label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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
RESPONSE B: 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).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: > 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
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".
RESPONSE B: 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!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: 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.”
RESPONSE B: Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: Capital (T)ruth
RESPONSE B: Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".
RESPONSE B: my computer science advisor always ask me to "ping" someone he's trying to reach out
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: Et al. I enjoy telling my students that it translates into "and friends".
RESPONSE B: 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)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: '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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: Good. Making these articles available to people without the means to access them through publishers asking ridiculous prices is important.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news.
RESPONSE B: Good. Making these articles available to people without the means to access them through publishers asking ridiculous prices is important.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: Well ethically speaking... it's the best.
RESPONSE B: Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: Very very bad. Definitely don't use it. Also definitely don't use gen.lib.rus.ec for textbooks. Very bad news.
RESPONSE B: It is literally the best thing ever.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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. ​ 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:
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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. ​ 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:
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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. ​ 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:
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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. ​ 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:
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: /r/wholesomeacademia
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: /r/wholesomeacademia
RESPONSE B: Congratulations! You got what you deserved. This made my day
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: Thank you for sharing this experience, and it's fantastic that things worked out for you!
RESPONSE B: /r/wholesomeacademia
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: Congratulations! You got what you deserved. This made my day
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: Nothing. I let the justice system work its course.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: Yes, you can always ask the corresponding author for a copy
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: It's not rude, and you don't pay. This is a normal thing to ask for, go for it!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: This is a thing, yes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: I dont like this thread. - someone 6 months from finishing who wants to stay out of academia.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.......
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: Enjoyable, but, no, not worth it in terms of opportunity cost.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: 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?
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: Pre-print its the future, i basically only read pre-prints these days. By the time it gets published its a year old anyway.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: Join the boycott! thecostofknowledge.com
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: Join the boycott! thecostofknowledge.com
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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.
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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? ​ 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'
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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?
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: "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
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: > 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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.
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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!
RESPONSE B: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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!
RESPONSE B: 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
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: 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!
RESPONSE B: 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?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 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!
RESPONSE A: I don’t have much to offer, but my wife got her first concussion during pharmacy school. She ended up hitting her head another four times within pharmacy school. Her GP thinks she has some depth perception issues. She went from top of her class to a C student. She developed chronic headaches, depression, anxiety, and ADD. The fatigue and dizziness were there, too. She went to a bunch of different doctors, including neurologists, and all she got were meds for pain management. I can’t offer insight into your situation, but your post is such a comfort to read because it makes me feel a bit less alone. No one at her university, including some of her friends, seemed to take her situation seriously. It got laughed off because she just hit her head on a door—not like she was a football player, right? She kept getting written off as lazy by both her peers and preceptors. This went on during three years of pharmacy school, and it’s been two years since graduation. She’s still dealing with symptoms. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I’m so sorry that this happened to you. She went through a whole identity crisis given that, like you, she had to reevaluate her goals. She barely made it through school, and she knew she’d never be able to do a residency. Luckily, she ended up with a good job that hasn’t exacerbated her health issues too much. I hope your situation has a better outlook than hers, but even she’s flourishing—just not in the way we planned. I also hope that our story helps you feel less alone with such an insidious injury.
RESPONSE B: 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
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: This academic advt. will make your day :) https://ibb.co/S3B3wHw
RESPONSE A: There is a sea-change in academia, and it requires longitidunal improvements. Not just more UG opportunities, but more Grad, Postdoc, and faculty are needed. I'm glad that she's doing this!
RESPONSE B: I want to believe her, but...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: This academic advt. will make your day :) https://ibb.co/S3B3wHw
RESPONSE A: I believe her when she says she reads every applicant. However when she says potential, it will be hard for her to back it up. Harvard reads every applicant. Harvard also brags about their median and max GPA being 4.0 and near perfect SAT/GRE/MCAT/LSAT across the board. There are a few with bad GPAs and bad standardized test scores. But mostly Harvard has 97% rock solid and 3% “potential” with bad GPA and a strong letter showing passion.
