Datasets:

Dahoas

/

filtered-SHP

like 2

gfp87y

askacademia_train

Human: Do you find that many people in academia have "tunnel vision" where they are excessively preoccupied with their field of study and that critical thinking doesn't transfer to other domains? It would appear at first glance that the skills of reading a technical paper and logically critiquing it would generalize to thinking rationally in other areas of life as well. However, I've increasingly seen that many professors are often able to be brilliant in their own field, while having silly opinions in real life, apparently without experiencing much cognitive dissonance (of course, this is a generalization...). The kinds of arguments that they advance for their opinions in real life would get them laughed out of the park if they were applied to their own field of scientific inquiry. I have a strong suspicion that academia self-selects for those people who are highly intelligent but have "tunnel vision" in the sense of having singular interests (or very narrow interests) and are rather conformist in their beliefs otherwise. Is it just me? What has been your experience? Have you felt the same way? (For my background: I'm a STEM masters student, and this came up quite often in a group consisting of masters and PhD students.) Assistant:

fpv6ooe

fpvaw5o

I see you've met my MIL.

Relevant comic.

gfp87y

askacademia_train

Human: Do you find that many people in academia have "tunnel vision" where they are excessively preoccupied with their field of study and that critical thinking doesn't transfer to other domains? It would appear at first glance that the skills of reading a technical paper and logically critiquing it would generalize to thinking rationally in other areas of life as well. However, I've increasingly seen that many professors are often able to be brilliant in their own field, while having silly opinions in real life, apparently without experiencing much cognitive dissonance (of course, this is a generalization...). The kinds of arguments that they advance for their opinions in real life would get them laughed out of the park if they were applied to their own field of scientific inquiry. I have a strong suspicion that academia self-selects for those people who are highly intelligent but have "tunnel vision" in the sense of having singular interests (or very narrow interests) and are rather conformist in their beliefs otherwise. Is it just me? What has been your experience? Have you felt the same way? (For my background: I'm a STEM masters student, and this came up quite often in a group consisting of masters and PhD students.) Assistant:

fpv6ooe

fpv8jsf

I see you've met my MIL.

Judging from: * my one colleague insisting that artificial sweeteners "give you cancer" * my colleagues that ignore decades of evidence-based educational knowledge in the design of their courses * my colleagues utterly incapable of seeing the relative merits of methodological approaches from other domains I'd say... yeah.

qv0vgv

askacademia_train

Human: Why has college become so expensive over the last 40 years? How and why could the price of attending college rise over 5x the rate of inflation- where does all the money go? What’s changed between now and then in the university business model? Assistant:

hku27vx

hktuacj

1. Steadily less state funding in UK and US 2. Ever-increasing administrative strata 3. Increased pay and benefits for executive class 4. Massive infrastructure investment to attract and accommodate ever-increasing intake

This is something specific to the US, not college in general. In most countries tuition fees for public colleges/universities are tightly regulated and either modest or nothing. The reason is supply and demand: people have more money than they used to, more people want a college education, but the number of places at reputable colleges has not increased that much. At the same time, local governments in the US have often scaled back financial support of higher education.

qv0vgv

askacademia_train

Human: Why has college become so expensive over the last 40 years? How and why could the price of attending college rise over 5x the rate of inflation- where does all the money go? What’s changed between now and then in the university business model? Assistant:

hku27vx

hktvbri

1. Steadily less state funding in UK and US 2. Ever-increasing administrative strata 3. Increased pay and benefits for executive class 4. Massive infrastructure investment to attract and accommodate ever-increasing intake

\*American college

qv0vgv

askacademia_train

Human: Why has college become so expensive over the last 40 years? How and why could the price of attending college rise over 5x the rate of inflation- where does all the money go? What’s changed between now and then in the university business model? Assistant:

hktsb7v

hku27vx

A lot of the answers here are good and it's likely that most of them have merits. Colleges are charging more just because they can and administrators know they can squeeze every dime out of students. Student loans are a blank check to them. Not to mention many jobs require a degree even if you don't need one to do the job so there is way more demand than in the past. Colleges offer much more than just an education. Amazing dorms. State of the art gyms. Beautiful buildings. Leisure pools. Decent food. Concerts and events. These things attract students but they also cost money. There are more administrators/non-academic staff and they get paid more than in the past. This is a huge expense. Schools get less money from the government, including state governments. It's my understanding that Gen Z will attend college at a much lower rate than Millennials. I wonder if that and the growth of community colleges will even out the costs.

1. Steadily less state funding in UK and US 2. Ever-increasing administrative strata 3. Increased pay and benefits for executive class 4. Massive infrastructure investment to attract and accommodate ever-increasing intake

qv0vgv

askacademia_train

Human: Why has college become so expensive over the last 40 years? How and why could the price of attending college rise over 5x the rate of inflation- where does all the money go? What’s changed between now and then in the university business model? Assistant:

hku27vx

hktz4ag

1. Steadily less state funding in UK and US 2. Ever-increasing administrative strata 3. Increased pay and benefits for executive class 4. Massive infrastructure investment to attract and accommodate ever-increasing intake

Coming from a country where university is free, can’t tell you how astonished I was when finding out how messed up the situation is in the US

qv0vgv

askacademia_train

Human: Why has college become so expensive over the last 40 years? How and why could the price of attending college rise over 5x the rate of inflation- where does all the money go? What’s changed between now and then in the university business model? Assistant:

hku27vx

hktpqjk

1. Steadily less state funding in UK and US 2. Ever-increasing administrative strata 3. Increased pay and benefits for executive class 4. Massive infrastructure investment to attract and accommodate ever-increasing intake

I work at a state university, and I've thought about this a lot. ​ My take is because of what the students demand. The university I work at recently built a library. Did they build a normal library? Nope. Every part of it was turned up to an 11. They also recently built a brand new recreation center. Did they build an average recreation center? Nope. They built one of the nicest ones in all of the country. Then they built a lot of new dorms. Did they build typical dorms? Nope. They built what essentially look like luxury dorms. Add in all of the costs of maintaining these places and staffing them and whatever else is required and you can start to imagine why the prices rise quickly. ​ If they didn't build these, though, the students would go somewhere else where these are already built. After all, wouldn't you want to live in a luxury dorm while studying at a luxury library and working out (maybe?) at a luxury gym if your parents or future you is paying for it? ​ If the students demanded low cost amenities for low cost education then they'd get that. But they don't. So they get high prices with luxury amenities. I think that makes sense, but they should be more honest about what they are demanding when they look at the costs. If you complain about it while reluctantly writing the checks, then the checks are still being written and nothing will change.

lwzzfd

askacademia_train

Human: How do you handle unsupportive parents? Hello! I'm a microbiologist who's about to begin my PhD next fall (yay!). I've had a very successful undergraduate career, including working on science outreach. My parents always act/say that they are ~so proud of me~ but their actions state otherwise. I've had several science-derived arguments with my parents whom are not scientists and don't know even basic biology. Flash forward to the present; I'm putting on a virtual course as a part of my certificate/fellowship that discusses pandemics. My parents both signed up for the course and have helped advertise the class. My aunt recently warned me that my dad said he was studying up so that he could 'call me out' if he didn't agree with anything I said in the course. In the entrance poll, he wrote he was hoping to learn proof that masks don't work. So, obviously his participation in this course is for the purpose of digging at me. I've resolved to the fact that though my parents want to act supportive and I've felt like I've made breakthroughs with them, at the end of the day they don't really care how they make me feel. Nor do they truly believe in or support science, my work, or me. I don't want to spend the emotional labor to truly cut off my parents, but it's exhausting constantly getting picked on by them. Has anyone else dealt with a similar situation? I feel so alone because all of my academic friends' parents are either academics themselves or are so so supportive. Assistant:

gpk9t9q

gpkeupj

I recommend not including your parents in so much of your life. That doesn't necessarily mean cutting them off - but I think for everyone it is healthier if their parents aren't front-and-center in everything. Your parents don't have to be invited to every event you host or know about everything that's happening - even if they are very supportive. Part of being supportive is allowing the child to have her own independent life, too. My parents are unsupportive in a different way to yours (and they are both doctors, btw, just to address your assumption that highly educated parents are automatically highly supportive), but what helped me most was having firm boundaries around how and where we interact. This has meant that I don't discuss certain subjects with my parents and have had to develop a support network outside of my parents - which imo is better on net anyway. It has taken my parents a lot of time to adjust to this new dynamic, but I think our relationship is calmer and more productive as a result. A surprising bonus of this approach has been that my parents started to see me as an adult and respect me as a professional when they saw that I was handling my business with 0 "support" from them (which was never really support but they thought it was simply because I included them). Obviously, I am not saying that this will work for all families and all abuse dynamics. > Nor do they truly believe in or support science, my work, or me. Truth is a multifaceted thing. They may intend to believe in and support you, but their impact may be different from their intent. I think everyone who has unsupportive parents went through a phase where they compared their family to families that seem happy and wished things were different or even tried to make them different, but, at least for me, a big part of growing up has been accepting that I must meet everyone where they are. Accepting that I have the parents I got has freed me and I think them from my expectations of how they and our relationship should be different, and it allowed me to respect that some of the fucked up shit they did they did because they thought it would benefit me. That doesn't mean I've forgiven that shit, and it doesn't mean that our relationship is rainbows and roses - in fact, I think it will always be strained - but it has helped me be more at peace with my past and more confident in my ability to be the person I want to be.

I find it very weird that your parents would sign up for your course. It's a recipe for disaster to mix a teaching relationship with a family relationship even if the latter is good, so in your case...

lwzzfd

askacademia_train

Human: How do you handle unsupportive parents? Hello! I'm a microbiologist who's about to begin my PhD next fall (yay!). I've had a very successful undergraduate career, including working on science outreach. My parents always act/say that they are ~so proud of me~ but their actions state otherwise. I've had several science-derived arguments with my parents whom are not scientists and don't know even basic biology. Flash forward to the present; I'm putting on a virtual course as a part of my certificate/fellowship that discusses pandemics. My parents both signed up for the course and have helped advertise the class. My aunt recently warned me that my dad said he was studying up so that he could 'call me out' if he didn't agree with anything I said in the course. In the entrance poll, he wrote he was hoping to learn proof that masks don't work. So, obviously his participation in this course is for the purpose of digging at me. I've resolved to the fact that though my parents want to act supportive and I've felt like I've made breakthroughs with them, at the end of the day they don't really care how they make me feel. Nor do they truly believe in or support science, my work, or me. I don't want to spend the emotional labor to truly cut off my parents, but it's exhausting constantly getting picked on by them. Has anyone else dealt with a similar situation? I feel so alone because all of my academic friends' parents are either academics themselves or are so so supportive. Assistant:

gpk8s53

gpkeupj

the ideal would be to communicate this with them... but if they cant seem to be supportive, I feel like not talking about your job with them could be less bad

I find it very weird that your parents would sign up for your course. It's a recipe for disaster to mix a teaching relationship with a family relationship even if the latter is good, so in your case...

lwzzfd

askacademia_train

Human: How do you handle unsupportive parents? Hello! I'm a microbiologist who's about to begin my PhD next fall (yay!). I've had a very successful undergraduate career, including working on science outreach. My parents always act/say that they are ~so proud of me~ but their actions state otherwise. I've had several science-derived arguments with my parents whom are not scientists and don't know even basic biology. Flash forward to the present; I'm putting on a virtual course as a part of my certificate/fellowship that discusses pandemics. My parents both signed up for the course and have helped advertise the class. My aunt recently warned me that my dad said he was studying up so that he could 'call me out' if he didn't agree with anything I said in the course. In the entrance poll, he wrote he was hoping to learn proof that masks don't work. So, obviously his participation in this course is for the purpose of digging at me. I've resolved to the fact that though my parents want to act supportive and I've felt like I've made breakthroughs with them, at the end of the day they don't really care how they make me feel. Nor do they truly believe in or support science, my work, or me. I don't want to spend the emotional labor to truly cut off my parents, but it's exhausting constantly getting picked on by them. Has anyone else dealt with a similar situation? I feel so alone because all of my academic friends' parents are either academics themselves or are so so supportive. Assistant:

gpk9t9q

gpk8s53

I recommend not including your parents in so much of your life. That doesn't necessarily mean cutting them off - but I think for everyone it is healthier if their parents aren't front-and-center in everything. Your parents don't have to be invited to every event you host or know about everything that's happening - even if they are very supportive. Part of being supportive is allowing the child to have her own independent life, too. My parents are unsupportive in a different way to yours (and they are both doctors, btw, just to address your assumption that highly educated parents are automatically highly supportive), but what helped me most was having firm boundaries around how and where we interact. This has meant that I don't discuss certain subjects with my parents and have had to develop a support network outside of my parents - which imo is better on net anyway. It has taken my parents a lot of time to adjust to this new dynamic, but I think our relationship is calmer and more productive as a result. A surprising bonus of this approach has been that my parents started to see me as an adult and respect me as a professional when they saw that I was handling my business with 0 "support" from them (which was never really support but they thought it was simply because I included them). Obviously, I am not saying that this will work for all families and all abuse dynamics. > Nor do they truly believe in or support science, my work, or me. Truth is a multifaceted thing. They may intend to believe in and support you, but their impact may be different from their intent. I think everyone who has unsupportive parents went through a phase where they compared their family to families that seem happy and wished things were different or even tried to make them different, but, at least for me, a big part of growing up has been accepting that I must meet everyone where they are. Accepting that I have the parents I got has freed me and I think them from my expectations of how they and our relationship should be different, and it allowed me to respect that some of the fucked up shit they did they did because they thought it would benefit me. That doesn't mean I've forgiven that shit, and it doesn't mean that our relationship is rainbows and roses - in fact, I think it will always be strained - but it has helped me be more at peace with my past and more confident in my ability to be the person I want to be.

the ideal would be to communicate this with them... but if they cant seem to be supportive, I feel like not talking about your job with them could be less bad

lwzzfd

askacademia_train

Human: How do you handle unsupportive parents? Hello! I'm a microbiologist who's about to begin my PhD next fall (yay!). I've had a very successful undergraduate career, including working on science outreach. My parents always act/say that they are ~so proud of me~ but their actions state otherwise. I've had several science-derived arguments with my parents whom are not scientists and don't know even basic biology. Flash forward to the present; I'm putting on a virtual course as a part of my certificate/fellowship that discusses pandemics. My parents both signed up for the course and have helped advertise the class. My aunt recently warned me that my dad said he was studying up so that he could 'call me out' if he didn't agree with anything I said in the course. In the entrance poll, he wrote he was hoping to learn proof that masks don't work. So, obviously his participation in this course is for the purpose of digging at me. I've resolved to the fact that though my parents want to act supportive and I've felt like I've made breakthroughs with them, at the end of the day they don't really care how they make me feel. Nor do they truly believe in or support science, my work, or me. I don't want to spend the emotional labor to truly cut off my parents, but it's exhausting constantly getting picked on by them. Has anyone else dealt with a similar situation? I feel so alone because all of my academic friends' parents are either academics themselves or are so so supportive. Assistant:

gpkrytw

gpl6b4p

I'm pretty much on team, "cut out anyone who costs you emotionally." I hope things work out well for you but they don't seem like the type I'd keep around.

