayette Indiana isn't exactly a hoot and a half, so they presumably have to pay people generously to get them there and keep them. What you are seeing with these salaries is, of course, the exception rather than the rule. For every one of these half a million dollar professors, there are a dozen (if not more) adjuncts living near the poverty line.
RESPONSE B: If you are given the designation of Distinguished professor or earn a chair or endowed seat that can come with $ on top of what was before. My boss at a public school in the Midwest was making >300k but was also running an entire research center as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do some professors (in the US) earn half a million dollars? So information about compensation is public information. E.g., Purdue Salary Compensation I browsed through various departments (STEM specifically) and found that some professors absolutely make a killing. Is the grant funding included? If not, then how do they get so much money?
RESPONSE A: Could be lots of ways, they may have consulting or spin off companies that get paid through the university, many universities have some sort of IP profit sharing scheme for stuff developed 'during the course of your employment' that strictly speaking the university could keep 100%
RESPONSE B: 1. Admin work. Deans and deanlets make more money. If you're a dean of a big-time program like a B-school, you will get paid a ton. At places like Purdue, many of the deans/deanlets are technically still 'faculty'. 2. Grants. These often get processed through the university, so the additional compensation from a grant often appears on these kinds of salary lists. 3. Endowed chairs/professorships of blabity blah. Usually funded by donors who can set parameters for salary and the kinds of people they want to fill the role. 4. Perceived market value. Universities will offer salary comparable to industry salaries to try and recruit/retain faculty. This is why faculty in business and some STEM fields have ridiculously high salaries compared with faculty in other departments. 5. Institution type. Purdue is an R1 that cares about their national/international ranking. Hence, they will pay to get faculty that they believe will improve their ranking. Although COL is low, West Lafayette Indiana isn't exactly a hoot and a half, so they presumably have to pay people generously to get them there and keep them. What you are seeing with these salaries is, of course, the exception rather than the rule. For every one of these half a million dollar professors, there are a dozen (if not more) adjuncts living near the poverty line.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: beyond 14 days, our contracts will be terminated. We had no choice but to teach face-to-face. We do not qualify for FMLA. We have no health insurance through the university. And now, if we fall ill in a scenario the university constructed, we will lose our jobs. We are not unionized, and our graduate student association was kept in the dark about all of this and told we would have the same rights as faculty. I have two questions about how I should respond to this situation: Any ideas about how we can productively proceed? All we want at this point is not to get fired if we get sick in the classroom and to be able to use our resources to help the university reopen in a safer way for our entire community. I value my students and I do not want to disrupt their education, but I am tempted to tell them what the university is doing to the GTAs and then ask that they not come to my class in person unless they absolutely need my help in that format, because it is not a safe space for us. Then, I would host my class online, from the classroom. Would that be unfair to my undergraduate students?
RESPONSE A: Strike/teach online anyway! Tell your students, and ask them to write to the administrators to complain! Tell your faculty advisors that you won't teach unless [xyz] and have THEM complain to administrators! Note that all of these things carry some risk to your position depending on how vindictive the administration wants to be. There is safety in numbers, regardless of official union status (remember the original unions were all unauthorized - union power comes from striking and unity among workers, not authorization). Such is the nature of labor disputes. But if not now, when?
RESPONSE B: > We had no choice but to teach face-to-face. We do not qualify for FMLA. We have no health insurance through the university. And now, if we fall ill in a scenario the university constructed, we will lose our jobs. Talking to a lawyer about a class-action OSHA suit could be done, several professors at my university are taking that approach. If you have a GA/TA/RA union, talk to them about it and potential collective bargaining.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: HR about documentation of our employee rights (ignored), I learned yesterday - five days before classes start - that myself and my graduate teaching assistant colleagues will have no long term leave if our lives are interrupted by the pandemic. If we are ill beyond 14 days, our contracts will be terminated. We had no choice but to teach face-to-face. We do not qualify for FMLA. We have no health insurance through the university. And now, if we fall ill in a scenario the university constructed, we will lose our jobs. We are not unionized, and our graduate student association was kept in the dark about all of this and told we would have the same rights as faculty. I have two questions about how I should respond to this situation: Any ideas about how we can productively proceed? All we want at this point is not to get fired if we get sick in the classroom and to be able to use our resources to help the university reopen in a safer way for our entire community. I value my students and I do not want to disrupt their education, but I am tempted to tell them what the university is doing to the GTAs and then ask that they not come to my class in person unless they absolutely need my help in that format, because it is not a safe space for us. Then, I would host my class online, from the classroom. Would that be unfair to my undergraduate students?
RESPONSE A: To add on to the advice here. The legal sides of things depends on which state you're in and whether or not you are a public or private university. However, as other have said, there is nothing stopping you from trying to get a group together to discuss working conditions. Practically, this will probably happen on a department level. Is it possible to have a zoom meeting w/ other grad students in your department? And then reach out to friends in other departments? This is daunting/easier said than done, but it is possible. Do you have a grad student association that has any clout? Sympathetic faculty? Getting the other TAs for your class and TAs in your department together is the first step-- best of luck and stay safe.
RESPONSE B: Unionise and strike.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: the university. And now, if we fall ill in a scenario the university constructed, we will lose our jobs. We are not unionized, and our graduate student association was kept in the dark about all of this and told we would have the same rights as faculty. I have two questions about how I should respond to this situation: Any ideas about how we can productively proceed? All we want at this point is not to get fired if we get sick in the classroom and to be able to use our resources to help the university reopen in a safer way for our entire community. I value my students and I do not want to disrupt their education, but I am tempted to tell them what the university is doing to the GTAs and then ask that they not come to my class in person unless they absolutely need my help in that format, because it is not a safe space for us. Then, I would host my class online, from the classroom. Would that be unfair to my undergraduate students?
RESPONSE A: You need to unionize and go on strike. You need to organize and strike. That's it. That's all that will work. Nothing else will. Admin is *desperate*. They have bills. They have bonds that are in arrears and will default. *The administration absolutely will sacrifice your health if it means their jobs will live*. If they say "you can't organize a union it's not allowed" or "it's illegal because of XYZ state legislation" you say "get fucked" and organize anyway. You have the First Amendment and SCOTUS has been ironfuckingclad that this includes the right to organize.
RESPONSE B: I’m going to hesitantly second this advice. Chances are the GA population is teaching a majority of courses in some departments/colleges at minimum, and the possible loss of tuition revenue along with angering the undergrads themselves could be effective. It is worth noting, however, that some institutions have reacted very harshly to GA strikes in the past. I’d consult GA union leadership, but I’d also advise considering it from a personal perspective, as well. After all, it’s hard, but you could always transfer to another university.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: in person while faculty teach online) and pleading for some guidance from HR about documentation of our employee rights (ignored), I learned yesterday - five days before classes start - that myself and my graduate teaching assistant colleagues will have no long term leave if our lives are interrupted by the pandemic. If we are ill beyond 14 days, our contracts will be terminated. We had no choice but to teach face-to-face. We do not qualify for FMLA. We have no health insurance through the university. And now, if we fall ill in a scenario the university constructed, we will lose our jobs. We are not unionized, and our graduate student association was kept in the dark about all of this and told we would have the same rights as faculty. I have two questions about how I should respond to this situation: Any ideas about how we can productively proceed? All we want at this point is not to get fired if we get sick in the classroom and to be able to use our resources to help the university reopen in a safer way for our entire community. I value my students and I do not want to disrupt their education, but I am tempted to tell them what the university is doing to the GTAs and then ask that they not come to my class in person unless they absolutely need my help in that format, because it is not a safe space for us. Then, I would host my class online, from the classroom. Would that be unfair to my undergraduate students?
RESPONSE A: Unionize. Call AFT or UAW and get your contract!
RESPONSE B: You need to unionize and go on strike. You need to organize and strike. That's it. That's all that will work. Nothing else will. Admin is *desperate*. They have bills. They have bonds that are in arrears and will default. *The administration absolutely will sacrifice your health if it means their jobs will live*. If they say "you can't organize a union it's not allowed" or "it's illegal because of XYZ state legislation" you say "get fucked" and organize anyway. You have the First Amendment and SCOTUS has been ironfuckingclad that this includes the right to organize.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: : Any ideas about how we can productively proceed? All we want at this point is not to get fired if we get sick in the classroom and to be able to use our resources to help the university reopen in a safer way for our entire community. I value my students and I do not want to disrupt their education, but I am tempted to tell them what the university is doing to the GTAs and then ask that they not come to my class in person unless they absolutely need my help in that format, because it is not a safe space for us. Then, I would host my class online, from the classroom. Would that be unfair to my undergraduate students?
RESPONSE A: This was years ago protesting something very different, but at a school I was at, the graduate students held all classes outside as a visible protest. The classes were still taught and the GTAs were doing their job (malicious compliance). This was paired with a sit-in style protest at the president's office and op eds in the paper explaining what was going on. For something you can do to personally protect yourself, consider teaching your class as a flip classroom. Record the lectures and use class time for Q&A or working examples or whatever it is you do in class. If you don't take attendance, I bet the majority of students will not show up to the face-to-face part. If someone higher up says something to you, then you explain how you are using a very innovated form of teaching that has literature to back up its effectiveness.
RESPONSE B: You need to unionize and go on strike. You need to organize and strike. That's it. That's all that will work. Nothing else will. Admin is *desperate*. They have bills. They have bonds that are in arrears and will default. *The administration absolutely will sacrifice your health if it means their jobs will live*. If they say "you can't organize a union it's not allowed" or "it's illegal because of XYZ state legislation" you say "get fucked" and organize anyway. You have the First Amendment and SCOTUS has been ironfuckingclad that this includes the right to organize.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , in the UK. What's even worse is that postdoctoral and junior lecturer positions - if you're able to fight off all the competition to get one - are even more poorly paid and insecure. From the conversations I've had with people in those roles, there seems to be very high workload, and a lot of the key aspects of being an academic (e.g. writing papers, acting as a reviewer) have to be done in spare time. So is there any other industry which requires so much training for so little reward and so little job security? For those who are a little longer in the tooth and know these sorts of things, has it always been like this or did the nature of the industry change more recently?
RESPONSE A: I think you may be conflating "research institutions in the UK" with "all of academia". I'm in the US and here, if you follow a path into a more teaching-oriented situation, for example at a teaching-focused public university or a small liberal arts college, the drive for publications and more publications isn't as strong, the pay is decent, and if you can make it to tenure -- which in my experience isn't insanely difficult (I've gotten tenure twice, at two different teaching oriented institutions) -- you have very strong job security. So my experience has been that yeah, those years getting my PhD were really long and I wouldn't want to repeat those, but 21 years later I'm a tenured full professor in a great school with a strong emphasis on teaching but also with plenty of flexibility to do research if I wanted, and pretty much bulletproof job security, and I'm compensated really well. For me the rewards have been really great and it would take a *lot* to get me to take a new position and give all of that up. I don't know a ton about the UK higher ed landscape but I know that teaching-oriented institutions aren't the norm, but some schools seem more oriented toward undergrad education than others.
RESPONSE B: Athlete or Musician is probably the best answer. You can spend 15 years mastering an instrument but still fail to make any money from it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What's a POLITE way to remind a co-author he needs to hurry up with his revisions on our paper before the deadline? I sent him the latest version a while ago and asked him to confirm receipt and send back his revisions when done. Had to ask again a couple days later when he didn't reply. He said he "was busy, but would have a look that afternoon." Almost a week later and haven't heard anything. Deadline for journal submission is quickly approaching. This person is senior to me on the ole' totem pole, so even though I'm extremely frustrated I don't want to piss him off too much (and my wife says I sometimes come off too abrasive when I correspond with others online). Anyone want to volunteer a few lines I should write?
