Datasets:

Dahoas

/

filtered-SHP

like 2

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

Human: For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!). Assistant:

fzjouzh

fzjrk9x

Haven’t given up yet! (Jk—I never really believed I would be a “star”) I think it’s kind of funny/interesting how many comments and upvotes attribute not being a star to a choice—not a personal limitation, as if they COULD have been a star, but are average only because they made a choice to be average. Seems delusional. I accept my mediocrity!

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

Human: For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!). Assistant:

fzjrk9x

fzjlx1e

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

I question the premise of your question. No matter how high you rise, you will pretty much always find yourself in the company of peers. As a faculty member, I was more educated than most, more successful than most, paid better than most, and had more secure employment than most, and surrounded by others who were just like me. Was I a star? When I earned full professor and later got an endowed chair, I was still one of many. Was I a star then? As a Vice President, I find myself in exactly the same position. Am I a star now? I guess I think it’s all a matter of perspective, and at this point in my career I personally consider anyone who makes it through a PhD and goes on to an academic career to be a star. Few of us ever reach the height of glory that we perhaps imagined when we were younger, but that’s true of pretty much everyone everywhere and all of us have accomplished far more than most.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

Human: For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!). Assistant:

fzjrk9x

fzjly9h

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I honestly never thought I'd be one. My parents are PhDs that didn't get tenure, much less become stars. I'm just trying to hold on and find a career I enjoy (either within or outside academia).

w57eop

askacademia_train

Human: PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail. Assistant:

ih69eg3

ih693a7

If there was a chance you'd fail, your supervisor wouldn't allow you to defend

good luck!!!!! please have hope and remember that failing is part of our journey. do your best as there’s nothing else that could be done today. you never know how things might turn out as you’re just nervous..

w57eop

askacademia_train

Human: PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail. Assistant:

ih69eg3

ih698b0

If there was a chance you'd fail, your supervisor wouldn't allow you to defend

All the best

w57eop

askacademia_train

Human: PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail. Assistant:

ih6aji3

ih693a7

Please check back in this thread and tell us how it went. Good luck!

good luck!!!!! please have hope and remember that failing is part of our journey. do your best as there’s nothing else that could be done today. you never know how things might turn out as you’re just nervous..

w57eop

askacademia_train

Human: PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail. Assistant:

ih698b0

ih6aji3

All the best

Please check back in this thread and tell us how it went. Good luck!

w57eop

askacademia_train

Human: PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail. Assistant:

ih6aae4

ih693a7

i don't know if it helps, but we all felt that way before the defense: i knw i did, and it went great. Best of luck to you. edit: i don't know the american system very well, i'm french and teach in france, but there are no reason to fail you if your supervisor has allowed you to defend: this would be seen as a direct attack on them, and a default to the rules of collegiality. If they had confidence in you, confident enough they would their name on your work, it means your thesis is not the failure you think it is.

good luck!!!!! please have hope and remember that failing is part of our journey. do your best as there’s nothing else that could be done today. you never know how things might turn out as you’re just nervous..

si4h6d

askacademia_train

Human: How do you turn off the “academic” portion of your brain and just be a normal person? I’m always “on” and it’s not helping my relationships. Or is this just an occupational hazard? Assistant:

hv6nbt0

hv6sxmx

I find it hard to turn off my academic side. My SO finds it difficult to turn off his sales side. We both listen to each other and learn new things all the time. I have figured out that if someone doesn't want to listen and invest their time in what you're passionate about, they are not worth it.

I just had a major surgery and the medication they give to ensure you don’t form memories is fat soluble. So I’m a week out and still wouldn’t be able to give an undergrad mechanics lecture, let alone explain my research. So I guess what I’m saying is go get an organ removed. Or at least take the drugs.

si4h6d

askacademia_train

Human: How do you turn off the “academic” portion of your brain and just be a normal person? I’m always “on” and it’s not helping my relationships. Or is this just an occupational hazard? Assistant:

hv6sxmx

hv6oa7g

I just had a major surgery and the medication they give to ensure you don’t form memories is fat soluble. So I’m a week out and still wouldn’t be able to give an undergrad mechanics lecture, let alone explain my research. So I guess what I’m saying is go get an organ removed. Or at least take the drugs.

I often tell myself after a conversation "you didn't need to explain it like that". I still laugh about it though.

si4h6d

askacademia_train

Human: How do you turn off the “academic” portion of your brain and just be a normal person? I’m always “on” and it’s not helping my relationships. Or is this just an occupational hazard? Assistant:

hv6sxmx

hv6ppqx

I just had a major surgery and the medication they give to ensure you don’t form memories is fat soluble. So I’m a week out and still wouldn’t be able to give an undergrad mechanics lecture, let alone explain my research. So I guess what I’m saying is go get an organ removed. Or at least take the drugs.

This might be a bit of a faux pas but... w\*\*d helps

si4h6d

askacademia_train

Human: How do you turn off the “academic” portion of your brain and just be a normal person? I’m always “on” and it’s not helping my relationships. Or is this just an occupational hazard? Assistant:

hv6nbt0

hv6uu0q

I find it hard to turn off my academic side. My SO finds it difficult to turn off his sales side. We both listen to each other and learn new things all the time. I have figured out that if someone doesn't want to listen and invest their time in what you're passionate about, they are not worth it.

This is the struggle of an academic. I very regularly cannot sleep at night because I thought of a new study idea or that perfect opening sentence for my grant. I have a few tidbits of advice that have worked for me. 1. Keep a notebook with you at all times and when you have that idea write it down immediately or as soon as convenient. 2. Read for fun. I know this sounds silly, but it is so helpful for me to do some reading that isn’t on the subject I study or even better isn’t science at all. 3. Set and try to maintain specific boundaries on time. It’s important to have time dedicated to you, your partner, your friends, your family etc. 4. And in my experience most helpful, avoid talking about your academic pursuits. Keep it super short, unless the other person is super engaged in the conversation.

si4h6d

askacademia_train

Human: How do you turn off the “academic” portion of your brain and just be a normal person? I’m always “on” and it’s not helping my relationships. Or is this just an occupational hazard? Assistant:

hv6oa7g

hv6uu0q

I often tell myself after a conversation "you didn't need to explain it like that". I still laugh about it though.

This is the struggle of an academic. I very regularly cannot sleep at night because I thought of a new study idea or that perfect opening sentence for my grant. I have a few tidbits of advice that have worked for me. 1. Keep a notebook with you at all times and when you have that idea write it down immediately or as soon as convenient. 2. Read for fun. I know this sounds silly, but it is so helpful for me to do some reading that isn’t on the subject I study or even better isn’t science at all. 3. Set and try to maintain specific boundaries on time. It’s important to have time dedicated to you, your partner, your friends, your family etc. 4. And in my experience most helpful, avoid talking about your academic pursuits. Keep it super short, unless the other person is super engaged in the conversation.

nu4wlg

askacademia_train

Human: How to be happy for getting accepted in PhD when it seems like family and friends can't relate? Hi guys, So I'm a first year phD in the Social Sciences and I've been struggling to be happy for myself and celebrate my accomplishments without the enthusiastic support of my family and some friends? Being the first PhD in my family from an inner city and female and African American, I feel like none of my inner family can relate and are so busy trying to get by the don't have the bandwidth to be truly happy for me and express support. Personally, I am proud of myself as I am fully funded and received additional external fellowship, but I am truly disappointed. It seems lonely at the "top". I worked so hard to get in and stay in during the pandemic but my family just doesn't seem to care and I want to be able to celebrate with them and feel loved/support. This is just not what I expected. It feels like the further along I move in my education the more I alienate or distinguish myself from "normal" non academic peers and family/friends. Do you all have any advice on this subject? Assistant:

h0vprnp

h0vq92q

Welcome to the club! Almost nobody who hasn’t done it can really understand what it means to earn a Ph.D. But you know, and you can let them know when you do something good. They don’t have to understand to be proud of you. And if you need some validation, post here. We know, and we’re damn proud of you. It sounds like you are doing really, really well. Keep it up.

Similar sociodemographics here… I haven’t started my doc program yet but I spent about a decade climbing a pretty lucrative corporate ladder that moved us from dirt poor to upper middle class, so I sort of get the idea of living a separate life from family. One thing that I’d say is that graduate school, just like any other career move is an individual endeavor and no one is really going to cheerlead you every step of the way, save maybe your spouse or children. I suspect that your family is very proud of you and if you are looking for support and ask for it, they’ll be more than willing. With that said, I would hope that you are equally involved in their lives, their accomplishments, etc. and celebrate them, even if they aren’t quite “at the top”, as you say.

nu4wlg

askacademia_train

Human: How to be happy for getting accepted in PhD when it seems like family and friends can't relate? Hi guys, So I'm a first year phD in the Social Sciences and I've been struggling to be happy for myself and celebrate my accomplishments without the enthusiastic support of my family and some friends? Being the first PhD in my family from an inner city and female and African American, I feel like none of my inner family can relate and are so busy trying to get by the don't have the bandwidth to be truly happy for me and express support. Personally, I am proud of myself as I am fully funded and received additional external fellowship, but I am truly disappointed. It seems lonely at the "top". I worked so hard to get in and stay in during the pandemic but my family just doesn't seem to care and I want to be able to celebrate with them and feel loved/support. This is just not what I expected. It feels like the further along I move in my education the more I alienate or distinguish myself from "normal" non academic peers and family/friends. Do you all have any advice on this subject? Assistant:

h0wc739

h0wg08e

I don't have much more to add then what others have said other than that I know the feeling. I'm the first person in my extended family to get a university degree, let alone a PhD. The amount of times I had to correct them about that my PhD was an actual job and just studying is staggering. Or that I don't have a set time to start and finish work. Or that I don't really have a "boss" per se. It sucks that they just don't and can't understand, but luckily I have a lot of friends who are better equipped to understand this sort of life. You should not look down on your less educated relatives though. All of us are given different opportunities and just because they were born with a brain less equipped for abstract thinking doesn't make them less worthy of respect.

You are not alone. Keep in mind that there *are* families and communities who see success as an academic professional to be a great accomplishment. So what you're experiencing is not universal. It's probably uncommon. Many of your colleagues will be consistently affirmed for what they do, because they already come from the academic/professional class. This is the part of changing your economic class that nobody tells you about: the people we care about don't know how to interpret our work lives anymore. In my experience, this also never goes away. From graduate school, to dissertation, to PhD, to becoming a professor, to publishing a book, the people who affirm you will be the people who have grown up or adapted to the economic class that already affirms those things as accomplishments. So you'll get that from your teachers, colleagues, and eventually your students, but never from the community you grew up in, not really. I don't have good advice, since it still disappoints me. About a month before my grandpa died I was hired for a great, rare tenure track job at a well-known prestigious college. When I tried to talk to my grandpa about it, he hadn't heard of it and didn't know what tenure was. He just asked if it was union work. It made me profoundly sad that I couldn't really convey to him why he should be proud. And it's not that he wasn't proud, he just had no frame of reference to understand what I had done. Ok, I do have advice. For me, this experience makes me kind to students. I know why it's easy for some students to keep their shit together at college; their whole community is expecting them to and affirming them when they do. And more importantly: I know just how hard it is to keep up when you don't come from a community like that. But for both sides of that struggle, students are all just caught in the brittle, barely-visible class hierarchy of our societies. So: let this struggle make you kind.

nu4wlg

askacademia_train

Human: How to be happy for getting accepted in PhD when it seems like family and friends can't relate? Hi guys, So I'm a first year phD in the Social Sciences and I've been struggling to be happy for myself and celebrate my accomplishments without the enthusiastic support of my family and some friends? Being the first PhD in my family from an inner city and female and African American, I feel like none of my inner family can relate and are so busy trying to get by the don't have the bandwidth to be truly happy for me and express support. Personally, I am proud of myself as I am fully funded and received additional external fellowship, but I am truly disappointed. It seems lonely at the "top". I worked so hard to get in and stay in during the pandemic but my family just doesn't seem to care and I want to be able to celebrate with them and feel loved/support. This is just not what I expected. It feels like the further along I move in my education the more I alienate or distinguish myself from "normal" non academic peers and family/friends. Do you all have any advice on this subject? Assistant:

h0weece

h0wg08e

There are many people in all walks of life who have found that by going along on their path they sometimes have to leave others behind - or at least leave part of themselves at the door. Their old neighborhood, or their people, don't want to know nor understand what they do or what to be. That's ok. being conversant in many cultures and views makes us more capable, not less. It's OK that your current family and friends don't get you. On your educational and career path you will find many people who resonate professionally, but not personally. Or you might find intellectual matches who have garbage personalities. There is a lot of loneliness in developing yourself in any respect. Because it requires a kind of attention and focus which is uncomfortable at best. But it is how we get from A to B. Everybody's journey is different, and there is no doubt that in your family and social circles there are people who have traveled roads you don't understand yourself. Use this as an opportunity to be more supportive of them. And expect less from others and more from yourself.

You are not alone. Keep in mind that there *are* families and communities who see success as an academic professional to be a great accomplishment. So what you're experiencing is not universal. It's probably uncommon. Many of your colleagues will be consistently affirmed for what they do, because they already come from the academic/professional class. This is the part of changing your economic class that nobody tells you about: the people we care about don't know how to interpret our work lives anymore. In my experience, this also never goes away. From graduate school, to dissertation, to PhD, to becoming a professor, to publishing a book, the people who affirm you will be the people who have grown up or adapted to the economic class that already affirms those things as accomplishments. So you'll get that from your teachers, colleagues, and eventually your students, but never from the community you grew up in, not really. I don't have good advice, since it still disappoints me. About a month before my grandpa died I was hired for a great, rare tenure track job at a well-known prestigious college. When I tried to talk to my grandpa about it, he hadn't heard of it and didn't know what tenure was. He just asked if it was union work. It made me profoundly sad that I couldn't really convey to him why he should be proud. And it's not that he wasn't proud, he just had no frame of reference to understand what I had done. Ok, I do have advice. For me, this experience makes me kind to students. I know why it's easy for some students to keep their shit together at college; their whole community is expecting them to and affirming them when they do. And more importantly: I know just how hard it is to keep up when you don't come from a community like that. But for both sides of that struggle, students are all just caught in the brittle, barely-visible class hierarchy of our societies. So: let this struggle make you kind.

nu4wlg

askacademia_train

Human: How to be happy for getting accepted in PhD when it seems like family and friends can't relate? Hi guys, So I'm a first year phD in the Social Sciences and I've been struggling to be happy for myself and celebrate my accomplishments without the enthusiastic support of my family and some friends? Being the first PhD in my family from an inner city and female and African American, I feel like none of my inner family can relate and are so busy trying to get by the don't have the bandwidth to be truly happy for me and express support. Personally, I am proud of myself as I am fully funded and received additional external fellowship, but I am truly disappointed. It seems lonely at the "top". I worked so hard to get in and stay in during the pandemic but my family just doesn't seem to care and I want to be able to celebrate with them and feel loved/support. This is just not what I expected. It feels like the further along I move in my education the more I alienate or distinguish myself from "normal" non academic peers and family/friends. Do you all have any advice on this subject? Assistant:

h0wg08e

h0w18el

You are not alone. Keep in mind that there *are* families and communities who see success as an academic professional to be a great accomplishment. So what you're experiencing is not universal. It's probably uncommon. Many of your colleagues will be consistently affirmed for what they do, because they already come from the academic/professional class. This is the part of changing your economic class that nobody tells you about: the people we care about don't know how to interpret our work lives anymore. In my experience, this also never goes away. From graduate school, to dissertation, to PhD, to becoming a professor, to publishing a book, the people who affirm you will be the people who have grown up or adapted to the economic class that already affirms those things as accomplishments. So you'll get that from your teachers, colleagues, and eventually your students, but never from the community you grew up in, not really. I don't have good advice, since it still disappoints me. About a month before my grandpa died I was hired for a great, rare tenure track job at a well-known prestigious college. When I tried to talk to my grandpa about it, he hadn't heard of it and didn't know what tenure was. He just asked if it was union work. It made me profoundly sad that I couldn't really convey to him why he should be proud. And it's not that he wasn't proud, he just had no frame of reference to understand what I had done. Ok, I do have advice. For me, this experience makes me kind to students. I know why it's easy for some students to keep their shit together at college; their whole community is expecting them to and affirming them when they do. And more importantly: I know just how hard it is to keep up when you don't come from a community like that. But for both sides of that struggle, students are all just caught in the brittle, barely-visible class hierarchy of our societies. So: let this struggle make you kind.

Congratulations! I would make sure not to lose your roots! You are where you are from! Your perspective will be that much more valuable in the Academy. Try not to elevate yourself above your family for simply having a degree — it is a great accomplishment, but pride leads to jealousy!

nu4wlg

askacademia_train

Human: How to be happy for getting accepted in PhD when it seems like family and friends can't relate? Hi guys, So I'm a first year phD in the Social Sciences and I've been struggling to be happy for myself and celebrate my accomplishments without the enthusiastic support of my family and some friends? Being the first PhD in my family from an inner city and female and African American, I feel like none of my inner family can relate and are so busy trying to get by the don't have the bandwidth to be truly happy for me and express support. Personally, I am proud of myself as I am fully funded and received additional external fellowship, but I am truly disappointed. It seems lonely at the "top". I worked so hard to get in and stay in during the pandemic but my family just doesn't seem to care and I want to be able to celebrate with them and feel loved/support. This is just not what I expected. It feels like the further along I move in my education the more I alienate or distinguish myself from "normal" non academic peers and family/friends. Do you all have any advice on this subject? Assistant:

h0weece

h0wh7k2

There are many people in all walks of life who have found that by going along on their path they sometimes have to leave others behind - or at least leave part of themselves at the door. Their old neighborhood, or their people, don't want to know nor understand what they do or what to be. That's ok. being conversant in many cultures and views makes us more capable, not less. It's OK that your current family and friends don't get you. On your educational and career path you will find many people who resonate professionally, but not personally. Or you might find intellectual matches who have garbage personalities. There is a lot of loneliness in developing yourself in any respect. Because it requires a kind of attention and focus which is uncomfortable at best. But it is how we get from A to B. Everybody's journey is different, and there is no doubt that in your family and social circles there are people who have traveled roads you don't understand yourself. Use this as an opportunity to be more supportive of them. And expect less from others and more from yourself.