Part of growing up is realizing that our parents can be f\*\*\*ing idiots and that there is no way of changing that. Move along and carve your own path. Congrats on starting your Ph.D.

lwzzfd

askacademia_train

Human: How do you handle unsupportive parents? Hello! I'm a microbiologist who's about to begin my PhD next fall (yay!). I've had a very successful undergraduate career, including working on science outreach. My parents always act/say that they are ~so proud of me~ but their actions state otherwise. I've had several science-derived arguments with my parents whom are not scientists and don't know even basic biology. Flash forward to the present; I'm putting on a virtual course as a part of my certificate/fellowship that discusses pandemics. My parents both signed up for the course and have helped advertise the class. My aunt recently warned me that my dad said he was studying up so that he could 'call me out' if he didn't agree with anything I said in the course. In the entrance poll, he wrote he was hoping to learn proof that masks don't work. So, obviously his participation in this course is for the purpose of digging at me. I've resolved to the fact that though my parents want to act supportive and I've felt like I've made breakthroughs with them, at the end of the day they don't really care how they make me feel. Nor do they truly believe in or support science, my work, or me. I don't want to spend the emotional labor to truly cut off my parents, but it's exhausting constantly getting picked on by them. Has anyone else dealt with a similar situation? I feel so alone because all of my academic friends' parents are either academics themselves or are so so supportive. Assistant:

gpl6b4p

gpkfor8

Part of growing up is realizing that our parents can be f\*\*\*ing idiots and that there is no way of changing that. Move along and carve your own path. Congrats on starting your Ph.D.

I'm sorry that you're dealing with this. The disparity between their outward support versus what clearly is not supportive sounds particularly taxing. One thing to consider is having some ground rules / boundaries with your parents. For example, a boundary may be that you do not discuss your work with them, given your parents going to lengths most would not to attack your work. If all of you were to agree to that, then you could discuss all sorts of things (TV shows/movies, food, nature, relationships, etc.) without getting into a topic that requires so much emotional labor on your part. (How practical that is depends upon to what extent this is an isolated incident, e.g., you have a decent relationship with your parents outside of their anti-scientific attitudes, versus whether their boundary crossing and putting down of what you do is more pervasive.) Ultimately, it is up to you to decide what kind of relationship you would like with your parents going forward. But you do not have to let them into every part of your life, especially parts of your life in which they are hostile.

zodqmp

askacademia_train

Human: What are some websites every researcher should know? I wanted to actually ask how popular and useful are websites like ResearchGate and Academia, but just wondering what are some social websites you recommend every researcher should know. Thanks. Assistant:

j0mp3fg

j0mqjv6

https://www.researchprofessional.com/ A good resource for research funding one might not have thought of. Also Science Magazine careers website is full of excellent advice. https://www.science.org/careers

https://www.researchrabbit.ai/ Add papers to a collection and it'll start suggesting related ones. Good for writing reviews or exploring fields that are new to you. It's also completely free.

zodqmp

askacademia_train

Human: What are some websites every researcher should know? I wanted to actually ask how popular and useful are websites like ResearchGate and Academia, but just wondering what are some social websites you recommend every researcher should know. Thanks. Assistant:

j0mqjv6

j0mi7al

https://www.researchrabbit.ai/ Add papers to a collection and it'll start suggesting related ones. Good for writing reviews or exploring fields that are new to you. It's also completely free.

consensus

zodqmp

askacademia_train

Human: What are some websites every researcher should know? I wanted to actually ask how popular and useful are websites like ResearchGate and Academia, but just wondering what are some social websites you recommend every researcher should know. Thanks. Assistant:

j0mqjv6

j0mo5mu

https://www.researchrabbit.ai/ Add papers to a collection and it'll start suggesting related ones. Good for writing reviews or exploring fields that are new to you. It's also completely free.

European Research council

zodqmp

askacademia_train

Human: What are some websites every researcher should know? I wanted to actually ask how popular and useful are websites like ResearchGate and Academia, but just wondering what are some social websites you recommend every researcher should know. Thanks. Assistant:

j0mp3fg

j0n42af

https://www.researchprofessional.com/ A good resource for research funding one might not have thought of. Also Science Magazine careers website is full of excellent advice. https://www.science.org/careers

Zotero (not exactly a website, but essential all the same)

zodqmp

askacademia_train

Human: What are some websites every researcher should know? I wanted to actually ask how popular and useful are websites like ResearchGate and Academia, but just wondering what are some social websites you recommend every researcher should know. Thanks. Assistant:

j0n42af

j0n3s9l

Zotero (not exactly a website, but essential all the same)

Crossref to search DOIs https://www.crossref.org

d2zfa0

askacademia_train

Human: Do you get jealous of people who study what you don't? I am a doctoral student studying climate change. I know academicians aren't supposed to be experts on all topics out there. Although, I have this constant thought in the back of my head that it's sad that I don't know topics such as machine learning, quantum mechanics etc in detail although I don't have to. Does anybody here feel the same way? That we are missing out on 'cool stuff'? Assistant:

ezxvgmi

ezxu5rz

every time I look at job listings.

Assistant Prof here. Yes. I feel like I know nothing.

d2zfa0

askacademia_train

Human: Do you get jealous of people who study what you don't? I am a doctoral student studying climate change. I know academicians aren't supposed to be experts on all topics out there. Although, I have this constant thought in the back of my head that it's sad that I don't know topics such as machine learning, quantum mechanics etc in detail although I don't have to. Does anybody here feel the same way? That we are missing out on 'cool stuff'? Assistant:

ezxvgmi

ezxq9jh

every time I look at job listings.

Yep. Becoming an expert in one area necessarily means you can keep up with developments in another, but there will be time to catch up later! This is why it's good to have colleagues from other specialties, other people may actually be interested to hear what the other are working on.

d2zfa0

askacademia_train

Human: Do you get jealous of people who study what you don't? I am a doctoral student studying climate change. I know academicians aren't supposed to be experts on all topics out there. Although, I have this constant thought in the back of my head that it's sad that I don't know topics such as machine learning, quantum mechanics etc in detail although I don't have to. Does anybody here feel the same way? That we are missing out on 'cool stuff'? Assistant:

ezxq9jh

ezy0wsf

Yep. Becoming an expert in one area necessarily means you can keep up with developments in another, but there will be time to catch up later! This is why it's good to have colleagues from other specialties, other people may actually be interested to hear what the other are working on.

Yes. Damn cancer researchers, soaking up all that valuable funding for unimportant things like "saving lives" and "making the world a better place". *I'm not bitter I swear*

d2zfa0

askacademia_train

Human: Do you get jealous of people who study what you don't? I am a doctoral student studying climate change. I know academicians aren't supposed to be experts on all topics out there. Although, I have this constant thought in the back of my head that it's sad that I don't know topics such as machine learning, quantum mechanics etc in detail although I don't have to. Does anybody here feel the same way? That we are missing out on 'cool stuff'? Assistant:

ezxq9jh

ezxu5rz

Yep. Becoming an expert in one area necessarily means you can keep up with developments in another, but there will be time to catch up later! This is why it's good to have colleagues from other specialties, other people may actually be interested to hear what the other are working on.

Assistant Prof here. Yes. I feel like I know nothing.

d2zfa0

askacademia_train

Human: Do you get jealous of people who study what you don't? I am a doctoral student studying climate change. I know academicians aren't supposed to be experts on all topics out there. Although, I have this constant thought in the back of my head that it's sad that I don't know topics such as machine learning, quantum mechanics etc in detail although I don't have to. Does anybody here feel the same way? That we are missing out on 'cool stuff'? Assistant:

ezy54op

ezy5fuv

Sure, folks feel that way often. But here's the deal: people in other fields likely think that about *your* work. The thing I like about academia is that I get to spend my career surrounded by experts in a whole lot of different things, so any time I want to know about agricultural economics or ancient Greek poetry or how the human body uses hormones to signal hunger in the brain I can just ask a friend. And just as often they will ask me about my field of expertise (environmental history). It's all cool. You can't learn everything, but you can learn enough about anything you want to have a conversation with a real expert-- and in academia you'll have access to them as well. Collaborate and do interdisciplinary work. I'm a mid-career full professor and I've collaborated with folks in at least a dozen widely-disparate disciplines on one thing or another over time.

I'll play outlier: Not really. If I want to learn something, I learn it. Yeah, I don't know machine learning as well as an expert, but I cared enough to understand the concepts and I could build a support vector machine, and I'm planning to develop a project with generative adversarial deep neural networks. I won't be pushing at the frontiers, but I'll use machine learning in my work. Yeah, I don't know quantum mechanics as well as a physics person, and I don't know enough of the math, but I understand the concepts well enough to debunk a quantum mystical person throwing around "the observer effect" in some nonsense way. And you know, I'll watch PBS Spacetime and understand what they're talking about. I couldn't make a Feynman diagram, but I can follow the information enough to appreciate it. Yeah, I'm not going to professionally study music, history, genetics, forensics, creative writing, art, ethics, physics, negotiation, economics, Nietzche, etc., but I've listened to hundreds of hours of The Great Courses lectures on those and other topics so I know cool stuff in many fields. Jack of all trades AND master of one ;)

b7gv5e

askacademia_train

Human: The 'Other' College Scandal: Grade Inflation Has Turned Transcripts into Monopoly Money Article link here (Forbes) ​ From the article: "Consider these facts: A 50-plus-year nationwide study of the history of college grading finds that, in the early 1960s, an A grade was awarded in colleges nationwide 15 percent of the time. But today, an A is the most common grade given in college; the percentage of A grades has tripled, to 45 percent nationwide. Seventy-five percent of all grades awarded now are either A’s and B’s. The National Association of Colleges and Employers reported in 2013 that “66 percent of employers screen candidates by grade point average (GPA).” ​ "The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation also has studied college grading. The Foundation confirms the alarming findings recited above. It found that in 1969, only 7 percent of students at two- and four-year colleges reported that their grade point average was A-minus or higher. Yet in 2009, 41 percent of students reported as same. During the same period, the percentage of C grades given dropped from 25 to five percent." ​ "Under legislation proposed in the House of Representatives, the Texas “Contextualized Transcript” bill calls for adding to transcripts the average grade given to the entire class for each of the courses on a student’s transcript. This would apply to all Texas public, two-year and four-year colleges and universities." ​ ​ I teach a required course with about 15 sections that is loosely coordinated in our college. We are the notorious grade-inflaters, in part due to the nature of the course (i.e., it's not BIO101 or ECON101). We've gotten the very clear, unambiguous message from the dean that our classes are too easy and need to become more rigorous (which of course would reduce inflation). ​ At first I resisted but now I see the point. It's not doing students any favors, and apparently many P&T committees are wary of grade inflation and student evals that are TOO high. ​ What are your universities doing about grade inflation? ​ Assistant:

ejrpueh

ejrrml6

I wish grades would be just defined as percentiles. Either the grade would *be* a percentile (maybe rounded to 10-point increments), or everyone just agreed that A is top 15%, B is top 25% or whatever, etc. Of course this kind of standardization would take time and effort to coordinate, but everyone has already in the past agreed to a 4-point scale, so surely this is doable.

Non-dischargeable student loans incentivize this sort of behavior. If you instituted even stricter academic standards, thousands and thousands of academically weak students would fail out of school and be saddled with life long debt. Ultimately, the only solution is to tie college acceptance to much higher academic standards. Of course, this will further entrench class divisions, cause many low ranked institutions to close, and significantly worsen the academic job market.

b7gv5e

askacademia_train

Human: The 'Other' College Scandal: Grade Inflation Has Turned Transcripts into Monopoly Money Article link here (Forbes) ​ From the article: "Consider these facts: A 50-plus-year nationwide study of the history of college grading finds that, in the early 1960s, an A grade was awarded in colleges nationwide 15 percent of the time. But today, an A is the most common grade given in college; the percentage of A grades has tripled, to 45 percent nationwide. Seventy-five percent of all grades awarded now are either A’s and B’s. The National Association of Colleges and Employers reported in 2013 that “66 percent of employers screen candidates by grade point average (GPA).” ​ "The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation also has studied college grading. The Foundation confirms the alarming findings recited above. It found that in 1969, only 7 percent of students at two- and four-year colleges reported that their grade point average was A-minus or higher. Yet in 2009, 41 percent of students reported as same. During the same period, the percentage of C grades given dropped from 25 to five percent." ​ "Under legislation proposed in the House of Representatives, the Texas “Contextualized Transcript” bill calls for adding to transcripts the average grade given to the entire class for each of the courses on a student’s transcript. This would apply to all Texas public, two-year and four-year colleges and universities." ​ ​ I teach a required course with about 15 sections that is loosely coordinated in our college. We are the notorious grade-inflaters, in part due to the nature of the course (i.e., it's not BIO101 or ECON101). We've gotten the very clear, unambiguous message from the dean that our classes are too easy and need to become more rigorous (which of course would reduce inflation). ​ At first I resisted but now I see the point. It's not doing students any favors, and apparently many P&T committees are wary of grade inflation and student evals that are TOO high. ​ What are your universities doing about grade inflation? ​ Assistant:

ejrw3ed

ejrtoxz

When I've TAed, my colleagues and I have often been told "you can't give much below a B." My students turned in an assignment the other week. If they attempted to answer the prompt, they got at least 8/10. It's absurd, but continued TAing depends on my receiving above a certain score on evaluations, so I have to bite my tongue and go along with it. The whole farce has created a huge number of students who have 4.0 GPAs (or damn close), but whom I wouldn't write letters for. My academic reputation is way more important than their desire to get into law school.