RESPONSE A: I hate these situations and these kinds of collaborators. They are also frustrating on proposals where you wait and wait for their one paragraph of input and then it's terrible and don't know how to get them knocked off the budget. I don't really know what works, but you can also change media - i.e. call instead of email, knock on their office door, etc. Do you NEED their revisions? You can also give one more email like - I need these by Friday and will assume you are fine with the revised version if not received. Though that's also a bit weird in tone - are they needed, or not? Grrr.
RESPONSE B: "Hi, Did you have time to look at the paper? Should I assume that there are no further comments and submit by the deadline (<insert date>)?"
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's a POLITE way to remind a co-author he needs to hurry up with his revisions on our paper before the deadline? I sent him the latest version a while ago and asked him to confirm receipt and send back his revisions when done. Had to ask again a couple days later when he didn't reply. He said he "was busy, but would have a look that afternoon." Almost a week later and haven't heard anything. Deadline for journal submission is quickly approaching. This person is senior to me on the ole' totem pole, so even though I'm extremely frustrated I don't want to piss him off too much (and my wife says I sometimes come off too abrasive when I correspond with others online). Anyone want to volunteer a few lines I should write?
RESPONSE A: “Hurry the fuck up or we won’t make it to publish”
RESPONSE B: I hate these situations and these kinds of collaborators. They are also frustrating on proposals where you wait and wait for their one paragraph of input and then it's terrible and don't know how to get them knocked off the budget. I don't really know what works, but you can also change media - i.e. call instead of email, knock on their office door, etc. Do you NEED their revisions? You can also give one more email like - I need these by Friday and will assume you are fine with the revised version if not received. Though that's also a bit weird in tone - are they needed, or not? Grrr.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's a POLITE way to remind a co-author he needs to hurry up with his revisions on our paper before the deadline? I sent him the latest version a while ago and asked him to confirm receipt and send back his revisions when done. Had to ask again a couple days later when he didn't reply. He said he "was busy, but would have a look that afternoon." Almost a week later and haven't heard anything. Deadline for journal submission is quickly approaching. This person is senior to me on the ole' totem pole, so even though I'm extremely frustrated I don't want to piss him off too much (and my wife says I sometimes come off too abrasive when I correspond with others online). Anyone want to volunteer a few lines I should write?
RESPONSE A: “Hurry the fuck up or we won’t make it to publish”
RESPONSE B: My supervisor is like this. She always ends up emailing the editor and asking for an extension (she literally always gets one) but usually I email to remind her of the deadline and ask when she assumes she’ll have the edits ready so I can plan accordingly. It’s at this point she realizes I don’t have time to implement her edits and asks for an extension. It’s extremely frustrating because it puts so much pressure on me to 1) be completely available for several hours before the deadline and 2) makes me have to crank out all her edits in one go. So I sympathize with you a ton.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's a POLITE way to remind a co-author he needs to hurry up with his revisions on our paper before the deadline? I sent him the latest version a while ago and asked him to confirm receipt and send back his revisions when done. Had to ask again a couple days later when he didn't reply. He said he "was busy, but would have a look that afternoon." Almost a week later and haven't heard anything. Deadline for journal submission is quickly approaching. This person is senior to me on the ole' totem pole, so even though I'm extremely frustrated I don't want to piss him off too much (and my wife says I sometimes come off too abrasive when I correspond with others online). Anyone want to volunteer a few lines I should write?
RESPONSE A: More or less Thanks to everyone for all the help and comments We aim to have this in by X date (5 days before you are going to submit it). So if you have any other comments or revisions please note them now . Please be sure to sign the appropriate author release forms and look for them in your inbox and spam folders about that time - let us know if you do not get them Best All the rest of us
RESPONSE B: My supervisor is like this. She always ends up emailing the editor and asking for an extension (she literally always gets one) but usually I email to remind her of the deadline and ask when she assumes she’ll have the edits ready so I can plan accordingly. It’s at this point she realizes I don’t have time to implement her edits and asks for an extension. It’s extremely frustrating because it puts so much pressure on me to 1) be completely available for several hours before the deadline and 2) makes me have to crank out all her edits in one go. So I sympathize with you a ton.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's a POLITE way to remind a co-author he needs to hurry up with his revisions on our paper before the deadline? I sent him the latest version a while ago and asked him to confirm receipt and send back his revisions when done. Had to ask again a couple days later when he didn't reply. He said he "was busy, but would have a look that afternoon." Almost a week later and haven't heard anything. Deadline for journal submission is quickly approaching. This person is senior to me on the ole' totem pole, so even though I'm extremely frustrated I don't want to piss him off too much (and my wife says I sometimes come off too abrasive when I correspond with others online). Anyone want to volunteer a few lines I should write?
RESPONSE A: “Hurry the fuck up or we won’t make it to publish”
RESPONSE B: The old ‘since no one has any comments I’ll submit tomorrow morning’ email. Classic
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: They stole the project I had been working on and never gave me credit! Hi everyone, I have been working as a graduate assistant for almost a year now. One of the projects I have worked on was a survey that I developed with the Principal Investigator. This spring semester the PI decided to leave academia so he is in the process of transitioning out. The dean contacts the PI on an email to give permission rights to the other person who is taking over his job. Today, my responsibility was to transfer the project to the said person. Today when I logged in to my account I have no more access to the project. It seems that they just took the project away. Does anyone have an idea how to proceed with this? I am so bummed out because I worked really hard in this project to be taken away like that! Thank you for your responses!
RESPONSE A: I wouldn't worry too much. This is easily fixable and I think you will find that people will want to help you with it. I would start out by assuming that it is a misunderstanding and contact the new PI. If that doesn't work, talk to the Graduate Director for your program, Department Chair or Dean, in that order (unless you have already been talking with one of them about this--then talk to that person). The most likely answer is that they removed everyone's access when the project was transferred, which is easily correctable. If it wasn't a mistake, then you need to talk to the same people, and also maybe the Dean of your Graduate School, but the conversation will be a little different. Regardless of any IP issues, yanking your project out from under you will derail your academic progress. That's a serious issue that everyone should be interested in correcting. In my former role as a Graduate Director, we would absolutely find a way to ensure that you didn't just get screwed in the transition.
RESPONSE B: Hopefully u/bigrottentuna is around. They'd be good for this one, particularly once I saw your comment about the dean.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I hear lots of talk about Imposter Syndrome, but have you ever dealt with an actual imposter? I mean impostor in the sense that they say they have credential X, but it turns out that it is astronomically unlikely that they actually do. Concrete example: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/4/26/mit-admissions-dean-resigns-after-fake/ I'm asking because I think I've run into such a person. I have no intention do anything about it because, I'm not 100% sure, I feel like it is none of my business and I have too many deadlines and unanswered emails to voluntarily get involved in anything. Is this a once in a decade event or does this type of thing happen all the time?
RESPONSE A: I'm currently supervising a third year PhD student, that she's way too underqualified to complete the degree. Which means she must have been pulling the same tricks for awhile now. She is extremely confortable presenting herself and her work, even though she can't answer most direct questions even about the mosy basic stuff. She never once asked for help or guidance, despite being repeatedly told not to make any decisions without consulting the supervisores. She basically memorizes whatever information is thrown at her, and repeats it to the best of her ability. I've personally told her that her work is at the level of a high school student before a projet meeting, and she went on presenting her slides as if nothing ever happened. She's confident beyond reason. It's simultaneously disheartening and impressive. So, yeah. And she's not the first ive seen like this either.
RESPONSE B: I suspect that it happens more often than we'd be comfortable. There was an incident in the early 2000s in which a significant number of people in the New Orleans city government had fake degrees. There was a scheme with someone at a university in Florida where they could pay several thousand for an official diploma in order to work. The whole lot were arrested as I recall.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: an actual imposter? I mean impostor in the sense that they say they have credential X, but it turns out that it is astronomically unlikely that they actually do. Concrete example: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/4/26/mit-admissions-dean-resigns-after-fake/ I'm asking because I think I've run into such a person. I have no intention do anything about it because, I'm not 100% sure, I feel like it is none of my business and I have too many deadlines and unanswered emails to voluntarily get involved in anything. Is this a once in a decade event or does this type of thing happen all the time?
RESPONSE A: Yes, twice. Both at MSc level, and both international students. One had certainly 'gotten' the qualification she claimed, as her institution confirmed the award. There was no way in hell she had ever set foot in a lab to write the dissertation she claimed she'd done as a BSc; we figured she'd probably paid for it or traded influence. She ended up walking an unbalanced floor-standing centrifuge out of a corner until it failed catastrophically - luckily, everyone was at lunch (including her). Last seen taking a taxi from the front building, never seen again. The second was a standard 'fake IELTS', with the added catch of turning in all written work in Chinese - literally, every report, protocol or essay she was given. This was a UK institution. This was not a Chinese-language course. She ended up with a certificate of completion.
RESPONSE B: I know a fella who has a doctorate from a highly ranked program, and is now a tenured professor at a well regarded SLAC. His wife was also in his graduate program, though she dropped out to raise the kids when they got married and immediately started reproducing. He is totally repping her scholarship. I'm sure he does some of the grunt work, and he stays current enough to be able to speak convincingly about it and the field, but it's clearly her scholarship.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I hear lots of talk about Imposter Syndrome, but have you ever dealt with an actual imposter? I mean impostor in the sense that they say they have credential X, but it turns out that it is astronomically unlikely that they actually do. Concrete example: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/4/26/mit-admissions-dean-resigns-after-fake/ I'm asking because I think I've run into such a person. I have no intention do anything about it because, I'm not 100% sure, I feel like it is none of my business and I have too many deadlines and unanswered emails to voluntarily get involved in anything. Is this a once in a decade event or does this type of thing happen all the time?
RESPONSE A: This is minor, but I caught a faculty candidate misrepresenting themselves as the first author of papers that they were not first author on. The only reason I caught this was because one of their coauthors had such a strange and humorous name that I opened the journal version of one of the papers to confirm it was real.
RESPONSE B: I know a fella who has a doctorate from a highly ranked program, and is now a tenured professor at a well regarded SLAC. His wife was also in his graduate program, though she dropped out to raise the kids when they got married and immediately started reproducing. He is totally repping her scholarship. I'm sure he does some of the grunt work, and he stays current enough to be able to speak convincingly about it and the field, but it's clearly her scholarship.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I hear lots of talk about Imposter Syndrome, but have you ever dealt with an actual imposter? I mean impostor in the sense that they say they have credential X, but it turns out that it is astronomically unlikely that they actually do. Concrete example: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/4/26/mit-admissions-dean-resigns-after-fake/ I'm asking because I think I've run into such a person. I have no intention do anything about it because, I'm not 100% sure, I feel like it is none of my business and I have too many deadlines and unanswered emails to voluntarily get involved in anything. Is this a once in a decade event or does this type of thing happen all the time?
RESPONSE A: I've never personally, to my knowledge, encountered someone who completely fabricated multiple degrees, but I have encountered people who vastly oversold their educational background and work history in casual conversation in a way that isn't outright lying, but is very misleading. Think: dropped out of med school after year 1 = "I have a background in medicine" or "During my medical training..." But then imagine that same person also up-sells 5 other pieces of their work/educational history.
