post_id
stringlengths 5
7
| domain
stringclasses 18
values | upvote_ratio
float64 0.5
1
| history
stringlengths 22
39.2k
| c_root_id_A
stringlengths 7
7
| c_root_id_B
stringlengths 7
7
| created_at_utc_A
int64 1.28B
1.67B
| created_at_utc_B
int64 1.28B
1.67B
| score_A
int64 2
43.5k
| score_B
int64 2
43.2k
| human_ref_A
stringlengths 0
10.7k
| human_ref_B
stringlengths 0
10.8k
| labels
int64 0
1
| seconds_difference
float64 0
145M
| score_ratio
float64 1
3.72k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mogha | g5lweu0 | 1,600,374,985 | 1,600,364,019 | 57 | 16 | The assholes go work for oil and mining companies. | I have always thought this with Geography as well (for the most part). That may just be due to me being in a niche community for my research interests though. | 1 | 10,966 | 3.5625 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mogha | g5mj86l | 1,600,374,985 | 1,600,373,027 | 57 | 14 | The assholes go work for oil and mining companies. | Maybe all the fresh air and sunshine benefits their mental health? At least the ones who do lotsa fieldwork. Are geology professors nicer than just regular old outdoorsy folk... which is probs also a demographic with lots of overlap? There’s also the fact that (except for, idk, petroleum geology) being a geology professor means you’re paid pretty well for doing what you’re really interested in, since nobody studies volcanoes or w/e except out of personal interest. That probably lifts ones spirits day-in-day-out, where I could see more people wanting to study idk CS for the $$$. | 1 | 1,958 | 4.071429 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5m9wy9 | g5mogha | 1,600,369,497 | 1,600,374,985 | 7 | 57 | In my experience, it's because they have truly found their passion and are at peace with their life. I had a geology professor who worked for big companies as a geologist for a long time, really just loved it, and when that became unsustainable (either from age or just wanting more family life stability), he sought out teaching and every single lecture, his enthusiasm for geology just shined through. Never had a geology professor I didn't like... but geography professors are pretty finicky folk. | The assholes go work for oil and mining companies. | 0 | 5,488 | 8.142857 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mogha | g5mciay | 1,600,374,985 | 1,600,370,568 | 57 | 4 | The assholes go work for oil and mining companies. | Someone who likes ROCKS can't be a bad person | 1 | 4,417 | 14.25 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mx949 | g5lweu0 | 1,600,378,388 | 1,600,364,019 | 36 | 16 | As a geology professor, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are jerks just like in any discipline. I'm glad you've encountered only nice and supportive geology professors, but trust me, the nasty ones are out there. | I have always thought this with Geography as well (for the most part). That may just be due to me being in a niche community for my research interests though. | 1 | 14,369 | 2.25 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mx949 | g5mucok | 1,600,378,388 | 1,600,377,251 | 36 | 14 | As a geology professor, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are jerks just like in any discipline. I'm glad you've encountered only nice and supportive geology professors, but trust me, the nasty ones are out there. | The whole Geophysics community is, in general, pretty pleasant. The poster session beer lines at American Geophysical Union Fall Meetings were legendary in the pre-COVID world. | 1 | 1,137 | 2.571429 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mj86l | g5mx949 | 1,600,373,027 | 1,600,378,388 | 14 | 36 | Maybe all the fresh air and sunshine benefits their mental health? At least the ones who do lotsa fieldwork. Are geology professors nicer than just regular old outdoorsy folk... which is probs also a demographic with lots of overlap? There’s also the fact that (except for, idk, petroleum geology) being a geology professor means you’re paid pretty well for doing what you’re really interested in, since nobody studies volcanoes or w/e except out of personal interest. That probably lifts ones spirits day-in-day-out, where I could see more people wanting to study idk CS for the $$$. | As a geology professor, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are jerks just like in any discipline. I'm glad you've encountered only nice and supportive geology professors, but trust me, the nasty ones are out there. | 0 | 5,361 | 2.571429 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mx949 | g5mq0jn | 1,600,378,388 | 1,600,375,650 | 36 | 6 | As a geology professor, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are jerks just like in any discipline. I'm glad you've encountered only nice and supportive geology professors, but trust me, the nasty ones are out there. | Probably confirmation bias | 1 | 2,738 | 6 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mqchr | g5mx949 | 1,600,375,771 | 1,600,378,388 | 6 | 36 | I sat next to a geologist on a plane once. He was very nice. | As a geology professor, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are jerks just like in any discipline. I'm glad you've encountered only nice and supportive geology professors, but trust me, the nasty ones are out there. | 0 | 2,617 | 6 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mx949 | g5m9wy9 | 1,600,378,388 | 1,600,369,497 | 36 | 7 | As a geology professor, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are jerks just like in any discipline. I'm glad you've encountered only nice and supportive geology professors, but trust me, the nasty ones are out there. | In my experience, it's because they have truly found their passion and are at peace with their life. I had a geology professor who worked for big companies as a geologist for a long time, really just loved it, and when that became unsustainable (either from age or just wanting more family life stability), he sought out teaching and every single lecture, his enthusiasm for geology just shined through. Never had a geology professor I didn't like... but geography professors are pretty finicky folk. | 1 | 8,891 | 5.142857 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mx949 | g5mciay | 1,600,378,388 | 1,600,370,568 | 36 | 4 | As a geology professor, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are jerks just like in any discipline. I'm glad you've encountered only nice and supportive geology professors, but trust me, the nasty ones are out there. | Someone who likes ROCKS can't be a bad person | 1 | 7,820 | 9 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mp47d | g5mx949 | 1,600,375,270 | 1,600,378,388 | 4 | 36 | I’m guess I’m the unlucky one who had the crappy professor. Lol | As a geology professor, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are jerks just like in any discipline. I'm glad you've encountered only nice and supportive geology professors, but trust me, the nasty ones are out there. | 0 | 3,118 | 9 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mq0jn | g5mucok | 1,600,375,650 | 1,600,377,251 | 6 | 14 | Probably confirmation bias | The whole Geophysics community is, in general, pretty pleasant. The poster session beer lines at American Geophysical Union Fall Meetings were legendary in the pre-COVID world. | 0 | 1,601 | 2.333333 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mqchr | g5mucok | 1,600,375,771 | 1,600,377,251 | 6 | 14 | I sat next to a geologist on a plane once. He was very nice. | The whole Geophysics community is, in general, pretty pleasant. The poster session beer lines at American Geophysical Union Fall Meetings were legendary in the pre-COVID world. | 0 | 1,480 | 2.333333 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5m9wy9 | g5mucok | 1,600,369,497 | 1,600,377,251 | 7 | 14 | In my experience, it's because they have truly found their passion and are at peace with their life. I had a geology professor who worked for big companies as a geologist for a long time, really just loved it, and when that became unsustainable (either from age or just wanting more family life stability), he sought out teaching and every single lecture, his enthusiasm for geology just shined through. Never had a geology professor I didn't like... but geography professors are pretty finicky folk. | The whole Geophysics community is, in general, pretty pleasant. The poster session beer lines at American Geophysical Union Fall Meetings were legendary in the pre-COVID world. | 0 | 7,754 | 2 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mciay | g5mucok | 1,600,370,568 | 1,600,377,251 | 4 | 14 | Someone who likes ROCKS can't be a bad person | The whole Geophysics community is, in general, pretty pleasant. The poster session beer lines at American Geophysical Union Fall Meetings were legendary in the pre-COVID world. | 0 | 6,683 | 3.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mp47d | g5mucok | 1,600,375,270 | 1,600,377,251 | 4 | 14 | I’m guess I’m the unlucky one who had the crappy professor. Lol | The whole Geophysics community is, in general, pretty pleasant. The poster session beer lines at American Geophysical Union Fall Meetings were legendary in the pre-COVID world. | 0 | 1,981 | 3.