RESPONSE B: I want to believe her, but...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: is talking about grants and publishing and these are all probably topics that most people become familiar with during their ph.D. I know this is very vague, but if it helps I'm in the field of neuroscience. Basically what I'm asking for are resources for working in a lab, or what to do during your post-doc. Imagine that after your 1st year in a phd program, your advisor left they just gave your phd and then you started a post doc without any experience. Thats what it feels like. It feels like the only thing I can do, is perform surgery and read the literature and understand it in great depth and write about it. I do have those skills, but everything else, including the hands on stuff in the lab, I feel underprepared. Also the other thing is that everyone in the lab wants to become a professor at one point, and I don't even think I am interested in that.
RESPONSE A: Forget the PhD, you a hustler now!
RESPONSE B: This is so common it’s sometimes called the post doc phenotype. Everyone starts off looking for a project or something to build their career on. There’s a rush of trying things and failing. That’s just part of science. I was certainly out of my element the first two years. I leaned heavily on staff and grad students to learn basic skills. It took years to get any traction. But during your post doc you should have the time to learn and try new things. Make progress absolutely but it’s ok to get stuck, change tracks, back up. What helped me a lot was meeting post docs in other labs, going to lots of talks with scientist doing good work and knowing if that retard over there can be successful than I can too. If a post doc is not for you the get out or finish fast with a project and paper and move on. Life is short. During my postdoc I had a fundamental change in thinking. Less what I know and more about what I can do, where I can look, what I can figure out. And then it became awesome. In science things change very quickly after staying the same for a long time. All the excitement comes at once.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Would it be weird to send an email to a professor who's book I loved? I read a book from an academic. It has no reviews anywhere but I really loved it and was wondering if would be weird to email them and tell them that I enjoyed their book?
RESPONSE A: This isn't weird—it's a rare academic author who wouldn't be delighted to receive such an email. Consider describing what aspect of their style or content you especially enjoyed. Don't feel bad if you don't hear back. It's also a rare academic author who devotes much time for correspondence.
RESPONSE B: Not at all! As long as you're not weird about it I'm sure they'd love the feedback.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Would it be weird to send an email to a professor who's book I loved? I read a book from an academic. It has no reviews anywhere but I really loved it and was wondering if would be weird to email them and tell them that I enjoyed their book?
RESPONSE A: This isn't weird—it's a rare academic author who wouldn't be delighted to receive such an email. Consider describing what aspect of their style or content you especially enjoyed. Don't feel bad if you don't hear back. It's also a rare academic author who devotes much time for correspondence.
RESPONSE B: Please do message them, I bet it will brighten their day! Keep it short and sweet... Maybe post a review on Goodreads or Amazon too
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Would it be weird to send an email to a professor who's book I loved? I read a book from an academic. It has no reviews anywhere but I really loved it and was wondering if would be weird to email them and tell them that I enjoyed their book?
RESPONSE A: I'll throw my hat into the ring too. You definitely should. It's largely a thankless job met often with criticism rather than praise. No harm in making one's day! 👍
RESPONSE B: Not at all. But make sure they're alive. I once wrote a long thankyou email to the late Paul B. Lyons only to discover that he'd passed away a few months earlier and I was gutted.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Would it be weird to send an email to a professor who's book I loved? I read a book from an academic. It has no reviews anywhere but I really loved it and was wondering if would be weird to email them and tell them that I enjoyed their book?
RESPONSE A: Not at all. But make sure they're alive. I once wrote a long thankyou email to the late Paul B. Lyons only to discover that he'd passed away a few months earlier and I was gutted.
RESPONSE B: Only if you want to make their day/week!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Would it be weird to send an email to a professor who's book I loved? I read a book from an academic. It has no reviews anywhere but I really loved it and was wondering if would be weird to email them and tell them that I enjoyed their book?
RESPONSE A: Not at all. But make sure they're alive. I once wrote a long thankyou email to the late Paul B. Lyons only to discover that he'd passed away a few months earlier and I was gutted.
RESPONSE B: Do it, I think it would mean a lot to them :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Dealing with research burnout during COVID Is anyone else experiencing research burnout? Especially in the humanities where most of my research is just staring at a screen. Feel like I can't read a single article without my eyes glossing over. Any tips for dealing with this?
RESPONSE A: I find the days blur together sometimes. I take random weekdays off sometimes.