RESPONSE B: I know a fella who has a doctorate from a highly ranked program, and is now a tenured professor at a well regarded SLAC. His wife was also in his graduate program, though she dropped out to raise the kids when they got married and immediately started reproducing. He is totally repping her scholarship. I'm sure he does some of the grunt work, and he stays current enough to be able to speak convincingly about it and the field, but it's clearly her scholarship.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I've run into such a person. I have no intention do anything about it because, I'm not 100% sure, I feel like it is none of my business and I have too many deadlines and unanswered emails to voluntarily get involved in anything. Is this a once in a decade event or does this type of thing happen all the time?
RESPONSE A: My ex was a bit of an impostor. For our very last fight, I innocently asked him whether tolerance intervals are mathematically similar to confidence intervals and he sneered at me as if it was somehow a stupid question. Feeling needled, I told him that it was OK if he didn't understand tolerance intervals since he had just learned about them - and he broke up with me. He later changed majors from stats to psych because he did not, in fact, understand tolerance intervals. Here's what I've noticed about people who are actual impostors: they tend to elevate themselves over others. They act a little too secure in their expertise, and tend to be condescending or even to make fun of people who don't have their Big Brains, refusing to explain concepts. This is a cover for their own lack of knowledge. These people don't generally make it too far before they wash out, IME. Sure, occasionally one will make it through grad school, but that's usually because they get their reality checked and learn to knuckle down and work. People tend to hear about someone getting caught faking their credentials, and think "Oh, but how many out there didn't get caught?" as if it's a tip-of-the-iceberg situation. IMO, it's not that easy to get away with pretending you know what you're doing at higher levels of academia. I think most or all of them get caught.
RESPONSE B: This is minor, but I caught a faculty candidate misrepresenting themselves as the first author of papers that they were not first author on. The only reason I caught this was because one of their coauthors had such a strange and humorous name that I opened the journal version of one of the papers to confirm it was real.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: not say anything in that hour, but even though it's been hours I am so... angry? Like I want to shout at this student and tell them they are being positively stupid. They want to waste hours of their time replicating 10% of the assignment (the result), when the whole point is for us to test them on their use of the data structure. Understanding the data structure IS the assignment, if you get it you can get the solution in 30 minutes. They are a PhD student in a subdiscipline of CS, I feel they should be embarrassed to be scared of properly learning the course material and finding copouts and crutches to get by instead of properly studying. But I have no stakes on this, if they fail the assignment it's on them, not on me. Why am I so upset at this student self sabotaging by not realising they are using python as an unhealthy coping mechanism to not deal with the anxiety of learning new languages and algorithms? Have others felt this way? Is this normal? Do I need to seek counselling? I have never gotten so angry at someone over something so inconsequential to my own status.
RESPONSE A: I get the feeling. I am wondering if it has a bit to do with them being a grad student in an undergrad course. I wouldn't do this to anyone but I have my PhD and I am currently undertaking a lower level post graduate degree. I have at times had to stop myself and think objectively about the material, the assessment, and what I do and do not need to do. I didn't try to find workarounds but I certainly stressed myself out doing more than what was required. Grad students are used to being expected to find novel approaches rather than taking the task at face value and it can be difficult to swap back to the mindset needed for simply following set instructions for assignments.
RESPONSE B: Refer them to library services or whatever learning center you have on campus. Your responsibility only extends so far with respect to “tutoring” a student. It’s cold to say “don’t get personally invested in your students’ success” but you have to do that as an instructor for your own mental well-being. Be supportive when appropriate, but draw lines when needed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: even though it's been hours I am so... angry? Like I want to shout at this student and tell them they are being positively stupid. They want to waste hours of their time replicating 10% of the assignment (the result), when the whole point is for us to test them on their use of the data structure. Understanding the data structure IS the assignment, if you get it you can get the solution in 30 minutes. They are a PhD student in a subdiscipline of CS, I feel they should be embarrassed to be scared of properly learning the course material and finding copouts and crutches to get by instead of properly studying. But I have no stakes on this, if they fail the assignment it's on them, not on me. Why am I so upset at this student self sabotaging by not realising they are using python as an unhealthy coping mechanism to not deal with the anxiety of learning new languages and algorithms? Have others felt this way? Is this normal? Do I need to seek counselling? I have never gotten so angry at someone over something so inconsequential to my own status.
RESPONSE A: I get the feeling. I am wondering if it has a bit to do with them being a grad student in an undergrad course. I wouldn't do this to anyone but I have my PhD and I am currently undertaking a lower level post graduate degree. I have at times had to stop myself and think objectively about the material, the assessment, and what I do and do not need to do. I didn't try to find workarounds but I certainly stressed myself out doing more than what was required. Grad students are used to being expected to find novel approaches rather than taking the task at face value and it can be difficult to swap back to the mindset needed for simply following set instructions for assignments.
RESPONSE B: I know exactly how this feels. What helped me is changing how I frame the job in my mind: "I will do everything I can to give you the resources to succeed, but it's up to you to actually use those resources." It felt a bit heartless at first but ultimately I realized that it's simply not possible to have the empathic bandwidth to emotionally invest myself into the success of every individual student.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: mentioned it as part of the conversation and did not dwell on it, they did not ask for any additional considerations). And they also said that to "understand the algorithm" they would code the entire thing in python (without a 3D visualizer like the one we gave them for js), without the sophisticated data structure they are supposed to use (i.e. he wants to brute force the solution in python without any acceleration queries). I tried to gently advice them to not waste their time and just sit down and understand the assignment proper. I did not say anything in that hour, but even though it's been hours I am so... angry? Like I want to shout at this student and tell them they are being positively stupid. They want to waste hours of their time replicating 10% of the assignment (the result), when the whole point is for us to test them on their use of the data structure. Understanding the data structure IS the assignment, if you get it you can get the solution in 30 minutes. They are a PhD student in a subdiscipline of CS, I feel they should be embarrassed to be scared of properly learning the course material and finding copouts and crutches to get by instead of properly studying. But I have no stakes on this, if they fail the assignment it's on them, not on me. Why am I so upset at this student self sabotaging by not realising they are using python as an unhealthy coping mechanism to not deal with the anxiety of learning new languages and algorithms? Have others felt this way? Is this normal? Do I need to seek counselling? I have never gotten so angry at someone over something so inconsequential to my own status.
RESPONSE A: Refer them to library services or whatever learning center you have on campus. Your responsibility only extends so far with respect to “tutoring” a student. It’s cold to say “don’t get personally invested in your students’ success” but you have to do that as an instructor for your own mental well-being. Be supportive when appropriate, but draw lines when needed.
RESPONSE B: It sounds to me like the student just doesn't understand the content. A tutor sounds like a good idea.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: did not dwell on it, they did not ask for any additional considerations). And they also said that to "understand the algorithm" they would code the entire thing in python (without a 3D visualizer like the one we gave them for js), without the sophisticated data structure they are supposed to use (i.e. he wants to brute force the solution in python without any acceleration queries). I tried to gently advice them to not waste their time and just sit down and understand the assignment proper. I did not say anything in that hour, but even though it's been hours I am so... angry? Like I want to shout at this student and tell them they are being positively stupid. They want to waste hours of their time replicating 10% of the assignment (the result), when the whole point is for us to test them on their use of the data structure. Understanding the data structure IS the assignment, if you get it you can get the solution in 30 minutes. They are a PhD student in a subdiscipline of CS, I feel they should be embarrassed to be scared of properly learning the course material and finding copouts and crutches to get by instead of properly studying. But I have no stakes on this, if they fail the assignment it's on them, not on me. Why am I so upset at this student self sabotaging by not realising they are using python as an unhealthy coping mechanism to not deal with the anxiety of learning new languages and algorithms? Have others felt this way? Is this normal? Do I need to seek counselling? I have never gotten so angry at someone over something so inconsequential to my own status.
RESPONSE A: It sounds to me like the student just doesn't understand the content. A tutor sounds like a good idea.
RESPONSE B: I know exactly how this feels. What helped me is changing how I frame the job in my mind: "I will do everything I can to give you the resources to succeed, but it's up to you to actually use those resources." It felt a bit heartless at first but ultimately I realized that it's simply not possible to have the empathic bandwidth to emotionally invest myself into the success of every individual student.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: of the conversation and did not dwell on it, they did not ask for any additional considerations). And they also said that to "understand the algorithm" they would code the entire thing in python (without a 3D visualizer like the one we gave them for js), without the sophisticated data structure they are supposed to use (i.e. he wants to brute force the solution in python without any acceleration queries). I tried to gently advice them to not waste their time and just sit down and understand the assignment proper. I did not say anything in that hour, but even though it's been hours I am so... angry? Like I want to shout at this student and tell them they are being positively stupid. They want to waste hours of their time replicating 10% of the assignment (the result), when the whole point is for us to test them on their use of the data structure. Understanding the data structure IS the assignment, if you get it you can get the solution in 30 minutes. They are a PhD student in a subdiscipline of CS, I feel they should be embarrassed to be scared of properly learning the course material and finding copouts and crutches to get by instead of properly studying. But I have no stakes on this, if they fail the assignment it's on them, not on me. Why am I so upset at this student self sabotaging by not realising they are using python as an unhealthy coping mechanism to not deal with the anxiety of learning new languages and algorithms? Have others felt this way? Is this normal? Do I need to seek counselling? I have never gotten so angry at someone over something so inconsequential to my own status.
RESPONSE A: I know exactly how this feels. What helped me is changing how I frame the job in my mind: "I will do everything I can to give you the resources to succeed, but it's up to you to actually use those resources." It felt a bit heartless at first but ultimately I realized that it's simply not possible to have the empathic bandwidth to emotionally invest myself into the success of every individual student.
RESPONSE B: A key to longevity in this career is learn to say no with genuine respect and a smile.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: science. It affects me less because I am just an undergrad, but I see the effects the pressure has on my mentors and the seniors and I am starting to wonder if it would be better to get out now and pursue an "easier" career. Perhaps something like teaching or nursing with well defined job expectations and outcomes. I currently have an undergrad research position and will have one lined up every semester and summer until I graduate, as well as a Master's supervisor should everything go well (I didn't even approach them for the most part, they approached me and I went with it because it sounded like a good idea), but I don't want to waste their time if I am just going to switch paths. ​ If anyone is willing to share any perspectives on this, I would greatly appreciate it. I want to be a scientist because I LOVE the science, but I am not sure it's worth killing myself over small things every day of my life.
RESPONSE A: If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please reach out. You can find help at a National Suicide Prevention Lifeline USA: 18002738255 US Crisis textline: 741741 text HOME United Kingdom: 116 123 Trans Lifeline (877-565-8860) Others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org
RESPONSE B: In the US there ~10 more PhD students starting than permanent positions are rewarded in academia and it properly doesn't look so different in other countries. Hence, dropping out of academia is the rule and not the exception nowadays. So, it's not a failure in anyway, despite what your supervisors may like to tell you. But it doesn't necessarily mean to stop doing science. Many companies have a research & development department and many startups are also interested in people with a scientific expertise. So, you may end up in a place with lots of former Postdocs. But even many non-research positions can benefit from having a scientific education. So, you may to want to see academia as only one of many ways to build your career and it might not be the best for you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: finding the more exposure I have to it the more I hate the culture surrounding science. It affects me less because I am just an undergrad, but I see the effects the pressure has on my mentors and the seniors and I am starting to wonder if it would be better to get out now and pursue an "easier" career. Perhaps something like teaching or nursing with well defined job expectations and outcomes. I currently have an undergrad research position and will have one lined up every semester and summer until I graduate, as well as a Master's supervisor should everything go well (I didn't even approach them for the most part, they approached me and I went with it because it sounded like a good idea), but I don't want to waste their time if I am just going to switch paths. ​ If anyone is willing to share any perspectives on this, I would greatly appreciate it. I want to be a scientist because I LOVE the science, but I am not sure it's worth killing myself over small things every day of my life.