I'm proud to say that my particular department - physics - does not inflate grades. A typical sophomore-through-senior course (i.e., after the freshmen are "weeded out") for me might lead to an average of 2.7, with <20% As. That said, we are under a lot of pressure to improve passing rates in lower level courses, especially service courses, but faculty aren't compromising on expectations.

b7gv5e

askacademia_train

Human: The 'Other' College Scandal: Grade Inflation Has Turned Transcripts into Monopoly Money Article link here (Forbes) &#x200B; From the article: "Consider these facts: A 50-plus-year nationwide study of the history of college grading finds that, in the early 1960s, an A grade was awarded in colleges nationwide 15 percent of the time. But today, an A is the most common grade given in college; the percentage of A grades has tripled, to 45 percent nationwide. Seventy-five percent of all grades awarded now are either A’s and B’s. The National Association of Colleges and Employers reported in 2013 that “66 percent of employers screen candidates by grade point average (GPA).” &#x200B; "The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation also has studied college grading. The Foundation confirms the alarming findings recited above. It found that in 1969, only 7 percent of students at two- and four-year colleges reported that their grade point average was A-minus or higher. Yet in 2009, 41 percent of students reported as same. During the same period, the percentage of C grades given dropped from 25 to five percent." &#x200B; "Under legislation proposed in the House of Representatives, the Texas “Contextualized Transcript” bill calls for adding to transcripts the average grade given to the entire class for each of the courses on a student’s transcript. This would apply to all Texas public, two-year and four-year colleges and universities." &#x200B; &#x200B; I teach a required course with about 15 sections that is loosely coordinated in our college. We are the notorious grade-inflaters, in part due to the nature of the course (i.e., it's not BIO101 or ECON101). We've gotten the very clear, unambiguous message from the dean that our classes are too easy and need to become more rigorous (which of course would reduce inflation). &#x200B; At first I resisted but now I see the point. It's not doing students any favors, and apparently many P&T committees are wary of grade inflation and student evals that are TOO high. &#x200B; What are your universities doing about grade inflation? &#x200B; Assistant:

ejruetx

ejrw3ed

I was told (at my last position), by the chair and implicitly supported by the dean and a program advisor, to give out 1/3 As, Bs and Cs, with the strong implication not to fail anyone unless it was an extreme case. That being said, it actually seemed as if I would not cause any trouble if I guaranteed no grade lower than a C-. I guess that would permit for some combating of grade inflation.

When I've TAed, my colleagues and I have often been told "you can't give much below a B." My students turned in an assignment the other week. If they attempted to answer the prompt, they got at least 8/10. It's absurd, but continued TAing depends on my receiving above a certain score on evaluations, so I have to bite my tongue and go along with it. The whole farce has created a huge number of students who have 4.0 GPAs (or damn close), but whom I wouldn't write letters for. My academic reputation is way more important than their desire to get into law school.

b7gv5e

askacademia_train

Human: The 'Other' College Scandal: Grade Inflation Has Turned Transcripts into Monopoly Money Article link here (Forbes) &#x200B; From the article: "Consider these facts: A 50-plus-year nationwide study of the history of college grading finds that, in the early 1960s, an A grade was awarded in colleges nationwide 15 percent of the time. But today, an A is the most common grade given in college; the percentage of A grades has tripled, to 45 percent nationwide. Seventy-five percent of all grades awarded now are either A’s and B’s. The National Association of Colleges and Employers reported in 2013 that “66 percent of employers screen candidates by grade point average (GPA).” &#x200B; "The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation also has studied college grading. The Foundation confirms the alarming findings recited above. It found that in 1969, only 7 percent of students at two- and four-year colleges reported that their grade point average was A-minus or higher. Yet in 2009, 41 percent of students reported as same. During the same period, the percentage of C grades given dropped from 25 to five percent." &#x200B; "Under legislation proposed in the House of Representatives, the Texas “Contextualized Transcript” bill calls for adding to transcripts the average grade given to the entire class for each of the courses on a student’s transcript. This would apply to all Texas public, two-year and four-year colleges and universities." &#x200B; &#x200B; I teach a required course with about 15 sections that is loosely coordinated in our college. We are the notorious grade-inflaters, in part due to the nature of the course (i.e., it's not BIO101 or ECON101). We've gotten the very clear, unambiguous message from the dean that our classes are too easy and need to become more rigorous (which of course would reduce inflation). &#x200B; At first I resisted but now I see the point. It's not doing students any favors, and apparently many P&T committees are wary of grade inflation and student evals that are TOO high. &#x200B; What are your universities doing about grade inflation? &#x200B; Assistant:

ejrtoxz

ejrtrv4

I'm proud to say that my particular department - physics - does not inflate grades. A typical sophomore-through-senior course (i.e., after the freshmen are "weeded out") for me might lead to an average of 2.7, with <20% As. That said, we are under a lot of pressure to improve passing rates in lower level courses, especially service courses, but faculty aren't compromising on expectations.

When I was in grad school I saw this primarily at the low end of the grade curve. In upper division classes we weren't really under pressure to give out good grades, but there was a strong reticence to outright fail people. As to what we did to combat it, in freshman labs (the only lower division classes I ever TA'd for), there was a multiple choice final exam that was tightly guarded (no one got to take an exam or any scrap paper home) and variations of the same questions would be asked every term, so the relative performance of each class was measured and considered when assigning final grades. I thought this was a really good system, because it both helped normalize grades between different TA's and helped avoid giving students taking labs off-sequence an advantage by only being compared with students who'd already failed the lab once or more. There were other problems with rich kids' parents complaining to the lab coordinator rarely (Yay California!) but for the most part this didn't help people. Though I do know of at least one escaping expulsion for cheating on exams because their rich parents threatened to sue the school. Got a chemical engineering degree from a highly ranked school without being able to do simple stoichiometry problems. There are other stories, but none that scare me more than that one. I also never taught them, but I knew several other grad students who did and eventually they were just told by faculty to pass the kid for that reason. That one is really scary.

b7gv5e

askacademia_train

Human: The 'Other' College Scandal: Grade Inflation Has Turned Transcripts into Monopoly Money Article link here (Forbes) &#x200B; From the article: "Consider these facts: A 50-plus-year nationwide study of the history of college grading finds that, in the early 1960s, an A grade was awarded in colleges nationwide 15 percent of the time. But today, an A is the most common grade given in college; the percentage of A grades has tripled, to 45 percent nationwide. Seventy-five percent of all grades awarded now are either A’s and B’s. The National Association of Colleges and Employers reported in 2013 that “66 percent of employers screen candidates by grade point average (GPA).” &#x200B; "The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation also has studied college grading. The Foundation confirms the alarming findings recited above. It found that in 1969, only 7 percent of students at two- and four-year colleges reported that their grade point average was A-minus or higher. Yet in 2009, 41 percent of students reported as same. During the same period, the percentage of C grades given dropped from 25 to five percent." &#x200B; "Under legislation proposed in the House of Representatives, the Texas “Contextualized Transcript” bill calls for adding to transcripts the average grade given to the entire class for each of the courses on a student’s transcript. This would apply to all Texas public, two-year and four-year colleges and universities." &#x200B; &#x200B; I teach a required course with about 15 sections that is loosely coordinated in our college. We are the notorious grade-inflaters, in part due to the nature of the course (i.e., it's not BIO101 or ECON101). We've gotten the very clear, unambiguous message from the dean that our classes are too easy and need to become more rigorous (which of course would reduce inflation). &#x200B; At first I resisted but now I see the point. It's not doing students any favors, and apparently many P&T committees are wary of grade inflation and student evals that are TOO high. &#x200B; What are your universities doing about grade inflation? &#x200B; Assistant:

ejruetx

ejs2x1d

I was told (at my last position), by the chair and implicitly supported by the dean and a program advisor, to give out 1/3 As, Bs and Cs, with the strong implication not to fail anyone unless it was an extreme case. That being said, it actually seemed as if I would not cause any trouble if I guaranteed no grade lower than a C-. I guess that would permit for some combating of grade inflation.

I have mixed feelings. I teach a small class sometimes and I have clear ideas in my head about what information I want students to learn. My goal is to teach it to them. If all of the students master the material to my satisfaction, isn't that good? Haven't we both succeeded? At the same time, it also means that I can push and challenge the students more, raise my expectations, and cover more material in depth next time I teach the class. I think this is good, but even then my goal is never to have a "hard class" from a grades perspective. I want all of my students to get As (that they deserve). I don't see why I would want only a fraction of my class to master the material.

yxijgd

askacademia_train

Human: Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. Assistant:

iwp1mko

iwp10ld

Hot air https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=bacteria+splatter+ring&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1668669637678&u=%23p%3DSlI0Wds9PIAJ Coughs and sneezes spread diseases, but what about farts? My favourite quotes from this research include "a volunteer farted onto a petri dish with his trousers down" and how they analysed the outcome using the terms "initial impact zone" and "splatter ring". Not to mention the entire project arose because a nurse asked if she was contaminating the operating theatre by cracking them out silently at work.

Survival time of chocolate on hospital wards. Christmas research from BMJ 2013.

yxijgd

askacademia_train

Human: Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. Assistant:

iwp1xhx

iwp4oak

The funniest with good research methods: the teaspoon paper. God, I love that paper (my current institute is dominated by coffee drinkers, so our limiting silverware reagent is forks...time for a followup study?). The funniest "how did this crank get published": the velvet worm hybridogenesis paper that led PNAS to change their editorial policy. Responses to that one are also pretty great, especially the Giribet one.

Are anime tiddies aerodynamic? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322530755\_Analysis\_and\_Qualitative\_Effects\_of\_Large\_Breasts\_on\_Aerodynamic\_Performance\_and\_Wake\_of\_a\_Miss\_Kobayashi's\_Dragon\_Maid\_Character It's actually well made, the topic is just absurd. 2.1 million reads and 1 citation!

yxijgd

askacademia_train

Human: Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. Assistant:

iwp10ld

iwp4oak

Survival time of chocolate on hospital wards. Christmas research from BMJ 2013.

Are anime tiddies aerodynamic? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322530755\_Analysis\_and\_Qualitative\_Effects\_of\_Large\_Breasts\_on\_Aerodynamic\_Performance\_and\_Wake\_of\_a\_Miss\_Kobayashi's\_Dragon\_Maid\_Character It's actually well made, the topic is just absurd. 2.1 million reads and 1 citation!

yxijgd

askacademia_train

Human: Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. Assistant:

iwp75h9

iwq8l39

Chicken Chicken Chicken: Chicken Chicken

Not paper, but a conference poster. http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf They put a dead salmon in a fMRI machine (brain scan) and show it images of humans showing emotions and find that the DEAD salmon reacts to those emotions. In the end the researcher make a huge point about correctly analyzing the data.

yxijgd

askacademia_train

Human: Which research paper do you think was the funniest you've ever read? I'm just taking a day off of everything. Assistant:

iwp7g7j

iwq8l39

An In-Depth Analysis of a Piece of Shit Figure 1 and 2 are amazing

Not paper, but a conference poster. http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf They put a dead salmon in a fMRI machine (brain scan) and show it images of humans showing emotions and find that the DEAD salmon reacts to those emotions. In the end the researcher make a huge point about correctly analyzing the data.

hdnbiv

askacademia_train

Human: Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? Assistant:

fvm6w2g

fvmeye5

Interesting, because all the doctors and soliders (I'm a assuming that's what you mean by vet - i dont know any veterinarians) I know also complain about their jobs about as much as academics. People complain about their jobs that's the way it is, also many answers here are directed at students and there an attempt possibly even a responsibility to provide a reality check to them.

Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture.

hdnbiv

askacademia_train

Human: Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? Assistant:

fvmeye5

fvm7s2x

Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture.

The analogy I can make is politics; just because a country is politically divided and you see protests doesn’t mean people “hate” their country; in fact most of those people wouldn’t even imagine living anywhere else. We often time vent about many shortcomings in our fields and how to improve processes, but many of us wouldn’t trade a second of our job, whether it’s conducting research in our private time or helping our students, with any other job. Witnesses how this pandemic has made many of us immensely miss our office and conversations with our students.

hdnbiv

askacademia_train

Human: Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? Assistant:

fvmeye5

fvmc4to

Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture.

Well, I complain because our administration constantly pays lip service to student success and demands faculty do more and more to prevent any student losses, meanwhile systematically slashing any resources that would help this cause by removing teaching assistant funding, increasing class sizes, lowering standards, tightening department budgets, bloating administration salaries and positions, reducing full time faculty, eliminating or "streamlining" technical supports (to the point now where you have to log in each time you would like to access the unreliable internet that times out within an hour), funneling money into sports and another new "virtual reality" lab that no one will use while the advising office has caseloads of 500+ students for each position, etc. etc. I'm sorry to say that I believe the president of our university almost identically mirrors the president of our country, but in a 5 foot tall woman's body. Higher education is run like the rest of the failing, greedy, capitalist corporations in our country, and it is not a model that is sustainable longterm for the mental health of those involved.

hdnbiv

askacademia_train

Human: Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? Assistant:

fvmeye5

fvmaajs

Also, this is reddit. People come here to complain. People who are happy with their jobs are, well, happy practicing their jobs. Don’t think reddit provides a full picture.

I work at a vet school, and the vets complain just as much about hours and pay and the way clients treat them... like academics, just because you complain doesn’t mean you don’t love your job and believe your work makes a difference.

hdnbiv

askacademia_train

Human: Why is academia such a hated field? I've never seen another field (except law, perhaps) where the people involved despise their own field of work so much. This sub is itself filled with tons of discouraging posts. "It pays peanuts", "work hours are inhuman", etc. Even profs themselves are like "Yeah, I'm really lucky to have this job, but..." Genuinely sorry if I sound rude. Didn't mean to though. It's just that for a student of science who dreams of becoming a prof someday, the negativity gets tiring sometimes. I understand no job is all rosy, but if academia is really as bad as people make it out to be, why is it so saturated? I have doctors and vets in my family. They seem really, really proud of their professions despite all the hardships that come with them. Why don't people in academia feel the same way? Even the general public don't seem to look up to us the way they do to a doctor or a lawyer. They think we are just wasting taxpayers' money. It isn't that we work any less hard or are less "intelligent" than those in medicine or the military. Then why isn't our work appreciated? Aren't we the people who are supposed to be charting the course of humanity's future and making this world a better place? Assistant:

fvmjxfe

fvmkmji

I wouldn't say hated, but it gives you very little in return. Like any intense job, academia has irregular hours, crazy supervisors and toxic competitive colleagues. Like any service job, you deal with customers (students) who can easily leave a bad review for subjective reasons. It does not give you a high salary or job security, at least not for a while. So all you're left with is the expectation of prestige. But to faculty, unless you're very established, you're easily replaceable. To entitled students, they will always want more. Not all students are that way, but there are some that will complain if you take longer than a few hours to respond, or don't give them the highest mark, or have a lecture at 8am.