Feel this deeply. I am a first generation mixed race woman with a STEM PhD. On the white side of my family, two of my male cousins have gone on to PhD programs in social sciences. They are The Family Geniuses and the family is so proud and in to what they do, but for me the response was “there’s no way I could understand that stuff” and never wanted to talk about my work or ideas. My advice is first to never let your academics be your identity. PhD students and early career academics are so entangled with their studies and work that it is sometimes more than just part of them and it’s so unhealthy. Take your families disinterest in your work as disinterest in the subject, not in you. Highlight your accomplishments to them - I won an award, I got funding for a big project, I published an article, I was invited to get a talk. Focusing on the tangibles helps people outside of academia understand what’s a win and keeps the mind numbing jargon away from them. The second potentially helpful thing you can do is get involved with groups or clubs for first gen students or other affinity groups. They can’t replace your family, but sharing successes and gripes with people who just get it is grounding. Last but not least, find yourself a mentor in your field. It could be your advisor, someone in your sub field or just some professor you connect with. One good mentor can add immeasurable value to your PhD experience. The PhD for anyone is tough, but it can be even worse for someone who isn’t getting support. It sucks that your family just can’t give you what you need right now, but I promise you, you can and will find it! Good luck and congrats on one year down!

it4dxy

askacademia_train

Human: assignments that I literally feel like i’m going to cry. my house is loud and i can’t find anywhere where it’s completely silent even with noise cancelling headphones. i have so much work to do but even with my medication i just couldn’t do it. my medication usually helps but it’s not doing anything except making it hard for me to eat. i hate this. i feel like i’m on the verge of a breakdown Assistant:

g5chs6v

g5d5811

I also have constant noise around me. I don’t know if this suits your lifestyle, but my remedy is taking my laptop, a bean bag, a blanket and portable charger and phone charger to the park or somewhere quiet for the day and get my work done. It works so well. Just make sure you bring lunch and set up near a public toilet.

I totally get it! A few things from a fellow medication user who still frequently copes with focusing issues... (1) Exercise! I know there are studies out there to back it up, but I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole to find them since I only have a few minutes left on my Pomodoro timer. I find that I am ***so*** much more focused when I go for a run/bike ride in the morning. There are days when I convince myself I "don't have time" to exercise for 20 minutes and then spend the day kicking myself because I waste waaaay more than 20 minutes trying to find focus. (2) Pomodoro timer 25 minutes of intense, focused studying/5 minute break. There are plenty of apps for this (I use Focus Keeper but also occasionally Seconds Pro which is actually a timer for HIIT exercise lol). Play around with the time intervals and see what works for you, then STICK TO IT and treat it like it's a law you can't break. The minute that break ends, get back to work. (3) Foam ear plugs underneath noise cancelling headphones If you have over-the-ear noise cancelling headphones, invest in a large container of foam earplugs. This + noise cancelling + brown noise (personally find it way more tolerable than white noise...buy a track of your choice and play it on repeat) are a MUST. COVID has seriously screwed up my finely honed work habits, but this helped immensely. (4) Freedom App I found this really useful as well. There are days where no matter how much I tried, I could NOT get myself off time-wasting websites. There's a free version you can try, but it basically blocks whatever apps and websites you want on all your devices and there's an option you can choose so that there's no way to un-do it until the session is over. I have these set up for repeating sessions throughout the day, which helps keep me focused. (5) Positive talk Ok, ok, this one might sound cheesy but it's real. Tell yourself over and over that you are good at working from home/with distraction/etc until you believe it. Take it from someone who had a few breakdowns early on in the pandemic... you have to acknowledge what you're feeling and how crummy the situation is, but then decide that you're stronger than that, and get back to work. (6) Stick with a schedule This one is another crucial one. Set boundaries for yourself. Working from home has made it difficult for everyone...now all of a sudden you're expected to be available via email/zoom/etc at all hours because they know you haven't gone anywhere. I stick with a schedule of when I'm going to work, and when I'm going to call it quits. There is ALWAYS more work to be done, so don't fool yourself into thinking that you have to work for just one more hour. You could work forever and you probably wouldn't be done/caught up. (7) Know when to take a break If you set up a schedule and get into a rhythm, but then find that there are days when you **just can't focus** no matter what you do? Call it quits. Trying to force yourself to do work is going to make you miserable, and is just going to cause you to burn out more/be less efficient/repeat the cycle. Take the day off, do something you find truly relaxing and enjoyable, get some exercise, then start again the next day. It's probably a good practice to do this once a week or so....as you go, you'll start to figure out what time span you need between days off. For me, it's around the 9 day mark that I start to crack and know I need to take a day off, so I just build it into my schedule one day before that happens. . . I hope that some of this is helpful. I apologize for writing a post a third the length of Moby Dick, but I totally know the feeling of being miserable because you so desperately want to work but can't. I sincerely hope you (and everyone else feeling this way!) can find some ways to work effectively in these crummy times, while simultaneously taking care of yourself. Wishing you good mental health and a good day.

it4dxy

askacademia_train

Human: assignments that I literally feel like i’m going to cry. my house is loud and i can’t find anywhere where it’s completely silent even with noise cancelling headphones. i have so much work to do but even with my medication i just couldn’t do it. my medication usually helps but it’s not doing anything except making it hard for me to eat. i hate this. i feel like i’m on the verge of a breakdown Assistant:

g5chnhz

g5d5811

Sounds like sensory overload, and I very much relate! I couldn't do work at my parents' house for the same reasons, and I struggled to focus in my dorm in undergrad. I would get around it by playing wordless music fairly loud in my headphones; there are playlists on YouTube and Spotify. Does your institution offer free counseling? Many colleges are offering telehealth counseling and Zoom sessions. I find those to be helpful when I am overwhelmed.

I totally get it! A few things from a fellow medication user who still frequently copes with focusing issues... (1) Exercise! I know there are studies out there to back it up, but I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole to find them since I only have a few minutes left on my Pomodoro timer. I find that I am ***so*** much more focused when I go for a run/bike ride in the morning. There are days when I convince myself I "don't have time" to exercise for 20 minutes and then spend the day kicking myself because I waste waaaay more than 20 minutes trying to find focus. (2) Pomodoro timer 25 minutes of intense, focused studying/5 minute break. There are plenty of apps for this (I use Focus Keeper but also occasionally Seconds Pro which is actually a timer for HIIT exercise lol). Play around with the time intervals and see what works for you, then STICK TO IT and treat it like it's a law you can't break. The minute that break ends, get back to work. (3) Foam ear plugs underneath noise cancelling headphones If you have over-the-ear noise cancelling headphones, invest in a large container of foam earplugs. This + noise cancelling + brown noise (personally find it way more tolerable than white noise...buy a track of your choice and play it on repeat) are a MUST. COVID has seriously screwed up my finely honed work habits, but this helped immensely. (4) Freedom App I found this really useful as well. There are days where no matter how much I tried, I could NOT get myself off time-wasting websites. There's a free version you can try, but it basically blocks whatever apps and websites you want on all your devices and there's an option you can choose so that there's no way to un-do it until the session is over. I have these set up for repeating sessions throughout the day, which helps keep me focused. (5) Positive talk Ok, ok, this one might sound cheesy but it's real. Tell yourself over and over that you are good at working from home/with distraction/etc until you believe it. Take it from someone who had a few breakdowns early on in the pandemic... you have to acknowledge what you're feeling and how crummy the situation is, but then decide that you're stronger than that, and get back to work. (6) Stick with a schedule This one is another crucial one. Set boundaries for yourself. Working from home has made it difficult for everyone...now all of a sudden you're expected to be available via email/zoom/etc at all hours because they know you haven't gone anywhere. I stick with a schedule of when I'm going to work, and when I'm going to call it quits. There is ALWAYS more work to be done, so don't fool yourself into thinking that you have to work for just one more hour. You could work forever and you probably wouldn't be done/caught up. (7) Know when to take a break If you set up a schedule and get into a rhythm, but then find that there are days when you **just can't focus** no matter what you do? Call it quits. Trying to force yourself to do work is going to make you miserable, and is just going to cause you to burn out more/be less efficient/repeat the cycle. Take the day off, do something you find truly relaxing and enjoyable, get some exercise, then start again the next day. It's probably a good practice to do this once a week or so....as you go, you'll start to figure out what time span you need between days off. For me, it's around the 9 day mark that I start to crack and know I need to take a day off, so I just build it into my schedule one day before that happens. . . I hope that some of this is helpful. I apologize for writing a post a third the length of Moby Dick, but I totally know the feeling of being miserable because you so desperately want to work but can't. I sincerely hope you (and everyone else feeling this way!) can find some ways to work effectively in these crummy times, while simultaneously taking care of yourself. Wishing you good mental health and a good day.

it4dxy

askacademia_train

Human: assignments that I literally feel like i’m going to cry. my house is loud and i can’t find anywhere where it’s completely silent even with noise cancelling headphones. i have so much work to do but even with my medication i just couldn’t do it. my medication usually helps but it’s not doing anything except making it hard for me to eat. i hate this. i feel like i’m on the verge of a breakdown Assistant:

g5d5811

g5chren

I totally get it! A few things from a fellow medication user who still frequently copes with focusing issues... (1) Exercise! I know there are studies out there to back it up, but I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole to find them since I only have a few minutes left on my Pomodoro timer. I find that I am ***so*** much more focused when I go for a run/bike ride in the morning. There are days when I convince myself I "don't have time" to exercise for 20 minutes and then spend the day kicking myself because I waste waaaay more than 20 minutes trying to find focus. (2) Pomodoro timer 25 minutes of intense, focused studying/5 minute break. There are plenty of apps for this (I use Focus Keeper but also occasionally Seconds Pro which is actually a timer for HIIT exercise lol). Play around with the time intervals and see what works for you, then STICK TO IT and treat it like it's a law you can't break. The minute that break ends, get back to work. (3) Foam ear plugs underneath noise cancelling headphones If you have over-the-ear noise cancelling headphones, invest in a large container of foam earplugs. This + noise cancelling + brown noise (personally find it way more tolerable than white noise...buy a track of your choice and play it on repeat) are a MUST. COVID has seriously screwed up my finely honed work habits, but this helped immensely. (4) Freedom App I found this really useful as well. There are days where no matter how much I tried, I could NOT get myself off time-wasting websites. There's a free version you can try, but it basically blocks whatever apps and websites you want on all your devices and there's an option you can choose so that there's no way to un-do it until the session is over. I have these set up for repeating sessions throughout the day, which helps keep me focused. (5) Positive talk Ok, ok, this one might sound cheesy but it's real. Tell yourself over and over that you are good at working from home/with distraction/etc until you believe it. Take it from someone who had a few breakdowns early on in the pandemic... you have to acknowledge what you're feeling and how crummy the situation is, but then decide that you're stronger than that, and get back to work. (6) Stick with a schedule This one is another crucial one. Set boundaries for yourself. Working from home has made it difficult for everyone...now all of a sudden you're expected to be available via email/zoom/etc at all hours because they know you haven't gone anywhere. I stick with a schedule of when I'm going to work, and when I'm going to call it quits. There is ALWAYS more work to be done, so don't fool yourself into thinking that you have to work for just one more hour. You could work forever and you probably wouldn't be done/caught up. (7) Know when to take a break If you set up a schedule and get into a rhythm, but then find that there are days when you **just can't focus** no matter what you do? Call it quits. Trying to force yourself to do work is going to make you miserable, and is just going to cause you to burn out more/be less efficient/repeat the cycle. Take the day off, do something you find truly relaxing and enjoyable, get some exercise, then start again the next day. It's probably a good practice to do this once a week or so....as you go, you'll start to figure out what time span you need between days off. For me, it's around the 9 day mark that I start to crack and know I need to take a day off, so I just build it into my schedule one day before that happens. . . I hope that some of this is helpful. I apologize for writing a post a third the length of Moby Dick, but I totally know the feeling of being miserable because you so desperately want to work but can't. I sincerely hope you (and everyone else feeling this way!) can find some ways to work effectively in these crummy times, while simultaneously taking care of yourself. Wishing you good mental health and a good day.

This is a suuuper common reaction for me when I get overwhelmed. It’s like the emotions are trying to escape my body via my eyes lol. I agree with the above advice, plus I highly recommend the strategy of breaking down bigger tasks into smaller ones. Even if that means watching a lectures in chunks. You watched 10 mins? That’s a win! Take it slow, and be forgiving of yourself :) you got this!

it4dxy

askacademia_train

Human: assignments that I literally feel like i’m going to cry. my house is loud and i can’t find anywhere where it’s completely silent even with noise cancelling headphones. i have so much work to do but even with my medication i just couldn’t do it. my medication usually helps but it’s not doing anything except making it hard for me to eat. i hate this. i feel like i’m on the verge of a breakdown Assistant:

g5d5811

g5cklw5

I totally get it! A few things from a fellow medication user who still frequently copes with focusing issues... (1) Exercise! I know there are studies out there to back it up, but I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole to find them since I only have a few minutes left on my Pomodoro timer. I find that I am ***so*** much more focused when I go for a run/bike ride in the morning. There are days when I convince myself I "don't have time" to exercise for 20 minutes and then spend the day kicking myself because I waste waaaay more than 20 minutes trying to find focus. (2) Pomodoro timer 25 minutes of intense, focused studying/5 minute break. There are plenty of apps for this (I use Focus Keeper but also occasionally Seconds Pro which is actually a timer for HIIT exercise lol). Play around with the time intervals and see what works for you, then STICK TO IT and treat it like it's a law you can't break. The minute that break ends, get back to work. (3) Foam ear plugs underneath noise cancelling headphones If you have over-the-ear noise cancelling headphones, invest in a large container of foam earplugs. This + noise cancelling + brown noise (personally find it way more tolerable than white noise...buy a track of your choice and play it on repeat) are a MUST. COVID has seriously screwed up my finely honed work habits, but this helped immensely. (4) Freedom App I found this really useful as well. There are days where no matter how much I tried, I could NOT get myself off time-wasting websites. There's a free version you can try, but it basically blocks whatever apps and websites you want on all your devices and there's an option you can choose so that there's no way to un-do it until the session is over. I have these set up for repeating sessions throughout the day, which helps keep me focused. (5) Positive talk Ok, ok, this one might sound cheesy but it's real. Tell yourself over and over that you are good at working from home/with distraction/etc until you believe it. Take it from someone who had a few breakdowns early on in the pandemic... you have to acknowledge what you're feeling and how crummy the situation is, but then decide that you're stronger than that, and get back to work. (6) Stick with a schedule This one is another crucial one. Set boundaries for yourself. Working from home has made it difficult for everyone...now all of a sudden you're expected to be available via email/zoom/etc at all hours because they know you haven't gone anywhere. I stick with a schedule of when I'm going to work, and when I'm going to call it quits. There is ALWAYS more work to be done, so don't fool yourself into thinking that you have to work for just one more hour. You could work forever and you probably wouldn't be done/caught up. (7) Know when to take a break If you set up a schedule and get into a rhythm, but then find that there are days when you **just can't focus** no matter what you do? Call it quits. Trying to force yourself to do work is going to make you miserable, and is just going to cause you to burn out more/be less efficient/repeat the cycle. Take the day off, do something you find truly relaxing and enjoyable, get some exercise, then start again the next day. It's probably a good practice to do this once a week or so....as you go, you'll start to figure out what time span you need between days off. For me, it's around the 9 day mark that I start to crack and know I need to take a day off, so I just build it into my schedule one day before that happens. . . I hope that some of this is helpful. I apologize for writing a post a third the length of Moby Dick, but I totally know the feeling of being miserable because you so desperately want to work but can't. I sincerely hope you (and everyone else feeling this way!) can find some ways to work effectively in these crummy times, while simultaneously taking care of yourself. Wishing you good mental health and a good day.

Omg, I just went through this Saturday. I took a day off..well, two. Starting back today feeling fresh. Ugh. I empathize with you. Hang in there.

it4dxy

askacademia_train

Human: assignments that I literally feel like i’m going to cry. my house is loud and i can’t find anywhere where it’s completely silent even with noise cancelling headphones. i have so much work to do but even with my medication i just couldn’t do it. my medication usually helps but it’s not doing anything except making it hard for me to eat. i hate this. i feel like i’m on the verge of a breakdown Assistant:

g5d5811

g5clv99

I totally get it! A few things from a fellow medication user who still frequently copes with focusing issues... (1) Exercise! I know there are studies out there to back it up, but I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole to find them since I only have a few minutes left on my Pomodoro timer. I find that I am ***so*** much more focused when I go for a run/bike ride in the morning. There are days when I convince myself I "don't have time" to exercise for 20 minutes and then spend the day kicking myself because I waste waaaay more than 20 minutes trying to find focus. (2) Pomodoro timer 25 minutes of intense, focused studying/5 minute break. There are plenty of apps for this (I use Focus Keeper but also occasionally Seconds Pro which is actually a timer for HIIT exercise lol). Play around with the time intervals and see what works for you, then STICK TO IT and treat it like it's a law you can't break. The minute that break ends, get back to work. (3) Foam ear plugs underneath noise cancelling headphones If you have over-the-ear noise cancelling headphones, invest in a large container of foam earplugs. This + noise cancelling + brown noise (personally find it way more tolerable than white noise...buy a track of your choice and play it on repeat) are a MUST. COVID has seriously screwed up my finely honed work habits, but this helped immensely. (4) Freedom App I found this really useful as well. There are days where no matter how much I tried, I could NOT get myself off time-wasting websites. There's a free version you can try, but it basically blocks whatever apps and websites you want on all your devices and there's an option you can choose so that there's no way to un-do it until the session is over. I have these set up for repeating sessions throughout the day, which helps keep me focused. (5) Positive talk Ok, ok, this one might sound cheesy but it's real. Tell yourself over and over that you are good at working from home/with distraction/etc until you believe it. Take it from someone who had a few breakdowns early on in the pandemic... you have to acknowledge what you're feeling and how crummy the situation is, but then decide that you're stronger than that, and get back to work. (6) Stick with a schedule This one is another crucial one. Set boundaries for yourself. Working from home has made it difficult for everyone...now all of a sudden you're expected to be available via email/zoom/etc at all hours because they know you haven't gone anywhere. I stick with a schedule of when I'm going to work, and when I'm going to call it quits. There is ALWAYS more work to be done, so don't fool yourself into thinking that you have to work for just one more hour. You could work forever and you probably wouldn't be done/caught up. (7) Know when to take a break If you set up a schedule and get into a rhythm, but then find that there are days when you **just can't focus** no matter what you do? Call it quits. Trying to force yourself to do work is going to make you miserable, and is just going to cause you to burn out more/be less efficient/repeat the cycle. Take the day off, do something you find truly relaxing and enjoyable, get some exercise, then start again the next day. It's probably a good practice to do this once a week or so....as you go, you'll start to figure out what time span you need between days off. For me, it's around the 9 day mark that I start to crack and know I need to take a day off, so I just build it into my schedule one day before that happens. . . I hope that some of this is helpful. I apologize for writing a post a third the length of Moby Dick, but I totally know the feeling of being miserable because you so desperately want to work but can't. I sincerely hope you (and everyone else feeling this way!) can find some ways to work effectively in these crummy times, while simultaneously taking care of yourself. Wishing you good mental health and a good day.