RESPONSE A: If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please reach out. You can find help at a National Suicide Prevention Lifeline USA: 18002738255 US Crisis textline: 741741 text HOME United Kingdom: 116 123 Trans Lifeline (877-565-8860) Others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org
RESPONSE B: I ignored the red eyes and burnt out people for way too long, thinking that they were all exceptions to the rule. It's observant for you to see it already as an undergrad. But also keep in mind that you do not have a sense of what the baseline looks like, and you are seeing them during a global pandemic and time of instability. How do you think nurses and teachers are doing right now? The grass isn't always greener. Sometimes it's better to just make the best of what you already have. It's impossible making that judgement call though, and you have almost no way of predicting which is the right choice. Just remember it's not the end of the world either way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: am just an undergrad, but I see the effects the pressure has on my mentors and the seniors and I am starting to wonder if it would be better to get out now and pursue an "easier" career. Perhaps something like teaching or nursing with well defined job expectations and outcomes. I currently have an undergrad research position and will have one lined up every semester and summer until I graduate, as well as a Master's supervisor should everything go well (I didn't even approach them for the most part, they approached me and I went with it because it sounded like a good idea), but I don't want to waste their time if I am just going to switch paths. ​ If anyone is willing to share any perspectives on this, I would greatly appreciate it. I want to be a scientist because I LOVE the science, but I am not sure it's worth killing myself over small things every day of my life.
RESPONSE A: It depends what sort of stress bothers you, but I wouldn't consider either nursing or teaching easier or lower pressure careers. Take your time and think more about what you actually want to do day to day. Keep your research plans for this year, but also talk to some nurses or teachers. Right now might be weird, but post covid there should be lots of volunteer gigs tutoring at schools and at hospitals that should give you a chance to get in the environment and talk to people. You might also want to look into research adjacent roles outside of academia (medical writing, data science).
RESPONSE B: I ignored the red eyes and burnt out people for way too long, thinking that they were all exceptions to the rule. It's observant for you to see it already as an undergrad. But also keep in mind that you do not have a sense of what the baseline looks like, and you are seeing them during a global pandemic and time of instability. How do you think nurses and teachers are doing right now? The grass isn't always greener. Sometimes it's better to just make the best of what you already have. It's impossible making that judgement call though, and you have almost no way of predicting which is the right choice. Just remember it's not the end of the world either way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: have to it the more I hate the culture surrounding science. It affects me less because I am just an undergrad, but I see the effects the pressure has on my mentors and the seniors and I am starting to wonder if it would be better to get out now and pursue an "easier" career. Perhaps something like teaching or nursing with well defined job expectations and outcomes. I currently have an undergrad research position and will have one lined up every semester and summer until I graduate, as well as a Master's supervisor should everything go well (I didn't even approach them for the most part, they approached me and I went with it because it sounded like a good idea), but I don't want to waste their time if I am just going to switch paths. ​ If anyone is willing to share any perspectives on this, I would greatly appreciate it. I want to be a scientist because I LOVE the science, but I am not sure it's worth killing myself over small things every day of my life.
RESPONSE A: If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please reach out. You can find help at a National Suicide Prevention Lifeline USA: 18002738255 US Crisis textline: 741741 text HOME United Kingdom: 116 123 Trans Lifeline (877-565-8860) Others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org
RESPONSE B: I quit my PhD because I wanted a "normal job". The line of work I am is not exactly stress free or relaxing (public accounting at large firm) but I am so much happier for it. Having fairly regular hours, defined expectations, clear career progression and a comfortable salary were all very appealing to me. I still love science but it turned out that being the actual boots on the ground running experiments was not the life for me. I was also very aware that finding an industry job or postdoc job would be tough and would likely involve me moving to somewhere that I didn't necessarily want to live. Additionally, I became very disillusioned with the whole academic culture and couldn't bear to be in that world for longer than necessary. Happy to answer any questions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , but I see the effects the pressure has on my mentors and the seniors and I am starting to wonder if it would be better to get out now and pursue an "easier" career. Perhaps something like teaching or nursing with well defined job expectations and outcomes. I currently have an undergrad research position and will have one lined up every semester and summer until I graduate, as well as a Master's supervisor should everything go well (I didn't even approach them for the most part, they approached me and I went with it because it sounded like a good idea), but I don't want to waste their time if I am just going to switch paths. ​ If anyone is willing to share any perspectives on this, I would greatly appreciate it. I want to be a scientist because I LOVE the science, but I am not sure it's worth killing myself over small things every day of my life.
RESPONSE A: It depends what sort of stress bothers you, but I wouldn't consider either nursing or teaching easier or lower pressure careers. Take your time and think more about what you actually want to do day to day. Keep your research plans for this year, but also talk to some nurses or teachers. Right now might be weird, but post covid there should be lots of volunteer gigs tutoring at schools and at hospitals that should give you a chance to get in the environment and talk to people. You might also want to look into research adjacent roles outside of academia (medical writing, data science).
RESPONSE B: I quit my PhD because I wanted a "normal job". The line of work I am is not exactly stress free or relaxing (public accounting at large firm) but I am so much happier for it. Having fairly regular hours, defined expectations, clear career progression and a comfortable salary were all very appealing to me. I still love science but it turned out that being the actual boots on the ground running experiments was not the life for me. I was also very aware that finding an industry job or postdoc job would be tough and would likely involve me moving to somewhere that I didn't necessarily want to live. Additionally, I became very disillusioned with the whole academic culture and couldn't bear to be in that world for longer than necessary. Happy to answer any questions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: me very busy and often overwhelmed. Every time I look at getting into a relationship I can’t honestly say I have the time that most people want. I don’t work a 9-5. I work kind of insane hours. Also, I worry that any time I dedicate to a relationship is time I could be spending writing that next article or doing XYZ thing to advance my career. Does it get better? How do you all find/make the time? Do you feel like it takes away from your career? Field: Engineering Title: PhD student Country:US
RESPONSE A: At some point you need to define for yourself a work life balance. There is no time card in academia. You could work 50 hours a day and there would always be more to do. More to read, more to write, more ways to pad your CV. And no one is going to stop you except you. Do you want to write that next article, or do you want to have that time for yourself, whether it's for a relationship or anything else
RESPONSE B: You need to make time because you'll never find it, out there, especially if your mindset is "I could use this time to write the next article or advance my relationship." I don't mean to be rude - I totally get that mindset - but I've seen that mindset blow up some relationships (including ones I've had!) To your question about it taking away from my career? No, because my career isn't the most important thing in my life. I've had to work hard to separate me (as a person) from me (the academic) and decide what my priorities are and how to put time towards them in a balanced way. Took years and a few good therapists, but I have (and continue) to advance my career without feeling like I can't dare afford anything else (relationships, geographic control, etc). It means I let go of certain things, but I know they're not things I really want (even if they seem shiny and wonderful). FWIW, I think your program sounds like it is particularly difficult to function (as a person) in and, while you can't change that, you can think about future opportunities that encourage very different ways of doing research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: am fulfilling a senior role in my lab that is much closer to a postdoc than PhD student with regards to research and management responsibilities, that plus teaching activities, and finishing my dissertation leave me very busy and often overwhelmed. Every time I look at getting into a relationship I can’t honestly say I have the time that most people want. I don’t work a 9-5. I work kind of insane hours. Also, I worry that any time I dedicate to a relationship is time I could be spending writing that next article or doing XYZ thing to advance my career. Does it get better? How do you all find/make the time? Do you feel like it takes away from your career? Field: Engineering Title: PhD student Country:US
RESPONSE A: Clearly many in academia or other intense jobs are in relationships, and many are not for a variety of reasons, so it is doable. Having time away from writing a paper may feel like you are not investing 100% in your career, but having a partner to support you during the hard times of a career can be helpful, too. And having someone to help celebrate the good times is nice. I work insane hours and whatever relationship problems I have had aren't academia's fault. Some people find they do well with a partner who has no career or a secondary career so that the professor has more time and less domestic responsibilities and can move wherever the professor needs. That is very old school and one might think outdated, but there are tons of professors in these roles, including some younger ones. Another path is to partner with someone who also has insane work hours as they tend to understand your situation and when they spend time with you, you know it is precious. That is my preference. Are marriage rates and divorce rates different for those in academia compared to other intense professions?
RESPONSE B: At some point you need to define for yourself a work life balance. There is no time card in academia. You could work 50 hours a day and there would always be more to do. More to read, more to write, more ways to pad your CV. And no one is going to stop you except you. Do you want to write that next article, or do you want to have that time for yourself, whether it's for a relationship or anything else
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I should be dating if I don’t want to be single for the rest of my life but also the demands of academia are significant. I currently am fulfilling a senior role in my lab that is much closer to a postdoc than PhD student with regards to research and management responsibilities, that plus teaching activities, and finishing my dissertation leave me very busy and often overwhelmed. Every time I look at getting into a relationship I can’t honestly say I have the time that most people want. I don’t work a 9-5. I work kind of insane hours. Also, I worry that any time I dedicate to a relationship is time I could be spending writing that next article or doing XYZ thing to advance my career. Does it get better? How do you all find/make the time? Do you feel like it takes away from your career? Field: Engineering Title: PhD student Country:US
RESPONSE A: Ain't nobody writing "he is survived by a loving career and CV" in your obituary.
RESPONSE B: You need to make time because you'll never find it, out there, especially if your mindset is "I could use this time to write the next article or advance my relationship." I don't mean to be rude - I totally get that mindset - but I've seen that mindset blow up some relationships (including ones I've had!) To your question about it taking away from my career? No, because my career isn't the most important thing in my life. I've had to work hard to separate me (as a person) from me (the academic) and decide what my priorities are and how to put time towards them in a balanced way. Took years and a few good therapists, but I have (and continue) to advance my career without feeling like I can't dare afford anything else (relationships, geographic control, etc). It means I let go of certain things, but I know they're not things I really want (even if they seem shiny and wonderful). FWIW, I think your program sounds like it is particularly difficult to function (as a person) in and, while you can't change that, you can think about future opportunities that encourage very different ways of doing research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: ure Track Academia I am in my final year of my PhD and also in my late 20s. I am currently single but I find it constantly weighing on me that I feel like I should be dating if I don’t want to be single for the rest of my life but also the demands of academia are significant. I currently am fulfilling a senior role in my lab that is much closer to a postdoc than PhD student with regards to research and management responsibilities, that plus teaching activities, and finishing my dissertation leave me very busy and often overwhelmed. Every time I look at getting into a relationship I can’t honestly say I have the time that most people want. I don’t work a 9-5. I work kind of insane hours. Also, I worry that any time I dedicate to a relationship is time I could be spending writing that next article or doing XYZ thing to advance my career. Does it get better? How do you all find/make the time? Do you feel like it takes away from your career? Field: Engineering Title: PhD student Country:US
RESPONSE A: Clearly many in academia or other intense jobs are in relationships, and many are not for a variety of reasons, so it is doable. Having time away from writing a paper may feel like you are not investing 100% in your career, but having a partner to support you during the hard times of a career can be helpful, too. And having someone to help celebrate the good times is nice. I work insane hours and whatever relationship problems I have had aren't academia's fault. Some people find they do well with a partner who has no career or a secondary career so that the professor has more time and less domestic responsibilities and can move wherever the professor needs. That is very old school and one might think outdated, but there are tons of professors in these roles, including some younger ones. Another path is to partner with someone who also has insane work hours as they tend to understand your situation and when they spend time with you, you know it is precious. That is my preference. Are marriage rates and divorce rates different for those in academia compared to other intense professions?