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mj86l | g5m9wy9 | 1,600,373,027 | 1,600,369,497 | 14 | 7 | Maybe all the fresh air and sunshine benefits their mental health? At least the ones who do lotsa fieldwork. Are geology professors nicer than just regular old outdoorsy folk... which is probs also a demographic with lots of overlap? There’s also the fact that (except for, idk, petroleum geology) being a geology professor means you’re paid pretty well for doing what you’re really interested in, since nobody studies volcanoes or w/e except out of personal interest. That probably lifts ones spirits day-in-day-out, where I could see more people wanting to study idk CS for the $$$. | In my experience, it's because they have truly found their passion and are at peace with their life. I had a geology professor who worked for big companies as a geologist for a long time, really just loved it, and when that became unsustainable (either from age or just wanting more family life stability), he sought out teaching and every single lecture, his enthusiasm for geology just shined through. Never had a geology professor I didn't like... but geography professors are pretty finicky folk. | 1 | 3,530 | 2 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mciay | g5mj86l | 1,600,370,568 | 1,600,373,027 | 4 | 14 | Someone who likes ROCKS can't be a bad person | Maybe all the fresh air and sunshine benefits their mental health? At least the ones who do lotsa fieldwork. Are geology professors nicer than just regular old outdoorsy folk... which is probs also a demographic with lots of overlap? There’s also the fact that (except for, idk, petroleum geology) being a geology professor means you’re paid pretty well for doing what you’re really interested in, since nobody studies volcanoes or w/e except out of personal interest. That probably lifts ones spirits day-in-day-out, where I could see more people wanting to study idk CS for the $$$. | 0 | 2,459 | 3.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mciay | g5mq0jn | 1,600,370,568 | 1,600,375,650 | 4 | 6 | Someone who likes ROCKS can't be a bad person | Probably confirmation bias | 0 | 5,082 | 1.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mq0jn | g5mp47d | 1,600,375,650 | 1,600,375,270 | 6 | 4 | Probably confirmation bias | I’m guess I’m the unlucky one who had the crappy professor. Lol | 1 | 380 | 1.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mqchr | g5mciay | 1,600,375,771 | 1,600,370,568 | 6 | 4 | I sat next to a geologist on a plane once. He was very nice. | Someone who likes ROCKS can't be a bad person | 1 | 5,203 | 1.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mqchr | g5mp47d | 1,600,375,771 | 1,600,375,270 | 6 | 4 | I sat next to a geologist on a plane once. He was very nice. | I’m guess I’m the unlucky one who had the crappy professor. Lol | 1 | 501 | 1.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5nc6c4 | g5mykog | 1,600,385,671 | 1,600,378,927 | 6 | 5 | I think the geosciences in general requires a high level of collaboration- because of the high cost of field expeditions, you have to shoulder that cost burden with lots of other people (this is from the perspective of an oceanographer). And also, in the field you have to rely on each other to get projects completed. It selects for folks that like working in a community more than other sciences where the “brilliant mind alone in a lab” sort of mindset can dominate. Also, definitely, the fact that we have basically unlimited free beer at our big national conferences. | 4 is a pretty small sample size, though... | 1 | 6,744 | 1.2 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mykog | g5ng8k9 | 1,600,378,927 | 1,600,388,006 | 5 | 6 | 4 is a pretty small sample size, though... | They’re so.... down to earth | 0 | 9,079 | 1.2 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mykog | g5mciay | 1,600,378,927 | 1,600,370,568 | 5 | 4 | 4 is a pretty small sample size, though... | Someone who likes ROCKS can't be a bad person | 1 | 8,359 | 1.25 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mykog | g5mp47d | 1,600,378,927 | 1,600,375,270 | 5 | 4 | 4 is a pretty small sample size, though... | I’m guess I’m the unlucky one who had the crappy professor. Lol | 1 | 3,657 | 1.25 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mykog | g5n2vru | 1,600,378,927 | 1,600,380,758 | 5 | 6 | 4 is a pretty small sample size, though... | Geologist here. It's true many of us (I'm going to put myself in this "nice" group, because it's the end of the day and I'm feelin' it) are friendly and outgoing...but that's not to be conflated with kind or happy or even cool. I'm sorry to report, we've got our share of A-holes here in geoscience too. Enough so that I have a strict "No Assholes Rule" when it comes to picking collaborations and Co-PIs. | 0 | 1,831 | 1.2 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5nc6c4 | g5mciay | 1,600,385,671 | 1,600,370,568 | 6 | 4 | I think the geosciences in general requires a high level of collaboration- because of the high cost of field expeditions, you have to shoulder that cost burden with lots of other people (this is from the perspective of an oceanographer). And also, in the field you have to rely on each other to get projects completed. It selects for folks that like working in a community more than other sciences where the “brilliant mind alone in a lab” sort of mindset can dominate. Also, definitely, the fact that we have basically unlimited free beer at our big national conferences. | Someone who likes ROCKS can't be a bad person | 1 | 15,103 | 1.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mp47d | g5nc6c4 | 1,600,375,270 | 1,600,385,671 | 4 | 6 | I’m guess I’m the unlucky one who had the crappy professor. Lol | I think the geosciences in general requires a high level of collaboration- because of the high cost of field expeditions, you have to shoulder that cost burden with lots of other people (this is from the perspective of an oceanographer). And also, in the field you have to rely on each other to get projects completed. It selects for folks that like working in a community more than other sciences where the “brilliant mind alone in a lab” sort of mindset can dominate. Also, definitely, the fact that we have basically unlimited free beer at our big national conferences. | 0 | 10,401 | 1.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mciay | g5ng8k9 | 1,600,370,568 | 1,600,388,006 | 4 | 6 | Someone who likes ROCKS can't be a bad person | They’re so.... down to earth | 0 | 17,438 | 1.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mp47d | g5ng8k9 | 1,600,375,270 | 1,600,388,006 | 4 | 6 | I’m guess I’m the unlucky one who had the crappy professor. Lol | They’re so.... down to earth | 0 | 12,736 | 1.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5ng8k9 | g5nc9vi | 1,600,388,006 | 1,600,385,725 | 6 | 5 | They’re so.... down to earth | I used to underestimate the value of the outdoors for mental health... Now that I've worked in several offices, I don't. We need it as a species, and while there are assholes in every field, I share the experience that geology has fewer, and more genuine great people. | 1 | 2,281 | 1.2 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mciay | g5n2vru | 1,600,370,568 | 1,600,380,758 | 4 | 6 | Someone who likes ROCKS can't be a bad person | Geologist here. It's true many of us (I'm going to put myself in this "nice" group, because it's the end of the day and I'm feelin' it) are friendly and outgoing...but that's not to be conflated with kind or happy or even cool. I'm sorry to report, we've got our share of A-holes here in geoscience too. Enough so that I have a strict "No Assholes Rule" when it comes to picking collaborations and Co-PIs. | 0 | 10,190 | 1.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5nc9vi | g5mciay | 1,600,385,725 | 1,600,370,568 | 5 | 4 | I used to underestimate the value of the outdoors for mental health... Now that I've worked in several offices, I don't. We need it as a species, and while there are assholes in every field, I share the experience that geology has fewer, and more genuine great people. | Someone who likes ROCKS can't be a bad person | 1 | 15,157 | 1.25 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5mp47d | g5n2vru | 1,600,375,270 | 1,600,380,758 | 4 | 6 | I’m guess I’m the unlucky one who had the crappy professor. Lol | Geologist here. It's true many of us (I'm going to put myself in this "nice" group, because it's the end of the day and I'm feelin' it) are friendly and outgoing...but that's not to be conflated with kind or happy or even cool. I'm sorry to report, we've got our share of A-holes here in geoscience too. Enough so that I have a strict "No Assholes Rule" when it comes to picking collaborations and Co-PIs. | 0 | 5,488 | 1.5 |
iumw57 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? | g5nc9vi | g5mp47d | 1,600,385,725 | 1,600,375,270 | 5 | 4 | I used to underestimate the value of the outdoors for mental health... Now that I've worked in several offices, I don't. We need it as a species, and while there are assholes in every field, I share the experience that geology has fewer, and more genuine great people. | I’m guess I’m the unlucky one who had the crappy professor. Lol | 1 | 10,455 | 1.25 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyp4naj | iyp58we | 1,670,031,658 | 1,670,031,953 | 53 | 311 | Do you submit any papers? If so, you should review as many as you need reviewers in an average year. At least in my field, 3 reviewers per paper is typical, so I try to review at least 3x the number of manuscripts I submit / plan to submit in a year. You say you get this, but it doesn't seem like you do? >I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. | Speaking from an entirely 'selfish' point of view, you review papers for two reasons: 1. Forces you to keep up with the literature in the field and will give you new ideas. 