The issue is actually pretty straightforward. We - on the whole - love our research, and love our teaching. However, we work in a system which is administered by people who don't actually value those two things particularly. The metrics we are gauged against are not good metrics of performance or achievement. The people who manage us are not trying to help us improve in those two things, but to manoeuvre us to increase our ratings on these crappy metrics in more cost efficient and profit-making ways (profit for the organisation, not the people doing the work). The pay structure in academia has stagnated on the academic scales, while senior management pay rises have been ludicrous. There has been a drive toward the casualisation of staff, whereby trying to get contracts to employ colleagues on permanent (US TT) style contracts is ever harder, and instead we expect junior staff to exist on a sequence of fixed-term contracts with limited opportunities to climb the - already deflated - pay spines, and, as a result of their temporary contract status, hinder their ability to even apply for grants which might help them find better positions. In terms of research funding, the amount of funding becoming available has been cut and cut. The methods of allocating funding have become comical. For example, int the UK, the Natural Environment Research Council, who award all government funding for geology, earth sciences, environmental sciences, etc had so many people applying for funding, and so little money to give out that they started requiring universities to filter who was applying., So now to apply to NERC you have to first of all go through an internal review process. And many universities are limited in the number of grants they can submit each round (perhaps as few as 1 or 2). So you can be in a situation where you ahve a department of 10 or 15 people, but only one of you can submit a proposal to NERC each round. Once you get through that filter your success rate at the NERC panel is currently about 7 or 8%. Proposals are graded from 1-10. In the past if you scored a 7 or 8 you had a fighting chance of getting funded. These days if you don't have a 9 you have no chance, and even a 9 just becomes a roll of the dice as to whether you get fuinded. Our work - when we do publish it - gets used by publishers to sustain a toxic model of publishing houses; our grants get squeezed for publication fees, while our university libraries get charged to access the publications that we end up having to pay to publish. The HE sector got co-opted by suits in the 90s and they are milking it to death. That said, there are few other opportunities for me to work in my field, and no other opportunities for me to teach at this level.

gn5ylz

askacademia_train

Human: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? Assistant:

fr80et6

fr7yrzj

Looking at papers that cite mine, there are many where it’s clear they have only read the title and misinterpreted it.

I've always wondered about this myself. In my case, what typically ends up happening is that I would have read about 30% of the papers I cite in detail and are closely related to the central points being made in the paper. Another 30% that I have read but not in great detail. This leaves about 40% of the papers where I have only read the "relevant bits" and are my attempt to situate my work in a broader setting. If the paper has a large number of authors, then sometimes coauthors cite papers I have never read based on their expertise and I trust that they are relevant and cited appropriately. I'm not saying this is the right/good way and I do worry I somehow screwed up in the citations I did not read in great detail.

gn5ylz

askacademia_train

Human: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? Assistant:

fr80et6

fr7v9j8

Looking at papers that cite mine, there are many where it’s clear they have only read the title and misinterpreted it.

It really differs based on the field, even subfield. Some fields you are expected to cite every paper you looked at while writing, others you only cite papers that you take exact quotes from. It also depends what you’re citing it for; if it’s a situation where you’re citing work on an algorithm by someone you’ve previously collaborated with, you’ve probably read the paper in-depth and perhaps even discussed it with the author. If it’s the equivalent of a footnote where you just cite the paper in the introduction as evidence that someone else has looked at a similar topic before, you might have only even read the title. There isn’t really a single answer to this question.

gn5ylz

askacademia_train

Human: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? Assistant:

fr81a10

fr7v9j8

For long time, I thought I must read and understand every bit of the paper. It was a kind of idée fix for me. This was utterly devastating, and sometimes I couldn’t finish one paper in a week: it always felt that I didn’t read enough, that I don’t understand it fully, so I reread, start to procrastinate - and... you know the rest. Anyway, I guess, the most efficient way is to read diagonally and try to find the bits that suit tour purpose, not the rest of it. Most usually, I spend now from 15 to 40 minutes for one paper

It really differs based on the field, even subfield. Some fields you are expected to cite every paper you looked at while writing, others you only cite papers that you take exact quotes from. It also depends what you’re citing it for; if it’s a situation where you’re citing work on an algorithm by someone you’ve previously collaborated with, you’ve probably read the paper in-depth and perhaps even discussed it with the author. If it’s the equivalent of a footnote where you just cite the paper in the introduction as evidence that someone else has looked at a similar topic before, you might have only even read the title. There isn’t really a single answer to this question.

gn5ylz

askacademia_train

Human: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? Assistant:

fr80xbi

fr81a10

depends on the type of paper and the point you are putting across through tge citation. if you are doing a literature review, reading all the papers is essential. however if you are just stating that this theory has been applied to other fields in the recent years, reading and understanding the abstract will do. The primary reason for citing is to show that whatever you are saying is backed up by peer reviewed papers. sometimes i read the abstract, methods and the conclusion of papers if i am in a rush. if the paper is good, figures often explain the results much better than the text.

For long time, I thought I must read and understand every bit of the paper. It was a kind of idée fix for me. This was utterly devastating, and sometimes I couldn’t finish one paper in a week: it always felt that I didn’t read enough, that I don’t understand it fully, so I reread, start to procrastinate - and... you know the rest. Anyway, I guess, the most efficient way is to read diagonally and try to find the bits that suit tour purpose, not the rest of it. Most usually, I spend now from 15 to 40 minutes for one paper

gn5ylz

askacademia_train

Human: do people really read all the papers they cite? or do they just read the abstracts? or do they just read someone elses’ literature review and cite what they said about the paper? Assistant:

fr81a10

fr810rc

For long time, I thought I must read and understand every bit of the paper. It was a kind of idée fix for me. This was utterly devastating, and sometimes I couldn’t finish one paper in a week: it always felt that I didn’t read enough, that I don’t understand it fully, so I reread, start to procrastinate - and... you know the rest. Anyway, I guess, the most efficient way is to read diagonally and try to find the bits that suit tour purpose, not the rest of it. Most usually, I spend now from 15 to 40 minutes for one paper

The first time one of my papers was cited it had absolutely nothing to do with the paper, or even the sentence it was used as a citation for, other than the patient population was the same (cancer patients).

ry3g5u

askacademia_train

Human: Tackling misogyny as a female PhD researcher How to tackle misogyny from senior white male Professors, as a female PhD student who is about to defend her thesis? The comments range from passing crude comments on my nation of origin and criticizing my computational skills on a course (without any feedback where I can improve) and similar. I have mostly tried in my PhD years to stay away and stop most communications with these persons, but now since they are the principal investigator in my PhD project, I need to face them. I see myself as a hard-working person trying to learn and improve, but I cannot work with people who have decided not to work with me because of me being a woman. Field of research: theoretical particle physics, country: Sweden. Assistant:

hrm9roh

hrm9396

This would not be my advice in general, but in this particular case, and thinking only of your personal well being and achievements, if you are "about to defend [your] thesis" then I'm inclined to say keep your head down and get through the defence. I would hate to think that your attempt to confront their behaviour could result in them failing you in retaliation. That isn't to say that that has to be the end of the story. Document every instance of bigotry and inappropriate behaviour that you can (if you have any of this in written form, e.g. emails they've sent where they make these crude comments, all the better), and once your PhD is secure make that available to whoever at your university oversees conduct (if your department/uni has an equality and diversity officer then they'd be a great resource). This definitely needs to be addressed, but there is a great power imbalance here, and you are in a very vulnerable position with respect to obtaining your PhD, so I think it would be better to wait until you're less vulnerable, and get the help of someone with more power in your institution. I want these people to face consequences for their actions, but I don't want *you* to suffer consequences for their actions.

Hello, I have been the victim of misogyny and harassment in academia, and sexual harassment in the industry. I am also working in STEM, in Europe. In my experience, you need to speak out and reach out somebody who is higher-up than them. The reasoning is the following... If you are lucky enough and you tell them directly to stop with the help of a **male coworker**, they will. The male coworker part is important, because if a man is involved on your side, they will listen. (I hate that it works like this; but it does). If you are less lucky, this does not work. Then, you need to reach out someone with power. A man or woman, both work. Explain, provide proof(s), show that you have done your very best to handle the situation in a peaceful manner, but now, you need support. For your PhD project, can you reach RH about this? Or the people providing the money? Or any other person that has more power than them? Good luck. You are strong; you can make it. You have the right to report unsafe or unpleasant situations. You have the right like anybody else to a safe, trustworthy and healthy workplace. Those are your feelings; and nobody can tell you how to feel differently. In my experience too, reporting those behavior is always scary because of the consequences. But, I am so proud I did! Even if I had to change of job twice because of that, I gained friends and respect when telling those stories. I feel like I can stand for a healthier workplace because I have been there; I can put limits so much more easily.

ry3g5u

askacademia_train

Human: Tackling misogyny as a female PhD researcher How to tackle misogyny from senior white male Professors, as a female PhD student who is about to defend her thesis? The comments range from passing crude comments on my nation of origin and criticizing my computational skills on a course (without any feedback where I can improve) and similar. I have mostly tried in my PhD years to stay away and stop most communications with these persons, but now since they are the principal investigator in my PhD project, I need to face them. I see myself as a hard-working person trying to learn and improve, but I cannot work with people who have decided not to work with me because of me being a woman. Field of research: theoretical particle physics, country: Sweden. Assistant:

hrm9396

hrmw5mn

Hello, I have been the victim of misogyny and harassment in academia, and sexual harassment in the industry. I am also working in STEM, in Europe. In my experience, you need to speak out and reach out somebody who is higher-up than them. The reasoning is the following... If you are lucky enough and you tell them directly to stop with the help of a **male coworker**, they will. The male coworker part is important, because if a man is involved on your side, they will listen. (I hate that it works like this; but it does). If you are less lucky, this does not work. Then, you need to reach out someone with power. A man or woman, both work. Explain, provide proof(s), show that you have done your very best to handle the situation in a peaceful manner, but now, you need support. For your PhD project, can you reach RH about this? Or the people providing the money? Or any other person that has more power than them? Good luck. You are strong; you can make it. You have the right to report unsafe or unpleasant situations. You have the right like anybody else to a safe, trustworthy and healthy workplace. Those are your feelings; and nobody can tell you how to feel differently. In my experience too, reporting those behavior is always scary because of the consequences. But, I am so proud I did! Even if I had to change of job twice because of that, I gained friends and respect when telling those stories. I feel like I can stand for a healthier workplace because I have been there; I can put limits so much more easily.

I am a PI in Sweden. I have to say that I am surprised by this situation; not so much for racist comments (I have heard and complained *a lot* for such comments), but on gender discrimination. There are plenty of incentives and training tackling gender inequality within academia, so they should know much better. Then again, one should expect this sort of thing from certain full professors whose view of the world was informed 30-40 years ago, i.e. the last time they held a position outside their own country. In any case, I am sorry that this has happened to you. First, I wouldn’t worry about your viva. That is out of their hands. I know that this is easier said than done, but due to your ISP documents, there is not much they can do. Second, the best course of action is to talk to your union. As a PhD student, you should access both student and employee (e.g. SULF) unions. If you are not a member, become. In Sweden, unions hold a great deal of power, there is no stigma being a member of (over 90% of employees are), and, in my experience, are great at giving confidential advise to their members. They should be able to make any necessary enquiries and actions on your behalf —including talking to your prefect. Third, there is an equality officer in your department. It may worth speaking to them, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. You must speak to your reference person (one of the best things in the Swedish doctoral system). It is good to get them aboard. If they are part of the same ‘gang’, then go to the DoS or any member of your department’s Doctoral Studies Committee (if you have one, smaller departments may not). Document things in your ISP. We don’t really advertise it, but actually, it is easier for you to switch supervisors than for them to ‘fire you’ (technically, none can fire you from the PhD position). If the worst comes to be, you can switch supervisors. To be honest, the lack of feedback on the computational skills course might be due to the Swedish system. Particularly at grad level, it is a matter of ‘pass/fail’ more than anything for assignments. When I started giving out feedback on a grad-level course, students were surprised (I hate the idea of assignments at doctoral level, but if there are any, we may as well do them right). Avoid such examples when you speak to people, as you don’t want to ‘dilute’ the core message. Unless, of course, other participants got comments, and you were denied them. If so, you should, of course, document it. It is important when people complain about something to keep it simple and to the point. Otherwise, things become easier to be dismissed.

ry3g5u

askacademia_train

Human: Tackling misogyny as a female PhD researcher How to tackle misogyny from senior white male Professors, as a female PhD student who is about to defend her thesis? The comments range from passing crude comments on my nation of origin and criticizing my computational skills on a course (without any feedback where I can improve) and similar. I have mostly tried in my PhD years to stay away and stop most communications with these persons, but now since they are the principal investigator in my PhD project, I need to face them. I see myself as a hard-working person trying to learn and improve, but I cannot work with people who have decided not to work with me because of me being a woman. Field of research: theoretical particle physics, country: Sweden. Assistant:

htcgcqk

hrqdmm2

> crude comments on my nation of origin What does this have to do with being a woman > criticizing my computational skills on a course What does this have to do with being a woman

You are the expert. You are the expert. Don't let them you think otherwise. You are the expert. You put in the work. You are the expert. It's your research. You could talk about it in your sleep. Focus on the research and the work. I'm rootng for you. If I could I'd be in the audience cheering you on. Remember....you...are...the...expert.

tq8rbf

askacademia_train

Human: What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. Assistant:

i2g6w9t

i2fzerz

Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".

In my field, there's a conference management software system called HotCRP, but people orally refer to it as "hot crap"... even though it's pretty good!

tq8rbf

askacademia_train

Human: What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. Assistant:

i2g6l4s

i2g6w9t

I have to suppress a sophomoric giggle when I see something from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. One point in my PhD defense was an argument between committee members on “significant” vs “statistically significant.”

Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".

tq8rbf

askacademia_train

Human: What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. Assistant:

i2fzyl1

i2g6w9t

Capital (T)ruth

Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".

tq8rbf

askacademia_train

Human: What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. Assistant:

i2g6w9t

i2g4n7a

Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".

my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out

tq8rbf

askacademia_train

Human: What is your 'favorite' academic jargon? From my grad advisor years back: 'Not to be pedantic' then followed by something that is either common knowledge or incredibly obscure. Field specific jargon that even most people that have been researching the topic for decades don't even know. Assistant:

i2g6w9t

i2fqf6f

Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".