RESPONSE B: Ain't nobody writing "he is survived by a loving career and CV" in your obituary.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Dating/marriage and Tenure Track Academia I am in my final year of my PhD and also in my late 20s. I am currently single but I find it constantly weighing on me that I feel like I should be dating if I don’t want to be single for the rest of my life but also the demands of academia are significant. I currently am fulfilling a senior role in my lab that is much closer to a postdoc than PhD student with regards to research and management responsibilities, that plus teaching activities, and finishing my dissertation leave me very busy and often overwhelmed. Every time I look at getting into a relationship I can’t honestly say I have the time that most people want. I don’t work a 9-5. I work kind of insane hours. Also, I worry that any time I dedicate to a relationship is time I could be spending writing that next article or doing XYZ thing to advance my career. Does it get better? How do you all find/make the time? Do you feel like it takes away from your career? Field: Engineering Title: PhD student Country:US
RESPONSE A: Ain't nobody writing "he is survived by a loving career and CV" in your obituary.
RESPONSE B: Don't work so much
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: already, and received them both with honors. I've never had any problems with anything coursework related before this horrible, horrible experience. I'm at the end of my first year, and may or may not pass my first year. But I'm wondering: if I even do pass, should I even continue? Best case scenario is 3 more years of suffering, then a PhD so I can get a teaching job that pays less than my current consulting job but that I'm passionate about. Worst case scenario is I fail the final viva and lose some very serious time and money. Anyway, rant and questions over. Thanks for reading, appreciate any thoughts.
RESPONSE A: I recently left my PhD program with a Ms degree. Had similar situation - international student, problems with a supervisor, etc. It was Best. Decision. Ever. If things don't work for you you should really consider leaving - it is never worth it! Your mental and physical health are the most important things here. Don't torture yourself. Would you stay in a toxic relationship for 3-4 years like that?
RESPONSE B: Do NOT continue like this. You will tire yourself our mentally and be completely burned out if you keep going like this. First, I am sorry for your loss and that you have to deal with shit like this. Second, you should talk to a department supervisor or director because a lot of this sounds like your supervisors are treating you poorly. In most reasonable academic institutions, you will be able to work under a different set of supervisors given the right context and the right situation. Third, your supervisors are most likely going to be more critical and compliment-heavy because the hard reality of it is that they need to produce the best quality PhD candidates and with such little time, compliments don't get the results they need. Realistically, the harsh criticism may sound harsh now, but when you are more experienced and are standing in their shoes, you might be doing the same thing. If anything, I could highly recommend talking with someone before you do quit. However, it is important to know that if you do keep going like this, you will tire yourself out mentally, and you could burn out academically! Good luck my dude and please remember nothing comes before you and your health.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: tell me is that I'm falling behind with no actual advice to fix things. They are purposefully opaque and honestly might as well be magic 8 balls at this point, randomly answering my questions and serious concerns haphazardly. Further, they are charging a premium because I'm an international student, and I am being charged literally the highest possible cost for my PhD (the bench fees are absolutely ridiculous for a non-lab based PhD). I have a professional doctorate degree and a masters degree already, and received them both with honors. I've never had any problems with anything coursework related before this horrible, horrible experience. I'm at the end of my first year, and may or may not pass my first year. But I'm wondering: if I even do pass, should I even continue? Best case scenario is 3 more years of suffering, then a PhD so I can get a teaching job that pays less than my current consulting job but that I'm passionate about. Worst case scenario is I fail the final viva and lose some very serious time and money. Anyway, rant and questions over. Thanks for reading, appreciate any thoughts.
RESPONSE A: PhDs are incredibly selfish endeavors. You cannot solve your problems obtaining the solutions from others. This is your time to solve problems at the frontier of knowledge. They cannot (and arguably should not) give you more than broad direction. If you’re seeking pointed direction, stop. A PhD is about figuring out how to push the bounds of knowledge. Either adopt the mindset that you’ll do what you need to do to obtain your degree regardless of the assistance you’re getting, or quit. (Also, “they”, your advisors, are not charging you anything. It is your institution doing so. You’ve conflated the two, muddying the situation.)
RESPONSE B: It sounds like you've already made your mind up, but being as big of a decision as it is you (naturally) want to validate your decision. Three years is a long time to spend doing a programme you are not enjoying. Keep in mind, you can always apply again to another PhD programme. Taking the time to find a programme that is right for you is always worth it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: and I am being charged literally the highest possible cost for my PhD (the bench fees are absolutely ridiculous for a non-lab based PhD). I have a professional doctorate degree and a masters degree already, and received them both with honors. I've never had any problems with anything coursework related before this horrible, horrible experience. I'm at the end of my first year, and may or may not pass my first year. But I'm wondering: if I even do pass, should I even continue? Best case scenario is 3 more years of suffering, then a PhD so I can get a teaching job that pays less than my current consulting job but that I'm passionate about. Worst case scenario is I fail the final viva and lose some very serious time and money. Anyway, rant and questions over. Thanks for reading, appreciate any thoughts.
RESPONSE A: It sounds like you've already made your mind up, but being as big of a decision as it is you (naturally) want to validate your decision. Three years is a long time to spend doing a programme you are not enjoying. Keep in mind, you can always apply again to another PhD programme. Taking the time to find a programme that is right for you is always worth it.
RESPONSE B: you should really quit or better yet ask for a change of supervisors if possible. i have been in your position before- did very well in my career till i landed a total bitch as my supervisor and then suddenly it was all these passive-aggressive shit but i got my supervisor changed and my work is flourishing again. some other commenter pointed out that the problem may lie with you and that is totally the type of utter bs that your supervisors will have you believe. you are a human with feelings who has gone through a lot, and I think concrete feedback is the absolute minimum that you can ask of any supervisor. some people will put you down or try to make you feel like you are the one who failed, but they are usually really judgey people whose opinion should not count. i am really sorry about your mom. do what you think is best for you and just get on with your life. i hope your wife gets better soon too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: and a masters degree already, and received them both with honors. I've never had any problems with anything coursework related before this horrible, horrible experience. I'm at the end of my first year, and may or may not pass my first year. But I'm wondering: if I even do pass, should I even continue? Best case scenario is 3 more years of suffering, then a PhD so I can get a teaching job that pays less than my current consulting job but that I'm passionate about. Worst case scenario is I fail the final viva and lose some very serious time and money. Anyway, rant and questions over. Thanks for reading, appreciate any thoughts.
RESPONSE A: It sounds like you've already made your mind up, but being as big of a decision as it is you (naturally) want to validate your decision. Three years is a long time to spend doing a programme you are not enjoying. Keep in mind, you can always apply again to another PhD programme. Taking the time to find a programme that is right for you is always worth it.
RESPONSE B: Do NOT continue like this. You will tire yourself our mentally and be completely burned out if you keep going like this. First, I am sorry for your loss and that you have to deal with shit like this. Second, you should talk to a department supervisor or director because a lot of this sounds like your supervisors are treating you poorly. In most reasonable academic institutions, you will be able to work under a different set of supervisors given the right context and the right situation. Third, your supervisors are most likely going to be more critical and compliment-heavy because the hard reality of it is that they need to produce the best quality PhD candidates and with such little time, compliments don't get the results they need. Realistically, the harsh criticism may sound harsh now, but when you are more experienced and are standing in their shoes, you might be doing the same thing. If anything, I could highly recommend talking with someone before you do quit. However, it is important to know that if you do keep going like this, you will tire yourself out mentally, and you could burn out academically! Good luck my dude and please remember nothing comes before you and your health.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: still interested in continuing my PhD even though I've been meeting my deadlines, etc). More than that, they actually recommended that I quit my part time job so I can focus more on my PhD, even though all they ever tell me is that I'm falling behind with no actual advice to fix things. They are purposefully opaque and honestly might as well be magic 8 balls at this point, randomly answering my questions and serious concerns haphazardly. Further, they are charging a premium because I'm an international student, and I am being charged literally the highest possible cost for my PhD (the bench fees are absolutely ridiculous for a non-lab based PhD). I have a professional doctorate degree and a masters degree already, and received them both with honors. I've never had any problems with anything coursework related before this horrible, horrible experience. I'm at the end of my first year, and may or may not pass my first year. But I'm wondering: if I even do pass, should I even continue? Best case scenario is 3 more years of suffering, then a PhD so I can get a teaching job that pays less than my current consulting job but that I'm passionate about. Worst case scenario is I fail the final viva and lose some very serious time and money. Anyway, rant and questions over. Thanks for reading, appreciate any thoughts.
RESPONSE A: It sounds like you've already made your mind up, but being as big of a decision as it is you (naturally) want to validate your decision. Three years is a long time to spend doing a programme you are not enjoying. Keep in mind, you can always apply again to another PhD programme. Taking the time to find a programme that is right for you is always worth it.
RESPONSE B: Based on how you describe, it, it seems impossible to get your current advisors to ameliorate the situation. They aren't invested in you, their feedback is not helpful for you, and their communication style is not working with you. It seems like there is very little to be won here, and a lot to be lost. You have so many other qualifications and job experience that I can't imagine there isn't a job out there that you might like more than consulting.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: because I had to declare my medical history, incase it was considered an 'impairment'. They were not, however, concerned by my criminal history once they understood the circumstances. I am now a registered provisional psychologist. I also applied for a Working With Children Check in October last year. They wrote to me and asked me to explain the charges. They said I had no proof that I had a prescription, so they were going to reject my application, but my lawyer and I decided to hire a forensic psychiatrist. He wrote to them, and said I am no risk to children, and I sometimes take opioids to manage severe pain, but I am not addicted to opioids. We sent the report in July, and have not heard from them since. The university have forgotten about the WWCC, and have organised a placement as a provisional psychologist. I contacted my lawyer, and she said it is illegal for me to commence the placement. WWCC are not answerable to anyone, and are unwilling to provide a timeline. I think I need to tell the university, but I am nervous. I am worried they will think I am addicted to opioids. I am worried they will think I am lying about my criminal history - because, really, how are opioids related to working with children? I am also worried they will think the reason my registration took so long to process was because of my history. Ultimately, I am worried I will lose my place in the course. What are your thoughts? What should I do? Many thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: If you decide to tell the university, don’t just email the admin person in charge of this. Start by taking to your course coordinator, supervisor, professors, fellow students. One at a time. Build some support and then have someone high ranking approach the admin people. I think most academics would be overwhelmingly on your side. Also - I know your not, but I wouldn’t actually give a fuck if someone was on opioids if they were doing good work.
RESPONSE B: Can you use the findings of the forensic psychiatrist to support what you tell the university? I think, if you still feel you need to tell them, that you should be completely transparent and tell the entire story at once and provide all of the documentation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: the charges. They said I had no proof that I had a prescription, so they were going to reject my application, but my lawyer and I decided to hire a forensic psychiatrist. He wrote to them, and said I am no risk to children, and I sometimes take opioids to manage severe pain, but I am not addicted to opioids. We sent the report in July, and have not heard from them since. The university have forgotten about the WWCC, and have organised a placement as a provisional psychologist. I contacted my lawyer, and she said it is illegal for me to commence the placement. WWCC are not answerable to anyone, and are unwilling to provide a timeline. I think I need to tell the university, but I am nervous. I am worried they will think I am addicted to opioids. I am worried they will think I am lying about my criminal history - because, really, how are opioids related to working with children? I am also worried they will think the reason my registration took so long to process was because of my history. Ultimately, I am worried I will lose my place in the course. What are your thoughts? What should I do? Many thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: I have a MS in biology and an MAT in secondary science. Academics are a pretty liberal bunch from my experience. I would just tell your story. In the U.S. it is illegal to discriminate based on medical history. Sounds like you live elsewhere though. Your placement may be delayed since it sounds like there is a valid legal reason (cruddy background check board) to delay it. Maybe there is a work around? Perhaps a private school would be willing to allow your placement given your note from a forensic psychologist? You won't know unless you ask.