Is your school's library open? Or perhaps another building on campus? If your campus is anything like ours (i.e. a ghost town) then there are plenty of quiet places where you can study while maintaining social distance.

n3lkgg

askacademia_train

Human: Thank you all I finished my PhD in spring of 2020 and stayed at my university in a different lab as a post doc. The new lab is awesome and I was happy there, even in a pandemic. But, I’m happy to say that I’ve accepted an TT assistant professor job in my dream city at a great school for this fall (R2, ranked top 20% in my field (allied health-related). I could literally spend my career there. Scouring this subreddit for guidance, tips, etc. was a lifesaver. You all rock. But, I know I’m lucky and I will strife to be mindful of that privilege. Assistant:

gwrgymh

gwrm1r2

Congradulations.

Congratulations! I spent my career at one place. It was great and very interesting to become the senior faculty member toward the end of my career.

hmq57i

askacademia_train

Human: Do you think that life would be easier if there was just one universally accepted citation style? I know it sounds a rhetorical question. But as a TA, I have noticed that students in my institution often have a very difficult time with correct citation style. My class follows APA. Somehow, even with widely available internet sources (and even citation generators) many still do not seem to get it. Sometimes I wonder if a universally accepted, standardized citation style, across disciplines would make more sense. Perhaps this is more of a rant out of frustration. But I figured I would extend this question to the crowd to see what others think. Assistant:

fx7302m

fx72ndj

If I thought people could behave themselves and not keep making their own versions of styles, I'd be delighted if we could settle on two styles: one numbered and one author-date. I think those both have their place. Sometimes author-date is very reader-friendly because it's easy to keep track of who the author is talking about, and at other times it's totally reader-hostile because the flow of reading is broken up by massive strings of names and dates.

I think things like Mendeley and Zotero make it manageable for one-off assignments. What I hate is when a journal article gets rejected and you need to convert it to another citation style. If you made some changes after removing Mendeley fields, it sucks to either go back to an old version or fix citations manually. This happened twice and I don't seem to learn my lesson.

hmq57i

askacademia_train

Human: Do you think that life would be easier if there was just one universally accepted citation style? I know it sounds a rhetorical question. But as a TA, I have noticed that students in my institution often have a very difficult time with correct citation style. My class follows APA. Somehow, even with widely available internet sources (and even citation generators) many still do not seem to get it. Sometimes I wonder if a universally accepted, standardized citation style, across disciplines would make more sense. Perhaps this is more of a rant out of frustration. But I figured I would extend this question to the crowd to see what others think. Assistant:

fx72ndj

fx76r33

I think things like Mendeley and Zotero make it manageable for one-off assignments. What I hate is when a journal article gets rejected and you need to convert it to another citation style. If you made some changes after removing Mendeley fields, it sucks to either go back to an old version or fix citations manually. This happened twice and I don't seem to learn my lesson.

Different citation styles emphasize different information, which is important, as different information is important in different disciplines. (for instance, some styles emphasize Authors, others the Year, others Publishers... depends on what's most important.) So the differences can be useful. But here's a different thought: it's a test. And a VERY important one for students to master. There are two reasons that students DON'T use the right style: laziness, and lateness. Waaaay back when, when I was in college, I hated trying to suss out and use the "correct" style, because I was always skating close to the deadline... and in those rare moments when I *wasn't*, I still felt like it was a "waste of (my important) time." My students today have the same problem. But here's the thing: there are a LOT of incredibly important things in life that have to be done PRECISELY, in the correct format. Not just your 1040 Form 6251-AMT... but also any scholarship or grant application, most serious job applications, paperwork for your Residency Permit, etc. etc. In high school, and in many college classes, students are cut a lot of slack. ("She's a smart kid; this is a good paper; yes, the citations are wrong, but the paper has great ideas--I'll still give it an A.") But then, a decade later, they find themselves applying for something really important--a major Federal grant, for example, or for naturalized citizenship. And very suddenly, with the stakes incredibly high, formatting perfection is make-or-break: if you make ONE mistake, and you're done. Students who have been cut a lot of slack can't make this adjustment. Actually, I think one of the real determinants for whether a smart undergrad gets into a grad program or not is exactly this minutia--attention to detail. (I say this as a former grad director, who's read a lot of application files.) So, yes: students don't "get" citation styles. (and really--how important *is* the correct style, in the cosmic scheme of things...???) But if they are forced to do it anyway--forced to look up the appropriate style, interpret it, apply it perfectly--then this will prepare them for a whole range of really important application-processes. But *only* if they are forced to do it, and held to it. One underappreciated reason, I would argue, that students with college degrees do so much better, career-wise, is that some of the 'administrative bullshit' of college--applying correct citation styles, running afoul of add/drop dates, pleading your piteous case to a hard-nosed professor, dealing with a difficult roommate, finding someone to explain a problem-set you just don't *understand*--prepares you for the "real world." Prepares you for *life itself.* In a way that high school never could. TLDR: it's for their own good.

hmq57i

askacademia_train

Human: Do you think that life would be easier if there was just one universally accepted citation style? I know it sounds a rhetorical question. But as a TA, I have noticed that students in my institution often have a very difficult time with correct citation style. My class follows APA. Somehow, even with widely available internet sources (and even citation generators) many still do not seem to get it. Sometimes I wonder if a universally accepted, standardized citation style, across disciplines would make more sense. Perhaps this is more of a rant out of frustration. But I figured I would extend this question to the crowd to see what others think. Assistant:

fx75gqn

fx76r33

oh yeah, 100% - but it would have to be my citation style because at this point I'm not investing in learning anyone else's.

Different citation styles emphasize different information, which is important, as different information is important in different disciplines. (for instance, some styles emphasize Authors, others the Year, others Publishers... depends on what's most important.) So the differences can be useful. But here's a different thought: it's a test. And a VERY important one for students to master. There are two reasons that students DON'T use the right style: laziness, and lateness. Waaaay back when, when I was in college, I hated trying to suss out and use the "correct" style, because I was always skating close to the deadline... and in those rare moments when I *wasn't*, I still felt like it was a "waste of (my important) time." My students today have the same problem. But here's the thing: there are a LOT of incredibly important things in life that have to be done PRECISELY, in the correct format. Not just your 1040 Form 6251-AMT... but also any scholarship or grant application, most serious job applications, paperwork for your Residency Permit, etc. etc. In high school, and in many college classes, students are cut a lot of slack. ("She's a smart kid; this is a good paper; yes, the citations are wrong, but the paper has great ideas--I'll still give it an A.") But then, a decade later, they find themselves applying for something really important--a major Federal grant, for example, or for naturalized citizenship. And very suddenly, with the stakes incredibly high, formatting perfection is make-or-break: if you make ONE mistake, and you're done. Students who have been cut a lot of slack can't make this adjustment. Actually, I think one of the real determinants for whether a smart undergrad gets into a grad program or not is exactly this minutia--attention to detail. (I say this as a former grad director, who's read a lot of application files.) So, yes: students don't "get" citation styles. (and really--how important *is* the correct style, in the cosmic scheme of things...???) But if they are forced to do it anyway--forced to look up the appropriate style, interpret it, apply it perfectly--then this will prepare them for a whole range of really important application-processes. But *only* if they are forced to do it, and held to it. One underappreciated reason, I would argue, that students with college degrees do so much better, career-wise, is that some of the 'administrative bullshit' of college--applying correct citation styles, running afoul of add/drop dates, pleading your piteous case to a hard-nosed professor, dealing with a difficult roommate, finding someone to explain a problem-set you just don't *understand*--prepares you for the "real world." Prepares you for *life itself.* In a way that high school never could. TLDR: it's for their own good.

hmq57i

askacademia_train

Human: Do you think that life would be easier if there was just one universally accepted citation style? I know it sounds a rhetorical question. But as a TA, I have noticed that students in my institution often have a very difficult time with correct citation style. My class follows APA. Somehow, even with widely available internet sources (and even citation generators) many still do not seem to get it. Sometimes I wonder if a universally accepted, standardized citation style, across disciplines would make more sense. Perhaps this is more of a rant out of frustration. But I figured I would extend this question to the crowd to see what others think. Assistant:

fx72ndj

fx73btd

I think things like Mendeley and Zotero make it manageable for one-off assignments. What I hate is when a journal article gets rejected and you need to convert it to another citation style. If you made some changes after removing Mendeley fields, it sucks to either go back to an old version or fix citations manually. This happened twice and I don't seem to learn my lesson.

Does anyone really care? I'm amazed when I see someone finding out that some ref isn't formatted as they expect. What's the process that someone goes through to be able to notice? To me it feels like like some purely aesthetic residual from another century. To find and download the ref I need a doi or a title exact enough to be googled. Why do people actually care? Then it's up to Mendeley/latex to format everything like editors pretend to like.

hmq57i

askacademia_train

Human: Do you think that life would be easier if there was just one universally accepted citation style? I know it sounds a rhetorical question. But as a TA, I have noticed that students in my institution often have a very difficult time with correct citation style. My class follows APA. Somehow, even with widely available internet sources (and even citation generators) many still do not seem to get it. Sometimes I wonder if a universally accepted, standardized citation style, across disciplines would make more sense. Perhaps this is more of a rant out of frustration. But I figured I would extend this question to the crowd to see what others think. Assistant:

fx7oqle

fx72ndj

The answer is Chicago. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I think things like Mendeley and Zotero make it manageable for one-off assignments. What I hate is when a journal article gets rejected and you need to convert it to another citation style. If you made some changes after removing Mendeley fields, it sucks to either go back to an old version or fix citations manually. This happened twice and I don't seem to learn my lesson.

u8fy6h

askacademia_train

Human: My work just got published, it's my first publication What are the things I should do? I've already created a Google Scholar Profile. Assistant:

i5l41rw

i5l2b3e

Congratulations! Some things to consider: * Create an orcid profile. * Check your university's or institution's policy on parallel publishing. Some universities will even require you to upload a final manuscript draft of the publication to their archives where the manuscript will be openly available. * Check other possible actions that your institution requires you to do after a publication has been accepted. * If you have outside funding, it is a very good practice to notify the funding party that you have a new publication; this will make them happy, they have got something back for their investment. * LinkedIn is also a social platform worth considering to disseminate your new work. * Update your CVs. * Update your research plan. These are some things that pop into my mind.

I suggest celebrating.

u8fy6h

askacademia_train

Human: My work just got published, it's my first publication What are the things I should do? I've already created a Google Scholar Profile. Assistant:

i5l41rw

i5kzqcp

Congratulations! Some things to consider: * Create an orcid profile. * Check your university's or institution's policy on parallel publishing. Some universities will even require you to upload a final manuscript draft of the publication to their archives where the manuscript will be openly available. * Check other possible actions that your institution requires you to do after a publication has been accepted. * If you have outside funding, it is a very good practice to notify the funding party that you have a new publication; this will make them happy, they have got something back for their investment. * LinkedIn is also a social platform worth considering to disseminate your new work. * Update your CVs. * Update your research plan. These are some things that pop into my mind.

Congratulations, 🍾🎈 have a pint with your colleagues

u8fy6h

askacademia_train

Human: My work just got published, it's my first publication What are the things I should do? I've already created a Google Scholar Profile. Assistant:

i5kzqcp

i5l2b3e

Congratulations, 🍾🎈 have a pint with your colleagues

I suggest celebrating.

u8fy6h

askacademia_train

Human: My work just got published, it's my first publication What are the things I should do? I've already created a Google Scholar Profile. Assistant:

i5kzqcp

i5l9xo6

Congratulations, 🍾🎈 have a pint with your colleagues

A couple of other possible things to do: \- Post it to ResearchGate. \- Email it to people who you think might want to see it. Maybe someone you cited a lot in the paper? Someone you chatted with at a conference when you said this was a project you were working on? \- Post on Twitter. Maybe consider writing up a few key takeaways in accessible language as a thread for folks who can't or won't read an academic article. Also, find some way to celebrate!

u8fy6h

askacademia_train

Human: My work just got published, it's my first publication What are the things I should do? I've already created a Google Scholar Profile. Assistant:

i5l5mdi

i5l9xo6

Grab a beer, celebrate with friends/colleagues and focus on your next work 👍

A couple of other possible things to do: \- Post it to ResearchGate. \- Email it to people who you think might want to see it. Maybe someone you cited a lot in the paper? Someone you chatted with at a conference when you said this was a project you were working on? \- Post on Twitter. Maybe consider writing up a few key takeaways in accessible language as a thread for folks who can't or won't read an academic article. Also, find some way to celebrate!

g5sf4a

askacademia_train

Human: Posting grades back in the '90s Thinking back to when I was in undergrad (early '90s). You would be in a big lecture course, and after an exam the prof would post everyone's grades on the wall outside the classroom so you could walk up and see what you got. (Not everyone had e-mail yet, and course management systems were years off.) The grades were not organized by name, because that would be too easy to know someone else's grade. No, by Social Security number. Assistant:

fo5da0m

fo5dsht

I remember this. Ours had alternate green and white bars because the SSN and grade were on OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE DAMN PAGE!!!

They did this at my high school in the early 00s too. My poor boyfriend had an SSN that started with a 0, which the school's system didn't recognize so everyone always knew his grade because he was the one with an 8-digit social.

g5sf4a

askacademia_train

Human: Posting grades back in the '90s Thinking back to when I was in undergrad (early '90s). You would be in a big lecture course, and after an exam the prof would post everyone's grades on the wall outside the classroom so you could walk up and see what you got. (Not everyone had e-mail yet, and course management systems were years off.) The grades were not organized by name, because that would be too easy to know someone else's grade. No, by Social Security number. Assistant:

fo6q1xy

fo6uk47

They still do this at my university. Not with exams but general course and test marks

I remember my Social Security Number being my student ID and being printed ON my student ID. Those were the days.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Human: Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y Assistant:

ggczj4r

ggd0jnh

Surprise surprise.

They aren't leaving science, they're leaving academia. There is plenty of science to do in industry.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Human: Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y Assistant:

ggd0sew

ggczj4r

It's just drumbeating every now and then for letting future grads and postdocs know that "We" are aware of the situation. The survey they need to do is "**How many vacation/summer/wine houses those senior/retired Professors own and keep paying mortgage from tenure salary without retiring at the age at 65-70?**"

Surprise surprise.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Human: Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y Assistant:

ggd29mh

ggdcsy9

Well, duh.

Every single academic post doc job listing I see in my area is for the federal mandated minimum (~47k a year USD). Nobody with a PhD wants to work long hours for that amount of money.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Human: Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y Assistant:

ggd29mh

ggdc6l8

Well, duh.

Imagine that, people want better work culture, pay and hours like you get in industry instead of spending your 30s into 40s as an indentured servant

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Human: Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y Assistant:

ggdjkmt

ggdk9md

I'm not even a scientist/academic, yet seeing all the "postdoc subhuman trash lolol" memes in academic groups I'm somehow not surprised by the OP.

Yea, this is why I chose not to do a postdoc after my PhD. Academic research is just a hamster wheel where you work 90+ hrs/week and successful outcomes are dictated more by luck than hard work/knowledge.

bwptjv

askacademia_train

Human: New research suggests that metrics that are used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, number of citations, and impact factor, have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The original study can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490 Abstract: **Background** > The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success. Assistant:

epzaxzj

epzencx

I have a lot of feelings about indices/rankings/ratings which can be summed up as, they're all bullshit, and I think it's a real shame that the ranking craze has taken over the world (obligatory Romer at World Bank shoutout). Mainly my beef is with the fact that people, even eminently qualified insiders who should know better, keep trying to measure shit that we don't need to measure. Like, what journals are good journals is known to anyone who is active in a field. If you're not sure about subfield journals, you can call up a friend in that subfield and find out. Committees can form a reasonable idea of your work output from looking at your CV. Why do we need these impact factors and h-indices and sundry?