2. Reviewing journal articles is seen as an 'essential' part of your job as an academic. You have to show that you regularly review papers for applying to fellowships, grants, tenure, etc. | 0 | 295 | 5.867925 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyp4naj | iyp5e5o | 1,670,031,658 | 1,670,032,023 | 53 | 76 | Do you submit any papers? If so, you should review as many as you need reviewers in an average year. At least in my field, 3 reviewers per paper is typical, so I try to review at least 3x the number of manuscripts I submit / plan to submit in a year. You say you get this, but it doesn't seem like you do? >I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. | And who reviews your papers? Magical Christmas elves? If you're submitting papers you should be willing to review others. | 0 | 365 | 1.433962 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyp5e5o | iyp5cbz | 1,670,032,023 | 1,670,031,999 | 76 | 48 | And who reviews your papers? Magical Christmas elves? If you're submitting papers you should be willing to review others. | It's no different than jury duty. Think of it as service to your industry and a way of 'paying it forward'. That said, you can always decline with no risk of penalty. Personally, I like reviewing a few papers a year, because it's a good way to stay on top of the most recent work in my field. | 1 | 24 | 1.583333 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyp5ayc | iyp5e5o | 1,670,031,980 | 1,670,032,023 | 26 | 76 | If you’re asking if it’s exploitative, the answer is yes. However, academia has very strong feelings about this from a position that frames that exploitation as service to some ethical ideal. It seems like Stockholm Syndrome to me, but you’ll no doubt be inundated with responses that draw from the perspective that questioning this system is tantamount to trying to get away with something. They absolutely should, and can afford to, pay you for your time. | And who reviews your papers? Magical Christmas elves? If you're submitting papers you should be willing to review others. | 0 | 43 | 2.923077 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyp5ayc | iyp5cbz | 1,670,031,980 | 1,670,031,999 | 26 | 48 | If you’re asking if it’s exploitative, the answer is yes. However, academia has very strong feelings about this from a position that frames that exploitation as service to some ethical ideal. It seems like Stockholm Syndrome to me, but you’ll no doubt be inundated with responses that draw from the perspective that questioning this system is tantamount to trying to get away with something. They absolutely should, and can afford to, pay you for your time. | It's no different than jury duty. Think of it as service to your industry and a way of 'paying it forward'. That said, you can always decline with no risk of penalty. Personally, I like reviewing a few papers a year, because it's a good way to stay on top of the most recent work in my field. | 0 | 19 | 1.846154 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iypbae6 | iyp5ayc | 1,670,034,920 | 1,670,031,980 | 41 | 26 | If you want to submit articles to journals and have other people review your work for publication then you should feel an obligation to review other scholars work for publication. | If you’re asking if it’s exploitative, the answer is yes. However, academia has very strong feelings about this from a position that frames that exploitation as service to some ethical ideal. It seems like Stockholm Syndrome to me, but you’ll no doubt be inundated with responses that draw from the perspective that questioning this system is tantamount to trying to get away with something. They absolutely should, and can afford to, pay you for your time. | 1 | 2,940 | 1.576923 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyp83kg | iypbae6 | 1,670,033,349 | 1,670,034,920 | 13 | 41 | I know we live in a capitalist society, but sheesh, sometimes you do things even if it doesn’t directly benefit you. | If you want to submit articles to journals and have other people review your work for publication then you should feel an obligation to review other scholars work for publication. | 0 | 1,571 | 3.153846 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyp5ayc | iypfs9e | 1,670,031,980 | 1,670,037,164 | 26 | 27 | If you’re asking if it’s exploitative, the answer is yes. However, academia has very strong feelings about this from a position that frames that exploitation as service to some ethical ideal. It seems like Stockholm Syndrome to me, but you’ll no doubt be inundated with responses that draw from the perspective that questioning this system is tantamount to trying to get away with something. They absolutely should, and can afford to, pay you for your time. | I think it really depends on the journal. Is it a journal that you want to publish in? Have you ever read an article published there? Do your colleagues or mentors publish there? If you have no imaginable connection to it and no desire to form that connection, I can see why being added to their reviewer database would be pesky. However, if you have even a weak connection, you should do the review. | 0 | 5,184 | 1.038462 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyps3sw | iyp5ayc | 1,670,043,745 | 1,670,031,980 | 28 | 26 | My supervisor always says “review for someone you’d like to have a networking connection with”. They chose you out of many others, and you didn’t even volunteer, so they must respect your work. Accepting the review is a good gesture and a networking opening. You don’t need to accept. But you get better connected if you do. You also get to know what people are currently working on, even when it isn’t published. And it’s part of the expectation of being in academia too. Profs are even paid for “professional service” in their salary, where they spend maybe 20% of their time doing service, either in the department or in the community of your field. And you write that on your reports - if you don’t do anything in the community it doesn’t look good when you’re applying for tenure. | If you’re asking if it’s exploitative, the answer is yes. However, academia has very strong feelings about this from a position that frames that exploitation as service to some ethical ideal. It seems like Stockholm Syndrome to me, but you’ll no doubt be inundated with responses that draw from the perspective that questioning this system is tantamount to trying to get away with something. They absolutely should, and can afford to, pay you for your time. | 1 | 11,765 | 1.076923 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyps3sw | iypfs9e | 1,670,043,745 | 1,670,037,164 | 28 | 27 | My supervisor always says “review for someone you’d like to have a networking connection with”. They chose you out of many others, and you didn’t even volunteer, so they must respect your work. Accepting the review is a good gesture and a networking opening. You don’t need to accept. But you get better connected if you do. You also get to know what people are currently working on, even when it isn’t published. And it’s part of the expectation of being in academia too. Profs are even paid for “professional service” in their salary, where they spend maybe 20% of their time doing service, either in the department or in the community of your field. And you write that on your reports - if you don’t do anything in the community it doesn’t look good when you’re applying for tenure. | I think it really depends on the journal. Is it a journal that you want to publish in? Have you ever read an article published there? Do your colleagues or mentors publish there? If you have no imaginable connection to it and no desire to form that connection, I can see why being added to their reviewer database would be pesky. However, if you have even a weak connection, you should do the review. | 1 | 6,581 | 1.037037 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iypfs9e | iyp83kg | 1,670,037,164 | 1,670,033,349 | 27 | 13 | I think it really depends on the journal. Is it a journal that you want to publish in? Have you ever read an article published there? Do your colleagues or mentors publish there? If you have no imaginable connection to it and no desire to form that connection, I can see why being added to their reviewer database would be pesky. However, if you have even a weak connection, you should do the review. | I know we live in a capitalist society, but sheesh, sometimes you do things even if it doesn’t directly benefit you. | 1 | 3,815 | 2.076923 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iypbi68 | iypfs9e | 1,670,035,026 | 1,670,037,164 | 10 | 27 | Yes it's a shitty, exploitative system when it's done by for-profit publishers. But if you want to/ have/ plan to submit to those journals, you should review for them or you're a hypocrite. The only way to change this system is for all of us to go "on strike" from reviewing simutaneously. If you do it alone, you accomplish nothing. | I think it really depends on the journal. Is it a journal that you want to publish in? Have you ever read an article published there? Do your colleagues or mentors publish there? If you have no imaginable connection to it and no desire to form that connection, I can see why being added to their reviewer database would be pesky. However, if you have even a weak connection, you should do the review. | 0 | 2,138 | 2.7 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyps3sw | iypn1gd | 1,670,043,745 | 1,670,040,976 | 28 | 25 | My supervisor always says “review for someone you’d like to have a networking connection with”. They chose you out of many others, and you didn’t even volunteer, so they must respect your work. Accepting the review is a good gesture and a networking opening. You don’t need to accept. But you get better connected if you do. You also get to know what people are currently working on, even when it isn’t published. And it’s part of the expectation of being in academia too. Profs are even paid for “professional service” in their salary, where they spend maybe 20% of their time doing service, either in the department or in the community of your field. And you write that on your reports - if you don’t do anything in the community it doesn’t look good when you’re applying for tenure. | You submit a great paper but no one wants to review it because "it's not part of the job description". How would you feel? It is for this reason everyone must chip in when asked to review. Having said that, decline to review if it is a predatory journal, if the bulk of the paper falls outside your expertise or if you already have 10+ other papers to review. Ironically, in my field I have reviewed for several journals far above the impact I could publish my own research, I consider this an honor. | 1 | 2,769 | 1.12 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iypkp5h | iyps3sw | 1,670,039,706 | 1,670,043,745 | 24 | 28 | You got that first email because the manuscript editing software (likely, Manuscript Central) can't send you the request to review prior to creating an account for you to use to review the paper. I agree, it's presumptuous, stupid, and off-putting and I wish the system worked otherwise. But the editorial team has no control over how that dumbass software works. That's on the publisher. With that set aside, I agree that the whole system of peer review is pretty shitty in the sense that a