RESPONSE B: If you decide to tell the university, don’t just email the admin person in charge of this. Start by taking to your course coordinator, supervisor, professors, fellow students. One at a time. Build some support and then have someone high ranking approach the admin people. I think most academics would be overwhelmingly on your side. Also - I know your not, but I wouldn’t actually give a fuck if someone was on opioids if they were doing good work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: multiple medications to manage my health. The university are aware of this. In 2015, the police caught me at the airport in Australia headed for the UK with opioids. I had a prescription, but it wasn't on me. They charged me with unlawful possession of a controlled substance. I went to court with a lawyer, and the charge was withdrawn. When I applied to become a provisional psychologist, my application was significantly delayed because I had to declare my medical history, incase it was considered an 'impairment'. They were not, however, concerned by my criminal history once they understood the circumstances. I am now a registered provisional psychologist. I also applied for a Working With Children Check in October last year. They wrote to me and asked me to explain the charges. They said I had no proof that I had a prescription, so they were going to reject my application, but my lawyer and I decided to hire a forensic psychiatrist. He wrote to them, and said I am no risk to children, and I sometimes take opioids to manage severe pain, but I am not addicted to opioids. We sent the report in July, and have not heard from them since. The university have forgotten about the WWCC, and have organised a placement as a provisional psychologist. I contacted my lawyer, and she said it is illegal for me to commence the placement. WWCC are not answerable to anyone, and are unwilling to provide a timeline. I think I need to tell the university, but I am nervous. I am worried they will think I am addicted to opioids. I am worried they will think I am lying about my criminal history - because, really, how are opioids related to working with children? I am also worried they will think the reason my registration took so long to process was because of my history. Ultimately, I am worried I will lose my place in the course. What are your thoughts? What should I do? Many thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: sounds like they’re discriminating against you for your disability.
RESPONSE B: Can you use the findings of the forensic psychiatrist to support what you tell the university? I think, if you still feel you need to tell them, that you should be completely transparent and tell the entire story at once and provide all of the documentation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: withdrawn. When I applied to become a provisional psychologist, my application was significantly delayed because I had to declare my medical history, incase it was considered an 'impairment'. They were not, however, concerned by my criminal history once they understood the circumstances. I am now a registered provisional psychologist. I also applied for a Working With Children Check in October last year. They wrote to me and asked me to explain the charges. They said I had no proof that I had a prescription, so they were going to reject my application, but my lawyer and I decided to hire a forensic psychiatrist. He wrote to them, and said I am no risk to children, and I sometimes take opioids to manage severe pain, but I am not addicted to opioids. We sent the report in July, and have not heard from them since. The university have forgotten about the WWCC, and have organised a placement as a provisional psychologist. I contacted my lawyer, and she said it is illegal for me to commence the placement. WWCC are not answerable to anyone, and are unwilling to provide a timeline. I think I need to tell the university, but I am nervous. I am worried they will think I am addicted to opioids. I am worried they will think I am lying about my criminal history - because, really, how are opioids related to working with children? I am also worried they will think the reason my registration took so long to process was because of my history. Ultimately, I am worried I will lose my place in the course. What are your thoughts? What should I do? Many thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: sounds like they’re discriminating against you for your disability.
RESPONSE B: I have a MS in biology and an MAT in secondary science. Academics are a pretty liberal bunch from my experience. I would just tell your story. In the U.S. it is illegal to discriminate based on medical history. Sounds like you live elsewhere though. Your placement may be delayed since it sounds like there is a valid legal reason (cruddy background check board) to delay it. Maybe there is a work around? Perhaps a private school would be willing to allow your placement given your note from a forensic psychologist? You won't know unless you ask.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How did you go from clueless undergrad to an expert in your field? I'm an undergrad and while I read a lot of articles when it's time for me to write papers and such, I don't read many articles as a way to learn more about a subject. At least, not successfully - I am not afraid to admit that I often struggle to understand what a research article is trying to say as a lot of them are way beyond my level of comprehension. How did you come to be knowledgable and 'up to date' about your subject of interest? Stumbling through articles until eventually you absorbed info through osmosis, reading review papers, talking to your mentors, etc.
RESPONSE A: The answer is all of the above. You can't quit reading papers, you can't quit talking to others, you can't quit going to seminars. It's stays uncomfortable and hard, but over time you realize that you're absorbing more and more of it.
RESPONSE B: I became a clueless grad student, and now I'm a clueless assistant professor. Expert? Well, now I have an even better idea of just how much I don't know....
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How did you go from clueless undergrad to an expert in your field? I'm an undergrad and while I read a lot of articles when it's time for me to write papers and such, I don't read many articles as a way to learn more about a subject. At least, not successfully - I am not afraid to admit that I often struggle to understand what a research article is trying to say as a lot of them are way beyond my level of comprehension. How did you come to be knowledgable and 'up to date' about your subject of interest? Stumbling through articles until eventually you absorbed info through osmosis, reading review papers, talking to your mentors, etc.
RESPONSE A: Start with the basics and work your way up. If you don't build your foundation, you will never really understand what the articles are saying. I would begin by reading text books. They tend to give a pretty good overview of the things you will need to know. Once you have read the text books, then you can read some review articles to get more topic specific background information.
RESPONSE B: I became a clueless grad student, and now I'm a clueless assistant professor. Expert? Well, now I have an even better idea of just how much I don't know....
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How did you go from clueless undergrad to an expert in your field? I'm an undergrad and while I read a lot of articles when it's time for me to write papers and such, I don't read many articles as a way to learn more about a subject. At least, not successfully - I am not afraid to admit that I often struggle to understand what a research article is trying to say as a lot of them are way beyond my level of comprehension. How did you come to be knowledgable and 'up to date' about your subject of interest? Stumbling through articles until eventually you absorbed info through osmosis, reading review papers, talking to your mentors, etc.
RESPONSE A: In addition to what everyone else has said, it helps me to have a tangible goal that I know will help me learn material. For example, if you need to do a presentation for a journal club, summarise the field in the first 4 or 5 slides - other club members will thank you for placing the paper in context (as they have surely not read it!) and you will learn a lot in the process. Also, if you ever have the chance, write a review paper early in yoir career. Ive been in two distinct STEM fields and have had the fortune to write a review in each. Of course, I didn't have the insight or eventual citations as that of a longstanding expert, but instead brought broad scale data curation and discussion to the table (I.e. tons of reading), and god damn if the fear of incorrectly repeating someone elses work doesn't force you to understand, nothing will.
RESPONSE B: I became a clueless grad student, and now I'm a clueless assistant professor. Expert? Well, now I have an even better idea of just how much I don't know....
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How did you go from clueless undergrad to an expert in your field? I'm an undergrad and while I read a lot of articles when it's time for me to write papers and such, I don't read many articles as a way to learn more about a subject. At least, not successfully - I am not afraid to admit that I often struggle to understand what a research article is trying to say as a lot of them are way beyond my level of comprehension. How did you come to be knowledgable and 'up to date' about your subject of interest? Stumbling through articles until eventually you absorbed info through osmosis, reading review papers, talking to your mentors, etc.
RESPONSE A: Very slowly.
RESPONSE B: Assistant professor here. I make mistakes every single day. I try to learn from them as much as possible and move on. Finding good mentors is the best way to avoid bad mistakes. I still don't feel like an expert and probably never will. Learning is a lifetime commitment and I enjoy it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: obituary. So far, no luck.
RESPONSE A: My first MSc advisor treated us like human garbage, and would only call one (01) student by his name, instead of perjorative nicknames (the PhD who supervised me was called a cockroach by this advisor), because this single student came from the same uni as this shit advisor did his undergrad Oh, he also tried to slap me in the face after I told him I was quitting because I did not want to work with him (I was funded, so I was ready to return all cash) First time on lab I broke an expensive glassware and cried in desperation because I was scared that he was going to find out. Nobody wanted or cared to help me, just told me to stop being a pussy and get it done. This happened in the span of three (03) months. And this was from a young researcher, hired 2 years before all of this. He was around 33 or 34 if memory serves right At least I had my revenge as I wrote a 6-page document telling every single thing that happened (including e-mails, voice recording and a video), and I went full head-on straight to our dean's office and every single "social movement" I could find (I'm a gay man from a poor area, dark skinned - do you see where this is going? Yes, exactly that). Every single person in our institute, from undergrad to all professors, heard about what happened. Next year he almost did the same with another student (coincidentally, another gay guy with dark skin), and I helped him do the "revenge". He spent 3 years without a single new grad student and not a single professor wants to work with him now.
RESPONSE B: OP, thank you for such a detailed account. It sounds like you had a strong sense of self-esteem that helped you survive, but just barely. I was really lucky to have an outstandingly decent person as my Ph.D. advisor. My postdoc experience was with an arrogant ivy league clown, but it wasn't nearly as bad as some of the other experiences I have heard about over the years.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . The advisor went straight to our supervisor and told him everything she had said, so the supervisor only made her life there even more difficult (she eventually quit)!!! By the way, our supervisor was the head of the department, we just didn't know where to go, who to complain to. Every Friday we had our weekly meetings, I was constantly dreading it, Fridays became my nightmare. One of those Fridays the abuse was quite unbelievable again, so the following week I tried to record our meeting but then he just acted normal! It got to a point in August I just couldn't get myself to walk into the lab again, though I had planned to run some final experiments. I just didn't have the strength anymore to see him, so I never went back. I never spoke to him again, I didn't respond to his e-mails. I worked on my dissertation, applied to my degree without his consent, got my viva, I passed. I got my MPhil. It sounds like a happy ending but it wasn't. I don't think the degree was worth it, I would've been better off in a less prestigious institution that didn't have that toxic environment. It took me months, probably over a year to build back my confidence and recover my mental health, and trust me, confidence is just as important as competence. I completely ruled out a PhD, and I would never ask for his reference anyway which I thought was essential for me to get admitted into one. This has completely put me off academia. The supervisor is still there, bullying people. He was supposed to retire the year after I left, but I found out he had recruited new PhD students, so I guess he wasn't planning on retiring at least in the next 4 years. Sometimes I google him hoping to see an obituary. So far, no luck.
RESPONSE A: Not me, but after publishing a paper, a colleague once received an angry phone call from a big shot professor, asking why he was not invited to participate as an author, given that it's a topic he's interested in.
RESPONSE B: My wife failed her first defense because a committee member didn’t like her statistical analysis. His next paper used the same tests.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do You think most of the research doesn’t have and won’t have a real world application? I am working on drug discovery field and most of the research drug screening etc. doesn’t have any continuation. After the paper gets published, people doesn’t care about the found compound.
RESPONSE A: The issue in drug discovery is that the next steps to get a viable drug after the first screenings are expensive and with a high rate of failure (in the sense that even if you found a compound that does what you want, and you tweaked it enough to work on mice, many compounds would that not be succesful for humans). But answering your question, it depends strongly on the field, but most research does not end up having a direct impact. The "real" impact is harder to quantify, because even if a finding (say a compound, to follow your example) ends up not having an application, the knowledge gained to reach that point still accumulates.