The best name for a term I've seen yet is 'The Oracle Inequality' in machine learning. It's the property that means a model collapses to choosing the (most) correct inputs when faced with too many variables. (i.e it chooses p* when p>n)

e1r2be

askacademia_train

Human: What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? Assistant:

f8rcllq

f8rcw9a

He is great at that part of science that is often overlooked: outreach. And I think that outreach is fundamental part of the economics of research. At the end, most of the hardcore theoretical science is funded by the government, aka the taxpayer, so it is very alarming, in my opinion, when they have little to no idea of what science is doing or what is the purpose. As the gap between frontier knowledge and the average joe widens, plus the current populist wave, I can see a future where the people start asking, wait, why are we funding all of these pretentious people that won't even take time to explain themselves? Luckily there are people like Neil deGrasse.

I think he is just so caught up in always playing the role of the educator that he doesn't have discussions with people, he just "tells them how it is" as if he knows literally everything, even on controversial topics on politics or quantum physics where he certainly is not an expert. This has led him to be commonly perceived as a pretentious and condescending douche who just relentlessly talks at/over someone instead of having a discussion. He just is such an unpleasant person to listen to - like when he was on JRE last time: https://youtu.be/egIKAK3SuiE. This is not to say that he isn't a great educator - he certainly has been a strong and beneficial promoter of scientific literacy in general. It just stands out to me that a lot of people think he is a dick because of his interviews.

e1r2be

askacademia_train

Human: What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? Assistant:

f8rj7gg

f8rdyq0

Its funny until this post I thought my feelings about Neil were uncommon. He comes off as a complete narcissist which is doubly bad when he is (frequently) talking about shit he doesn't understand. My favorite example is when he mentioned to Joe Rogan that there are multiple sizes of infinity which is technically correct. Then he went on to "explain" several examples of this, each of which was completely wrong and/or utter nonsense.

I remember he spoke about Columbus's discovery of America on the JRE as if it were a positive for the the Native Americans employing some strange pseudo scientific logic. That the indigenous people's DNA was too limited, and they needed to be put back in contact with the rest of humanity or some nonsense. I think that he is neither an expert on genetics, nor the history of New World colonization. So I wonder he felt so comfortable in taking on such a polemical topic in such a flippant manner.

e1r2be

askacademia_train

Human: What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? Assistant:

f8rcllq

f8rj7gg

He is great at that part of science that is often overlooked: outreach. And I think that outreach is fundamental part of the economics of research. At the end, most of the hardcore theoretical science is funded by the government, aka the taxpayer, so it is very alarming, in my opinion, when they have little to no idea of what science is doing or what is the purpose. As the gap between frontier knowledge and the average joe widens, plus the current populist wave, I can see a future where the people start asking, wait, why are we funding all of these pretentious people that won't even take time to explain themselves? Luckily there are people like Neil deGrasse.

Its funny until this post I thought my feelings about Neil were uncommon. He comes off as a complete narcissist which is doubly bad when he is (frequently) talking about shit he doesn't understand. My favorite example is when he mentioned to Joe Rogan that there are multiple sizes of infinity which is technically correct. Then he went on to "explain" several examples of this, each of which was completely wrong and/or utter nonsense.

e1r2be

askacademia_train

Human: What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? Assistant:

f8rj38s

f8rj7gg

Here’s my take on it: he’s become dogmatic about science. Kind of like religious folk who proselytize their viewpoint and have no room for the understandings of life from different shoes. Unwilling to listen and respect, rather just talking at you, self-assured of their righteous beliefs. I see Neil DeGrasee Tyson like this and that’s why I can’t bear to listen to him anymore. I think I agree with the majority of what he says, but to listen to his condescending tone puts me off.

Its funny until this post I thought my feelings about Neil were uncommon. He comes off as a complete narcissist which is doubly bad when he is (frequently) talking about shit he doesn't understand. My favorite example is when he mentioned to Joe Rogan that there are multiple sizes of infinity which is technically correct. Then he went on to "explain" several examples of this, each of which was completely wrong and/or utter nonsense.

e1r2be

askacademia_train

Human: What do you all think of Neil deGrasse Tyson? This is a super random question but was just curious what other people in academia thought. Lately it seems like he goes on Twitter and tries to rain on everybody's parade with science. While I can understand having this attitude to pseudo-sciency things, he appears to speak about things he can't possibly be that extensively experienced in as if he's an expert of all things science. I really appreciate what he's done in his career and he's extremely gifted when it comes to outreach and making science interesting to the general public. However, from what I can tell he has a somewhat average record in research (although he was able to get into some top schools which is a feat in and of itself). I guess people just make him out to be a genius but to me it seems like there are probably thousands of less famous people out there who are equally accomplished? Assistant:

f8rib6i

f8rj7gg

I lost all respect for him after paying 85$ to see one of his 'talks'and all he did was show us pictures of space-patterned dresses and funny pictures from 9gag, I shit you not

Its funny until this post I thought my feelings about Neil were uncommon. He comes off as a complete narcissist which is doubly bad when he is (frequently) talking about shit he doesn't understand. My favorite example is when he mentioned to Joe Rogan that there are multiple sizes of infinity which is technically correct. Then he went on to "explain" several examples of this, each of which was completely wrong and/or utter nonsense.

o88pcv

askacademia_train

Human: Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. Assistant:

h33h5ip

h33gwpi

For the most part, the only people I've seen who have strong negative feelings about SciHub are those involved in the academic publishing industry. There are vague concerns I've seen others express about whether copies of papers downloaded from SciHub are legit (i.e., that someone may have uploaded a fake paper using the doi of a real paper, etc), but I've never seen anyone provide an example of this actually happening. Ultimately, there needs to be some middle ground. The economic model of most academic publishers is not sustainable and it's extremely exploitative, but at the same time publishers do add value to manuscripts (not anywhere near enough to legitimize what most charge) so there needs to be some mechanism for publishers to at least recoup their losses. SciHub fills a niche at the moment, but the hope that most of us have (I think) is that it won't have to exist forever as more authors, universities, and funding agencies push back on the academic publishers and we more toward a more sustainable model.

Good. Making these articles available to people without the means to access them through publishers asking ridiculous prices is important.

o88pcv

askacademia_train

Human: Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. Assistant:

h33r6wh

h33l38k

Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news.

A good thing. Researchers don't get any money for their views and publishing is a massive rip off as now it is all online. Certain papers might get 1 view a week, the cost of hosting and supplying that is negligible. It isn't like reviewers get paid either.

o88pcv

askacademia_train

Human: Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. Assistant:

h33r6wh

h33gwpi

Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news.

Good. Making these articles available to people without the means to access them through publishers asking ridiculous prices is important.

o88pcv

askacademia_train

Human: Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. Assistant:

h33q3c9

h33r6wh

Well ethically speaking... it's the best.

Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news.

o88pcv

askacademia_train

Human: Is SciHub a good thing or a bad thing? It's blocked at my university and I was just wondering what the general consensus is about this website. Happy Saturday. Assistant:

h33r6wh

h33nhh6

Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news.

It is literally the best thing ever.

i9taxd

askacademia_train

Human: imposter syndrome is a blast Can we talk about imposter syndrome and navigating academia in STEM as a young woman? I feel drastically under-qualified doing nearly everything my mentors encourage me to do. I do the things anyway, but the discomfort doesn't seem to dissipate the further I get. &#x200B; But also, I am a second year grad student, highest degree BA, presenting at a medical conference in November, presenting among all other MDs. How the fuck am I supposed to feel about this D: Assistant:

g1hdcqd

g1he275

I have a theory that imposter syndrome is closely related to your cultural background, and the kind of representation that academics had in art during your formative years.

Bad news - it's not going away. It doesn't matter how much you will achieve it will be with you. Good news - everyone feels it. So don't worry too much, it's normal, one step at a time, you'll get there.

i9taxd

askacademia_train

Human: imposter syndrome is a blast Can we talk about imposter syndrome and navigating academia in STEM as a young woman? I feel drastically under-qualified doing nearly everything my mentors encourage me to do. I do the things anyway, but the discomfort doesn't seem to dissipate the further I get. &#x200B; But also, I am a second year grad student, highest degree BA, presenting at a medical conference in November, presenting among all other MDs. How the fuck am I supposed to feel about this D: Assistant:

g1hdcqd

g1hg1l5

I have a theory that imposter syndrome is closely related to your cultural background, and the kind of representation that academics had in art during your formative years.

As another woman in STEM, it helps me to talk to people in other fields and those outside of academia. I tend to assume a lot of what I know is common knowledge or easy to understand or largely covered in other fields but in different frameworks. When I have to explain my work to someone else, I quickly realize that isn't true. It also gives me a chance to appreciate the other person's expertise and how nice it is that different people are good at different things. I also look for objective markers of my success and try to save them somewhere I can look at them when I forget. It's amazing how those accomplishments disappear from my mind when I am feeling bad about myself.

i9taxd

askacademia_train

Human: imposter syndrome is a blast Can we talk about imposter syndrome and navigating academia in STEM as a young woman? I feel drastically under-qualified doing nearly everything my mentors encourage me to do. I do the things anyway, but the discomfort doesn't seem to dissipate the further I get. &#x200B; But also, I am a second year grad student, highest degree BA, presenting at a medical conference in November, presenting among all other MDs. How the fuck am I supposed to feel about this D: Assistant:

g1hi3tg

g1hncfj

Fake it til you make it. The beauty of science is that you're often doing things people haven't done before and it's acceptable to say you don't know if you don't know something or you need to look it up.

This letter written by Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman is always my go-to when trying to combat imposture syndrome myself. All these MDs at your conference are people, too. They are not omnipotent beings! Plus, from what I gather about MDs, many of them are somewhat out-of-touch with cutting edge research (particularly outside their specialty). In other words, in the eyes of many of the MDs there, *you* will be the expert, even if you don't feel like it. If that makes you uncomfortable, personally, I fall back on what I know and try not to speculate on what I do not. One of the most eye-opening experiences I have had in grad school was at a conference outside of my major domain of study. I went with my advisor and two other faculty--each are very respected in their domains. During a particular session, I felt like an idiot because I just could NOT understand what was being presented. After the session, all four of us got together and they all felt the same way. The moral of the story being that it's okay not to know everything and everything, there is *always* more to learn. The main purpose for virtually all conferences is to share your knowledge with others. If we already knew everything going it, these conferences would just be an expensive, multi-day happy hour.

i9taxd

askacademia_train

Human: imposter syndrome is a blast Can we talk about imposter syndrome and navigating academia in STEM as a young woman? I feel drastically under-qualified doing nearly everything my mentors encourage me to do. I do the things anyway, but the discomfort doesn't seem to dissipate the further I get. &#x200B; But also, I am a second year grad student, highest degree BA, presenting at a medical conference in November, presenting among all other MDs. How the fuck am I supposed to feel about this D: Assistant:

g1hdcqd

g1hncfj

I have a theory that imposter syndrome is closely related to your cultural background, and the kind of representation that academics had in art during your formative years.

This letter written by Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman is always my go-to when trying to combat imposture syndrome myself. All these MDs at your conference are people, too. They are not omnipotent beings! Plus, from what I gather about MDs, many of them are somewhat out-of-touch with cutting edge research (particularly outside their specialty). In other words, in the eyes of many of the MDs there, *you* will be the expert, even if you don't feel like it. If that makes you uncomfortable, personally, I fall back on what I know and try not to speculate on what I do not. One of the most eye-opening experiences I have had in grad school was at a conference outside of my major domain of study. I went with my advisor and two other faculty--each are very respected in their domains. During a particular session, I felt like an idiot because I just could NOT understand what was being presented. After the session, all four of us got together and they all felt the same way. The moral of the story being that it's okay not to know everything and everything, there is *always* more to learn. The main purpose for virtually all conferences is to share your knowledge with others. If we already knew everything going it, these conferences would just be an expensive, multi-day happy hour.

i9taxd

askacademia_train

Human: imposter syndrome is a blast Can we talk about imposter syndrome and navigating academia in STEM as a young woman? I feel drastically under-qualified doing nearly everything my mentors encourage me to do. I do the things anyway, but the discomfort doesn't seem to dissipate the further I get. &#x200B; But also, I am a second year grad student, highest degree BA, presenting at a medical conference in November, presenting among all other MDs. How the fuck am I supposed to feel about this D: Assistant:

g1hncfj

g1hjr00

This letter written by Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman is always my go-to when trying to combat imposture syndrome myself. All these MDs at your conference are people, too. They are not omnipotent beings! Plus, from what I gather about MDs, many of them are somewhat out-of-touch with cutting edge research (particularly outside their specialty). In other words, in the eyes of many of the MDs there, *you* will be the expert, even if you don't feel like it. If that makes you uncomfortable, personally, I fall back on what I know and try not to speculate on what I do not. One of the most eye-opening experiences I have had in grad school was at a conference outside of my major domain of study. I went with my advisor and two other faculty--each are very respected in their domains. During a particular session, I felt like an idiot because I just could NOT understand what was being presented. After the session, all four of us got together and they all felt the same way. The moral of the story being that it's okay not to know everything and everything, there is *always* more to learn. The main purpose for virtually all conferences is to share your knowledge with others. If we already knew everything going it, these conferences would just be an expensive, multi-day happy hour.

It's not 'you vs curriculum' anymore, it's 'you vs god'. We're all unqualified. Finishing your degree isnt about not feeling this way, it's about doing exactly what you're doing. Pushing forward despite the emotional trauma. As for speaking, if you've done something someone else hasnt done, then you have something to say. There may or may not be pushback, but saying stuff to other smart people is the job. No one is gonna beat you up afterwards, so just do the best job you can, sit down, feel like shit, second guess, and repeat until you graduate. I hate to put it this way, but fuck your feelings. They're a shit barometer of how you're actually doing. Unless you get fired, you're doing fine.