publisher will profit from your free labour. People telling you "well then don't publish then" are missing the point, we're in a bit of a quagmire. Best I can say is that you can influence that process by focusing your reviewing on society-led journals that are not run for profit, or where the for-profit publisher shares money from publications with the society that runs the journal. And also, if you selectively agree to only review papers that are pertinent to your expertise and interest, you can use the reviewing process as an opportunity to stay on top of the literature and learn about what kinds of research your colleagues are doing. | My supervisor always says “review for someone you’d like to have a networking connection with”. They chose you out of many others, and you didn’t even volunteer, so they must respect your work. Accepting the review is a good gesture and a networking opening. You don’t need to accept. But you get better connected if you do. You also get to know what people are currently working on, even when it isn’t published. And it’s part of the expectation of being in academia too. Profs are even paid for “professional service” in their salary, where they spend maybe 20% of their time doing service, either in the department or in the community of your field. And you write that on your reports - if you don’t do anything in the community it doesn’t look good when you’re applying for tenure. | 0 | 4,039 | 1.166667 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyp83kg | iyps3sw | 1,670,033,349 | 1,670,043,745 | 13 | 28 | I know we live in a capitalist society, but sheesh, sometimes you do things even if it doesn’t directly benefit you. | My supervisor always says “review for someone you’d like to have a networking connection with”. They chose you out of many others, and you didn’t even volunteer, so they must respect your work. Accepting the review is a good gesture and a networking opening. You don’t need to accept. But you get better connected if you do. You also get to know what people are currently working on, even when it isn’t published. And it’s part of the expectation of being in academia too. Profs are even paid for “professional service” in their salary, where they spend maybe 20% of their time doing service, either in the department or in the community of your field. And you write that on your reports - if you don’t do anything in the community it doesn’t look good when you’re applying for tenure. | 0 | 10,396 | 2.153846 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyps3sw | iypbi68 | 1,670,043,745 | 1,670,035,026 | 28 | 10 | My supervisor always says “review for someone you’d like to have a networking connection with”. They chose you out of many others, and you didn’t even volunteer, so they must respect your work. Accepting the review is a good gesture and a networking opening. You don’t need to accept. But you get better connected if you do. You also get to know what people are currently working on, even when it isn’t published. And it’s part of the expectation of being in academia too. Profs are even paid for “professional service” in their salary, where they spend maybe 20% of their time doing service, either in the department or in the community of your field. And you write that on your reports - if you don’t do anything in the community it doesn’t look good when you’re applying for tenure. | Yes it's a shitty, exploitative system when it's done by for-profit publishers. But if you want to/ have/ plan to submit to those journals, you should review for them or you're a hypocrite. The only way to change this system is for all of us to go "on strike" from reviewing simutaneously. If you do it alone, you accomplish nothing. | 1 | 8,719 | 2.8 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyps3sw | iypk7ra | 1,670,043,745 | 1,670,039,453 | 28 | 9 | My supervisor always says “review for someone you’d like to have a networking connection with”. They chose you out of many others, and you didn’t even volunteer, so they must respect your work. Accepting the review is a good gesture and a networking opening. You don’t need to accept. But you get better connected if you do. You also get to know what people are currently working on, even when it isn’t published. And it’s part of the expectation of being in academia too. Profs are even paid for “professional service” in their salary, where they spend maybe 20% of their time doing service, either in the department or in the community of your field. And you write that on your reports - if you don’t do anything in the community it doesn’t look good when you’re applying for tenure. | A researcher in my field wrote a whole commentary about why we need to provide payment or at least recognition for completing peer reviews. Sure, it's considered to be part of service work but I've never heard of anyone getting tenure from service alone. I have seen more than one professor get tenure by doing very few reviews but publishing like mad. If reviewing is valuable work, academia could definitely do more to actually reward it. | 1 | 4,292 | 3.111111 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iypn1gd | iypkp5h | 1,670,040,976 | 1,670,039,706 | 25 | 24 | You submit a great paper but no one wants to review it because "it's not part of the job description". How would you feel? It is for this reason everyone must chip in when asked to review. Having said that, decline to review if it is a predatory journal, if the bulk of the paper falls outside your expertise or if you already have 10+ other papers to review. Ironically, in my field I have reviewed for several journals far above the impact I could publish my own research, I consider this an honor. | You got that first email because the manuscript editing software (likely, Manuscript Central) can't send you the request to review prior to creating an account for you to use to review the paper. I agree, it's presumptuous, stupid, and off-putting and I wish the system worked otherwise. But the editorial team has no control over how that dumbass software works. That's on the publisher. With that set aside, I agree that the whole system of peer review is pretty shitty in the sense that a publisher will profit from your free labour. People telling you "well then don't publish then" are missing the point, we're in a bit of a quagmire. Best I can say is that you can influence that process by focusing your reviewing on society-led journals that are not run for profit, or where the for-profit publisher shares money from publications with the society that runs the journal. And also, if you selectively agree to only review papers that are pertinent to your expertise and interest, you can use the reviewing process as an opportunity to stay on top of the literature and learn about what kinds of research your colleagues are doing. | 1 | 1,270 | 1.041667 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyp83kg | iypn1gd | 1,670,033,349 | 1,670,040,976 | 13 | 25 | I know we live in a capitalist society, but sheesh, sometimes you do things even if it doesn’t directly benefit you. | You submit a great paper but no one wants to review it because "it's not part of the job description". How would you feel? It is for this reason everyone must chip in when asked to review. Having said that, decline to review if it is a predatory journal, if the bulk of the paper falls outside your expertise or if you already have 10+ other papers to review. Ironically, in my field I have reviewed for several journals far above the impact I could publish my own research, I consider this an honor. | 0 | 7,627 | 1.923077 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iypn1gd | iypbi68 | 1,670,040,976 | 1,670,035,026 | 25 | 10 | You submit a great paper but no one wants to review it because "it's not part of the job description". How would you feel? It is for this reason everyone must chip in when asked to review. Having said that, decline to review if it is a predatory journal, if the bulk of the paper falls outside your expertise or if you already have 10+ other papers to review. Ironically, in my field I have reviewed for several journals far above the impact I could publish my own research, I consider this an honor. | Yes it's a shitty, exploitative system when it's done by for-profit publishers. But if you want to/ have/ plan to submit to those journals, you should review for them or you're a hypocrite. The only way to change this system is for all of us to go "on strike" from reviewing simutaneously. If you do it alone, you accomplish nothing. | 1 | 5,950 | 2.5 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iypk7ra | iypn1gd | 1,670,039,453 | 1,670,040,976 | 9 | 25 | A researcher in my field wrote a whole commentary about why we need to provide payment or at least recognition for completing peer reviews. Sure, it's considered to be part of service work but I've never heard of anyone getting tenure from service alone. I have seen more than one professor get tenure by doing very few reviews but publishing like mad. If reviewing is valuable work, academia could definitely do more to actually reward it. | You submit a great paper but no one wants to review it because "it's not part of the job description". How would you feel? It is for this reason everyone must chip in when asked to review. Having said that, decline to review if it is a predatory journal, if the bulk of the paper falls outside your expertise or if you already have 10+ other papers to review. Ironically, in my field I have reviewed for several journals far above the impact I could publish my own research, I consider this an honor. | 0 | 1,523 | 2.777778 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyp83kg | iypkp5h | 1,670,033,349 | 1,670,039,706 | 13 | 24 | I know we live in a capitalist society, but sheesh, sometimes you do things even if it doesn’t directly benefit you. | You got that first email because the manuscript editing software (likely, Manuscript Central) can't send you the request to review prior to creating an account for you to use to review the paper. I agree, it's presumptuous, stupid, and off-putting and I wish the system worked otherwise. But the editorial team has no control