There are quite a few interesting figures here but none of it supports the stated thesis. This Goodhart's "Law" (which is really just a vague quip some guy made once) supposes that metrics lose utility once people start exploiting them. In this case that would mean that research metric success has become decoupled with "real" research success. In essence, to provide evidence to the thesis one would have to show that the two quantities are no longer statistically correlated. *Nothing in this paper remotely demonstrates that. Nothing in it even tries to.* Of course if one WERE to try and do such a thing one would have a bit of a tautological difficulty as how does one assess "real" research success without employing a metric? I suppose one would maybe poll people in a field and ask them who they feel are the top researchers and then see if those people also have the top h-indices or the like (I suspect they largely would, invalidating the thesis). Instead this paper basically just shows that more people are publishing shorter papers , with more co-authors and self-cite more. Again, this does nothing to validate their alleged point.

bwptjv

askacademia_train

Human: New research suggests that metrics that are used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, number of citations, and impact factor, have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The original study can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490 Abstract: **Background** > The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success. Assistant:

epzaxzj

epzbkvs

I have a lot of feelings about indices/rankings/ratings which can be summed up as, they're all bullshit, and I think it's a real shame that the ranking craze has taken over the world (obligatory Romer at World Bank shoutout). Mainly my beef is with the fact that people, even eminently qualified insiders who should know better, keep trying to measure shit that we don't need to measure. Like, what journals are good journals is known to anyone who is active in a field. If you're not sure about subfield journals, you can call up a friend in that subfield and find out. Committees can form a reasonable idea of your work output from looking at your CV. Why do we need these impact factors and h-indices and sundry?

I was thinking the other day that my university has screwed it up a bit because on the one hand everyone goes on about 'team science' and 'collaboration!' and then on the other at appraisal only counts 1st and last author publications. So someone emails you with an idea and it's basically: sorry, not to be a dick but I literally can't justify that.

bwptjv

askacademia_train

Human: New research suggests that metrics that are used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, number of citations, and impact factor, have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The original study can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490 Abstract: **Background** > The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success. Assistant:

epzaxzj

epzcvme

I have a lot of feelings about indices/rankings/ratings which can be summed up as, they're all bullshit, and I think it's a real shame that the ranking craze has taken over the world (obligatory Romer at World Bank shoutout). Mainly my beef is with the fact that people, even eminently qualified insiders who should know better, keep trying to measure shit that we don't need to measure. Like, what journals are good journals is known to anyone who is active in a field. If you're not sure about subfield journals, you can call up a friend in that subfield and find out. Committees can form a reasonable idea of your work output from looking at your CV. Why do we need these impact factors and h-indices and sundry?

I agree with everything except a *Very Hard Disagree* On "shorter papers" in biology as an issue. At least in my field papers are now *gigantic* and the smallest publishable unit is the equivalent of 3-5 papers from 25 years ago. And what used to be 3 papers spread over 6 years (concept/problem isolation, innovation, and finally molecular/genetic mechanism) are now one single paper because without mechanism nowadays you might as well just publish your data on Facebook (sarcasm but...). As far as author lists growing, I think that is understandable because papers have to explain so much now there could easily be 20 different experimental techniques used (including in silico). So author lists include all of the people who had the expertise to do those different experiments quickly and reliably. It's difficult for one lab to produce to all of the different kinds of data needed to tell some stories in biology today so there are a lot of collaborating authors. More data = more authors. And as far as gaming the system, I know I'll get down voted for saying this, but this is actually a case where journal impact and citations/paper matters - a short paper written to pad a resume will not get published in a high impact journal, and a dozen short papers with no citations in low impact journals could also say something. I'm not disagreeing that our metrics suck. But it feels like surely the papers are not shorter *and* with more authors now compared to 20 years ago?

bwptjv

askacademia_train

Human: publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success. Assistant:

eq0882f

eq05ci0

At least in the social sciences, the number of citations/publications has ceased to have any real meaning and should not be used as a metric for success or influence. My doctoral program did not teach us this, but a colleague who attended a large program said they were taught to be strategic by doing the following: * Create a "research group" comprised of your friends in the discipline in which members take turns researching and writing, yet normally only the PI does any work, and the rest are just thrown on the publication (the others may proofread/edit so that ethically they can say they contributed); members of the group are then expected to return the favor to the others by adding them to their publications they did no work for. * Start their own online journal, and/or guest edit for an established journal, and/or become an editor of an established/top tier journal (dependent on what stage you are at in your career), and prioritize publishing your friends' work--especially if they are up for promotion or tenure, or some other review. Friends are then expected to do the same for them. * Edit an anthology in which you invite your friends to publish first--not the experts in the field. If friends are busy and can't write a chapter at that time, they recommend friends of friends, which then extends your circle of people who owe you or are going to cite you back. The actual experts in the field are last to be invited, but since it is quick and easy for them to put something together they often contribute, and this gives the anthology credibility. * Cite friends' work by finding a way to make their work relevant to yours so that they will then cite you back. Sometimes this requires the literature review to go on a tangent, but if you cite Joe, Joe will cite you back in three months when he submits his pub. There are two people in my department whom I can clearly see subscribe to the above model (the colleague who told me about it, plus another colleague not affiliated with this friend), and it is annoying when the latter tries to brag about the number of pubs he has knowing he only wrote or contributed to about 1/4 of them--and has very little knowledge on the content (proven by me, because one is my research area and he hasn't got a clue when I try to discuss it with him.) Meanwhile, I'm the sucker plugging away on my sole authored publications. Ordinarily I would not care about any of this because if you can live with yourself knowing you are playing this game then that's on you, but our department keeps raising the bar on the number of required publications for raises or promotions because they **see the number of annual pubs and citations going up each year**. The system is practically forcing academics to follow my colleague's model if we want raises. Maybe others don't think this is unethical, but it doesn't sit well with me. We have a new faculty member who started fall 2017 and my friend has really taken to him, and my colleague and a couple of his friends added this young PhD to their publications. This young PhD just won our university's pre-tenure research award. He is obviously being groomed to join the circle. There is no way he did anything on those pubs because he was finishing his dissertation last year. I'm sure I will see one or more of my colleague's names on the publications coming out of the young PhD's dissertation... I prefer to measure success by asking: Did your work make a positive change?

Sort of obvious, but good to hear it regardless

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Human: Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂 Assistant:

gxqmzk9

gxqm670

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

This is actually a major part of why I left academia. It was too demanding on my time. I didn't have enough time or energy to even get all of the work-related things done that I wanted - including spending extra time helping students, improving course materials, or working on research projects. And that's not even counting administrative responsibilities that I didn't have as a junior lecturer, but most of my colleagues had to do also. Hobbies? Exercise? Forget it! I'm really glad I went through grad school (computer science) and got the research training experience because that has proven extremely valuable. Now I work in industry and, at least at my current job, have a _much_ better work life balance (not all industry jobs are like this of course).

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Human: Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂 Assistant:

gxqmzk9

gxqm75n

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

In a strange way, life in research-intense academia is like a career in pro-sports. There is intense work and competition involved in getting drafted and then working your way through your rookie contract. Then you land a life-time contract. After that, how hard you work at your craft is up to you and your goals. Most people like what they are doing, want to stand out, and work hard. Some people are Tom Brady's, others coast... The most important thing for me is that I am reaching my 60's and there are still things I really want to do at work while my friends, no matter how much money they make, can't wait to retire.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Human: Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂 Assistant:

gxqgfnv

gxqmzk9

All depends on where you put your priorities and boundaries. I’m an American doing my PhD studies in Europe right now. I burnt out hard during my MS and then again while I was in industry because I didn’t maintain my boundaries, now that I’ve learned that lesson I wish to not repeat it. There is a stronger focus on work-life balance here compared to the US. But if I wanted to, I have more than enough lab and manuscript writing to do to keep me busy all day everyday. With that said, I have to take efforts to prioritize my non academic interests. So I am getting out cycling 50km 1-2x during the week and usually a 100km ride on the weekend. I’m prioritizing making time outside of work to socialize with people. Unless I have a hard deadline for something, I try not to work after 6 or on the weekends. I try not to answer emails outside of business hours. With everything in life, you have to find and stick to your boundaries. What you value is what you’ll prioritize.

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Human: Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂 Assistant:

gxqmyie

gxqmzk9

There's a ton of inter-individual / inter-lab / inter-field variability here IMO (and maybe a bit inter-school & inter-country, etc... though I think those latter sources of variation are dwarfed by the former). In grad school, I knew lots of people who had a really smooth ride of it, doing fun stuff every weekend and evening, going on a few 1-3 week vacations each year, being social and healthy etc. I also knew of a few "classic" grad students working 60h+ weeks doing labwork into the wee morning (though usually those 60h weren't all meaningful work, e.g. there'd be a lot of downtime while equipment / code ran during which they'd dick around on social media). Personally, I've had lots of time for hobbies and exercise during both grad school and postdoc -- lifting 1-2h a day maybe 3-4x per week, usually around 5-10 miles of walking per day (during which I'd talk to friends / family / partner or listen to audiobooks / podcasts), maybe an hour, sometimes two of video games / TV / movies a night, usually a few hours of reading random non-work things a day, lotsa cooking, and every weekend at least one full-day hiking trip. My advisors throughout were also all very into life-work balance, being married with kid(s), clocking in and out on a strict 9-4 schedule with little-to-no work on the weekends barring unusual circumstances (usually a fast approaching deadline every few months). With some caveats though -- e.g. they both had tenure. In the US, fwiw, w/ PhD in Anthropology and now a postdoc in Computational Biology.

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Human: Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂 Assistant:

gxqmzk9

gxqhg9e

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

“Work in academia” is WAY too broad. It’s like saying “work in a hospital”. The ER nurses will have a different answer than the oncology nurses, who have a different answer from the x-ray technicians, who have a different answer than the surgeons, who have a different answer than the OBGYN, who have a difference answer than the lab technicians, who have a different answer than the cafeteria workers, who have a different answer than the president of the hospital, who has a different answer than....

fp90z7

askacademia_train

Human: I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? Assistant:

fljmhz7

fljn6s4

No, it isn't wrong. Children or no, each faculty member ought to shoulder a fair load of service, teaching, and research. The problem is that stuff is rarely tracked well (especially service) and people with children often get special exceptions for certain forms of service. > I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? How much do you think you'll get recognition or compensation for doing this extra work?

I think it's alright both to feel annoyed, and to need to suck it up. This is an extreme situation. If it would make you feel better, keep a log of the ways you're going above and beyond. It's possible you may be able to use it later as leverage when you need help from others or have a family emergency of your own. Compassion now might save you from being jobless when the recession hits. There is so much uncertainty and fear right now. Shouldering the burden when others can't is one of the ways we're going to get through this. Even if it's a little resentful, I really do thing the appropriate response right now is kindness.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

Human: I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? Assistant:

fljs0gy

fljrqnd

If it makes you feel any better, I’m frustrated that I’m expected to somehow get all my usual work done remotely, with two needy kids now at home, AND now the older one’s school is starting to send work home too so I’m also supposed to be homeschooling my child at the same time. I’ve been staying up past 1 am each night to get my work done bc I can’t do anything until the kids are asleep. We can all be frustrated/angry/overwhelmed together, just know that everyone is doing their best in a crazy situation.

I don’t think it’s right to have different work expectations for those who do and don’t have children. Im a grad student in a department where most PhD students are married and have 1-3 kids. I often find that those students receive substantially more allowances and can get away with skipping things like “mandatory” colloquial because they have kids at home. I think it’s super insulting to treat people who have children as if their time is inherently more valuable than those that don’t. I’m definitely not someone who dislikes kids, I just don’t have any of my own yet. That said, it’s whack to act as if their personal, non-work related choice should affect workload.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

Human: I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? Assistant:

fljs0gy

fljr6nv

If it makes you feel any better, I’m frustrated that I’m expected to somehow get all my usual work done remotely, with two needy kids now at home, AND now the older one’s school is starting to send work home too so I’m also supposed to be homeschooling my child at the same time. I’ve been staying up past 1 am each night to get my work done bc I can’t do anything until the kids are asleep. We can all be frustrated/angry/overwhelmed together, just know that everyone is doing their best in a crazy situation.

I think you're not wrong to be bothered by a higher workload, but the amount of work that needs to get done per person has increased. While your colleagues have to spend more time each day to take care of their children, you get more of the work they usually do. It sucks for everyone. We have to lower our expectations a little bit if necessary.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

Human: I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? Assistant:

fljmhz7

fljs0gy

No, it isn't wrong. Children or no, each faculty member ought to shoulder a fair load of service, teaching, and research. The problem is that stuff is rarely tracked well (especially service) and people with children often get special exceptions for certain forms of service. > I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? How much do you think you'll get recognition or compensation for doing this extra work?

If it makes you feel any better, I’m frustrated that I’m expected to somehow get all my usual work done remotely, with two needy kids now at home, AND now the older one’s school is starting to send work home too so I’m also supposed to be homeschooling my child at the same time. I’ve been staying up past 1 am each night to get my work done bc I can’t do anything until the kids are asleep. We can all be frustrated/angry/overwhelmed together, just know that everyone is doing their best in a crazy situation.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

Human: I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? Assistant:

fljs0gy

fljrd5x

If it makes you feel any better, I’m frustrated that I’m expected to somehow get all my usual work done remotely, with two needy kids now at home, AND now the older one’s school is starting to send work home too so I’m also supposed to be homeschooling my child at the same time. I’ve been staying up past 1 am each night to get my work done bc I can’t do anything until the kids are asleep. We can all be frustrated/angry/overwhelmed together, just know that everyone is doing their best in a crazy situation.

I think it is wrong of them to give you more work. On the other hand, I don't think there's a way out of it - there is very little to be gained by complaining, or worse refusing to do extra work. I suppose you could always lie. If you say "I know I don't have children, but actually I have elderly relatives that depend on me", whether or not that's true, it could get them off your back a bit, and it's pretty impossible to check. There's an obvious moral question there, which I will leave up to you.

r62weh

askacademia_train

Human: What are the wildest hijinks you never though you’d have to write a syllabus disclaimer about (and yet here we are)? This morning I woke up to an email from a top journal in my field confirming my submission. I definitely did not submit anything there. Eventually I realized that instead of submitting their term paper to Canvas, one of my students had somehow managed to submit it as a manuscript to a journal, under my name and identity. I can’t believe I have to put “do not submit your class papers as journal manuscripts under my name” in my syllabi. I just keep thinking about it and bursting into laughter. So, what are some of your “I can’t believe that just happened” teaching stories? This is not a thread for student bashing - just some good natured, end of the semester stress relief! Assistant:

hmr7ssp

hmr7t31

Not really in the syllabus, but... When I was undergrad, we had to take written tests at the end of the semester for each class. There was one professor who would collect all the tests and then order them alphabetically, by surname (I don't remember the reason, but it was something reasonable, like students could go to discuss the results of the tests in his office and in this way it was easier for him to find them). Every year he had to say this disclaimer in class: "In your test, on the top left corner, please write your surname and name. Your surname is your family name, the one you have in common with your father, your paternal grandfather, etc... Your name is what your friends call you. I am telling you this because every year, inevitably, there is always someone who write Name, Surname instead of Surname, Name (like, John, Smith instead of Smith, John), and then it's a pain in the ass to order the tests alphabetically, so please try to be careful"

My syllabus has the line, "if you need to miss lab for medical reasons, please notify me ahead of time via email. Do not include descriptions or pictures of your symptoms in this email." You can probably imagine why.

r62weh

askacademia_train

Human: What are the wildest hijinks you never though you’d have to write a syllabus disclaimer about (and yet here we are)? This morning I woke up to an email from a top journal in my field confirming my submission. I definitely did not submit anything there. Eventually I realized that instead of submitting their term paper to Canvas, one of my students had somehow managed to submit it as a manuscript to a journal, under my name and identity. I can’t believe I have to put “do not submit your class papers as journal manuscripts under my name” in my syllabi. I just keep thinking about it and bursting into laughter. So, what are some of your “I can’t believe that just happened” teaching stories? This is not a thread for student bashing - just some good natured, end of the semester stress relief! Assistant:

hmr7t31

hmqpnyx

My syllabus has the line, "if you need to miss lab for medical reasons, please notify me ahead of time via email. Do not include descriptions or pictures of your symptoms in this email." You can probably imagine why.

Yikes lol. HOW

r62weh

askacademia_train

Human: What are the wildest hijinks you never though you’d have to write a syllabus disclaimer about (and yet here we are)? This morning I woke up to an email from a top journal in my field confirming my submission. I definitely did not submit anything there. Eventually I realized that instead of submitting their term paper to Canvas, one of my students had somehow managed to submit it as a manuscript to a journal, under my name and identity. I can’t believe I have to put “do not submit your class papers as journal manuscripts under my name” in my syllabi. I just keep thinking about it and bursting into laughter. So, what are some of your “I can’t believe that just happened” teaching stories? This is not a thread for student bashing - just some good natured, end of the semester stress relief! Assistant:

hmr7t31

hmr3bdj

My syllabus has the line, "if you need to miss lab for medical reasons, please notify me ahead of time via email. Do not include descriptions or pictures of your symptoms in this email." You can probably imagine why.