RESPONSE B: I feel this all the time with my research. That being said, it will have more effect than you might think. Anyone who’s worth their salt in research (or in your case anyone who works with this specific drug situation) is going to do a comprehensive literature review at the beginning of a project and will continue to read relevant papers while working on their project. If your paper is easily findable after publication, there’s a very strong chance someone will read it. Even if you don’t get immediate citations, people are still reading your paper and the things they read will influence the general picture of what they work on and how they frame the task in their mind.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do You think most of the research doesn’t have and won’t have a real world application? I am working on drug discovery field and most of the research drug screening etc. doesn’t have any continuation. After the paper gets published, people doesn’t care about the found compound.
RESPONSE A: I feel this all the time with my research. That being said, it will have more effect than you might think. Anyone who’s worth their salt in research (or in your case anyone who works with this specific drug situation) is going to do a comprehensive literature review at the beginning of a project and will continue to read relevant papers while working on their project. If your paper is easily findable after publication, there’s a very strong chance someone will read it. Even if you don’t get immediate citations, people are still reading your paper and the things they read will influence the general picture of what they work on and how they frame the task in their mind.
RESPONSE B: I feel like pharmaceutical companies would care, honetly I think drug discovery is probably one of the fields that has the most real word applications
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do You think most of the research doesn’t have and won’t have a real world application? I am working on drug discovery field and most of the research drug screening etc. doesn’t have any continuation. After the paper gets published, people doesn’t care about the found compound.
RESPONSE A: Totally. Is there a real question?
RESPONSE B: I feel this all the time with my research. That being said, it will have more effect than you might think. Anyone who’s worth their salt in research (or in your case anyone who works with this specific drug situation) is going to do a comprehensive literature review at the beginning of a project and will continue to read relevant papers while working on their project. If your paper is easily findable after publication, there’s a very strong chance someone will read it. Even if you don’t get immediate citations, people are still reading your paper and the things they read will influence the general picture of what they work on and how they frame the task in their mind.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do You think most of the research doesn’t have and won’t have a real world application? I am working on drug discovery field and most of the research drug screening etc. doesn’t have any continuation. After the paper gets published, people doesn’t care about the found compound.
RESPONSE A: Totally. Is there a real question?
RESPONSE B: The issue in drug discovery is that the next steps to get a viable drug after the first screenings are expensive and with a high rate of failure (in the sense that even if you found a compound that does what you want, and you tweaked it enough to work on mice, many compounds would that not be succesful for humans). But answering your question, it depends strongly on the field, but most research does not end up having a direct impact. The "real" impact is harder to quantify, because even if a finding (say a compound, to follow your example) ends up not having an application, the knowledge gained to reach that point still accumulates.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do You think most of the research doesn’t have and won’t have a real world application? I am working on drug discovery field and most of the research drug screening etc. doesn’t have any continuation. After the paper gets published, people doesn’t care about the found compound.
RESPONSE A: Totally. Is there a real question?
RESPONSE B: I feel like pharmaceutical companies would care, honetly I think drug discovery is probably one of the fields that has the most real word applications
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Positives and benefits of a life in academia? TLDR: Please tell a young aspiring academic about the positives of academia Being a young researcher, about to do a PhD in biology, I thought I’d join this subreddit to get tips about and how to navigate a life in academia. Not going through the posts might have been a mistake however, because most of the content that reaches my feed from here is about how awful academia can be/ when to quit/ how to quit. I’m a bit jarred by all this and was wondering if the people on this subreddit who love and enjoy their lives in academia could write a few words. To those who are struggling, I hope you find a career of your choice very soon
RESPONSE A: I would also love to hear some insights. I am starting my PhD in two weeks and it seems like a lot of the content here and in r/PhD are about why people want to quit.
RESPONSE B: There are tons of positives. I have loads of flexibility in terms of my schedule and what I work on, I can change projects by writing new grants. I'm not limited by directing my work towards a commercial product. I love my work, my research and my colleagues. The challenges are always the leadership (inept at best, corrupt at worst PIs with zero project management experience) and the politics that inevitably come from overworked managers with no training on how to be one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Positives and benefits of a life in academia? TLDR: Please tell a young aspiring academic about the positives of academia Being a young researcher, about to do a PhD in biology, I thought I’d join this subreddit to get tips about and how to navigate a life in academia. Not going through the posts might have been a mistake however, because most of the content that reaches my feed from here is about how awful academia can be/ when to quit/ how to quit. I’m a bit jarred by all this and was wondering if the people on this subreddit who love and enjoy their lives in academia could write a few words. To those who are struggling, I hope you find a career of your choice very soon
RESPONSE A: I wouldn't say love but I'm definitely happy with my life in academia at the moment. There are plenty of fun challenges like coming up with creative ways to explore your data. There's literally always more to learn that applies to your work in interesting ways. It is a very conducive environment for personal growth, you'll probably at least have to come to terms with feeling stupid and ignorant in academia and channeling that into learning rather than shame and resentment. You can't know everything and that will keep being true for you forever. Sometimes you're literally one of the first few people to know something new. And you probably won't notice it for days or weeks after the initial "that's weird, what does that mean?"
RESPONSE B: I would also love to hear some insights. I am starting my PhD in two weeks and it seems like a lot of the content here and in r/PhD are about why people want to quit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: /resubmission period. 2) I have successfully transitioned myself out of academia. I do not necessarily need this publication on my CV. 3) As I mentioned, I do have a personal connection with the story. If I withdraw, then my name is associated only with the version of the story I really care about, which is the version in my thesis (of which, of course, I am rightfully sole first author). 4) Everyone else gets a bump in authorship so it’s not like their work goes unnoticed—maybe even the opposite? Am I missing something? Is this a stupid thing to do? Is it even possible to do at this point? Are there any glaringly obvious negatives (outside of me missing out on this publication)? Thanks for sticking with me to the end of this post—appreciate it!
RESPONSE A: I would accept it on the condition that the new co-first-author handles the revisions and resubmissions. Essentially, "*fine with me as long as I never hear back from you*". If you withdraw consent, it's going to become messy, and it looks like you don't want to handle the mess.
RESPONSE B: I’ll be the bad guy and say that I don’t necessarily think a co-first author is wrong in this situation. You note that you didn’t finish the project and didn’t write up the paper, format it for a journal, etc. I’ve seen plenty of posts here by people in the reverse situation: come if former postdoc left, there’s the bones of a project but stats need to be redone, a few more experiments to do, needs to be written and formatted, more figures to make. If it wasn’t publishable as you left it and you weren’t collaborating with the ex-PI to get it there, a co-first author is appropriate. You’re the first first author, acknowledging that you did much of the work. If you feel strongly about being the sole first author you can argue that but then you’ll need to take responsibility for all the revisions and directing any follow up experiments requested, which it sounds like you don’t want. So try to think of this as win-win
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: and has already wreaked this much havoc. Withdrawing my name means I cut off my last tie with her forever, sparing me of having to be in touch with her during the revision/resubmission period. 2) I have successfully transitioned myself out of academia. I do not necessarily need this publication on my CV. 3) As I mentioned, I do have a personal connection with the story. If I withdraw, then my name is associated only with the version of the story I really care about, which is the version in my thesis (of which, of course, I am rightfully sole first author). 4) Everyone else gets a bump in authorship so it’s not like their work goes unnoticed—maybe even the opposite? Am I missing something? Is this a stupid thing to do? Is it even possible to do at this point? Are there any glaringly obvious negatives (outside of me missing out on this publication)? Thanks for sticking with me to the end of this post—appreciate it!
RESPONSE A: I’ll be the bad guy and say that I don’t necessarily think a co-first author is wrong in this situation. You note that you didn’t finish the project and didn’t write up the paper, format it for a journal, etc. I’ve seen plenty of posts here by people in the reverse situation: come if former postdoc left, there’s the bones of a project but stats need to be redone, a few more experiments to do, needs to be written and formatted, more figures to make. If it wasn’t publishable as you left it and you weren’t collaborating with the ex-PI to get it there, a co-first author is appropriate. You’re the first first author, acknowledging that you did much of the work. If you feel strongly about being the sole first author you can argue that but then you’ll need to take responsibility for all the revisions and directing any follow up experiments requested, which it sounds like you don’t want. So try to think of this as win-win
RESPONSE B: You realise how much work is potentially needed to revise a paper to get through review? Are you signing yourself up to do that work?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: [Wrong Answers Only] What personal website to link to your department profile? My department gives us the option to add a personal website to our profile pages. Someone used to put a link to her online store there, and I thought it was both hilarious and awesome! I mean, the university has been exploiting our cheap labor, we might as well take advantage of their free advertising platform while we can! ;) Obviously I'm just indulging in some crazy fantasies here, but what else could we link to our department profiles? Instagram? A YouTube channel? A GoFundMe page for a "feed a poor grad student" fundraiser? Only Fans?... I can't stop laughing at the idea of this last one hahaha
RESPONSE A: A fake web shop with listings for the plants, art, office furniture, etc from your department building/offices
RESPONSE B: MySpace. No contest
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: [Wrong Answers Only] What personal website to link to your department profile? My department gives us the option to add a personal website to our profile pages. Someone used to put a link to her online store there, and I thought it was both hilarious and awesome! I mean, the university has been exploiting our cheap labor, we might as well take advantage of their free advertising platform while we can! ;) Obviously I'm just indulging in some crazy fantasies here, but what else could we link to our department profiles? Instagram? A YouTube channel? A GoFundMe page for a "feed a poor grad student" fundraiser? Only Fans?... I can't stop laughing at the idea of this last one hahaha
RESPONSE A: A fake web shop with listings for the plants, art, office furniture, etc from your department building/offices
RESPONSE B: Probably a ytmnd.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: [Wrong Answers Only] What personal website to link to your department profile? My department gives us the option to add a personal website to our profile pages. Someone used to put a link to her online store there, and I thought it was both hilarious and awesome! I mean, the university has been exploiting our cheap labor, we might as well take advantage of their free advertising platform while we can! ;) Obviously I'm just indulging in some crazy fantasies here, but what else could we link to our department profiles? Instagram? A YouTube channel? A GoFundMe page for a "feed a poor grad student" fundraiser? Only Fans?... I can't stop laughing at the idea of this last one hahaha
RESPONSE A: Set up a spoof website that looks just like the directory website for your page, except it's poor_phd_student's Evil Twin as the name, and everything else is the same except you've drawn a moustache on your professional photo.
RESPONSE B: MySpace. No contest
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: [Wrong Answers Only] What personal website to link to your department profile? My department gives us the option to add a personal website to our profile pages. Someone used to put a link to her online store there, and I thought it was both hilarious and awesome! I mean, the university has been exploiting our cheap labor, we might as well take advantage of their free advertising platform while we can! ;) Obviously I'm just indulging in some crazy fantasies here, but what else could we link to our department profiles? Instagram? A YouTube channel? A GoFundMe page for a "feed a poor grad student" fundraiser? Only Fans?... I can't stop laughing at the idea of this last one hahaha
RESPONSE A: Set up a spoof website that looks just like the directory website for your page, except it's poor_phd_student's Evil Twin as the name, and everything else is the same except you've drawn a moustache on your professional photo.