over how that dumbass software works. That's on the publisher. With that set aside, I agree that the whole system of peer review is pretty shitty in the sense that a publisher will profit from your free labour. People telling you "well then don't publish then" are missing the point, we're in a bit of a quagmire. Best I can say is that you can influence that process by focusing your reviewing on society-led journals that are not run for profit, or where the for-profit publisher shares money from publications with the society that runs the journal. And also, if you selectively agree to only review papers that are pertinent to your expertise and interest, you can use the reviewing process as an opportunity to stay on top of the literature and learn about what kinds of research your colleagues are doing. | 0 | 6,357 | 1.846154 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iypkp5h | iypbi68 | 1,670,039,706 | 1,670,035,026 | 24 | 10 | You got that first email because the manuscript editing software (likely, Manuscript Central) can't send you the request to review prior to creating an account for you to use to review the paper. I agree, it's presumptuous, stupid, and off-putting and I wish the system worked otherwise. But the editorial team has no control over how that dumbass software works. That's on the publisher. With that set aside, I agree that the whole system of peer review is pretty shitty in the sense that a publisher will profit from your free labour. People telling you "well then don't publish then" are missing the point, we're in a bit of a quagmire. Best I can say is that you can influence that process by focusing your reviewing on society-led journals that are not run for profit, or where the for-profit publisher shares money from publications with the society that runs the journal. And also, if you selectively agree to only review papers that are pertinent to your expertise and interest, you can use the reviewing process as an opportunity to stay on top of the literature and learn about what kinds of research your colleagues are doing. | Yes it's a shitty, exploitative system when it's done by for-profit publishers. But if you want to/ have/ plan to submit to those journals, you should review for them or you're a hypocrite. The only way to change this system is for all of us to go "on strike" from reviewing simutaneously. If you do it alone, you accomplish nothing. | 1 | 4,680 | 2.4 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iypkp5h | iypk7ra | 1,670,039,706 | 1,670,039,453 | 24 | 9 | You got that first email because the manuscript editing software (likely, Manuscript Central) can't send you the request to review prior to creating an account for you to use to review the paper. I agree, it's presumptuous, stupid, and off-putting and I wish the system worked otherwise. But the editorial team has no control over how that dumbass software works. That's on the publisher. With that set aside, I agree that the whole system of peer review is pretty shitty in the sense that a publisher will profit from your free labour. People telling you "well then don't publish then" are missing the point, we're in a bit of a quagmire. Best I can say is that you can influence that process by focusing your reviewing on society-led journals that are not run for profit, or where the for-profit publisher shares money from publications with the society that runs the journal. And also, if you selectively agree to only review papers that are pertinent to your expertise and interest, you can use the reviewing process as an opportunity to stay on top of the literature and learn about what kinds of research your colleagues are doing. | A researcher in my field wrote a whole commentary about why we need to provide payment or at least recognition for completing peer reviews. Sure, it's considered to be part of service work but I've never heard of anyone getting tenure from service alone. I have seen more than one professor get tenure by doing very few reviews but publishing like mad. If reviewing is valuable work, academia could definitely do more to actually reward it. | 1 | 253 | 2.666667 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyp83kg | iyqhb6l | 1,670,033,349 | 1,670,063,927 | 13 | 15 | I know we live in a capitalist society, but sheesh, sometimes you do things even if it doesn’t directly benefit you. | You should peer-review a paper because: 1. you can learn from it if the paper is close to your area of activity, 2. you can keep yourself updated with recent work, 3. you return the favor for having had your submitted paper reviewed at that journal before, 4. you add one line to your academic CV (“Professional service: reviewer for Journal X, Y, Z…”). Here you try to maximise the number of journals and their perceived prestige: this makes sense at the early stage of the career, while about 5 years after PhD you may aim at gaining an editorial experience yourself. I am personally in favor of paying peer-reviewers and I adhere to the 450 movement: paid reviewers could deliver more accurate and timely reviews. I add that it would be great to have master/phd students replicating the analyses of accepted papers as part of their training. | 0 | 30,578 | 1.153846 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iyqhb6l | iypbi68 | 1,670,063,927 | 1,670,035,026 | 15 | 10 | You should peer-review a paper because: 1. you can learn from it if the paper is close to your area of activity, 2. you can keep yourself updated with recent work, 3. you return the favor for having had your submitted paper reviewed at that journal before, 4. you add one line to your academic CV (“Professional service: reviewer for Journal X, Y, Z…”). Here you try to maximise the number of journals and their perceived prestige: this makes sense at the early stage of the career, while about 5 years after PhD you may aim at gaining an editorial experience yourself. I am personally in favor of paying peer-reviewers and I adhere to the 450 movement: paid reviewers could deliver more accurate and timely reviews. I add that it would be great to have master/phd students replicating the analyses of accepted papers as part of their training. | Yes it's a shitty, exploitative system when it's done by for-profit publishers. But if you want to/ have/ plan to submit to those journals, you should review for them or you're a hypocrite. The only way to change this system is for all of us to go "on strike" from reviewing simutaneously. If you do it alone, you accomplish nothing. | 1 | 28,901 | 1.5 |
zb48ps | askacademia_train | 0.89 | Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? | iypk7ra | iyqhb6l | 1,670,039,453 | 1,670,063,927 | 9 | 15 | A researcher in my field wrote a whole commentary about why we need to provide payment or at least recognition for completing peer reviews. Sure, it's considered to be part of service work but I've never heard of anyone getting tenure from service alone. I have seen more than one professor get tenure by doing very few reviews but publishing like mad. If reviewing is valuable work, academia could definitely do more to actually reward it. | You should peer-review a paper because: 1. you can learn from it if the paper is close to your area of activity, 2. you can keep yourself updated with recent work, 3. you return the favor for having had your submitted paper reviewed at that journal before, 4. you add one line to your academic CV (“Professional service: reviewer for Journal X, Y, Z…”). Here you try to maximise the number of journals and their perceived prestige: this makes sense at the early stage of the career, while about 5 years after PhD you may aim at gaining an editorial experience yourself. I am personally in favor of paying peer-reviewers and I adhere to the 450 movement: paid reviewers could deliver more accurate and timely reviews. I add that it would be great to have master/phd students replicating the analyses of accepted papers as part of their training. | 0 | 24,474 | 1.666667 |
fkeruu | askacademia_train | 0.95 | Commencement cancelled--feeling bummed Hi academicians, Like the title says, my institution has cancelled May commencement ceremonies across all campuses--while they're looking at other options like postponing/virtual celebrations, who knows what will actually happen. I'm a first gen PhD candidate who intended to walk in May, and had really been looking forward to sharing this moment with my parents, who barely got through high school. I understand the reasoning behind the move, but I'm still holding space to feel a little upset. Anyone else in a similar boat? | fksn4lk | fksienb | 1,584,493,851 | 1,584,490,793 | 9 | 6 | Congratulations on your accomplishments. First gen, PhD-haver now myself. Due to a variety of factors, I didn't get to walk in my graduation. Years later, it still sometimes bothers me. Hindsight being 20/20 as they say, I really wish I had found some other way to celebrate with friends/family, but that wasn't possible either at the time. I never followed through with a celebratory activity after the fact....I think I cried and ate an entire pizza by myself...not at the same time, as this was in public...otherwise, might as well. Anyway, congratulations. Be sure to celebrate in whatever you can now....then do it again later...and walk whenever you can. | Have a home ceremony! Put on your regalia, sit in an uncomfortable folding chair, and have your dad drone on for 2 hours of mostly boring self-congratulatory speeches that offer not-really-that-great advice, then have your mom read off all of the names of the graduates. Or just walk next year? | 1 | 3,058 | 1.5 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy0ha1t | iy0eamz | 1,669,581,468 | 1,669,580,306 | 215 | 107 | It certainly *used* to be common. Back in the 90s when I was in grad school there was no limit on time to degree, so we had a bunch of people in residence that were 10+ years into the program. Most of them never finished. In fact, the completion rate in my program was about 10% in the late 90s, despite it being highly ranked; a lot of that was due to people dropping out and taking tech jobs, but another big chunk were those ABDs who just stayed around on