I’d love to know the rationale the student had for doing that.

r62weh

askacademia_train

Human: What are the wildest hijinks you never though you’d have to write a syllabus disclaimer about (and yet here we are)? This morning I woke up to an email from a top journal in my field confirming my submission. I definitely did not submit anything there. Eventually I realized that instead of submitting their term paper to Canvas, one of my students had somehow managed to submit it as a manuscript to a journal, under my name and identity. I can’t believe I have to put “do not submit your class papers as journal manuscripts under my name” in my syllabi. I just keep thinking about it and bursting into laughter. So, what are some of your “I can’t believe that just happened” teaching stories? This is not a thread for student bashing - just some good natured, end of the semester stress relief! Assistant:

hmr7ssp

hmrdkx7

Not really in the syllabus, but... When I was undergrad, we had to take written tests at the end of the semester for each class. There was one professor who would collect all the tests and then order them alphabetically, by surname (I don't remember the reason, but it was something reasonable, like students could go to discuss the results of the tests in his office and in this way it was easier for him to find them). Every year he had to say this disclaimer in class: "In your test, on the top left corner, please write your surname and name. Your surname is your family name, the one you have in common with your father, your paternal grandfather, etc... Your name is what your friends call you. I am telling you this because every year, inevitably, there is always someone who write Name, Surname instead of Surname, Name (like, John, Smith instead of Smith, John), and then it's a pain in the ass to order the tests alphabetically, so please try to be careful"

Last year more than one of my colleagues literally had to add a line to their syllabi explicitly requiring students be "fully clothed" when appearing on camera for class. Apparently several men thought it fine to Zoom in from bed, shirtless, and at least one student was zooming from her dorm room when her semi-naked roommate walked behind her on camera. Neither of these would have occurred to any of us before spring 2020.

r62weh

askacademia_train

Human: What are the wildest hijinks you never though you’d have to write a syllabus disclaimer about (and yet here we are)? This morning I woke up to an email from a top journal in my field confirming my submission. I definitely did not submit anything there. Eventually I realized that instead of submitting their term paper to Canvas, one of my students had somehow managed to submit it as a manuscript to a journal, under my name and identity. I can’t believe I have to put “do not submit your class papers as journal manuscripts under my name” in my syllabi. I just keep thinking about it and bursting into laughter. So, what are some of your “I can’t believe that just happened” teaching stories? This is not a thread for student bashing - just some good natured, end of the semester stress relief! Assistant:

hmqpnyx

hmrdkx7

Yikes lol. HOW

Last year more than one of my colleagues literally had to add a line to their syllabi explicitly requiring students be "fully clothed" when appearing on camera for class. Apparently several men thought it fine to Zoom in from bed, shirtless, and at least one student was zooming from her dorm room when her semi-naked roommate walked behind her on camera. Neither of these would have occurred to any of us before spring 2020.

ldc0to

askacademia_train

Human: Are you expected to work 60-70 hours a week in the academia? This is part rant and part question. I had an introductory meeting with about 15-16 other PhD students who had just started and the session included a question answer session with professors where anonymous questions could be asked. One individual, whose supervisor expected him to work weekends as well, asked the professors how he can politely tell his supervisor that this isnt right. The response of one of the professors was: "We are in this because we love science. If you don't want to work weekends, perhaps you do not love science and you do not belong here. If that is the case, you should leave." I was rather shocked. I admit that I do put in extra hours because I want to and have to because of my horrible productivity throughout the day. However, what was suggested by the "expert" was that it is basically compulsory to do this. Is that really what is expected in the Academia? Why is it like that? Why isn't mental and physical health given their due importance? Burn out is a thing. Assistant:

gm52k2t

gm52yzo

When I’ve gotten professors to really talk about the weird/extreme hours my favorite thought is that while there’s an “expectation” to work late or on weekends you got the freedom to disappear for random hours during weekdays during work hours. Like taking off a random Wednesday afternoon for a family thing is a lot easier than anywhere else, but that’s because “they” assume you’ll still hit deadlines by doing a couple late hours or weekends

I worked for 60 hours per week for my first 2 years. I was burning out and decided to not do that anymore. I didn't tell my professor, I just stopped. I guess my advisor could have fired me, but that would've cost him years of work and training. Now as faculty, I still work just 40 hours. Partly because I learned to get a lot done in 40 hours, partly because I turned down the offers from departments where I could tell they expected more regardless of productivity, and partly because I'm in engineering and good faculty are hard to find, so they'll pretty much put up with whatever I feel like doing. Moreover, I worked 6 hours total in my 4 week winter break. I worked zero hours fall break. I expect to work for 12 hours this week long spring break, simply because I'm behind on grading. My work-life balance is superb. Beyond just bragging, my point is it's possible. Admittedly, If you want to land a TT gig at a top 20 school, then it's probably not possible.

ldc0to

askacademia_train

Human: Are you expected to work 60-70 hours a week in the academia? This is part rant and part question. I had an introductory meeting with about 15-16 other PhD students who had just started and the session included a question answer session with professors where anonymous questions could be asked. One individual, whose supervisor expected him to work weekends as well, asked the professors how he can politely tell his supervisor that this isnt right. The response of one of the professors was: "We are in this because we love science. If you don't want to work weekends, perhaps you do not love science and you do not belong here. If that is the case, you should leave." I was rather shocked. I admit that I do put in extra hours because I want to and have to because of my horrible productivity throughout the day. However, what was suggested by the "expert" was that it is basically compulsory to do this. Is that really what is expected in the Academia? Why is it like that? Why isn't mental and physical health given their due importance? Burn out is a thing. Assistant:

gm4y3cm

gm52yzo

I think it’s not fair. But, yea, I think it is expected. And, if you don’t, you probably won’t be competitive in the job market (unless your productivity is so high that you can compete with people that work all the time). Even if you work weekend and holidays, I still don’t think you are guarantee a job. I am not a PhD yet, so take it with a grain of salt.

I worked for 60 hours per week for my first 2 years. I was burning out and decided to not do that anymore. I didn't tell my professor, I just stopped. I guess my advisor could have fired me, but that would've cost him years of work and training. Now as faculty, I still work just 40 hours. Partly because I learned to get a lot done in 40 hours, partly because I turned down the offers from departments where I could tell they expected more regardless of productivity, and partly because I'm in engineering and good faculty are hard to find, so they'll pretty much put up with whatever I feel like doing. Moreover, I worked 6 hours total in my 4 week winter break. I worked zero hours fall break. I expect to work for 12 hours this week long spring break, simply because I'm behind on grading. My work-life balance is superb. Beyond just bragging, my point is it's possible. Admittedly, If you want to land a TT gig at a top 20 school, then it's probably not possible.

ldc0to

askacademia_train

Human: Are you expected to work 60-70 hours a week in the academia? This is part rant and part question. I had an introductory meeting with about 15-16 other PhD students who had just started and the session included a question answer session with professors where anonymous questions could be asked. One individual, whose supervisor expected him to work weekends as well, asked the professors how he can politely tell his supervisor that this isnt right. The response of one of the professors was: "We are in this because we love science. If you don't want to work weekends, perhaps you do not love science and you do not belong here. If that is the case, you should leave." I was rather shocked. I admit that I do put in extra hours because I want to and have to because of my horrible productivity throughout the day. However, what was suggested by the "expert" was that it is basically compulsory to do this. Is that really what is expected in the Academia? Why is it like that? Why isn't mental and physical health given their due importance? Burn out is a thing. Assistant:

gm52k2t

gm53tat

When I’ve gotten professors to really talk about the weird/extreme hours my favorite thought is that while there’s an “expectation” to work late or on weekends you got the freedom to disappear for random hours during weekdays during work hours. Like taking off a random Wednesday afternoon for a family thing is a lot easier than anywhere else, but that’s because “they” assume you’ll still hit deadlines by doing a couple late hours or weekends

That is a toxic as fuck response, and I hope the chair of that meeting stepped in, and then took that prof aside. If they didn't the organisation has big issues. I make it very clear to my PGRs that working 40 hours a week effectively is in itself a good achievement. Being at work for 70 hours is meaningless if they're not productive, and it's unhealthy and unfair in any case. Academia demands enough of you already without sacrificing your evenings and weekends for a lacklustre income and no guarantees of jobs. Fuck that. It's perfectly possible to be productive and successful at 40 hours a week with a bit of discipline. I treated my PhD like an 8-5 and I encourage my PhD students to do the same. My most recent graduated student did that, has 4 awesome 1st author papers including big name journals, won awards, and got a great job. Weekends should be taken and the work will still be there on Monday. Will I ever be written about in the history textbooks? Almost certainly not. But neither will 99.99% of the rest of the academics I deal with, so frankly I will take this one life I have and live it. And I expect those around me to do the same. Expecting other people to fuck their lives up because you have a misguided sense of what is reasonable is not cool. Don't enable that kind of fuckery. Get the job done, and draw your own lines in the sand at what is achievable. Don't become the sausage meat in someone elses grinder. You want to know why the mental health stats in gradschool are so terrifying? It's because it's a black hole of shitty expectations that students have on them - both from themselves, and from bad supervisors. A PhD is taxing enough without also making it a physical and mental marathon with no downtime. Work 40 hours well. Hell, work 30 hours well. If you're working 70 hours I'll put money on half of them being unproductive.

ldc0to

askacademia_train

Human: Are you expected to work 60-70 hours a week in the academia? This is part rant and part question. I had an introductory meeting with about 15-16 other PhD students who had just started and the session included a question answer session with professors where anonymous questions could be asked. One individual, whose supervisor expected him to work weekends as well, asked the professors how he can politely tell his supervisor that this isnt right. The response of one of the professors was: "We are in this because we love science. If you don't want to work weekends, perhaps you do not love science and you do not belong here. If that is the case, you should leave." I was rather shocked. I admit that I do put in extra hours because I want to and have to because of my horrible productivity throughout the day. However, what was suggested by the "expert" was that it is basically compulsory to do this. Is that really what is expected in the Academia? Why is it like that? Why isn't mental and physical health given their due importance? Burn out is a thing. Assistant:

gm4y3cm

gm53tat

I think it’s not fair. But, yea, I think it is expected. And, if you don’t, you probably won’t be competitive in the job market (unless your productivity is so high that you can compete with people that work all the time). Even if you work weekend and holidays, I still don’t think you are guarantee a job. I am not a PhD yet, so take it with a grain of salt.

That is a toxic as fuck response, and I hope the chair of that meeting stepped in, and then took that prof aside. If they didn't the organisation has big issues. I make it very clear to my PGRs that working 40 hours a week effectively is in itself a good achievement. Being at work for 70 hours is meaningless if they're not productive, and it's unhealthy and unfair in any case. Academia demands enough of you already without sacrificing your evenings and weekends for a lacklustre income and no guarantees of jobs. Fuck that. It's perfectly possible to be productive and successful at 40 hours a week with a bit of discipline. I treated my PhD like an 8-5 and I encourage my PhD students to do the same. My most recent graduated student did that, has 4 awesome 1st author papers including big name journals, won awards, and got a great job. Weekends should be taken and the work will still be there on Monday. Will I ever be written about in the history textbooks? Almost certainly not. But neither will 99.99% of the rest of the academics I deal with, so frankly I will take this one life I have and live it. And I expect those around me to do the same. Expecting other people to fuck their lives up because you have a misguided sense of what is reasonable is not cool. Don't enable that kind of fuckery. Get the job done, and draw your own lines in the sand at what is achievable. Don't become the sausage meat in someone elses grinder. You want to know why the mental health stats in gradschool are so terrifying? It's because it's a black hole of shitty expectations that students have on them - both from themselves, and from bad supervisors. A PhD is taxing enough without also making it a physical and mental marathon with no downtime. Work 40 hours well. Hell, work 30 hours well. If you're working 70 hours I'll put money on half of them being unproductive.

ldc0to

askacademia_train

Human: Are you expected to work 60-70 hours a week in the academia? This is part rant and part question. I had an introductory meeting with about 15-16 other PhD students who had just started and the session included a question answer session with professors where anonymous questions could be asked. One individual, whose supervisor expected him to work weekends as well, asked the professors how he can politely tell his supervisor that this isnt right. The response of one of the professors was: "We are in this because we love science. If you don't want to work weekends, perhaps you do not love science and you do not belong here. If that is the case, you should leave." I was rather shocked. I admit that I do put in extra hours because I want to and have to because of my horrible productivity throughout the day. However, what was suggested by the "expert" was that it is basically compulsory to do this. Is that really what is expected in the Academia? Why is it like that? Why isn't mental and physical health given their due importance? Burn out is a thing. Assistant:

gm4y3cm

gm52k2t

I think it’s not fair. But, yea, I think it is expected. And, if you don’t, you probably won’t be competitive in the job market (unless your productivity is so high that you can compete with people that work all the time). Even if you work weekend and holidays, I still don’t think you are guarantee a job. I am not a PhD yet, so take it with a grain of salt.

When I’ve gotten professors to really talk about the weird/extreme hours my favorite thought is that while there’s an “expectation” to work late or on weekends you got the freedom to disappear for random hours during weekdays during work hours. Like taking off a random Wednesday afternoon for a family thing is a lot easier than anywhere else, but that’s because “they” assume you’ll still hit deadlines by doing a couple late hours or weekends

jrxatp

askacademia_train

Human: Female Grad Student in Engineering having Challenges working with Men I’m noticing this pattern where I get sidelined by men who take over something I was working on, or male colleagues opening talking down to me in front of our superiors, or even the male students that I TA blaming their mistakes on me and I am getting extremely frustrated. Even with the men in my cohort that I consider my friends, I have moments where I am talked down to, talked over, or my input is not taken as seriously. These moments like often derail me for the rest of the day, and reinforce all the icky imposter syndrome feelings I have going on. I tried to google but all I got was icky misoginistic “lean in” type rhetoric that just tells me to have less feelings and be one of the boys. Do you have any advice? Or any good reading material that you have found on this topic? Assistant:

gbvxarb

gbvy34y

As long as you keep evidence of the way you practice and work there should always be evidence to back you up and let them know that they can't blame their mistakes on you. On the other hand regarding the comments and treatment you can try to escalate things: correct them either in the spot or privately as it fits the situation, make a stand of your view and why x behaviour is offensive, take things up with a superior if things go out of control, and take note of the policies of where you are at so you can be protected. You can check r/twoxchromosomes and post in there to, is quite a supportive community and I have seen posts alike where other women offer their insights and experience.

Not in the exact same situation, but I feel you. Men consciously or subconsciously do still treat women as inferior in STEM. It sucks.

jrxatp

askacademia_train

Human: Female Grad Student in Engineering having Challenges working with Men I’m noticing this pattern where I get sidelined by men who take over something I was working on, or male colleagues opening talking down to me in front of our superiors, or even the male students that I TA blaming their mistakes on me and I am getting extremely frustrated. Even with the men in my cohort that I consider my friends, I have moments where I am talked down to, talked over, or my input is not taken as seriously. These moments like often derail me for the rest of the day, and reinforce all the icky imposter syndrome feelings I have going on. I tried to google but all I got was icky misoginistic “lean in” type rhetoric that just tells me to have less feelings and be one of the boys. Do you have any advice? Or any good reading material that you have found on this topic? Assistant:

gbw5ngv

gbw0oy4

Find a woman mentor. I am a female professor (geology) who used to work in a Civil Engineering department. There were 2 other women faculty, and the rest were men. I spent a lot of time trying to increase the number of women in our program. The key to survival is to find other women in your program (ideally professors, or more advanced grad students) and connect with them. They don't necessarily need to be doing what you do, and I'm not suggesting you should switch advisors (based on what you wrote so far), but you need to find a safe space to commiserate, give guidance for actions you can take, etc., etc. And to all the men in STEM reading this, you also need to be active in the fight for equality in STEM! If you see a male colleague/fellow student talking over a female, or taking over a project, or making an off-color joke, speak up! The "boys club" mentality will never change unless the "boys" are also fighting for the change! Hang in there, OP, you are not an impostor!

As a male researcher, I know I probably do this inadvertently and I would appreciate knowing when I’m doing it so I can train that behavior out of myself. I know it’s not fair to ask this of you, but I think we would all benefit from being told when we’re stepping on our female colleagues.

jrxatp

askacademia_train

Human: Female Grad Student in Engineering having Challenges working with Men I’m noticing this pattern where I get sidelined by men who take over something I was working on, or male colleagues opening talking down to me in front of our superiors, or even the male students that I TA blaming their mistakes on me and I am getting extremely frustrated. Even with the men in my cohort that I consider my friends, I have moments where I am talked down to, talked over, or my input is not taken as seriously. These moments like often derail me for the rest of the day, and reinforce all the icky imposter syndrome feelings I have going on. I tried to google but all I got was icky misoginistic “lean in” type rhetoric that just tells me to have less feelings and be one of the boys. Do you have any advice? Or any good reading material that you have found on this topic? Assistant:

gbw5ngv

gbvxarb

Find a woman mentor. I am a female professor (geology) who used to work in a Civil Engineering department. There were 2 other women faculty, and the rest were men. I spent a lot of time trying to increase the number of women in our program. The key to survival is to find other women in your program (ideally professors, or more advanced grad students) and connect with them. They don't necessarily need to be doing what you do, and I'm not suggesting you should switch advisors (based on what you wrote so far), but you need to find a safe space to commiserate, give guidance for actions you can take, etc., etc. And to all the men in STEM reading this, you also need to be active in the fight for equality in STEM! If you see a male colleague/fellow student talking over a female, or taking over a project, or making an off-color joke, speak up! The "boys club" mentality will never change unless the "boys" are also fighting for the change! Hang in there, OP, you are not an impostor!

As long as you keep evidence of the way you practice and work there should always be evidence to back you up and let them know that they can't blame their mistakes on you. On the other hand regarding the comments and treatment you can try to escalate things: correct them either in the spot or privately as it fits the situation, make a stand of your view and why x behaviour is offensive, take things up with a superior if things go out of control, and take note of the policies of where you are at so you can be protected. You can check r/twoxchromosomes and post in there to, is quite a supportive community and I have seen posts alike where other women offer their insights and experience.

jrxatp

askacademia_train

Human: Female Grad Student in Engineering having Challenges working with Men I’m noticing this pattern where I get sidelined by men who take over something I was working on, or male colleagues opening talking down to me in front of our superiors, or even the male students that I TA blaming their mistakes on me and I am getting extremely frustrated. Even with the men in my cohort that I consider my friends, I have moments where I am talked down to, talked over, or my input is not taken as seriously. These moments like often derail me for the rest of the day, and reinforce all the icky imposter syndrome feelings I have going on. I tried to google but all I got was icky misoginistic “lean in” type rhetoric that just tells me to have less feelings and be one of the boys. Do you have any advice? Or any good reading material that you have found on this topic? Assistant:

gbw5ngv

gbw0bw0

Find a woman mentor. I am a female professor (geology) who used to work in a Civil Engineering department. There were 2 other women faculty, and the rest were men. I spent a lot of time trying to increase the number of women in our program. The key to survival is to find other women in your program (ideally professors, or more advanced grad students) and connect with them. They don't necessarily need to be doing what you do, and I'm not suggesting you should switch advisors (based on what you wrote so far), but you need to find a safe space to commiserate, give guidance for actions you can take, etc., etc. And to all the men in STEM reading this, you also need to be active in the fight for equality in STEM! If you see a male colleague/fellow student talking over a female, or taking over a project, or making an off-color joke, speak up! The "boys club" mentality will never change unless the "boys" are also fighting for the change! Hang in there, OP, you are not an impostor!