9j5fv6

askacademia_train

Human: Left off of author list UPDATE] [Original comment In my last post I told a little tale of being left off of a publication recently that involved several years of my life during the beginning of my PhD. People offered a variety of perspectives and opinions about how to proceed, which was super helpful and thank you all for taking the time. Here's a quick update - The committee member who left me off of the author list reached out to me to inform me that the paper had been published. I didn't immediately respond, and instead I consulted with a few folks involved in the paper to determine if I was somehow missing something that I had done or not done and it seemed like they were more or less sympathetic and on my side. And of course, I posted on reddit, because why not get the opinion of internet strangers - most people had suggested keeping things diplomatic and investigating authorship corrections with the journal. A week or so passes before the committee member reaches out to me again to see if I want to chat (I think spurred by my primary advisor) and we end up finding each other in the hallway. We chat for about half an hour outside where I lay out my reaction and she promises it was an honest mistake and that there was absolutely no malice or politics involved. She was working as hard as I was to keep things diplomatic and to keep bridges unburned, there was a hug involved, which I appreciate, so I took what she said at face value. She apologizes and accepts blame, which is heartening except that she views the additional steps to be limited (basically, "move on and sorry!"). I bring up that author corrections are a thing (thanks for the suggestion AskAca!!) and she seems very doubtful, but willing to explore the possibility... the least she can do to make things up is to have my back in exploring the idea. Fast-forward a month or two and she has reached out to the other lab group and the main author has taken the lead on contacting the journal to initiate a correction. Every author eventually agrees in writing and now things are 100% copacetic, I'm on the author list! So basically long story short, things turned out well after a few hard conversations. Just wanted to write a quick update and thank everyone for offering some opinions and perspectives. I'm honestly shocked and disappointed that not a single person in my department thought that author corrections were possible, so now I can tell my advisor that my reddit addiction has had a tangible positive impact on my career. Assistant:

e6pkfh5

e6p04zo

/r/wholesomeacademia

YAYAYYAAYAYAYAYAY Happy for you. Go on and kick ass in thine science, and if you get into a position of power yourself, pay it forward.

9j5fv6

askacademia_train

Human: Left off of author list UPDATE] [Original comment In my last post I told a little tale of being left off of a publication recently that involved several years of my life during the beginning of my PhD. People offered a variety of perspectives and opinions about how to proceed, which was super helpful and thank you all for taking the time. Here's a quick update - The committee member who left me off of the author list reached out to me to inform me that the paper had been published. I didn't immediately respond, and instead I consulted with a few folks involved in the paper to determine if I was somehow missing something that I had done or not done and it seemed like they were more or less sympathetic and on my side. And of course, I posted on reddit, because why not get the opinion of internet strangers - most people had suggested keeping things diplomatic and investigating authorship corrections with the journal. A week or so passes before the committee member reaches out to me again to see if I want to chat (I think spurred by my primary advisor) and we end up finding each other in the hallway. We chat for about half an hour outside where I lay out my reaction and she promises it was an honest mistake and that there was absolutely no malice or politics involved. She was working as hard as I was to keep things diplomatic and to keep bridges unburned, there was a hug involved, which I appreciate, so I took what she said at face value. She apologizes and accepts blame, which is heartening except that she views the additional steps to be limited (basically, "move on and sorry!"). I bring up that author corrections are a thing (thanks for the suggestion AskAca!!) and she seems very doubtful, but willing to explore the possibility... the least she can do to make things up is to have my back in exploring the idea. Fast-forward a month or two and she has reached out to the other lab group and the main author has taken the lead on contacting the journal to initiate a correction. Every author eventually agrees in writing and now things are 100% copacetic, I'm on the author list! So basically long story short, things turned out well after a few hard conversations. Just wanted to write a quick update and thank everyone for offering some opinions and perspectives. I'm honestly shocked and disappointed that not a single person in my department thought that author corrections were possible, so now I can tell my advisor that my reddit addiction has had a tangible positive impact on my career. Assistant:

e6pkfh5

e6oz9is

/r/wholesomeacademia

Congratulations! You got what you deserved. This made my day

9j5fv6

askacademia_train

Human: Left off of author list UPDATE] [Original comment In my last post I told a little tale of being left off of a publication recently that involved several years of my life during the beginning of my PhD. People offered a variety of perspectives and opinions about how to proceed, which was super helpful and thank you all for taking the time. Here's a quick update - The committee member who left me off of the author list reached out to me to inform me that the paper had been published. I didn't immediately respond, and instead I consulted with a few folks involved in the paper to determine if I was somehow missing something that I had done or not done and it seemed like they were more or less sympathetic and on my side. And of course, I posted on reddit, because why not get the opinion of internet strangers - most people had suggested keeping things diplomatic and investigating authorship corrections with the journal. A week or so passes before the committee member reaches out to me again to see if I want to chat (I think spurred by my primary advisor) and we end up finding each other in the hallway. We chat for about half an hour outside where I lay out my reaction and she promises it was an honest mistake and that there was absolutely no malice or politics involved. She was working as hard as I was to keep things diplomatic and to keep bridges unburned, there was a hug involved, which I appreciate, so I took what she said at face value. She apologizes and accepts blame, which is heartening except that she views the additional steps to be limited (basically, "move on and sorry!"). I bring up that author corrections are a thing (thanks for the suggestion AskAca!!) and she seems very doubtful, but willing to explore the possibility... the least she can do to make things up is to have my back in exploring the idea. Fast-forward a month or two and she has reached out to the other lab group and the main author has taken the lead on contacting the journal to initiate a correction. Every author eventually agrees in writing and now things are 100% copacetic, I'm on the author list! So basically long story short, things turned out well after a few hard conversations. Just wanted to write a quick update and thank everyone for offering some opinions and perspectives. I'm honestly shocked and disappointed that not a single person in my department thought that author corrections were possible, so now I can tell my advisor that my reddit addiction has had a tangible positive impact on my career. Assistant:

e6p9alh

e6pkfh5

Thank you for sharing this experience, and it's fantastic that things worked out for you!

/r/wholesomeacademia

zzo1ze

askacademia_train

Human: You're the advisor to a PhD student who has been arrested on 4 counts of 1st degree murder. What do you do? I'm obviously referring to the suspect that has been arrested on felony charges in the Idaho murders, while a PhD student in criminology. Was thinking about his advisor and what do you do in such cases, innocent until proven guilty and all that. Assistant:

j2cq6lb

j2csnoh

I have no advisor experience but to give my opinion, I think our current society tends to equate accused with guilty. It's easy to completely shut down someone's life over just accusations. Being arrested in this case will likely lead to a very long trial process. I don't know the logistics behind putting a hold on a PhD process for months if not years. It may be ultimately the only option you have to cut ties, and it may not be your decision but the school's. My personal opinion is to provide every option reasonably possible to give the accused person their fair day in court. If they are found not guilty then you/the school have essentially ruined this person's academic career due to an unproven accusation if ties are cut.

Nothing. I let the justice system work its course.

zzo1ze

askacademia_train

Human: You're the advisor to a PhD student who has been arrested on 4 counts of 1st degree murder. What do you do? I'm obviously referring to the suspect that has been arrested on felony charges in the Idaho murders, while a PhD student in criminology. Was thinking about his advisor and what do you do in such cases, innocent until proven guilty and all that. Assistant:

j2cy7z0

j2cz21f

I doubt that the PhD advisor will be making any decisions. It'll be the university who will decide on a course of action. So... I would contact my bosses and ask them to tell me what I am supposed to do.

People in charge in a university (or company) only need to make sure that nobody is unsafe. They are not there to administer justice or order punitive measures. As this person has been arrested, there is nothing to do.

zzo1ze

askacademia_train

Human: You're the advisor to a PhD student who has been arrested on 4 counts of 1st degree murder. What do you do? I'm obviously referring to the suspect that has been arrested on felony charges in the Idaho murders, while a PhD student in criminology. Was thinking about his advisor and what do you do in such cases, innocent until proven guilty and all that. Assistant:

j2cz21f

j2cq6lb

People in charge in a university (or company) only need to make sure that nobody is unsafe. They are not there to administer justice or order punitive measures. As this person has been arrested, there is nothing to do.

I have no advisor experience but to give my opinion, I think our current society tends to equate accused with guilty. It's easy to completely shut down someone's life over just accusations. Being arrested in this case will likely lead to a very long trial process. I don't know the logistics behind putting a hold on a PhD process for months if not years. It may be ultimately the only option you have to cut ties, and it may not be your decision but the school's. My personal opinion is to provide every option reasonably possible to give the accused person their fair day in court. If they are found not guilty then you/the school have essentially ruined this person's academic career due to an unproven accusation if ties are cut.

zzo1ze

askacademia_train

Human: You're the advisor to a PhD student who has been arrested on 4 counts of 1st degree murder. What do you do? I'm obviously referring to the suspect that has been arrested on felony charges in the Idaho murders, while a PhD student in criminology. Was thinking about his advisor and what do you do in such cases, innocent until proven guilty and all that. Assistant:

j2cy7z0

j2diu6x

I doubt that the PhD advisor will be making any decisions. It'll be the university who will decide on a course of action. So... I would contact my bosses and ask them to tell me what I am supposed to do.

You do nothing. Innocent until proven guilty but if a student is facing such serious charges, it’s doubtful they will be enrolled for the semester, it’s unlikely they will have time or resources to work on a dissertation, and it’s not your responsibility to determine guilt or innocence.

zzo1ze

askacademia_train

Human: You're the advisor to a PhD student who has been arrested on 4 counts of 1st degree murder. What do you do? I'm obviously referring to the suspect that has been arrested on felony charges in the Idaho murders, while a PhD student in criminology. Was thinking about his advisor and what do you do in such cases, innocent until proven guilty and all that. Assistant:

j2diu6x

j2cz2uc

You do nothing. Innocent until proven guilty but if a student is facing such serious charges, it’s doubtful they will be enrolled for the semester, it’s unlikely they will have time or resources to work on a dissertation, and it’s not your responsibility to determine guilt or innocence.

None of my PhD students have been accused of murder, as far as I know, but I would definitely ask the higher-ups for "advice" (i.e. unload the responsibility onto those who are paid to carry it). My own reflex would be to keep advising.

u7lhix

askacademia_train

Human: Is it OK to email the author of a journal article to ask for the article? I'm doing a literature review and am very interested in her article. However, my institution doesn't have a subscription to the publisher of her article. Is it considered rude to ask for the article for free and it's expected that I pay for the article on my own (I'm only an undergrad, so I have very little money at my disposal)? Thank you! Assistant:

i5ffdmz

i5fkqwc

Yes, you can always ask the corresponding author for a copy

People asking for PDFs articles of mine makes my day - it's honestly the opposite of rude but do be patient. You'll either get a reply immediately or in three weeks.

u7lhix

askacademia_train

Human: Is it OK to email the author of a journal article to ask for the article? I'm doing a literature review and am very interested in her article. However, my institution doesn't have a subscription to the publisher of her article. Is it considered rude to ask for the article for free and it's expected that I pay for the article on my own (I'm only an undergrad, so I have very little money at my disposal)? Thank you! Assistant:

i5fircz

i5fkqwc

Not rude at all and very common. None of the (ridiculously huge) money you pay for the article goes to the author. Also try searching for the article title in quotes on both Google and Google Scholar. There might already be a free PDF available on the Web.

People asking for PDFs articles of mine makes my day - it's honestly the opposite of rude but do be patient. You'll either get a reply immediately or in three weeks.

u7lhix

askacademia_train

Human: Is it OK to email the author of a journal article to ask for the article? I'm doing a literature review and am very interested in her article. However, my institution doesn't have a subscription to the publisher of her article. Is it considered rude to ask for the article for free and it's expected that I pay for the article on my own (I'm only an undergrad, so I have very little money at my disposal)? Thank you! Assistant:

i5fkqwc

i5fgv4y

People asking for PDFs articles of mine makes my day - it's honestly the opposite of rude but do be patient. You'll either get a reply immediately or in three weeks.

It's not rude, and you don't pay. This is a normal thing to ask for, go for it!

u7lhix

askacademia_train

Human: Is it OK to email the author of a journal article to ask for the article? I'm doing a literature review and am very interested in her article. However, my institution doesn't have a subscription to the publisher of her article. Is it considered rude to ask for the article for free and it's expected that I pay for the article on my own (I'm only an undergrad, so I have very little money at my disposal)? Thank you! Assistant:

i5fkqwc

i5fgzd3

People asking for PDFs articles of mine makes my day - it's honestly the opposite of rude but do be patient. You'll either get a reply immediately or in three weeks.

Yep. If anything they’ll be happy that someone is interested enough to seek it out. Besides, they’re not seeing any of the money that goes to the journals, so it’s not like it affects them financially in the slightest.

u7lhix

askacademia_train

Human: Is it OK to email the author of a journal article to ask for the article? I'm doing a literature review and am very interested in her article. However, my institution doesn't have a subscription to the publisher of her article. Is it considered rude to ask for the article for free and it's expected that I pay for the article on my own (I'm only an undergrad, so I have very little money at my disposal)? Thank you! Assistant:

i5fkqwc

i5fg54y

People asking for PDFs articles of mine makes my day - it's honestly the opposite of rude but do be patient. You'll either get a reply immediately or in three weeks.

This is a thing, yes.

imbp07

askacademia_train

Human: For those of you who didn't end up in academia after your PhD, do you think your PhD experience was still worth it? Not just career-wise, but overall as a life experience? Assistant:

g3yq2oc

g3yr76h

I dont like this thread. - someone 6 months from finishing who wants to stay out of academia.

My PhD is directly related to my job so definitely. As for life experience, my defense was so brutal that no human can hurt my feelings any more.

imbp07

askacademia_train

Human: For those of you who didn't end up in academia after your PhD, do you think your PhD experience was still worth it? Not just career-wise, but overall as a life experience? Assistant:

g3yr76h

g3ymbj2

My PhD is directly related to my job so definitely. As for life experience, my defense was so brutal that no human can hurt my feelings any more.

I'm about to be able to answer this. I'm trying to make the switch to "industry" (whatever that means for my field) to prioritize living with my partner, and I'm constantly plagued by comments I hear that people would rather employ someone without a PhD than with one. I'm starting to regret it a little because I was under the impression that I would come out *equally* employable to when I just had a Master's, not *less* employable, and I feel betrayed. But doing the PhD was an excellent experience for personal growth, whether that is ever reflected by anything external to my own thoughts or not.

imbp07

askacademia_train

Human: For those of you who didn't end up in academia after your PhD, do you think your PhD experience was still worth it? Not just career-wise, but overall as a life experience? Assistant:

g3yr76h

g3yms9r

My PhD is directly related to my job so definitely. As for life experience, my defense was so brutal that no human can hurt my feelings any more.

Career-wise, not so much. Speaking from a STEM perspective. But i hope it’s only a transition thing.. some industries and roles definitely need a PhD for entry but of course they will also be more competitive I suppose? Like Medical Affairs, Data Scientists in Biotech and MNC Pharmas.. The thing is if u know what u wanna do, and phd is not necessary, then don’t do it. The academia is a shitty system unless ure a top publishing Scientist with loads of patents under ur belt. When you wanna transition to industry (non-scientist roles), suddenly your publications mean nothing.......

imbp07

askacademia_train

Human: For those of you who didn't end up in academia after your PhD, do you think your PhD experience was still worth it? Not just career-wise, but overall as a life experience? Assistant:

g3yr76h

g3yqb62

My PhD is directly related to my job so definitely. As for life experience, my defense was so brutal that no human can hurt my feelings any more.