the books forever and never managed to schedule a defense. Around 2000 or so they instituted a policy that limited people to seven years in candidacy; the clock would start when they passed comps and after seven years their coursework credits would start to drop off. That pretty much put an end to the 15+ year grad students, but I'd imagine it also led to more "failures" in that it would be pretty remarkable for someone to hit that 7 year deadline and then actually start taking classes again. More likely they would just finally pack up and move on to something else. Sometimes these long time-to-degree delays are related to money...many of my friends, for example, had to do field research abroad. But there's seldom much funding available for humanities dissertations, so they'd have to work for 1-2 years to save up enough to spend six months in European archives or whatever. In other cases there were relationships involved, so leaving the university town wasn't an option. Still others realized the job market was terrible so intentionally put off their defense so their student loans would remain in deferral. | Extremely common to use a PHD as your excuse to keep your visa for as long as possible. | 1 | 1,162 | 2.009346 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy0ha1t | iy0dl37 | 1,669,581,468 | 1,669,580,024 | 215 | 88 | It certainly *used* to be common. Back in the 90s when I was in grad school there was no limit on time to degree, so we had a bunch of people in residence that were 10+ years into the program. Most of them never finished. In fact, the completion rate in my program was about 10% in the late 90s, despite it being highly ranked; a lot of that was due to people dropping out and taking tech jobs, but another big chunk were those ABDs who just stayed around on the books forever and never managed to schedule a defense. Around 2000 or so they instituted a policy that limited people to seven years in candidacy; the clock would start when they passed comps and after seven years their coursework credits would start to drop off. That pretty much put an end to the 15+ year grad students, but I'd imagine it also led to more "failures" in that it would be pretty remarkable for someone to hit that 7 year deadline and then actually start taking classes again. More likely they would just finally pack up and move on to something else. Sometimes these long time-to-degree delays are related to money...many of my friends, for example, had to do field research abroad. But there's seldom much funding available for humanities dissertations, so they'd have to work for 1-2 years to save up enough to spend six months in European archives or whatever. In other cases there were relationships involved, so leaving the university town wasn't an option. Still others realized the job market was terrible so intentionally put off their defense so their student loans would remain in deferral. | People do fail to get across the line. It’s a tough journey. Things can get in the way. Research labs can take advantage of you. There are a lot of barriers. I hope your friend is okay! | 1 | 1,444 | 2.443182 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy0ha1t | iy0cxge | 1,669,581,468 | 1,669,579,766 | 215 | 51 | It certainly *used* to be common. Back in the 90s when I was in grad school there was no limit on time to degree, so we had a bunch of people in residence that were 10+ years into the program. Most of them never finished. In fact, the completion rate in my program was about 10% in the late 90s, despite it being highly ranked; a lot of that was due to people dropping out and taking tech jobs, but another big chunk were those ABDs who just stayed around on the books forever and never managed to schedule a defense. Around 2000 or so they instituted a policy that limited people to seven years in candidacy; the clock would start when they passed comps and after seven years their coursework credits would start to drop off. That pretty much put an end to the 15+ year grad students, but I'd imagine it also led to more "failures" in that it would be pretty remarkable for someone to hit that 7 year deadline and then actually start taking classes again. More likely they would just finally pack up and move on to something else. Sometimes these long time-to-degree delays are related to money...many of my friends, for example, had to do field research abroad. But there's seldom much funding available for humanities dissertations, so they'd have to work for 1-2 years to save up enough to spend six months in European archives or whatever. In other cases there were relationships involved, so leaving the university town wasn't an option. Still others realized the job market was terrible so intentionally put off their defense so their student loans would remain in deferral. | If you're there for a full decade, you're probably being abused for labour by your supervisor. That or you honestly just aren't cut out for research work. It's not unheard of, and there are a few legitimate cases that just unfortunately take *very* long, but most PhD programs last 4-7 years in the USA. And in most other countries are even shorter, since it's often common practice to do a Master's first before PhD outside of the states. | 1 | 1,702 | 4.215686 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy0eamz | iy0dl37 | 1,669,580,306 | 1,669,580,024 | 107 | 88 | Extremely common to use a PHD as your excuse to keep your visa for as long as possible. | People do fail to get across the line. It’s a tough journey. Things can get in the way. Research labs can take advantage of you. There are a lot of barriers. I hope your friend is okay! | 1 | 282 | 1.215909 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy0eamz | iy0cxge | 1,669,580,306 | 1,669,579,766 | 107 | 51 | Extremely common to use a PHD as your excuse to keep your visa for as long as possible. | If you're there for a full decade, you're probably being abused for labour by your supervisor. That or you honestly just aren't cut out for research work. It's not unheard of, and there are a few legitimate cases that just unfortunately take *very* long, but most PhD programs last 4-7 years in the USA. And in most other countries are even shorter, since it's often common practice to do a Master's first before PhD outside of the states. | 1 | 540 | 2.098039 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy0cxge | iy0dl37 | 1,669,579,766 | 1,669,580,024 | 51 | 88 | If you're there for a full decade, you're probably being abused for labour by your supervisor. That or you honestly just aren't cut out for research work. It's not unheard of, and there are a few legitimate cases that just unfortunately take *very* long, but most PhD programs last 4-7 years in the USA. And in most other countries are even shorter, since it's often common practice to do a Master's first before PhD outside of the states. | People do fail to get across the line. It’s a tough journey. Things can get in the way. Research labs can take advantage of you. There are a lot of barriers. I hope your friend is okay! | 0 | 258 | 1.72549 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy1dg96 | iy0zrsi | 1,669,594,981 | 1,669,588,981 | 26 | 17 | My anthropology department average was 10 years when I entered. One person managed it in 4 by coming in with a project and being on the bio side of things, but I count myself lucky to have made it out in 8 years. You need at least three years of course work, to pass quals, then prelim. The slowest amount of time you could take to do that would be 5 years, (and the fastest 2 but you had to come in with a masters), then you have however long to do your research and write the dissertation. What seemed to delay most people in my department if they made it to that point was making enough money to live while still finding time to write, but there's also the usual delays of getting funding, permission to go places, and traveling for research. And at least one person I knew had health issues delaying them. Oddly, I do know someone who was on a 5 year visa and rushed through (by switching to the most lenient of the professors in the department) so they could get it done before their visa ran out, but most other foreign students I know had no time limits on their visa and stuck to the usual 7-10 years. | My program (English) had some people who were year 7+ but it was pretty rare because the department cuts off funding after the 6th year. I think 6 years is average at my alma mater (which is below the national average for English, I believe) but that's because my program was well-funded and people weren't under as much pressure to teach/ work side jobs to survive so they could focus more fully on PhD work. I graduated in 5 years and I was the first in my cohort to finish. My husband also finished his PhD in 5 years and he's in STEM. | 1 | 6,000 | 1.529412 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy1dg96 | iy16f8o | 1,669,594,981 | 1,669,591,891 | 26 | 8 | My anthropology department average was 10 years when I entered. One person managed it in 4 by coming in with a project and being on the bio side of things, but I count myself lucky to have made it out in 8 years. You need at least three years of course work, to pass quals, then prelim. The slowest amount of time you could take to do that would be 5 years, (and the fastest 2 but you had to come in with a masters), then you have however long to do your research and write the dissertation. What seemed to delay most people in my department if they made it to that point was making enough money to live while still finding time to write, but there's also the usual delays of getting funding, permission to go places, and traveling for research. And at least one person I knew had health issues delaying them. Oddly, I do know someone who was on a 5 year visa and rushed through (by switching to the most lenient of the professors in the department) so they could get it done before their visa ran out, but most other foreign students I know had no time limits on their visa and stuck to the usual 7-10 years. | I've seen it. I honestly view something like that as just as much a failure of the program/advisors, etc. as