Can you tell us more about how you got sidelined on this project? Usually it's the advisor's job to make it clear who is in charge of which project. Don't let people just take things from you... I think the best thing you could do is to try to find a female professor to discuss your problems with. Doesn't even need to be in the same department. Either send them a cold email or show up to their office hours sometime and ask if they wouldn't mind talking to you about a couple of these kinds of things. I'm a guy so take it with a grain of salt.

jrxatp

askacademia_train

Human: Female Grad Student in Engineering having Challenges working with Men I’m noticing this pattern where I get sidelined by men who take over something I was working on, or male colleagues opening talking down to me in front of our superiors, or even the male students that I TA blaming their mistakes on me and I am getting extremely frustrated. Even with the men in my cohort that I consider my friends, I have moments where I am talked down to, talked over, or my input is not taken as seriously. These moments like often derail me for the rest of the day, and reinforce all the icky imposter syndrome feelings I have going on. I tried to google but all I got was icky misoginistic “lean in” type rhetoric that just tells me to have less feelings and be one of the boys. Do you have any advice? Or any good reading material that you have found on this topic? Assistant:

gbvxarb

gbvy4df

As long as you keep evidence of the way you practice and work there should always be evidence to back you up and let them know that they can't blame their mistakes on you. On the other hand regarding the comments and treatment you can try to escalate things: correct them either in the spot or privately as it fits the situation, make a stand of your view and why x behaviour is offensive, take things up with a superior if things go out of control, and take note of the policies of where you are at so you can be protected. You can check r/twoxchromosomes and post in there to, is quite a supportive community and I have seen posts alike where other women offer their insights and experience.

I can only speak from my experience, but I frequently get talked down/over in my lab group as well. It is hard to ignore, but after 4 years I realized it is a lot easier just to learn to not worry about it, plus realistically what can you do? I think my advice for not taking it personally is trying not to stew, when I sit and think about what happened for hours at a time it just makes me feel awful, but if I actively just move on right after it happens and try not to stew it seems to help me not feel so belittled. It may be worth noting anecdotally that lots of people in academia are condescending as fuck; I think a common theme is people thinking they are always the smartest person in the room and implicit biases don't help this. I am a male in an all male group with a female advisor, so there aren't really the same misogyny vibes of your lab, but I find it easier just to not worry about it myself versus trying to talk to/change people who are just going to be assholes by default. Just my two cents.

fgm60c

askacademia_train

Human: The university that I teach at (NYU) has gone remote because of the coronivirus. I teach two classes of over 100 students and give multiple choice exams. Is there any possible way to stop them from cheating on the exams? Assistant:

fk5g0n8

fk5ha63

So I don't know if this is used in the USA, but it's widely used in Canada. We use this thing called Lockdown Browser, it's mainly used with students who are online. When a student opens it, it blocks them from using external applications on their laptops/computers. Professors can also enable the browser to video/audio record when students enter their tests, to ensure students don't cheat.

You can't stop it but you can minimize it. Assuming you will offer exams on your LMS (e.g. Blackboard): 1. Set the time for the exam in such way that it is 35-45 seconds per question. This makes it harder to Google or look up the answers. Advanced: Google your questions to make sure the answers are not readily available. If they are, restructure the question. 2. Make questions appear one at a time (not the entire exam). This makes it harder for one student to print out the exam and have others work on it. 3. Randomize the order of how questions appear so there is no way to create a solutions key with question numbers. 4. Make the exam available only at the same time as the on-campus exam time so everyone takes it at the same time. 5. Do not provide the correct answers or the student score immediately, you can release those after everyone has taken the exam. Hope this helps, good luck!

fgm60c

askacademia_train

Human: The university that I teach at (NYU) has gone remote because of the coronivirus. I teach two classes of over 100 students and give multiple choice exams. Is there any possible way to stop them from cheating on the exams? Assistant:

fk5ha63

fk5f6m0

You can't stop it but you can minimize it. Assuming you will offer exams on your LMS (e.g. Blackboard): 1. Set the time for the exam in such way that it is 35-45 seconds per question. This makes it harder to Google or look up the answers. Advanced: Google your questions to make sure the answers are not readily available. If they are, restructure the question. 2. Make questions appear one at a time (not the entire exam). This makes it harder for one student to print out the exam and have others work on it. 3. Randomize the order of how questions appear so there is no way to create a solutions key with question numbers. 4. Make the exam available only at the same time as the on-campus exam time so everyone takes it at the same time. 5. Do not provide the correct answers or the student score immediately, you can release those after everyone has taken the exam. Hope this helps, good luck!

No.

fgm60c

askacademia_train

Human: The university that I teach at (NYU) has gone remote because of the coronivirus. I teach two classes of over 100 students and give multiple choice exams. Is there any possible way to stop them from cheating on the exams? Assistant:

fk5ha63

fk5fyj3

You can't stop it but you can minimize it. Assuming you will offer exams on your LMS (e.g. Blackboard): 1. Set the time for the exam in such way that it is 35-45 seconds per question. This makes it harder to Google or look up the answers. Advanced: Google your questions to make sure the answers are not readily available. If they are, restructure the question. 2. Make questions appear one at a time (not the entire exam). This makes it harder for one student to print out the exam and have others work on it. 3. Randomize the order of how questions appear so there is no way to create a solutions key with question numbers. 4. Make the exam available only at the same time as the on-campus exam time so everyone takes it at the same time. 5. Do not provide the correct answers or the student score immediately, you can release those after everyone has taken the exam. Hope this helps, good luck!

You could create several versions of the exam where the questions/answers are ordered differently. It would stop wholesale copying. But it wouldn't stop people from working together.

fgm60c

askacademia_train

Human: The university that I teach at (NYU) has gone remote because of the coronivirus. I teach two classes of over 100 students and give multiple choice exams. Is there any possible way to stop them from cheating on the exams? Assistant:

fk5gy99

fk5ha63

You could use online proctoring services like Proctor U. They have remote access to the student's screen, and will watch the student via webcam the entire time until they submit their exam. They need the student to verify ID and also ask you to move your webcam around the room before beginning the exam.

You can't stop it but you can minimize it. Assuming you will offer exams on your LMS (e.g. Blackboard): 1. Set the time for the exam in such way that it is 35-45 seconds per question. This makes it harder to Google or look up the answers. Advanced: Google your questions to make sure the answers are not readily available. If they are, restructure the question. 2. Make questions appear one at a time (not the entire exam). This makes it harder for one student to print out the exam and have others work on it. 3. Randomize the order of how questions appear so there is no way to create a solutions key with question numbers. 4. Make the exam available only at the same time as the on-campus exam time so everyone takes it at the same time. 5. Do not provide the correct answers or the student score immediately, you can release those after everyone has taken the exam. Hope this helps, good luck!

fgm60c

askacademia_train

Human: The university that I teach at (NYU) has gone remote because of the coronivirus. I teach two classes of over 100 students and give multiple choice exams. Is there any possible way to stop them from cheating on the exams? Assistant:

fk5g0n8

fk5f6m0

So I don't know if this is used in the USA, but it's widely used in Canada. We use this thing called Lockdown Browser, it's mainly used with students who are online. When a student opens it, it blocks them from using external applications on their laptops/computers. Professors can also enable the browser to video/audio record when students enter their tests, to ensure students don't cheat.

No.

hsti6p

askacademia_train

Human: What are some of the more absurd journal article titles you're come across? Having recently come across "The hitchhikers guide to flow chemistry" and "Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?" journal articles, I was quite amused by them. What are some other articles that you've come across that have weird/absurd/funny titles? Also, what did it make you think of the authors who wrote them? Assistant:

fycjqey

fyclhff

I Just Ran Two Million Regressions

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1465-5922.1996.00165.x You are welcome...

hsti6p

askacademia_train

Human: What are some of the more absurd journal article titles you're come across? Having recently come across "The hitchhikers guide to flow chemistry" and "Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?" journal articles, I was quite amused by them. What are some other articles that you've come across that have weird/absurd/funny titles? Also, what did it make you think of the authors who wrote them? Assistant:

fyclhff

fyciz43

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1465-5922.1996.00165.x You are welcome...

I came across a genetic screening approach called Big Papi yesterday 🤦‍♀️

hsti6p

askacademia_train

Human: What are some of the more absurd journal article titles you're come across? Having recently come across "The hitchhikers guide to flow chemistry" and "Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?" journal articles, I was quite amused by them. What are some other articles that you've come across that have weird/absurd/funny titles? Also, what did it make you think of the authors who wrote them? Assistant:

fycq8os

fycred0

Effects of packaging, equipment, and storage time on energy used for reheating beef stew. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=beef+stew&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DSj-zvXQpWGkJ

Classic favorite for these threads, be sure to check the figures. https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0001969

hsti6p

askacademia_train

Human: What are some of the more absurd journal article titles you're come across? Having recently come across "The hitchhikers guide to flow chemistry" and "Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?" journal articles, I was quite amused by them. What are some other articles that you've come across that have weird/absurd/funny titles? Also, what did it make you think of the authors who wrote them? Assistant:

fycsg7d

fycsgeb

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/556640/ You might regret this thread, I have a few, we had a bit of a competition going a while back at work to see who could find the best/worst/weirdest papers

The case of the disappearing teaspoons: longitudinal cohort study of the displacement of teaspoons in an Australian research institute. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1322240/

hsti6p

askacademia_train

Human: What are some of the more absurd journal article titles you're come across? Having recently come across "The hitchhikers guide to flow chemistry" and "Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?" journal articles, I was quite amused by them. What are some other articles that you've come across that have weird/absurd/funny titles? Also, what did it make you think of the authors who wrote them? Assistant:

fycq8os

fycsgeb

Effects of packaging, equipment, and storage time on energy used for reheating beef stew. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=beef+stew&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DSj-zvXQpWGkJ

The case of the disappearing teaspoons: longitudinal cohort study of the displacement of teaspoons in an Australian research institute. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1322240/

gtf1uq

askacademia_train

Human: What is the strangest thing that happened to you during your PhD? Here is mine. I spent three months abroad at a laboratory in Spain. The experiments required that I was there on the weekends. I only spoke a little Spanish and on weekends the university was practically empty except security, so I was often there alone. One weekend the security guard came down to the lab and started talking in Spanish to me. I couldn't follow everything he said, but I thought he said that he had to inspect a nearby building so my building would be empty for a while. A couple hours later I had finished for the day and went to the security desk. They have to lock you out - if I left at my own volition the doors unlock behind me and anyone can enter. The desk was empty. No security guard. I looked around and down the hall was an open door with light coming out. I presumed it was the security offices or something. I peered around the corner and this is what I saw: The security guard from earlier sat naked on a chair, legs crossed, staring into space. The chair was in the middle of the room. It was an office, not a changing room. Embarassed, I walked away and was to about leave, but remembered I couldn't. I waited a few minutes and then approached again, this time making loud footsteps and knocking the wall. When I looked this time, the guard had gotten dressed and was buttoning his shirt. He asked if I was leaving and I said yes. He let me out and I left. I told my colleagues this, and now this is has become the highlight of my stay abroad. Even my hosts and colleagues in Spain first and foremost remember this incident better than anything else from my stay. The host professor wanted to know who it was, but I only saw the guard once after this, and none of my Spanish colleagues were with me that time. TL;DR walked in on naked security guard during stay abroad. Assistant:

fsbalfd

fsbamwr

It was more a situational strangeness. I was at a large conference in a Vienna. Given the size of that conference, the city was full to the brim with my fellow attendees. Everywhere you went you could spot people with blue lanyards around their necks. I shared the hostel room with three others, two of which also attended that conference. (We didn't really speak at first as our schedules were a bit different but I saw their lanyards lying around.) The third one was a regular tourist. One of the two fellow scientists was an man in his forties, a quiet fellow and seemingly pleasant. One evening we started talking before going to sleep. We were sitting on our beds, discussing the struggles of working in academia, me in my PJs, him in his underwear (he had been quite comfortable shuffling around the room like that all week, though not in a creepy way). The next day, I wandered around the conference halls thinking about how I'd feel if I met him again, back in a professional context, and the whole thing felt absolutely comical. I didn't see him again, though, but I still think of him as the Prof-I-Saw-In-Underpants and it brightens my day.

I worked in a building that was locked 24/7. I started noticing things going missing from the fridge, and the freezer had things that belonged to none of the researchers. I started trying to convince everyone that I thought someone was living in the building. There were private showers in the building, empty offices, it was perfect. No one believes me until we walked around and opened all the empty offices. There it was, a room filled with axe body spray, clothes, a computer, etc. An undergrad had been living in our locked building.

gtf1uq

askacademia_train

Human: out - if I left at my own volition the doors unlock behind me and anyone can enter. The desk was empty. No security guard. I looked around and down the hall was an open door with light coming out. I presumed it was the security offices or something. I peered around the corner and this is what I saw: The security guard from earlier sat naked on a chair, legs crossed, staring into space. The chair was in the middle of the room. It was an office, not a changing room. Embarassed, I walked away and was to about leave, but remembered I couldn't. I waited a few minutes and then approached again, this time making loud footsteps and knocking the wall. When I looked this time, the guard had gotten dressed and was buttoning his shirt. He asked if I was leaving and I said yes. He let me out and I left. I told my colleagues this, and now this is has become the highlight of my stay abroad. Even my hosts and colleagues in Spain first and foremost remember this incident better than anything else from my stay. The host professor wanted to know who it was, but I only saw the guard once after this, and none of my Spanish colleagues were with me that time. TL;DR walked in on naked security guard during stay abroad. Assistant:

fsbqcl1

fsbcr9f

Throw away because people that know me would recognize this list immediately! 1) During my first month as a lab tech a very prominent researcher in a neighboring lab became infected with the BSL2 pathogen they were working with and died within 24 hours. The floor was closed and we were under investigation by multiple agencies and eventually they found there were no systemic issues with safety. Unofficially it's assumed the pathogen entered their body while they took a medication in the lab. Their family visited and we had on campus services eulogies etc. Horrible for everyone in every way. 2) My second lab tech job, the professor "forgot" my agreement for employment was 20 months (not 24 months, because I would want to start graduate school after my second summer in the lab) so when I asked for a recommendation letter to apply to grad school he basically said no because he "only hires people who guarantee two full years in the lab, and if you go to grad school it will only be 20 months". Multiple post-docs in the lab (who I worked under) had to basically convince him that he was wrong and just didn't remember that he said that "I seemed so capable that I wouldn't need a lot of training time, so 20 months instead of 24 months isn't a big deal" when he hired me. Almost didn't get into grad school. 3) My first day as a rotation student in my PhD program there was a bomb threat on campus, while we were in lab meeting. The professor told us not to worry about it, it was probably just someone who didn't want to take their first exam of the semester, and we kept meeting! The entire campus was closed and evacuated, we could see the streets flooding with people from our office window, and no one said anything. As a the new guy I couldn't speak up. Someone's spouse saw it on the news and called/texted them basically demanding they leave. The prof. said "OK fine" and that one person left, no one else got up. Lab meeting ended and the professor said we could leave campus if we wanted to. Everyone left. Basically could have gotten blown up because the professor didn't want to obey a bomb threat evacuation order and no one else in the lab would stand up to say we should leave. I didn't join that lab. 4) Two members of this lab divorced their spouse/broke up with significant other to be together and are now married. 4) During one of my rotations one of the graduate students in the lab committed suicide in their home, unrelated to their PhD work. We found out when lab members went to check on them when they didn't show up to the lab. Family visited the lab, on and off campus services. Horrible for everyone. 5) In the lab I ended up joining, the professor got a new prof. job in a different state and moved mid-way during my PhD. 6) The first post-doc lab I joined, which I moved across the country for...the full tenured professor was "let go" with absolutely zero reason given to us as to why, which no amount of demanding to the prof, department, and president would reveal (private institution). The whole lab of almost 20 people shut down within 9 months of me joining. 7) Moved across the country again for my current and technically "second" post-doc and now there's a global pandemic. TLDR: I. AM. CURSED. People literally are dying or losing their jobs everywhere I go.

My weirdest experience was being in a locked lab where everyone else was older and more mature than me. Everyone else in lab was doing their own experiments and publishing papers. I had been the target of weird pranks in the lab, and I never suspected anyone in lab. Seriously everyone was mature and had like 10 years on me. Someone stole my phone when it was charging and put it in the chemical hood to charge. That was super creepy. Another time, I came late to my desk at 5 PM. There was only 3 people in lab. I went to the bathroom, and came back 10 minutes later to find someone put old quizzes and exams in my bag. These quizzes were dated 7 months old and belonged to another lab member who was out of the country.... Yet in that 10 minute span that I was gone, someone put prior old quizzes into my bag... I asked the 3 people in lab and they all had no idea. Plus they were all post docs who didn’t need the quizzes. So I was dumbfounded as to why or how the quizzes ended up in my bag in 10 minutes. It was super weird.

gtf1uq

askacademia_train

Human: What is the strangest thing that happened to you during your PhD? Here is mine. I spent three months abroad at a laboratory in Spain. The experiments required that I was there on the weekends. I only spoke a little Spanish and on weekends the university was practically empty except security, so I was often there alone. One weekend the security guard came down to the lab and started talking in Spanish to me. I couldn't follow everything he said, but I thought he said that he had to inspect a nearby building so my building would be empty for a while. A couple hours later I had finished for the day and went to the security desk. They have to lock you out - if I left at my own volition the doors unlock behind me and anyone can enter. The desk was empty. No security guard. I looked around and down the hall was an open door with light coming out. I presumed it was the security offices or something. I peered around the corner and this is what I saw: The security guard from earlier sat naked on a chair, legs crossed, staring into space. The chair was in the middle of the room. It was an office, not a changing room. Embarassed, I walked away and was to about leave, but remembered I couldn't. I waited a few minutes and then approached again, this time making loud footsteps and knocking the wall. When I looked this time, the guard had gotten dressed and was buttoning his shirt. He asked if I was leaving and I said yes. He let me out and I left. I told my colleagues this, and now this is has become the highlight of my stay abroad. Even my hosts and colleagues in Spain first and foremost remember this incident better than anything else from my stay. The host professor wanted to know who it was, but I only saw the guard once after this, and none of my Spanish colleagues were with me that time. TL;DR walked in on naked security guard during stay abroad. Assistant:

fsbv4d6

fsbcr9f

When I started my PhD there was a first-year guy from Nicaragua who I shared some classes with. He seemed smart but was a very odd fellow, he never talked to anybody outside of the classroom and inside it it seemed he felt he knew more than the professors. Entire class periods wasted on him arguing random shit with the professor in turn. He was extremely stubborn; if he had a preconceived concept or opinion no amount of evidence would change his mind. One day halfway into our first semester a couple of students and I finally managed to make some small talk with him. We asked him what were his goals and fields of interest. He said "I will not stop until I win the Nobel Prize for Computer Science". When we told him there was no such prize, he did not believe us (obviously). After like 20 minutes of arguing we showed him online that it, in fact, did not exist. He was SHOOK. His life mission cut short because he did not bother to do basic research before declaring it. Oh, and he did not care one bit for the Turing Award. It was Nobel or bust. That conversation was the last time any of us saw him.