RESPONSE B: Probably a ytmnd.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: [Wrong Answers Only] What personal website to link to your department profile? My department gives us the option to add a personal website to our profile pages. Someone used to put a link to her online store there, and I thought it was both hilarious and awesome! I mean, the university has been exploiting our cheap labor, we might as well take advantage of their free advertising platform while we can! ;) Obviously I'm just indulging in some crazy fantasies here, but what else could we link to our department profiles? Instagram? A YouTube channel? A GoFundMe page for a "feed a poor grad student" fundraiser? Only Fans?... I can't stop laughing at the idea of this last one hahaha
RESPONSE A: Yourmom.biz
RESPONSE B: Set up a spoof website that looks just like the directory website for your page, except it's poor_phd_student's Evil Twin as the name, and everything else is the same except you've drawn a moustache on your professional photo.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: tired... Anyways, I sent the third email a few days ago. In the email, I explained that I've always done the readings, all of them, take them really seriously, annotate extensively (my annotations document is about 70 pages now!), and then I mentioned that I find upwards of 200 pages of readings to be challenging (something all the classmates and I had agreed on - they were just too afraid to broach it with him), but that I still appreciated the readings and learned so much from them, and would even miss them after this class is over. I also asked if he assigns about this much in his grad classes. A few weeks ago, he'd said that I could take a grad class with him, so that's why I asked about that. No answer! I don't know what to do. Why isn't he answering any of my emails??
RESPONSE A: Yes that's reasonable.
RESPONSE B: I agree with everyone else that this doesn't sound like too much work. I also hope you take the advice here and realize that sending emails just to chat isn't really an appropriate thing to do, especially if you have a crush. It sounds like you're trying to move this into a personal relationship, and your professor is trying to keep things professional. Three long emails, particularly if they're primarily sharing your thoughts and not asking course-related questions, is A LOT. Take a step back and reset this as a professional relationship. Also, I have to mention that your writing and this story (undergrad English major w crush on make teacher) sounds extremely similar to a poster that used to write under the names minervajones and disorderedfiction. If that is you, please all take all the comments here as a reminder to step back -- as you've been advised each time you've mentioned this professor -- and to bring up your emails and your feelings in your next therapy appointment. I'm only mentioning this because you're placing a lot of responsibility for your emotional well-being on this professor. If those other posters are not you, I'd still encourage you to take a step back, but it's not at such an urgent level, yet!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: - they were just too afraid to broach it with him), but that I still appreciated the readings and learned so much from them, and would even miss them after this class is over. I also asked if he assigns about this much in his grad classes. A few weeks ago, he'd said that I could take a grad class with him, so that's why I asked about that. No answer! I don't know what to do. Why isn't he answering any of my emails??
RESPONSE A: So on the reading front, that sounds about standard especially for a senior research class. As for the emails as the others have said, short, to the point, and relevant is the key. But also there are plenty of times I just flat out forget about emails, I scan it mentally file that I need to respond to it and then don't, but most of these questions are the sorts of things that you should be using office hours for.
RESPONSE B: I agree with everyone else that this doesn't sound like too much work. I also hope you take the advice here and realize that sending emails just to chat isn't really an appropriate thing to do, especially if you have a crush. It sounds like you're trying to move this into a personal relationship, and your professor is trying to keep things professional. Three long emails, particularly if they're primarily sharing your thoughts and not asking course-related questions, is A LOT. Take a step back and reset this as a professional relationship. Also, I have to mention that your writing and this story (undergrad English major w crush on make teacher) sounds extremely similar to a poster that used to write under the names minervajones and disorderedfiction. If that is you, please all take all the comments here as a reminder to step back -- as you've been advised each time you've mentioned this professor -- and to bring up your emails and your feelings in your next therapy appointment. I'm only mentioning this because you're placing a lot of responsibility for your emotional well-being on this professor. If those other posters are not you, I'd still encourage you to take a step back, but it's not at such an urgent level, yet!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: . No answer! I don't know what to do. Why isn't he answering any of my emails??
RESPONSE A: I agree with everyone else that this doesn't sound like too much work. I also hope you take the advice here and realize that sending emails just to chat isn't really an appropriate thing to do, especially if you have a crush. It sounds like you're trying to move this into a personal relationship, and your professor is trying to keep things professional. Three long emails, particularly if they're primarily sharing your thoughts and not asking course-related questions, is A LOT. Take a step back and reset this as a professional relationship. Also, I have to mention that your writing and this story (undergrad English major w crush on make teacher) sounds extremely similar to a poster that used to write under the names minervajones and disorderedfiction. If that is you, please all take all the comments here as a reminder to step back -- as you've been advised each time you've mentioned this professor -- and to bring up your emails and your feelings in your next therapy appointment. I'm only mentioning this because you're placing a lot of responsibility for your emotional well-being on this professor. If those other posters are not you, I'd still encourage you to take a step back, but it's not at such an urgent level, yet!
RESPONSE B: I’m going to somewhat disagree with some comments here. Yes, professors are busy, but personally, I make a point to reply to every student email. Sometimes it takes me a couple of days, but it gets done. That said, I’ve mostly taught at teaching-focused institutions. It sounds like you’re at a school that focuses more on research than teaching, and that tends to put more of the burden on the students for getting by without help. And that’s because less of tenure and promotion is based on teaching at such institutions. At this point, I wouldn’t count on getting any communication that isn’t face to face. Ask critical questions after class or during office hours, but don’t expect a back and forth via email, especially if this professor has graduate students he’s working with.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: that I find upwards of 200 pages of readings to be challenging (something all the classmates and I had agreed on - they were just too afraid to broach it with him), but that I still appreciated the readings and learned so much from them, and would even miss them after this class is over. I also asked if he assigns about this much in his grad classes. A few weeks ago, he'd said that I could take a grad class with him, so that's why I asked about that. No answer! I don't know what to do. Why isn't he answering any of my emails??
RESPONSE A: I agree with everyone else that this doesn't sound like too much work. I also hope you take the advice here and realize that sending emails just to chat isn't really an appropriate thing to do, especially if you have a crush. It sounds like you're trying to move this into a personal relationship, and your professor is trying to keep things professional. Three long emails, particularly if they're primarily sharing your thoughts and not asking course-related questions, is A LOT. Take a step back and reset this as a professional relationship. Also, I have to mention that your writing and this story (undergrad English major w crush on make teacher) sounds extremely similar to a poster that used to write under the names minervajones and disorderedfiction. If that is you, please all take all the comments here as a reminder to step back -- as you've been advised each time you've mentioned this professor -- and to bring up your emails and your feelings in your next therapy appointment. I'm only mentioning this because you're placing a lot of responsibility for your emotional well-being on this professor. If those other posters are not you, I'd still encourage you to take a step back, but it's not at such an urgent level, yet!
RESPONSE B: Not a humanities major, but in terms of courseload, for each course in my major I expected to do roughly 10 hours a week of work outside of class for a B and roughly 20 hours a week for an A. How does that compare with the amount of work you're doing for the class?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: It’s criminal what they pay adjuncts I was asked to adjunct teach a course for a university I am staff at. This course would force me to rearrange my entire schedule. They offered me $1600, plus the department head was very condescending. My other adjunct work pays $3500 at another university. Is this normal!? Thankfully I have a clinical license that allows me to have other employment opportunities and the adjunct teaching I’ve done supplements my income and gives me experience on my CV for when I complete my PhD. But it is absolutely criminal what they pay! It comes to roughly 16$/hour that you’re in class, not including the grading and office hours.
RESPONSE A: That kind of pay is just straight up unethical. It’s not even minimum wage when you work in time spent outside of the classroom. Turn it down.
RESPONSE B: Unionize the adjuncts! The union at my school, while I’ve heard some rumors it’s not the strongest union you’d like to see, just got a raise to $7,000 per course! Finally they’re getting what they deserve.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: It’s criminal what they pay adjuncts I was asked to adjunct teach a course for a university I am staff at. This course would force me to rearrange my entire schedule. They offered me $1600, plus the department head was very condescending. My other adjunct work pays $3500 at another university. Is this normal!? Thankfully I have a clinical license that allows me to have other employment opportunities and the adjunct teaching I’ve done supplements my income and gives me experience on my CV for when I complete my PhD. But it is absolutely criminal what they pay! It comes to roughly 16$/hour that you’re in class, not including the grading and office hours.
RESPONSE A: Unionize the adjuncts! The union at my school, while I’ve heard some rumors it’s not the strongest union you’d like to see, just got a raise to $7,000 per course! Finally they’re getting what they deserve.
RESPONSE B: The only adjunct work I've done paid that PER CREDIT HOUR if you taught less than half time. If you taught more than half time it went up even more. That sounds like a ridiculous amount even for adjunct.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: It’s criminal what they pay adjuncts I was asked to adjunct teach a course for a university I am staff at. This course would force me to rearrange my entire schedule. They offered me $1600, plus the department head was very condescending. My other adjunct work pays $3500 at another university. Is this normal!? Thankfully I have a clinical license that allows me to have other employment opportunities and the adjunct teaching I’ve done supplements my income and gives me experience on my CV for when I complete my PhD. But it is absolutely criminal what they pay! It comes to roughly 16$/hour that you’re in class, not including the grading and office hours.
RESPONSE A: That kind of pay is just straight up unethical. It’s not even minimum wage when you work in time spent outside of the classroom. Turn it down.
RESPONSE B: Yes, it's ridiculous and in many cases it's abused. It should be used as a kind of, "well Dr. S got real sick so we need someone to cover his Calc 3 course this semester," or "our tenure track candidate fell through and we need someone to help lower our teaching load" but is instead used as "Let's see how little we can pay". I don't think all schools abuse it like this though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: It’s criminal what they pay adjuncts I was asked to adjunct teach a course for a university I am staff at. This course would force me to rearrange my entire schedule. They offered me $1600, plus the department head was very condescending. My other adjunct work pays $3500 at another university. Is this normal!? Thankfully I have a clinical license that allows me to have other employment opportunities and the adjunct teaching I’ve done supplements my income and gives me experience on my CV for when I complete my PhD. But it is absolutely criminal what they pay! It comes to roughly 16$/hour that you’re in class, not including the grading and office hours.
RESPONSE A: Ask for more! They make a low offer because they think you'll accept it.
RESPONSE B: That's criminally low! I make approx $8k per course, because adjuncts and grad students at my university are unionized.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: It’s criminal what they pay adjuncts I was asked to adjunct teach a course for a university I am staff at. This course would force me to rearrange my entire schedule. They offered me $1600, plus the department head was very condescending. My other adjunct work pays $3500 at another university. Is this normal!? Thankfully I have a clinical license that allows me to have other employment opportunities and the adjunct teaching I’ve done supplements my income and gives me experience on my CV for when I complete my PhD. But it is absolutely criminal what they pay! It comes to roughly 16$/hour that you’re in class, not including the grading and office hours.
RESPONSE A: That's criminally low! I make approx $8k per course, because adjuncts and grad students at my university are unionized.
RESPONSE B: I’m not a professor, but that seems incredibly low! I am paid $1500 per term to TA a 3-credit course.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it appropriate for me to contact professors from 3+ years ago for letters of recommendation? I applied to grad schools right out of undergrad but didn’t get in anywhere. Waited a year and I’m trying again to different places, and I’m going to need to ask the same professors again. Not asking for anything to do with admissions, just etiquette. Is it appropriate for me to contact these professors?
RESPONSE A: Totally. Last year I wrote a letter for a student I had in 1996. That was my record.
RESPONSE B: Yep. Totally acceptable. I’ve written many a letter for a former student. Just maybe remind them of some classes you took of theirs, maybe a presentation you gave or paper you wrote, to help refresh their memory.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.