the student, if not more--they probably should have had more/different support, been helped in realizing it wasn't going to work out far earlier, etc. | 1 | 3,090 | 3.25 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy195kf | iy1dg96 | 1,669,593,078 | 1,669,594,981 | 9 | 26 | Anyone in a PhD program that long has not been making adequate progress and I am not surprised at all to her the student didn’t finish. | My anthropology department average was 10 years when I entered. One person managed it in 4 by coming in with a project and being on the bio side of things, but I count myself lucky to have made it out in 8 years. You need at least three years of course work, to pass quals, then prelim. The slowest amount of time you could take to do that would be 5 years, (and the fastest 2 but you had to come in with a masters), then you have however long to do your research and write the dissertation. What seemed to delay most people in my department if they made it to that point was making enough money to live while still finding time to write, but there's also the usual delays of getting funding, permission to go places, and traveling for research. And at least one person I knew had health issues delaying them. Oddly, I do know someone who was on a 5 year visa and rushed through (by switching to the most lenient of the professors in the department) so they could get it done before their visa ran out, but most other foreign students I know had no time limits on their visa and stuck to the usual 7-10 years. | 0 | 1,903 | 2.888889 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy16f8o | iy27zre | 1,669,591,891 | 1,669,609,932 | 8 | 13 | I've seen it. I honestly view something like that as just as much a failure of the program/advisors, etc. as the student, if not more--they probably should have had more/different support, been helped in realizing it wasn't going to work out far earlier, etc. | In my program, PhD students get access to subsidized housing in an extremely expensive city. So people tend to drag it out, because either they will have to pay 3x-4x more to live there or move somewhere else after graduation. | 0 | 18,041 | 1.625 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy195kf | iy27zre | 1,669,593,078 | 1,669,609,932 | 9 | 13 | Anyone in a PhD program that long has not been making adequate progress and I am not surprised at all to her the student didn’t finish. | In my program, PhD students get access to subsidized housing in an extremely expensive city. So people tend to drag it out, because either they will have to pay 3x-4x more to live there or move somewhere else after graduation. | 0 | 16,854 | 1.444444 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy1hna1 | iy27zre | 1,669,596,928 | 1,669,609,932 | 7 | 13 | We have a relative's neighbor's friend who quitted his very promising job in tobacco industry and went to America to start a PHD. After 10 years he came back without a degree. That's why my mom doesn't want me to go overseas for any reason. | In my program, PhD students get access to subsidized housing in an extremely expensive city. So people tend to drag it out, because either they will have to pay 3x-4x more to live there or move somewhere else after graduation. | 0 | 13,004 | 1.857143 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy27zre | iy27stk | 1,669,609,932 | 1,669,609,825 | 13 | 7 | In my program, PhD students get access to subsidized housing in an extremely expensive city. So people tend to drag it out, because either they will have to pay 3x-4x more to live there or move somewhere else after graduation. | The best dissertation is a completed dissertation. People prioritize what is important to them. The stories of why they are not done yet are exhaustive. Esp after 7+ years (yawn). No judgement. Everyone has an excuse though. | 1 | 107 | 1.857143 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy27zre | iy1f22v | 1,669,609,932 | 1,669,595,729 | 13 | 3 | In my program, PhD students get access to subsidized housing in an extremely expensive city. So people tend to drag it out, because either they will have to pay 3x-4x more to live there or move somewhere else after graduation. | Generally PhD programs have time limits associated with them. | 1 | 14,203 | 4.333333 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy1ucyj | iy27zre | 1,669,602,964 | 1,669,609,932 | 2 | 13 | I have heard about it. But it is not common. Most people have the common sense to quit before you hit that point. | In my program, PhD students get access to subsidized housing in an extremely expensive city. So people tend to drag it out, because either they will have to pay 3x-4x more to live there or move somewhere else after graduation. | 0 | 6,968 | 6.5 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy195kf | iy16f8o | 1,669,593,078 | 1,669,591,891 | 9 | 8 | Anyone in a PhD program that long has not been making adequate progress and I am not surprised at all to her the student didn’t finish. | I've seen it. I honestly view something like that as just as much a failure of the program/advisors, etc. as the student, if not more--they probably should have had more/different support, been helped in realizing it wasn't going to work out far earlier, etc. | 1 | 1,187 | 1.125 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy1hna1 | iy1f22v | 1,669,596,928 | 1,669,595,729 | 7 | 3 | We have a relative's neighbor's friend who quitted his very promising job in tobacco industry and went to America to start a PHD. After 10 years he came back without a degree. That's why my mom doesn't want me to go overseas for any reason. | Generally PhD programs have time limits associated with them. | 1 | 1,199 | 2.333333 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy1f22v | iy27stk | 1,669,595,729 | 1,669,609,825 | 3 | 7 | Generally PhD programs have time limits associated with them. | The best dissertation is a completed dissertation. People prioritize what is important to them. The stories of why they are not done yet are exhaustive. Esp after 7+ years (yawn). No judgement. Everyone has an excuse though. | 0 | 14,096 | 2.333333 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy1ucyj | iy27stk | 1,669,602,964 | 1,669,609,825 | 2 | 7 | I have heard about it. But it is not common. Most people have the common sense to quit before you hit that point. | The best dissertation is a completed dissertation. People prioritize what is important to them. The stories of why they are not done yet are exhaustive. Esp after 7+ years (yawn). No judgement. Everyone has an excuse though. | 0 | 6,861 | 3.5 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy2uc56 | iy1ucyj | 1,669,626,447 | 1,669,602,964 | 3 | 2 | In my program if you finish your stipend years (after five) you can get to teach to pay for living + things you didn't pay before (tuition/medical insurance). The problem is that you need to teach at least three courses just to survive so you jump from being a full-time writer to a full-time teacher. Add some procrastination/depression and you can have a deadly combo. | I have heard about it. But it is not common. Most people have the common sense to quit before you hit that point. | 1 | 23,483 | 1.5 |
z6at47 | askacademia_train | 0.93 | Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? | iy2uc56 | iy2cjf5 | 1,669,626,447 | 1,669,612,615 | 3 | 2 | In my program if you finish your stipend years (after five) you can get to teach to pay for living + things you didn't pay before (tuition/medical insurance). The problem is that you need to teach at least three courses just to survive so you jump from being a full-time writer to a full-time teacher. Add some procrastination/depression and you can have a deadly combo. | Woaw that’s very bad news but heard about a genuine source which can actually help you achieve this goal. | 1 | 13,832 | 1.5 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwury1t | fwup83k | 1,593,819,777 | 1,593,818,134 | 343 | 274 | Expectations that a single academic will do everything - teach, do cutting edge research, manage people, do admin work, write papers, communicate science to general public, service equipment and so on. No support staff, no division of work between people, you need to do everything and be excellent in every aspect. | Controversial opinion: How about the lack of retirements so that new positions for new generations of PhDs can open. The age of retirement in academia is much older than in most careers. Couple this with a long refusal of retirements during and after the recession and you end up with a large portion of tenured faculty members nearing or over retirement age and a slew of PhDs who want their jobs. I don't mean this as an ageist attack but rather as something that many refuse to address. | 1 | 1,643 | 1.251825 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwury1t | fwu4mlf | 1,593,819,777 | 1,593,806,506 | 343 | 217 | Expectations that a single academic will do everything - teach, do cutting edge research, manage people, do admin work, write papers, communicate science to general public, service equipment and so on. No support staff, no division of work between people, you need to do everything and be excellent in every aspect. | Honest answer - insane always on / always working culture. I did a bunch of industry work before grad school and it was nowhere even close to this bad. It's about it being a "meritocracy" and therefore always something else you can or should be doing. Would be unacceptable in many other sectors. | 1 | 13,271 | 1.580645 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwud12c | fwury1t | 1,593,811,196 | 1,593,819,777 | 169 | 343 | A number of issues. The replication crisis, aided and abetted by the publish or perish conundrum caused by the increasingly lack of academic jobs. There continues to be an ivory tower problem. The knowledge created is simply not being transmitted to the general public. This has not helped the growing anti-intellectualism movement in the USA, where we can’t even agree to put on a fucking mask to reduce transmission. Racism and sexism is as pervasive as ever, it’s only transformed from blatant (in some cases, although