My weirdest experience was being in a locked lab where everyone else was older and more mature than me. Everyone else in lab was doing their own experiments and publishing papers. I had been the target of weird pranks in the lab, and I never suspected anyone in lab. Seriously everyone was mature and had like 10 years on me. Someone stole my phone when it was charging and put it in the chemical hood to charge. That was super creepy. Another time, I came late to my desk at 5 PM. There was only 3 people in lab. I went to the bathroom, and came back 10 minutes later to find someone put old quizzes and exams in my bag. These quizzes were dated 7 months old and belonged to another lab member who was out of the country.... Yet in that 10 minute span that I was gone, someone put prior old quizzes into my bag... I asked the 3 people in lab and they all had no idea. Plus they were all post docs who didn’t need the quizzes. So I was dumbfounded as to why or how the quizzes ended up in my bag in 10 minutes. It was super weird.

gtf1uq

askacademia_train

Human: What is the strangest thing that happened to you during your PhD? Here is mine. I spent three months abroad at a laboratory in Spain. The experiments required that I was there on the weekends. I only spoke a little Spanish and on weekends the university was practically empty except security, so I was often there alone. One weekend the security guard came down to the lab and started talking in Spanish to me. I couldn't follow everything he said, but I thought he said that he had to inspect a nearby building so my building would be empty for a while. A couple hours later I had finished for the day and went to the security desk. They have to lock you out - if I left at my own volition the doors unlock behind me and anyone can enter. The desk was empty. No security guard. I looked around and down the hall was an open door with light coming out. I presumed it was the security offices or something. I peered around the corner and this is what I saw: The security guard from earlier sat naked on a chair, legs crossed, staring into space. The chair was in the middle of the room. It was an office, not a changing room. Embarassed, I walked away and was to about leave, but remembered I couldn't. I waited a few minutes and then approached again, this time making loud footsteps and knocking the wall. When I looked this time, the guard had gotten dressed and was buttoning his shirt. He asked if I was leaving and I said yes. He let me out and I left. I told my colleagues this, and now this is has become the highlight of my stay abroad. Even my hosts and colleagues in Spain first and foremost remember this incident better than anything else from my stay. The host professor wanted to know who it was, but I only saw the guard once after this, and none of my Spanish colleagues were with me that time. TL;DR walked in on naked security guard during stay abroad. Assistant:

fsbv4d6

fsbui4y

When I started my PhD there was a first-year guy from Nicaragua who I shared some classes with. He seemed smart but was a very odd fellow, he never talked to anybody outside of the classroom and inside it it seemed he felt he knew more than the professors. Entire class periods wasted on him arguing random shit with the professor in turn. He was extremely stubborn; if he had a preconceived concept or opinion no amount of evidence would change his mind. One day halfway into our first semester a couple of students and I finally managed to make some small talk with him. We asked him what were his goals and fields of interest. He said "I will not stop until I win the Nobel Prize for Computer Science". When we told him there was no such prize, he did not believe us (obviously). After like 20 minutes of arguing we showed him online that it, in fact, did not exist. He was SHOOK. His life mission cut short because he did not bother to do basic research before declaring it. Oh, and he did not care one bit for the Turing Award. It was Nobel or bust. That conversation was the last time any of us saw him.

It was the summer while I was writing up and so I had some weird hours. We had shared office spaces where it was a room for 8 people at bench desks with locking desk drawers. The office had a closing/lockable door from our lab and also had several bookshelves that lined the room. 12’ ceilings. Our lab had three total of these offices. Carpeted floors. One day I came in around 10am and people were in a panic in specifically our office. The flat surfaces of the entire room had been covered in... oil? There are 6+ grad students and post docs who couldn’t figure out what happened. We also didn’t know what kind of oil or where it came from, but it was definitely oil and it was definitely on all the flat surfaces. Talking a few hundred mL in total, so not a small amount either. The options for where it came from were the door itself, the air ducts, the sprinkler system and the lights, none of which made sense for the location of the most oil spots, spray pattern or amounts. That office had a locked door in a locked vestibule accessed by a separate key, so there were two locked doors to get into in our office and you could only get in our building/hallway via keycard access at two separate points. Our literal best guess was someone took some sort of oil, put it in a turkey basted or syringe and spun around in a Rollie-chair in the middle of the room while spraying a significant amount of oil everywhere. They were at least nice enough to roll the rest of the chairs out first since they were all clean? Still not likely, but yeah we had everything else ruled out for various reasons. Also, had I left my laptop there that night, it would have been oiled like everything else... and I defended later that summer. So glad I carted that sucker home. Tl;dr: our office got sprayed with oil and there’s no viable explanation for it

gtf1uq

askacademia_train

Human: What is the strangest thing that happened to you during your PhD? Here is mine. I spent three months abroad at a laboratory in Spain. The experiments required that I was there on the weekends. I only spoke a little Spanish and on weekends the university was practically empty except security, so I was often there alone. One weekend the security guard came down to the lab and started talking in Spanish to me. I couldn't follow everything he said, but I thought he said that he had to inspect a nearby building so my building would be empty for a while. A couple hours later I had finished for the day and went to the security desk. They have to lock you out - if I left at my own volition the doors unlock behind me and anyone can enter. The desk was empty. No security guard. I looked around and down the hall was an open door with light coming out. I presumed it was the security offices or something. I peered around the corner and this is what I saw: The security guard from earlier sat naked on a chair, legs crossed, staring into space. The chair was in the middle of the room. It was an office, not a changing room. Embarassed, I walked away and was to about leave, but remembered I couldn't. I waited a few minutes and then approached again, this time making loud footsteps and knocking the wall. When I looked this time, the guard had gotten dressed and was buttoning his shirt. He asked if I was leaving and I said yes. He let me out and I left. I told my colleagues this, and now this is has become the highlight of my stay abroad. Even my hosts and colleagues in Spain first and foremost remember this incident better than anything else from my stay. The host professor wanted to know who it was, but I only saw the guard once after this, and none of my Spanish colleagues were with me that time. TL;DR walked in on naked security guard during stay abroad. Assistant:

fsbea4s

fsbcr9f

I was in my second year and a new student came in to do a rotation. He was very eager about publishing and wrote up a commentary and asked me to read it before we submitted to our PI. The first citation was a link to his baking website...or rather pictures of him and a woman baking naked. For the record the topic was food materials. There were lots of photos of a bdsm baking session complete with rolling pins in private parts. He never joined our lab and the piece was never submitted. He also had a lot of sick cats he would talk about a lot... But that was long ago now.

My weirdest experience was being in a locked lab where everyone else was older and more mature than me. Everyone else in lab was doing their own experiments and publishing papers. I had been the target of weird pranks in the lab, and I never suspected anyone in lab. Seriously everyone was mature and had like 10 years on me. Someone stole my phone when it was charging and put it in the chemical hood to charge. That was super creepy. Another time, I came late to my desk at 5 PM. There was only 3 people in lab. I went to the bathroom, and came back 10 minutes later to find someone put old quizzes and exams in my bag. These quizzes were dated 7 months old and belonged to another lab member who was out of the country.... Yet in that 10 minute span that I was gone, someone put prior old quizzes into my bag... I asked the 3 people in lab and they all had no idea. Plus they were all post docs who didn’t need the quizzes. So I was dumbfounded as to why or how the quizzes ended up in my bag in 10 minutes. It was super weird.

oqx5qp

askacademia_train

Human: Is academia so competitive now that it's pointless to try if you aren't exceptional/remarkable? People will suggest to major in engineering instead of physics or mathematics due to academia being so extremely competitive. Has it reached a point to where if you're not, say, winning math olympiads during secondary school, you should probably not bother with a mathematics degree & academia, and instead default to engineering & industry instead? I'm wondering how the landscape looks for any and all fields right now, but especially STEM. Do you need to be effectively the #1 best applicant out of 300-3,000 applicants to recieve an offer? Do you actually need 1-3 post-doctoral positions to have a chance? Is all of that just hyperbole from bitter people? It reminds me of how some children in europe begin training at 5 years old in these expensive soccer camps, so that they can have a chance of being on a team when they grow up. Is that what it's like now? Are you competing with people like that? Assistant:

h6el3df

h6ehtnf

I don't think being exceptional/remarkable is as noteworthy as people make it out to be. Plenty of geniuses can't get a job. Plenty of them quit before they evem graduate Being average and knowing how to play the game (publishing, schmoozing with faculty, getting into tje right subfield, etc) is more important. Work ethic is more important etc

The top will always be competitive, no matter what field. I also suggest getting off the Internet and talking to some people who are doing what you want to be doing, and also those who are on the path but maybe not yet as far (ie not tenured but are in the grad program/postdoc/getting the experiences you want to have or feel you need to have). The Internet (and esp. reddit) is incredibly negative. I'm also kind of inclined to believe the people who are getting the jobs are NOT the ones freaking out about it on reddit/twitter/etc, so take that with a grain of salt. (and FWIW I am not in STEM but I pay attention)

oqx5qp

askacademia_train

Human: Is academia so competitive now that it's pointless to try if you aren't exceptional/remarkable? People will suggest to major in engineering instead of physics or mathematics due to academia being so extremely competitive. Has it reached a point to where if you're not, say, winning math olympiads during secondary school, you should probably not bother with a mathematics degree & academia, and instead default to engineering & industry instead? I'm wondering how the landscape looks for any and all fields right now, but especially STEM. Do you need to be effectively the #1 best applicant out of 300-3,000 applicants to recieve an offer? Do you actually need 1-3 post-doctoral positions to have a chance? Is all of that just hyperbole from bitter people? It reminds me of how some children in europe begin training at 5 years old in these expensive soccer camps, so that they can have a chance of being on a team when they grow up. Is that what it's like now? Are you competing with people like that? Assistant:

h6ehgn4

h6el3df

The top echelon of academia (regardless of the field) will always be competitive. It is up to you to decide if you're ok with a top 10 or a top 50 university. The right question to ask is, "are there enough jobs (both academia and industry) after a (insert major) degree". You could always end up in (say) finance with a math degree. It's just a question of identifying non-traditional career paths.

I don't think being exceptional/remarkable is as noteworthy as people make it out to be. Plenty of geniuses can't get a job. Plenty of them quit before they evem graduate Being average and knowing how to play the game (publishing, schmoozing with faculty, getting into tje right subfield, etc) is more important. Work ethic is more important etc

oqx5qp

askacademia_train

Human: Is academia so competitive now that it's pointless to try if you aren't exceptional/remarkable? People will suggest to major in engineering instead of physics or mathematics due to academia being so extremely competitive. Has it reached a point to where if you're not, say, winning math olympiads during secondary school, you should probably not bother with a mathematics degree & academia, and instead default to engineering & industry instead? I'm wondering how the landscape looks for any and all fields right now, but especially STEM. Do you need to be effectively the #1 best applicant out of 300-3,000 applicants to recieve an offer? Do you actually need 1-3 post-doctoral positions to have a chance? Is all of that just hyperbole from bitter people? It reminds me of how some children in europe begin training at 5 years old in these expensive soccer camps, so that they can have a chance of being on a team when they grow up. Is that what it's like now? Are you competing with people like that? Assistant:

h6ehmzv

h6el3df

My perspective as a fairly new (pre-tenure) EE faculty at a non-R1. 1) Yes, you need post docs unless you're an exceptional applicant in a few select fields (EE, CS). For something like physics or biology, the typical successful applicant will have 2 post docs from very reputable labs. I don't know the details for straight math faculty. 2) Yes, you need to be the best out of a large pool of applicants. In EE, the pool size seems to be about 200. My schools psych and philosophy departments also had about 200 applicants for their searches this year (physics wasn't hiring). However, being the most qualified doesn't just mean highest research output or smartest, it also entails being a good fit both in personality and specific subfield. 3) Math olympiads have nothing to do with research success. Most of our faculty were near the top of their class, but very few were engaged in anything competitive. Really, hiring committees will care very little about undergraduate activity and not at all about anything pre-University. Personally, I'm in EE/BME and I'm not especially good at math. I'm technically competent, but squeaked by in my advanced math courses. I am, however, very good at communicating my ideas, managing projects, and making people feel comfortable and confident. Being smart is less important than working hard and understanding "the game" of academia. 4) Many faculty candidates have been aiming for a faculty position since undergrad. Very few really started that path before then. I started targeting a faculty position my 2nd year of undergrad, got my name on a publication that same year and published at least once per year after that. I taught, took a pedagogy course, wrote and won grants, took R&D heavy internships, and built a substantial network of academic collaborations. My faculty job hunt was fairly easy: 3 offers from ~20 applications (I think, it could have been as few as 14 applications). Physics and math will likely be a more difficult hunt no matter what, especially if you want to be at a research intensive university.

I don't think being exceptional/remarkable is as noteworthy as people make it out to be. Plenty of geniuses can't get a job. Plenty of them quit before they evem graduate Being average and knowing how to play the game (publishing, schmoozing with faculty, getting into tje right subfield, etc) is more important. Work ethic is more important etc

oqx5qp

askacademia_train

Human: Is academia so competitive now that it's pointless to try if you aren't exceptional/remarkable? People will suggest to major in engineering instead of physics or mathematics due to academia being so extremely competitive. Has it reached a point to where if you're not, say, winning math olympiads during secondary school, you should probably not bother with a mathematics degree & academia, and instead default to engineering & industry instead? I'm wondering how the landscape looks for any and all fields right now, but especially STEM. Do you need to be effectively the #1 best applicant out of 300-3,000 applicants to recieve an offer? Do you actually need 1-3 post-doctoral positions to have a chance? Is all of that just hyperbole from bitter people? It reminds me of how some children in europe begin training at 5 years old in these expensive soccer camps, so that they can have a chance of being on a team when they grow up. Is that what it's like now? Are you competing with people like that? Assistant:

h6esfsl

h6f0yqc

>People will suggest to major in engineering instead of physics or mathematics due to academia being so extremely competitive. Has it reached a point to where if you're not, say, winning math olympiads during secondary school, Yes, it's very hard to get faculty positions in physics or mathematics, but winning math Olympiads secondary school is not the best predictor of success.

I'm not sure I can speak about math here. But as a professor in a social science, I can say with 100% certainty: if you are interested in going into academia in the humanities or social sciences, you absolutely ***must*** be exceptional and even being exceptional is no guarantee of success.

oqx5qp

askacademia_train

Human: Is academia so competitive now that it's pointless to try if you aren't exceptional/remarkable? People will suggest to major in engineering instead of physics or mathematics due to academia being so extremely competitive. Has it reached a point to where if you're not, say, winning math olympiads during secondary school, you should probably not bother with a mathematics degree & academia, and instead default to engineering & industry instead? I'm wondering how the landscape looks for any and all fields right now, but especially STEM. Do you need to be effectively the #1 best applicant out of 300-3,000 applicants to recieve an offer? Do you actually need 1-3 post-doctoral positions to have a chance? Is all of that just hyperbole from bitter people? It reminds me of how some children in europe begin training at 5 years old in these expensive soccer camps, so that they can have a chance of being on a team when they grow up. Is that what it's like now? Are you competing with people like that? Assistant:

h6f0yqc

h6epdqj

I'm not sure I can speak about math here. But as a professor in a social science, I can say with 100% certainty: if you are interested in going into academia in the humanities or social sciences, you absolutely ***must*** be exceptional and even being exceptional is no guarantee of success.

yes IMO

q3do6k

askacademia_train

Human: Why is academia so TOXIC? As title. Assistant:

hfr4h43

hfrjqga

I think a big part of it is that most people with PhDs have spent their whole life being told how smart they are, and getting the highest academic degree feeds into that. On top of that, you're the one at the front of the classroom, imparting your knowledge to everyone else, and you're often one of the smartest people in the room, if not the smartest. But far too many people take their expertise in one tiny little area to mean that they're equally knowledgeable about everything, instead of instilling the humility it should.