Enjoyable, but, no, not worth it in terms of opportunity cost.

imbp07

askacademia_train

Human: For those of you who didn't end up in academia after your PhD, do you think your PhD experience was still worth it? Not just career-wise, but overall as a life experience? Assistant:

g3yq1w1

g3yr76h

Life experience: neutral. I did my PhD part-time while working in a related career so it sort of felt just like an extension of my day job. Career-wise: no. I don't have much more of an advantage over non-PhDs. Industry experience and professional networks is what really counts when it comes to climbing the ladder. Finance-wise: absolutely not. I was lucky in that my PhD was sponsored by my employer so I was earning a relatively substantial salary. Some of my peers sacrificed 5-7 years of good earnings and, most notably, all-important early career pension contributions through doing a PhD. The effects of compounding interest means they were setback quite substantially in this regard.

My PhD is directly related to my job so definitely. As for life experience, my defense was so brutal that no human can hurt my feelings any more.

bv6o0s

askacademia_train

Human: Every time I publish with Elsevier a small part of me dies I now have three papers in various Elsevier journals. Through publication of each of these I have grown to dispise Elsevier more and more. I hate they way that they are providing less and less at each stage of the publication process. For example I wrote the paper, my colleagues peer-reviewed it, and then now I even have to do the type setting myself. It makes me question what exactly Elsevier are providing besides a shell to conduct peer review and a hosting platform afterwards? Although there are many issues generally with the publication process, it is the authors doing type setting that actually bugs me the most. For those of you that have not used the Elsevier type setting online tool, this is an interactive document editor where you generate your own proofs. All content is editable and therefore undermining the peer review process. For example, at this stage for key points could be changed or countless self citations added. After this you hit submit and it's done. Now they will claim that this process has some editorial oversight but in my experience it does not. It's a joke. Also I hate the way they refer to us as customers. Working with a publisher should be a collaborative process. I am planning to avoid Elsevier journals in the future when I have a say in where a paper goes. Assistant:

eplzqxw

epm8i1h

Wait, do they at least oversee the peer review process? You said your colleagues did it. You don’t mean the colleagues in your department do you?

I feel similarly, but boycotts are a full professor's game. So I keep doing it, begrudgingly. When there's a choice of a journal of equal prestige at, say, Sage, I'll send it there. But that's not always possible.

bv6o0s

askacademia_train

Human: Every time I publish with Elsevier a small part of me dies I now have three papers in various Elsevier journals. Through publication of each of these I have grown to dispise Elsevier more and more. I hate they way that they are providing less and less at each stage of the publication process. For example I wrote the paper, my colleagues peer-reviewed it, and then now I even have to do the type setting myself. It makes me question what exactly Elsevier are providing besides a shell to conduct peer review and a hosting platform afterwards? Although there are many issues generally with the publication process, it is the authors doing type setting that actually bugs me the most. For those of you that have not used the Elsevier type setting online tool, this is an interactive document editor where you generate your own proofs. All content is editable and therefore undermining the peer review process. For example, at this stage for key points could be changed or countless self citations added. After this you hit submit and it's done. Now they will claim that this process has some editorial oversight but in my experience it does not. It's a joke. Also I hate the way they refer to us as customers. Working with a publisher should be a collaborative process. I am planning to avoid Elsevier journals in the future when I have a say in where a paper goes. Assistant:

epm8i1h

epm7w64

I feel similarly, but boycotts are a full professor's game. So I keep doing it, begrudgingly. When there's a choice of a journal of equal prestige at, say, Sage, I'll send it there. But that's not always possible.

Pre-print its the future, i basically only read pre-prints these days. By the time it gets published its a year old anyway.

bv6o0s

askacademia_train

Human: Every time I publish with Elsevier a small part of me dies I now have three papers in various Elsevier journals. Through publication of each of these I have grown to dispise Elsevier more and more. I hate they way that they are providing less and less at each stage of the publication process. For example I wrote the paper, my colleagues peer-reviewed it, and then now I even have to do the type setting myself. It makes me question what exactly Elsevier are providing besides a shell to conduct peer review and a hosting platform afterwards? Although there are many issues generally with the publication process, it is the authors doing type setting that actually bugs me the most. For those of you that have not used the Elsevier type setting online tool, this is an interactive document editor where you generate your own proofs. All content is editable and therefore undermining the peer review process. For example, at this stage for key points could be changed or countless self citations added. After this you hit submit and it's done. Now they will claim that this process has some editorial oversight but in my experience it does not. It's a joke. Also I hate the way they refer to us as customers. Working with a publisher should be a collaborative process. I am planning to avoid Elsevier journals in the future when I have a say in where a paper goes. Assistant:

epm802d

epm8i1h

Join the boycott! thecostofknowledge.com

I feel similarly, but boycotts are a full professor's game. So I keep doing it, begrudgingly. When there's a choice of a journal of equal prestige at, say, Sage, I'll send it there. But that's not always possible.

bv6o0s

askacademia_train

Human: Every time I publish with Elsevier a small part of me dies I now have three papers in various Elsevier journals. Through publication of each of these I have grown to dispise Elsevier more and more. I hate they way that they are providing less and less at each stage of the publication process. For example I wrote the paper, my colleagues peer-reviewed it, and then now I even have to do the type setting myself. It makes me question what exactly Elsevier are providing besides a shell to conduct peer review and a hosting platform afterwards? Although there are many issues generally with the publication process, it is the authors doing type setting that actually bugs me the most. For those of you that have not used the Elsevier type setting online tool, this is an interactive document editor where you generate your own proofs. All content is editable and therefore undermining the peer review process. For example, at this stage for key points could be changed or countless self citations added. After this you hit submit and it's done. Now they will claim that this process has some editorial oversight but in my experience it does not. It's a joke. Also I hate the way they refer to us as customers. Working with a publisher should be a collaborative process. I am planning to avoid Elsevier journals in the future when I have a say in where a paper goes. Assistant:

epm802d

epn5dib

Join the boycott! thecostofknowledge.com

I love it. They've absolutely cracked it. We make the produce; pay them to take it; they don't pay us to review it; they sell it back to us. Fucking brilliant, genuinely hilarious. They've even managed to make us think they're doing us a favour by offering Gold open access at about 5 grand. I love that they push that we're paying for quality copywriting, then you see articles published with notes from the author in the paper. I saw one a month or two ago where the title of the paper was 'Dr. \...\] has no conflicts of interest to declare'. The title! How the hell did that get past anyone with a pair of eyes. Hilarious and awful in equal measure. There was a good talk by an ex-editor of the BMJ who was saying that the profits \*there\* were fuckin' eye-watering, so God only knows what [NEJM etc. make, or at least that they disclose. It is the swindle of the century. I read a piece recently that academic publishing is second to \*tobacco\* in terms of profits. Bravo to them.

bv6o0s

askacademia_train

Human: Every time I publish with Elsevier a small part of me dies I now have three papers in various Elsevier journals. Through publication of each of these I have grown to dispise Elsevier more and more. I hate they way that they are providing less and less at each stage of the publication process. For example I wrote the paper, my colleagues peer-reviewed it, and then now I even have to do the type setting myself. It makes me question what exactly Elsevier are providing besides a shell to conduct peer review and a hosting platform afterwards? Although there are many issues generally with the publication process, it is the authors doing type setting that actually bugs me the most. For those of you that have not used the Elsevier type setting online tool, this is an interactive document editor where you generate your own proofs. All content is editable and therefore undermining the peer review process. For example, at this stage for key points could be changed or countless self citations added. After this you hit submit and it's done. Now they will claim that this process has some editorial oversight but in my experience it does not. It's a joke. Also I hate the way they refer to us as customers. Working with a publisher should be a collaborative process. I am planning to avoid Elsevier journals in the future when I have a say in where a paper goes. Assistant:

epmg90e

epn5dib

I don't understand why every discipline just doesn't have something like https://arxiv.org/. That would cut the legs out from under these parasites.

I love it. They've absolutely cracked it. We make the produce; pay them to take it; they don't pay us to review it; they sell it back to us. Fucking brilliant, genuinely hilarious. They've even managed to make us think they're doing us a favour by offering Gold open access at about 5 grand. I love that they push that we're paying for quality copywriting, then you see articles published with notes from the author in the paper. I saw one a month or two ago where the title of the paper was 'Dr. \...\] has no conflicts of interest to declare'. The title! How the hell did that get past anyone with a pair of eyes. Hilarious and awful in equal measure. There was a good talk by an ex-editor of the BMJ who was saying that the profits \*there\* were fuckin' eye-watering, so God only knows what [NEJM etc. make, or at least that they disclose. It is the swindle of the century. I read a piece recently that academic publishing is second to \*tobacco\* in terms of profits. Bravo to them.

nxbo8l

askacademia_train

Human: Started a research project on my own, now one of my idols (prof) in the field has agreed to a call to discuss and possibly co-author! Help! Very excited. Want to ask all the necessary questions and cover bases. Goal is for collaboration with him as advisor and possibly co-author. I feel totally in the dark here. What does he need/want from me and what do I need to be sure to ask him? Assistant:

h1feqtb

h1e5ik0

Not to be a downer, but I agree with the other person's advice about documenting your conversation. You need to protect your intellectual property. You are clearly bringing something of value to the table. Don't be moon-eyed by the attention. Academic theft comes in many varieties. Professors have been sued for lifting their students' work. Although you're not a student, I don't see why something similar couldn't occur. It's highly advised that discussions about authorship take place early on in a project--like who's going to be first author, etc. All that stuff matters. I'm really hoping that this materializes into the dream situation it should be, but just be careful.

He's going to ask about your project. It could be a simple overview, and potentially get more specific. Do you know the background on your topic? What are your specific aims? Hypotheses? Rational for these hypotheses? Methods you're going to use to test these hypotheses? Statistical approaches? &#x200B; It seems they want to help you, which is phenomenal! Building a research project is definitely time consuming, so take everything they say constructively and make sure to make notes of everything they say/suggest. Also, don't be afraid to say 'I don't know' or 'I wanted your thoughts/opinions/help with XYZ'

nxbo8l

askacademia_train

Human: Started a research project on my own, now one of my idols (prof) in the field has agreed to a call to discuss and possibly co-author! Help! Very excited. Want to ask all the necessary questions and cover bases. Goal is for collaboration with him as advisor and possibly co-author. I feel totally in the dark here. What does he need/want from me and what do I need to be sure to ask him? Assistant:

h1feqtb

h1eoern

Not to be a downer, but I agree with the other person's advice about documenting your conversation. You need to protect your intellectual property. You are clearly bringing something of value to the table. Don't be moon-eyed by the attention. Academic theft comes in many varieties. Professors have been sued for lifting their students' work. Although you're not a student, I don't see why something similar couldn't occur. It's highly advised that discussions about authorship take place early on in a project--like who's going to be first author, etc. All that stuff matters. I'm really hoping that this materializes into the dream situation it should be, but just be careful.

Wow this is really good. I think if this professor is your "idol" he quite have the reputation. Just be normal and open to his suggestions but do not just give in because he is your professor.

nxbo8l

askacademia_train

Human: Started a research project on my own, now one of my idols (prof) in the field has agreed to a call to discuss and possibly co-author! Help! Very excited. Want to ask all the necessary questions and cover bases. Goal is for collaboration with him as advisor and possibly co-author. I feel totally in the dark here. What does he need/want from me and what do I need to be sure to ask him? Assistant:

h1fmb6s

h1eoern

He might scoop you, document everything for the IP. Remember he’s just a person, not a god. You deserve just as much respect. Make sure he is giving that to you.

Wow this is really good. I think if this professor is your "idol" he quite have the reputation. Just be normal and open to his suggestions but do not just give in because he is your professor.

mveb8m

askacademia_train

Human: Reviewing the n-th paper about an overdone topic. What should I say? I'm reviewing for a high impact medical journal. A group submitted a paper where they use artificial intelligence to solve a specific (technical, non-diagnostic) task. This task is perfectly suited for artificial intelligence. Indeed the first papers that tried it and succeeded were from 2016. In this paper the authors try the latest fad in neural network design and they conclude that... this one works. Like the 200 previous others with less fancy techniques. What can I say? It's technically correct. But if it were a math journal I'd be asking for many experiments to be performed so that it shows what are the differences between this solution and the state-of-the-art ones. But here it's a medical journal, no one cares about math. Should I recommend acceptance? Then why not another 200 ones that say "this thing that works also works if I paint my PC green"? Should I recommend rejection just because they bored me? Should I ask for further tests? Which ones? They already demonstrated quite well that "it works". Just not that it works any different from how it's known to do! And anyway... I don't want to be the asshole reviewer! Assistant:

gvbduk5

gvbmffm

I'm not from science field, but generally you could comment that it doesn't really make a significant contribution, they need to show how their approach is somehow better than the other ones you mentioned. If their literature review is sufficiently extensive then they should have mentioned those studies and show how their study fills a necessary gap. If they didn't, then their gap wasn't sufficiently identified and is thus not original enough. Maybe they have a good explanation but just didn't explain it well, or maybe they submitted it to the medical journal thinking they wouldn't find a reviewer like you who knows their stuff and can see through their BS.

This reminds me of this beautiful article titled "Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?". I do not want to spoil the fun read.

mveb8m

askacademia_train

Human: Reviewing the n-th paper about an overdone topic. What should I say? I'm reviewing for a high impact medical journal. A group submitted a paper where they use artificial intelligence to solve a specific (technical, non-diagnostic) task. This task is perfectly suited for artificial intelligence. Indeed the first papers that tried it and succeeded were from 2016. In this paper the authors try the latest fad in neural network design and they conclude that... this one works. Like the 200 previous others with less fancy techniques. What can I say? It's technically correct. But if it were a math journal I'd be asking for many experiments to be performed so that it shows what are the differences between this solution and the state-of-the-art ones. But here it's a medical journal, no one cares about math. Should I recommend acceptance? Then why not another 200 ones that say "this thing that works also works if I paint my PC green"? Should I recommend rejection just because they bored me? Should I ask for further tests? Which ones? They already demonstrated quite well that "it works". Just not that it works any different from how it's known to do! And anyway... I don't want to be the asshole reviewer! Assistant:

gvbmffm

gvbk4pm

This reminds me of this beautiful article titled "Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?". I do not want to spoil the fun read.