blatant bigotry still exists) to latent. As academics we are not immune to this, and it boggles my mind how “woke” people can agree affirmative action is necessary on the undergrad level but scoff at “diversity hires taking away my spots”. Maddening. | Expectations that a single academic will do everything - teach, do cutting edge research, manage people, do admin work, write papers, communicate science to general public, service equipment and so on. No support staff, no division of work between people, you need to do everything and be excellent in every aspect. | 0 | 8,581 | 2.029586 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwubtcp | fwury1t | 1,593,810,517 | 1,593,819,777 | 142 | 343 | We're encouraging more and more people to earn college degrees, only to compete for a fixed number of "good" jobs. Because there aren't enough high-paying, stable jobs to go around, college graduates are now filling jobs that high school graduates used to do. High school graduates get pushed out entirely. Recessions accelerate this. Don't get me wrong, education is great! I wish everyone could get all of the education they want (without incurring ruinous debt), and I also wish people could enjoy humane working conditions, financial stability, and reliable access to health care whether they have a four-year degree or not. Turning the degree into table stakes for the job market is not how we get there. | Expectations that a single academic will do everything - teach, do cutting edge research, manage people, do admin work, write papers, communicate science to general public, service equipment and so on. No support staff, no division of work between people, you need to do everything and be excellent in every aspect. | 0 | 9,260 | 2.415493 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwu2apx | fwury1t | 1,593,805,231 | 1,593,819,777 | 42 | 343 | Racism | Expectations that a single academic will do everything - teach, do cutting edge research, manage people, do admin work, write papers, communicate science to general public, service equipment and so on. No support staff, no division of work between people, you need to do everything and be excellent in every aspect. | 0 | 14,546 | 8.166667 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwtusqj | fwury1t | 1,593,801,186 | 1,593,819,777 | 25 | 343 | Leaky Pipeline | Expectations that a single academic will do everything - teach, do cutting edge research, manage people, do admin work, write papers, communicate science to general public, service equipment and so on. No support staff, no division of work between people, you need to do everything and be excellent in every aspect. | 0 | 18,591 | 13.72 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwu4mlf | fwup83k | 1,593,806,506 | 1,593,818,134 | 217 | 274 | Honest answer - insane always on / always working culture. I did a bunch of industry work before grad school and it was nowhere even close to this bad. It's about it being a "meritocracy" and therefore always something else you can or should be doing. Would be unacceptable in many other sectors. | Controversial opinion: How about the lack of retirements so that new positions for new generations of PhDs can open. The age of retirement in academia is much older than in most careers. Couple this with a long refusal of retirements during and after the recession and you end up with a large portion of tenured faculty members nearing or over retirement age and a slew of PhDs who want their jobs. I don't mean this as an ageist attack but rather as something that many refuse to address. | 0 | 11,628 | 1.262673 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwup83k | fwud12c | 1,593,818,134 | 1,593,811,196 | 274 | 169 | Controversial opinion: How about the lack of retirements so that new positions for new generations of PhDs can open. The age of retirement in academia is much older than in most careers. Couple this with a long refusal of retirements during and after the recession and you end up with a large portion of tenured faculty members nearing or over retirement age and a slew of PhDs who want their jobs. I don't mean this as an ageist attack but rather as something that many refuse to address. | A number of issues. The replication crisis, aided and abetted by the publish or perish conundrum caused by the increasingly lack of academic jobs. There continues to be an ivory tower problem. The knowledge created is simply not being transmitted to the general public. This has not helped the growing anti-intellectualism movement in the USA, where we can’t even agree to put on a fucking mask to reduce transmission. Racism and sexism is as pervasive as ever, it’s only transformed from blatant (in some cases, although blatant bigotry still exists) to latent. As academics we are not immune to this, and it boggles my mind how “woke” people can agree affirmative action is necessary on the undergrad level but scoff at “diversity hires taking away my spots”. Maddening. | 1 | 6,938 | 1.621302 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwup83k | fwubtcp | 1,593,818,134 | 1,593,810,517 | 274 | 142 | Controversial opinion: How about the lack of retirements so that new positions for new generations of PhDs can open. The age of retirement in academia is much older than in most careers. Couple this with a long refusal of retirements during and after the recession and you end up with a large portion of tenured faculty members nearing or over retirement age and a slew of PhDs who want their jobs. I don't mean this as an ageist attack but rather as something that many refuse to address. | We're encouraging more and more people to earn college degrees, only to compete for a fixed number of "good" jobs. Because there aren't enough high-paying, stable jobs to go around, college graduates are now filling jobs that high school graduates used to do. High school graduates get pushed out entirely. Recessions accelerate this. Don't get me wrong, education is great! I wish everyone could get all of the education they want (without incurring ruinous debt), and I also wish people could enjoy humane working conditions, financial stability, and reliable access to health care whether they have a four-year degree or not. Turning the degree into table stakes for the job market is not how we get there. | 1 | 7,617 | 1.929577 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwu2apx | fwup83k | 1,593,805,231 | 1,593,818,134 | 42 | 274 | Racism | Controversial opinion: How about the lack of retirements so that new positions for new generations of PhDs can open. The age of retirement in academia is much older than in most careers. Couple this with a long refusal of retirements during and after the recession and you end up with a large portion of tenured faculty members nearing or over retirement age and a slew of PhDs who want their jobs. I don't mean this as an ageist attack but rather as something that many refuse to address. | 0 | 12,903 | 6.52381 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwtusqj | fwup83k | 1,593,801,186 | 1,593,818,134 | 25 | 274 | Leaky Pipeline | Controversial opinion: How about the lack of retirements so that new positions for new generations of PhDs can open. The age of retirement in academia is much older than in most careers. Couple this with a long refusal of retirements during and after the recession and you end up with a large portion of tenured faculty members nearing or over retirement age and a slew of PhDs who want their jobs. I don't mean this as an ageist attack but rather as something that many refuse to address. | 0 | 16,948 | 10.96 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwu4mlf | fwu2apx | 1,593,806,506 | 1,593,805,231 | 217 | 42 | Honest answer - insane always on / always working culture. I did a bunch of industry work before grad school and it was nowhere even close to this bad. It's about it being a "meritocracy" and therefore always something else you can or should be doing. Would be unacceptable in many other sectors. | Racism | 1 | 1,275 | 5.166667 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwtusqj | fwu4mlf | 1,593,801,186 | 1,593,806,506 | 25 | 217 | Leaky Pipeline | Honest answer - insane always on / always working culture. I did a bunch of industry work before grad school and it was nowhere even close to this bad. It's about it being a "meritocracy" and therefore always something else you can or should be doing. Would be unacceptable in many other sectors. | 0 | 5,320 | 8.68 |
hko00o | askacademia_train | 0.98 | What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. | fwud12c | fwubtcp | 1,593,811,196 | 1,593,810,517 | 169 | 142 | A number of issues. The replication crisis, aided and abetted by the publish or perish conundrum caused by the increasingly lack of academic jobs. There continues to be an ivory tower problem. The knowledge created is simply not being transmitted to the general public. This has not helped the growing anti-intellectualism movement in the USA, where we can’t even agree to put on a fucking mask to reduce transmission. Racism and sexism is as pervasive as ever, it’s only transformed from blatant (in some cases, although blatant bigotry still exists) to latent. As academics we are not immune to this, and it boggles my mind how “woke” people can agree affirmative action is necessary on the undergrad level but scoff at “diversity hires taking away my spots”. Maddening. | We're encouraging more and more people to earn college degrees, only to compete for a fixed number of "good" jobs. Because there aren't enough high-paying, stable jobs to go around, college graduates are now filling jobs that high school graduates used to do. High school graduates get pushed out entirely. Recessions accelerate this. Don't get me wrong, education is great! I wish everyone could get all of the education they want (without incurring ruinous debt), and I also wish people could enjoy humane working conditions, financial stability, and reliable access to health care whether they have a four-year degree or not. Turning the degree into table stakes for the job market is not how we get there. | 1 | 679 | 1.190141 |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.