So a lot of the answers here are "competition" but the situations in which I have seen toxicity are generally not about people stabbing each other in the back or being resentful over the jobs or opportunities of others. The truly toxic people are usually those who don't have any direct competition, can get away with behavior that would get them in trouble in a different environment, and often have long-set grievances that may have nothing to do with the academic environment directly (e.g., their now-deceased parents didn't respect them enough) but somehow get expressed well in it. My own experience is that among professors there is a fair percentage of unchecked narcissists. I don't know if the absolute percentage of narcissists is higher than baseline (I could imagine why the academic selection system would favor narcissists, but this is just a pet theory), but I do think that they are more unchecked than you'd get at a lot of places. Even without tenure there is a high tolerance of awful behavior towards colleagues if your research is good, and certainly tenure can insulate people. I suspect you also get knock-off effects by what gets normalized at the "top" of fields and institutions; it is clear that some disciplines consider being nasty and aggressive to be a sign of "brilliance" and it is rewarded rather than shunned. I don't particularly think it is about there being too much competition or too little resources. My sense is that academia could be pretty toxic even before those kinds of conditions existed. The most toxic places I have seen have been those that are very close to the "top," where resources are relatively abundant and nobody is competing in a serious way anymore. To put it another way, in my experience, competition does lead to anxiety and that obviously can lead to some minor bad behavior and resentment. Certainly people who are actively on the job market and stressed about it can be ungenerous and difficult to be around, especially if they see their immediate peers doing well. I certainly was; I tried to just isolate myself from others when I felt particularly gloomy, because I had seen how some good colleagues who had a few months in which they temporarily unbearable when they were in that situation, but then they came out of it when they got a better sense of what their future might look like, even if it was just temporary (it's the uncertainty that is the anxiety-producer, that lack of control). But that kind of anxiety is not what I associate with "toxicity" — the toxic people are the people who have the solid jobs already, in my experience, but are bitter about the institution (for reasons justified or not), their colleagues (ditto), or their unattained goals (which may or may not be reasonable). More importantly, they are enabled to act on this bitterness, because their behavior is essentially unchecked. I would just note that this is one of those "be the change you want in the world" sorts of situations as well. I try to do a lot to be non-toxic, to be the very opposite of it. In some departments, the toxicity is just the defining aspect of it, and it self-perpetuates in terms of who they hire and how they act, but in some the toxicity can be isolated and minimized. Cultures can change, though. I have been sometimes impressed by the power of small attempts to improve things — even with regards to the toxic people themselves, who are used to their toxicity being reflected back at them in some way, and are sometimes quite disarmed by unexpected kindness as a result (your mileage may vary).

q3do6k

askacademia_train

Human: Why is academia so TOXIC? As title. Assistant:

hfrimg2

hfrjqga

Because it is disproportionately populated with extremely privileged people who have rarely had to interact with people in situations in which they werent in the advantageous position. Do y'all *reallllly* think academia is so much more taxing on your body, mind, and soul than, say, ohhhhhh working in a shitty blue collar job where your boss treats you like a stupid asshole and you have to put on a smile for fuckface customers all day? Do you really think academia is so much more taxing than working in fast food or a million other places? Haha, go work on a city work team and get back to me. It's just that people in academia, myself included, are not used to not being in control. Oh I'm so sorry. A stressful, underpaid work environment in which you are never quite sure what future opportunities will materialize? Yeah, welcome to the club.

So a lot of the answers here are "competition" but the situations in which I have seen toxicity are generally not about people stabbing each other in the back or being resentful over the jobs or opportunities of others. The truly toxic people are usually those who don't have any direct competition, can get away with behavior that would get them in trouble in a different environment, and often have long-set grievances that may have nothing to do with the academic environment directly (e.g., their now-deceased parents didn't respect them enough) but somehow get expressed well in it. My own experience is that among professors there is a fair percentage of unchecked narcissists. I don't know if the absolute percentage of narcissists is higher than baseline (I could imagine why the academic selection system would favor narcissists, but this is just a pet theory), but I do think that they are more unchecked than you'd get at a lot of places. Even without tenure there is a high tolerance of awful behavior towards colleagues if your research is good, and certainly tenure can insulate people. I suspect you also get knock-off effects by what gets normalized at the "top" of fields and institutions; it is clear that some disciplines consider being nasty and aggressive to be a sign of "brilliance" and it is rewarded rather than shunned. I don't particularly think it is about there being too much competition or too little resources. My sense is that academia could be pretty toxic even before those kinds of conditions existed. The most toxic places I have seen have been those that are very close to the "top," where resources are relatively abundant and nobody is competing in a serious way anymore. To put it another way, in my experience, competition does lead to anxiety and that obviously can lead to some minor bad behavior and resentment. Certainly people who are actively on the job market and stressed about it can be ungenerous and difficult to be around, especially if they see their immediate peers doing well. I certainly was; I tried to just isolate myself from others when I felt particularly gloomy, because I had seen how some good colleagues who had a few months in which they temporarily unbearable when they were in that situation, but then they came out of it when they got a better sense of what their future might look like, even if it was just temporary (it's the uncertainty that is the anxiety-producer, that lack of control). But that kind of anxiety is not what I associate with "toxicity" — the toxic people are the people who have the solid jobs already, in my experience, but are bitter about the institution (for reasons justified or not), their colleagues (ditto), or their unattained goals (which may or may not be reasonable). More importantly, they are enabled to act on this bitterness, because their behavior is essentially unchecked. I would just note that this is one of those "be the change you want in the world" sorts of situations as well. I try to do a lot to be non-toxic, to be the very opposite of it. In some departments, the toxicity is just the defining aspect of it, and it self-perpetuates in terms of who they hire and how they act, but in some the toxicity can be isolated and minimized. Cultures can change, though. I have been sometimes impressed by the power of small attempts to improve things — even with regards to the toxic people themselves, who are used to their toxicity being reflected back at them in some way, and are sometimes quite disarmed by unexpected kindness as a result (your mileage may vary).

q3do6k

askacademia_train

Human: Why is academia so TOXIC? As title. Assistant:

hfrjqga

hfrhvbd

So a lot of the answers here are "competition" but the situations in which I have seen toxicity are generally not about people stabbing each other in the back or being resentful over the jobs or opportunities of others. The truly toxic people are usually those who don't have any direct competition, can get away with behavior that would get them in trouble in a different environment, and often have long-set grievances that may have nothing to do with the academic environment directly (e.g., their now-deceased parents didn't respect them enough) but somehow get expressed well in it. My own experience is that among professors there is a fair percentage of unchecked narcissists. I don't know if the absolute percentage of narcissists is higher than baseline (I could imagine why the academic selection system would favor narcissists, but this is just a pet theory), but I do think that they are more unchecked than you'd get at a lot of places. Even without tenure there is a high tolerance of awful behavior towards colleagues if your research is good, and certainly tenure can insulate people. I suspect you also get knock-off effects by what gets normalized at the "top" of fields and institutions; it is clear that some disciplines consider being nasty and aggressive to be a sign of "brilliance" and it is rewarded rather than shunned. I don't particularly think it is about there being too much competition or too little resources. My sense is that academia could be pretty toxic even before those kinds of conditions existed. The most toxic places I have seen have been those that are very close to the "top," where resources are relatively abundant and nobody is competing in a serious way anymore. To put it another way, in my experience, competition does lead to anxiety and that obviously can lead to some minor bad behavior and resentment. Certainly people who are actively on the job market and stressed about it can be ungenerous and difficult to be around, especially if they see their immediate peers doing well. I certainly was; I tried to just isolate myself from others when I felt particularly gloomy, because I had seen how some good colleagues who had a few months in which they temporarily unbearable when they were in that situation, but then they came out of it when they got a better sense of what their future might look like, even if it was just temporary (it's the uncertainty that is the anxiety-producer, that lack of control). But that kind of anxiety is not what I associate with "toxicity" — the toxic people are the people who have the solid jobs already, in my experience, but are bitter about the institution (for reasons justified or not), their colleagues (ditto), or their unattained goals (which may or may not be reasonable). More importantly, they are enabled to act on this bitterness, because their behavior is essentially unchecked. I would just note that this is one of those "be the change you want in the world" sorts of situations as well. I try to do a lot to be non-toxic, to be the very opposite of it. In some departments, the toxicity is just the defining aspect of it, and it self-perpetuates in terms of who they hire and how they act, but in some the toxicity can be isolated and minimized. Cultures can change, though. I have been sometimes impressed by the power of small attempts to improve things — even with regards to the toxic people themselves, who are used to their toxicity being reflected back at them in some way, and are sometimes quite disarmed by unexpected kindness as a result (your mileage may vary).

The secret of STEM advanced degrees is that it’s more about competition and ego than the science itself. Those who make it to TT positions are the most driven by the competition. If you want to do cool stuff and be happy, you go into industry. Or at least this is my hot take as I finish my PhD in bio.

q3do6k

askacademia_train

Human: Why is academia so TOXIC? As title. Assistant:

hfr891m

hfrjqga

invincibility from tenure, ego, entitlement, ego, celebrity status

So a lot of the answers here are "competition" but the situations in which I have seen toxicity are generally not about people stabbing each other in the back or being resentful over the jobs or opportunities of others. The truly toxic people are usually those who don't have any direct competition, can get away with behavior that would get them in trouble in a different environment, and often have long-set grievances that may have nothing to do with the academic environment directly (e.g., their now-deceased parents didn't respect them enough) but somehow get expressed well in it. My own experience is that among professors there is a fair percentage of unchecked narcissists. I don't know if the absolute percentage of narcissists is higher than baseline (I could imagine why the academic selection system would favor narcissists, but this is just a pet theory), but I do think that they are more unchecked than you'd get at a lot of places. Even without tenure there is a high tolerance of awful behavior towards colleagues if your research is good, and certainly tenure can insulate people. I suspect you also get knock-off effects by what gets normalized at the "top" of fields and institutions; it is clear that some disciplines consider being nasty and aggressive to be a sign of "brilliance" and it is rewarded rather than shunned. I don't particularly think it is about there being too much competition or too little resources. My sense is that academia could be pretty toxic even before those kinds of conditions existed. The most toxic places I have seen have been those that are very close to the "top," where resources are relatively abundant and nobody is competing in a serious way anymore. To put it another way, in my experience, competition does lead to anxiety and that obviously can lead to some minor bad behavior and resentment. Certainly people who are actively on the job market and stressed about it can be ungenerous and difficult to be around, especially if they see their immediate peers doing well. I certainly was; I tried to just isolate myself from others when I felt particularly gloomy, because I had seen how some good colleagues who had a few months in which they temporarily unbearable when they were in that situation, but then they came out of it when they got a better sense of what their future might look like, even if it was just temporary (it's the uncertainty that is the anxiety-producer, that lack of control). But that kind of anxiety is not what I associate with "toxicity" — the toxic people are the people who have the solid jobs already, in my experience, but are bitter about the institution (for reasons justified or not), their colleagues (ditto), or their unattained goals (which may or may not be reasonable). More importantly, they are enabled to act on this bitterness, because their behavior is essentially unchecked. I would just note that this is one of those "be the change you want in the world" sorts of situations as well. I try to do a lot to be non-toxic, to be the very opposite of it. In some departments, the toxicity is just the defining aspect of it, and it self-perpetuates in terms of who they hire and how they act, but in some the toxicity can be isolated and minimized. Cultures can change, though. I have been sometimes impressed by the power of small attempts to improve things — even with regards to the toxic people themselves, who are used to their toxicity being reflected back at them in some way, and are sometimes quite disarmed by unexpected kindness as a result (your mileage may vary).

q3do6k

askacademia_train

Human: Why is academia so TOXIC? As title. Assistant:

hfr891m

hfrimg2

invincibility from tenure, ego, entitlement, ego, celebrity status

Because it is disproportionately populated with extremely privileged people who have rarely had to interact with people in situations in which they werent in the advantageous position. Do y'all *reallllly* think academia is so much more taxing on your body, mind, and soul than, say, ohhhhhh working in a shitty blue collar job where your boss treats you like a stupid asshole and you have to put on a smile for fuckface customers all day? Do you really think academia is so much more taxing than working in fast food or a million other places? Haha, go work on a city work team and get back to me. It's just that people in academia, myself included, are not used to not being in control. Oh I'm so sorry. A stressful, underpaid work environment in which you are never quite sure what future opportunities will materialize? Yeah, welcome to the club.

hbkrzh

askacademia_train

Human: Academia made me forget how to read, need advice This is my 3rd year working in a research lab (am STEM grad student). I've downloaded and read/skimmed at least 200 papers on my research topic (or related topics) at this point. But I think there's something seriously wrong with me - I can't seem to be able to read more than two paragraphs at a time nowadays. Skimming papers at a rapid rate to finish my literature reviews and satisfy my PI has conditioned me to skim, and I think I've forgotten how to actually read a piece of text. I literally have to force myself to resist the temptation of skimming to actually get through a paragraph. I've also pretty much stopped reading anything that isn't social media or research papers. This sucks. I used to be someone who read widely and for pleasure, going through an average of like 5-10 novels or paperbacks a month. Now, it's a pain to even get through one. Any advice? Assistant:

fv9e2gq

fv9evmo

I don’t know if this would help but my postdoc creates PowerPoint documents (themed by topic) of papers with important notes/figures relevant to the claims in the paper. Alternatively, I make sure to write notes on each figure of a paper. It helps me think critically and slow down. Or you could try to read some really fun/unique (not necessarily relevant) papers. Might pique your interest in reading again :).

I also lost my ability to read for pleasure after grad school, now I’m about a year and a half out and I’ve only slogged through a handful of books since finished whereas in the past I’d have finished maybe a dozen or so in that same time period. I think it’s maybe something to do with the joylessness of reading academic articles. I’ve never felt satisfied reading an academic article, the feeling I get after finishing one is a combination of drained and skeptical.

hbkrzh

askacademia_train

Human: Academia made me forget how to read, need advice This is my 3rd year working in a research lab (am STEM grad student). I've downloaded and read/skimmed at least 200 papers on my research topic (or related topics) at this point. But I think there's something seriously wrong with me - I can't seem to be able to read more than two paragraphs at a time nowadays. Skimming papers at a rapid rate to finish my literature reviews and satisfy my PI has conditioned me to skim, and I think I've forgotten how to actually read a piece of text. I literally have to force myself to resist the temptation of skimming to actually get through a paragraph. I've also pretty much stopped reading anything that isn't social media or research papers. This sucks. I used to be someone who read widely and for pleasure, going through an average of like 5-10 novels or paperbacks a month. Now, it's a pain to even get through one. Any advice? Assistant:

fv9ry45

fv9jtoe

Exact same boat. Didn't ever read your post tbh.

I feel the same, I still find myself skimming novels to this day. I think it's important to designate some time to yourself, think of reading kind of like pampering. Make sure you've got a relaxing space, you're not likely to be interrupted and you're reading something you know you want to read, especially as you're getting back into it. Maybe something you've read before or if you don't like re-reading then a favourite author or comfortable genre. If you're starting to feel yourself skim, start reading aloud, like you're telling the story/text to someone else. This may seem strange but it's the best way to slow yourself down and it makes you pay attention to the words and the image they're painting.

hbkrzh

askacademia_train

Human: Academia made me forget how to read, need advice This is my 3rd year working in a research lab (am STEM grad student). I've downloaded and read/skimmed at least 200 papers on my research topic (or related topics) at this point. But I think there's something seriously wrong with me - I can't seem to be able to read more than two paragraphs at a time nowadays. Skimming papers at a rapid rate to finish my literature reviews and satisfy my PI has conditioned me to skim, and I think I've forgotten how to actually read a piece of text. I literally have to force myself to resist the temptation of skimming to actually get through a paragraph. I've also pretty much stopped reading anything that isn't social media or research papers. This sucks. I used to be someone who read widely and for pleasure, going through an average of like 5-10 novels or paperbacks a month. Now, it's a pain to even get through one. Any advice? Assistant:

fv9ry45

fv9e2gq

Exact same boat. Didn't ever read your post tbh.

I don’t know if this would help but my postdoc creates PowerPoint documents (themed by topic) of papers with important notes/figures relevant to the claims in the paper. Alternatively, I make sure to write notes on each figure of a paper. It helps me think critically and slow down. Or you could try to read some really fun/unique (not necessarily relevant) papers. Might pique your interest in reading again :).

hbkrzh

askacademia_train

Human: Academia made me forget how to read, need advice This is my 3rd year working in a research lab (am STEM grad student). I've downloaded and read/skimmed at least 200 papers on my research topic (or related topics) at this point. But I think there's something seriously wrong with me - I can't seem to be able to read more than two paragraphs at a time nowadays. Skimming papers at a rapid rate to finish my literature reviews and satisfy my PI has conditioned me to skim, and I think I've forgotten how to actually read a piece of text. I literally have to force myself to resist the temptation of skimming to actually get through a paragraph. I've also pretty much stopped reading anything that isn't social media or research papers. This sucks. I used to be someone who read widely and for pleasure, going through an average of like 5-10 novels or paperbacks a month. Now, it's a pain to even get through one. Any advice? Assistant:

fv9jtoe

fv9e2gq

I feel the same, I still find myself skimming novels to this day. I think it's important to designate some time to yourself, think of reading kind of like pampering. Make sure you've got a relaxing space, you're not likely to be interrupted and you're reading something you know you want to read, especially as you're getting back into it. Maybe something you've read before or if you don't like re-reading then a favourite author or comfortable genre. If you're starting to feel yourself skim, start reading aloud, like you're telling the story/text to someone else. This may seem strange but it's the best way to slow yourself down and it makes you pay attention to the words and the image they're painting.

I don’t know if this would help but my postdoc creates PowerPoint documents (themed by topic) of papers with important notes/figures relevant to the claims in the paper. Alternatively, I make sure to write notes on each figure of a paper. It helps me think critically and slow down. Or you could try to read some really fun/unique (not necessarily relevant) papers. Might pique your interest in reading again :).

hbkrzh

askacademia_train

Human: Academia made me forget how to read, need advice This is my 3rd year working in a research lab (am STEM grad student). I've downloaded and read/skimmed at least 200 papers on my research topic (or related topics) at this point. But I think there's something seriously wrong with me - I can't seem to be able to read more than two paragraphs at a time nowadays. Skimming papers at a rapid rate to finish my literature reviews and satisfy my PI has conditioned me to skim, and I think I've forgotten how to actually read a piece of text. I literally have to force myself to resist the temptation of skimming to actually get through a paragraph. I've also pretty much stopped reading anything that isn't social media or research papers. This sucks. I used to be someone who read widely and for pleasure, going through an average of like 5-10 novels or paperbacks a month. Now, it's a pain to even get through one. Any advice? Assistant:

fv9t9nm

fv9tdbt

Audiobooks!!! They are, for some reason different. Until I get out of this mess, and my brain has dome time to recover, I'm sticking to the . Podcasts and audiobooks work very well, both for my often tired eyes, and for what I can only describe as attention deficit. It gives me the opportunity to walk or fiddle with something in my hands, which makes me calmer and more focused. Hope that this helps!

I still work in research 11 years after grad school and find that I can't read anymore. I do too much of it for work. Instead, I've had to switch to audiobooks. Hopefully it will get better for you, but for me it has only gotten worse with time...