"The authors propose using method X to solve the specific task. However, they do not show how using method X compares with using the previously published methods Y or Z which had already successfully been used for the specific task. Due to this, the impact of this paper is quite minor and not worth publishing in this tremendous journal." is what I would write

mveb8m

askacademia_train

Human: Reviewing the n-th paper about an overdone topic. What should I say? I'm reviewing for a high impact medical journal. A group submitted a paper where they use artificial intelligence to solve a specific (technical, non-diagnostic) task. This task is perfectly suited for artificial intelligence. Indeed the first papers that tried it and succeeded were from 2016. In this paper the authors try the latest fad in neural network design and they conclude that... this one works. Like the 200 previous others with less fancy techniques. What can I say? It's technically correct. But if it were a math journal I'd be asking for many experiments to be performed so that it shows what are the differences between this solution and the state-of-the-art ones. But here it's a medical journal, no one cares about math. Should I recommend acceptance? Then why not another 200 ones that say "this thing that works also works if I paint my PC green"? Should I recommend rejection just because they bored me? Should I ask for further tests? Which ones? They already demonstrated quite well that "it works". Just not that it works any different from how it's known to do! And anyway... I don't want to be the asshole reviewer! Assistant:

gvbif6u

gvbmffm

> this one works. Like the 200 previous others with less fancy techniques. Is the new method distinct from the previous AI methods employed? If so, then it can be valuable contribution. > What can I say? It's technically correct. But if it were a math journal I'd be asking for many experiments to be performed so that it shows what are the differences between this solution and the state-of-the-art ones. As you say, this isn't a math journal. But you can still ask about relative performance. Did they just say "We're testing out algorithm Z" or did they say, "Current state of the art are algorithms W, X, and Y, we're interested in assessing algorithm Z." If not the latter, ask them to do so. Another thing that you could ask about is sample sizes (perhaps again compared over the methods, as appropriate). From my limited experience with them, ML methods are somewhat "data hungry", so if one is better in small samples, or one really excels when n gets large enough, that could be useful to know. > Should I recommend rejection just because they bored me? Unless you think that your interest should be the arbiter of what constitutes publishable science, then no. That doesn't mean you need to favorably review this paper, but recommending rejection because you weren't interested doesn't strike me as a viable rationale.

This reminds me of this beautiful article titled "Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?". I do not want to spoil the fun read.

mveb8m

askacademia_train

Human: Reviewing the n-th paper about an overdone topic. What should I say? I'm reviewing for a high impact medical journal. A group submitted a paper where they use artificial intelligence to solve a specific (technical, non-diagnostic) task. This task is perfectly suited for artificial intelligence. Indeed the first papers that tried it and succeeded were from 2016. In this paper the authors try the latest fad in neural network design and they conclude that... this one works. Like the 200 previous others with less fancy techniques. What can I say? It's technically correct. But if it were a math journal I'd be asking for many experiments to be performed so that it shows what are the differences between this solution and the state-of-the-art ones. But here it's a medical journal, no one cares about math. Should I recommend acceptance? Then why not another 200 ones that say "this thing that works also works if I paint my PC green"? Should I recommend rejection just because they bored me? Should I ask for further tests? Which ones? They already demonstrated quite well that "it works". Just not that it works any different from how it's known to do! And anyway... I don't want to be the asshole reviewer! Assistant:

gvbmffm

gvbhe91

This reminds me of this beautiful article titled "Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?". I do not want to spoil the fun read.

An unoriginal paper is not going to have high impact, and in math if something is already done I would reject unless the proof technique was much better, in the sense of simpler or more efficient or constructive or what have you. And even then I would recommend reject at a top journal, unless it was clearly an independent (ie roughly simultaneous) discovery

mveb8m

askacademia_train

Human: Reviewing the n-th paper about an overdone topic. What should I say? I'm reviewing for a high impact medical journal. A group submitted a paper where they use artificial intelligence to solve a specific (technical, non-diagnostic) task. This task is perfectly suited for artificial intelligence. Indeed the first papers that tried it and succeeded were from 2016. In this paper the authors try the latest fad in neural network design and they conclude that... this one works. Like the 200 previous others with less fancy techniques. What can I say? It's technically correct. But if it were a math journal I'd be asking for many experiments to be performed so that it shows what are the differences between this solution and the state-of-the-art ones. But here it's a medical journal, no one cares about math. Should I recommend acceptance? Then why not another 200 ones that say "this thing that works also works if I paint my PC green"? Should I recommend rejection just because they bored me? Should I ask for further tests? Which ones? They already demonstrated quite well that "it works". Just not that it works any different from how it's known to do! And anyway... I don't want to be the asshole reviewer! Assistant:

gvbhf8z

gvbmffm

For some journals you score in categories, one of which is novelty. It sounds like this is VERY incremental and not novel. I'd express your concerns and ask that they revise the manuscript to highlight the novel aspects over the state of the art. What makes this algorithm better suited? Anything? Does it have pros/cons vs the other papers you mention. Can it potentially do stuff they can't? if the answer to all of that is no, I'd probably reject or push it down to a more junior journal.

This reminds me of this beautiful article titled "Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?". I do not want to spoil the fun read.

m1lumw

askacademia_train

Human: I had a mild brain injury during my PhD program... Now unsure about my future My fiance suggested I create this account to talk about this issue, new to this community and just hoping to get some thoughts and perspective... So, a little background.... As I was going through my masters (and even before that) I felt like I would be really happy going the academic job route. There were a lot of things that I liked about it, so I decided to pursue a PhD (in natural resources/fisheries/ecology). All was going well enough, and I was preparing myself to one day enter the academic job market. About 3.5 years in to my program, and after passing my comprehensive exams, I got a concussion from a mild injury. Most people the symptoms pass within a few weeks, but unfortunately I became one of about 30% of people that get post concussion syndrome. I continued to deal with headaches, dizziness, extreme fatigue, etc.... Had to take some time off for an unofficial medical leave, and then came back to finish my degree. I continued with my concussion rehab for the past almost 2 years while writing my thesis, and I'm proud to say that I made it through all of this and will be defending in a few weeks. That brings me to the point of this post.... Prior to my injury, I was preparing myself for an academic position. It's all I've considered for so long, but with my current health status and the outlook for improvements, I no longer think it's the right path for me. I just can't realistically push my brain and body for 50-60 hour weeks to get through the application process and getting tenure. Which leaves me thinking.... what kind of career paths could I consider? How could I use the skills I learned during graduate school in fisheries? Has anyone else gone through a career change after their PhD? Thanks in advance! Assistant:

gqepdsb

gqf454k

I happy that you strive forward despite your condition and is about to close a chapter in your Phd journey. I was just curious if there's some sort of desk-oriented careers that you might be able to enjoy such as scientific writing/communication or an editor position instead that does not require a lot of physical exertion.

The selection process can be a bit tough but you can look at positions related to your field in government at USAjobs.gov. You would qualify at the GS-11 level and be eligible for the "recent graduate" filter and "pathways" programs. You could find work in research or more policy/administrative/regulatory capacities. The work/life balance in government is much better than academia. But the work is stable, career growth is fairly structured and to my knowledge, government employees are somewhat discouraged from working more than 40 hr/week unless necessary. I believe that the general trend for research roles is that you have a much better work life balance but less autonomy over what you are researching (You study what your job details and supervisor/management request). You can look at the US Forest Service, state departments of fish and wildlife, departments of natural resources, the EPA, USGS, etc.

m1lumw

askacademia_train

Human: I had a mild brain injury during my PhD program... Now unsure about my future My fiance suggested I create this account to talk about this issue, new to this community and just hoping to get some thoughts and perspective... So, a little background.... As I was going through my masters (and even before that) I felt like I would be really happy going the academic job route. There were a lot of things that I liked about it, so I decided to pursue a PhD (in natural resources/fisheries/ecology). All was going well enough, and I was preparing myself to one day enter the academic job market. About 3.5 years in to my program, and after passing my comprehensive exams, I got a concussion from a mild injury. Most people the symptoms pass within a few weeks, but unfortunately I became one of about 30% of people that get post concussion syndrome. I continued to deal with headaches, dizziness, extreme fatigue, etc.... Had to take some time off for an unofficial medical leave, and then came back to finish my degree. I continued with my concussion rehab for the past almost 2 years while writing my thesis, and I'm proud to say that I made it through all of this and will be defending in a few weeks. That brings me to the point of this post.... Prior to my injury, I was preparing myself for an academic position. It's all I've considered for so long, but with my current health status and the outlook for improvements, I no longer think it's the right path for me. I just can't realistically push my brain and body for 50-60 hour weeks to get through the application process and getting tenure. Which leaves me thinking.... what kind of career paths could I consider? How could I use the skills I learned during graduate school in fisheries? Has anyone else gone through a career change after their PhD? Thanks in advance! Assistant:

gqfavqd

gqepdsb

Im so sorry to hear about your accident. My PhD happens to be on dizziness in post-concussion syndrome, and as a physician I see a number of patients completely distraught by not being able to get help. You are most certainly not alone, because this is far more common than most realize. My experience is that almost everyone can see improvements with the right rehabilitation, but the issue is reaching that first clinical contact who recognizes the phenomenon. Kenneth Ciuffreda has published several papers on how rehabilitation can look, if the dizziness or light sensitivity is your main concern. Most of my patients get some help from +1 glasses with +2 inward-prisms, possibly some coloured filter as well, to ease symptoms to start visual rehabilitation therapy. I have seen this work on so many patients, and while I dont know you, dont give up! There is help to get!

I happy that you strive forward despite your condition and is about to close a chapter in your Phd journey. I was just curious if there's some sort of desk-oriented careers that you might be able to enjoy such as scientific writing/communication or an editor position instead that does not require a lot of physical exertion.

m1lumw

askacademia_train

Human: I had a mild brain injury during my PhD program... Now unsure about my future My fiance suggested I create this account to talk about this issue, new to this community and just hoping to get some thoughts and perspective... So, a little background.... As I was going through my masters (and even before that) I felt like I would be really happy going the academic job route. There were a lot of things that I liked about it, so I decided to pursue a PhD (in natural resources/fisheries/ecology). All was going well enough, and I was preparing myself to one day enter the academic job market. About 3.5 years in to my program, and after passing my comprehensive exams, I got a concussion from a mild injury. Most people the symptoms pass within a few weeks, but unfortunately I became one of about 30% of people that get post concussion syndrome. I continued to deal with headaches, dizziness, extreme fatigue, etc.... Had to take some time off for an unofficial medical leave, and then came back to finish my degree. I continued with my concussion rehab for the past almost 2 years while writing my thesis, and I'm proud to say that I made it through all of this and will be defending in a few weeks. That brings me to the point of this post.... Prior to my injury, I was preparing myself for an academic position. It's all I've considered for so long, but with my current health status and the outlook for improvements, I no longer think it's the right path for me. I just can't realistically push my brain and body for 50-60 hour weeks to get through the application process and getting tenure. Which leaves me thinking.... what kind of career paths could I consider? How could I use the skills I learned during graduate school in fisheries? Has anyone else gone through a career change after their PhD? Thanks in advance! Assistant:

gqfavqd

gqf8vqg

Im so sorry to hear about your accident. My PhD happens to be on dizziness in post-concussion syndrome, and as a physician I see a number of patients completely distraught by not being able to get help. You are most certainly not alone, because this is far more common than most realize. My experience is that almost everyone can see improvements with the right rehabilitation, but the issue is reaching that first clinical contact who recognizes the phenomenon. Kenneth Ciuffreda has published several papers on how rehabilitation can look, if the dizziness or light sensitivity is your main concern. Most of my patients get some help from +1 glasses with +2 inward-prisms, possibly some coloured filter as well, to ease symptoms to start visual rehabilitation therapy. I have seen this work on so many patients, and while I dont know you, dont give up! There is help to get!

There's a woman that suffered similarly that gave a TED talk https://www.ted.com/talks/jill\_bolte\_taylor\_my\_stroke\_of\_insight?language=en

m1lumw

askacademia_train

Human: I had a mild brain injury during my PhD program... Now unsure about my future My fiance suggested I create this account to talk about this issue, new to this community and just hoping to get some thoughts and perspective... So, a little background.... As I was going through my masters (and even before that) I felt like I would be really happy going the academic job route. There were a lot of things that I liked about it, so I decided to pursue a PhD (in natural resources/fisheries/ecology). All was going well enough, and I was preparing myself to one day enter the academic job market. About 3.5 years in to my program, and after passing my comprehensive exams, I got a concussion from a mild injury. Most people the symptoms pass within a few weeks, but unfortunately I became one of about 30% of people that get post concussion syndrome. I continued to deal with headaches, dizziness, extreme fatigue, etc.... Had to take some time off for an unofficial medical leave, and then came back to finish my degree. I continued with my concussion rehab for the past almost 2 years while writing my thesis, and I'm proud to say that I made it through all of this and will be defending in a few weeks. That brings me to the point of this post.... Prior to my injury, I was preparing myself for an academic position. It's all I've considered for so long, but with my current health status and the outlook for improvements, I no longer think it's the right path for me. I just can't realistically push my brain and body for 50-60 hour weeks to get through the application process and getting tenure. Which leaves me thinking.... what kind of career paths could I consider? How could I use the skills I learned during graduate school in fisheries? Has anyone else gone through a career change after their PhD? Thanks in advance! Assistant:

gqfavqd

gqf9mra

Im so sorry to hear about your accident. My PhD happens to be on dizziness in post-concussion syndrome, and as a physician I see a number of patients completely distraught by not being able to get help. You are most certainly not alone, because this is far more common than most realize. My experience is that almost everyone can see improvements with the right rehabilitation, but the issue is reaching that first clinical contact who recognizes the phenomenon. Kenneth Ciuffreda has published several papers on how rehabilitation can look, if the dizziness or light sensitivity is your main concern. Most of my patients get some help from +1 glasses with +2 inward-prisms, possibly some coloured filter as well, to ease symptoms to start visual rehabilitation therapy. I have seen this work on so many patients, and while I dont know you, dont give up! There is help to get!

Is there any way you can take an academic medical leave? Is there a way that you might recover to your former self after a year or so of a medical leave? That said, my friend's ex boyfriend studied fisheries PhD and he ended up leading some research for the state natural resources department. I know somebody else who also works for either the USDA or another organization like the US Fish and Wildlife Service. What about working at a teaching university?