RESPONSE B: I started reading for fun in between my reading for research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Dealing with research burnout during COVID Is anyone else experiencing research burnout? Especially in the humanities where most of my research is just staring at a screen. Feel like I can't read a single article without my eyes glossing over. Any tips for dealing with this?
RESPONSE A: I find the days blur together sometimes. I take random weekdays off sometimes.
RESPONSE B: studying clinical psych here and very much feeling this - you're not alone!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: in achieving their goals but don't talk about their failures. Would anyone here be open and discuss their failures in academia and how they gave up and moved on to other paths? I think this could be a great learning experience
RESPONSE A: I left my humanities PhD program halfway into writing the dissertation. While program was good and I liked my advisor and the department, but I was burned out, struggling to get by on adjunct gigs/TA stipend, and I was having lots of trouble making any progress. Also my roommate had a mental break and committed suicide. So I left -- though looking back I probably should have left sooner. At first I was pretty depressed about giving up and unsure what I could do. I applied to all sorts of jobs that people recommend for transitioning academics -- USAJobs, college admin roles, etc... -- but it went nowhere. Realizing that I needed to expand my skillset, I taught myself how to program and other CS fundamentals. One thing you become really good at in a PhD program is teaching yourself. These days I split my time between teaching CS at university and research & development in the tech industry.
RESPONSE B: I submitted my PhD the same week covid lockdowns happened and my examiners failed me. My supervisor reviewed my chapters over a week and most comments consisted of “I don’t like this picture.” She resigned a week after I submitted and couldn’t make a case to defend me so it was left in the hands of other academics. We tried to refute the examiner decision but the Dean of Graduate Studies said “Masters or nothing.” The Dean also came from the same faculty and had a notorious hate relationship with my supervisor so I don’t know if it was all politics. The 1 year anniversary of the failure news is coming up, I still haven’t told my grandparents about my big screw up and they’re still telling everyone I have a PhD. I’m trying to get an industry job with my masters, but I’ve also had a lot of teaching opportunities during my studies and am currently working as a tutor on the side. Aside from that, I really have no idea what I’m doing. To repeat what someone previously said, get therapy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: in achieving their goals but don't talk about their failures. Would anyone here be open and discuss their failures in academia and how they gave up and moved on to other paths? I think this could be a great learning experience
RESPONSE A: I got my bachelors in math, and I always dreamed of getting my PhD in math and becoming a professor. After 2.5 years in grad school, I dropped out with my masters. I’m lucky I guess because I ended up realizing how unhappy graduate school was making me early on. The grad school I went to was very toxic, and I wish I’d been more careful to ask students about their experiences before I ended up going there. The four other women in the program with me dropped out too; I never got to see any women pass the math qualifying exam while I was in the program. It’s tough, because I wish I had done more to change the way things were done in the department, but I just decided to leave instead. I am soooooooo much happier now though! I have my dream job working in operations research! Please don’t stay in graduate school if it’s ruining your mental health.
RESPONSE B: I submitted my PhD the same week covid lockdowns happened and my examiners failed me. My supervisor reviewed my chapters over a week and most comments consisted of “I don’t like this picture.” She resigned a week after I submitted and couldn’t make a case to defend me so it was left in the hands of other academics. We tried to refute the examiner decision but the Dean of Graduate Studies said “Masters or nothing.” The Dean also came from the same faculty and had a notorious hate relationship with my supervisor so I don’t know if it was all politics. The 1 year anniversary of the failure news is coming up, I still haven’t told my grandparents about my big screw up and they’re still telling everyone I have a PhD. I’m trying to get an industry job with my masters, but I’ve also had a lot of teaching opportunities during my studies and am currently working as a tutor on the side. Aside from that, I really have no idea what I’m doing. To repeat what someone previously said, get therapy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: By this time next year I plan to resign from my TT position and relocate back to my hometown. I'm embarking on a new career path in search of newer opportunities that don't place me in a position of severe economic impoverishment and overwork. How do I resign without sabotaging my reputation? How do continue to work throughout the year, showing "productivity" while knowing deep down that I will be resigning by the academic-year's end? When do I submit my letter of resignation, to give the department enough time to adjust? What do I say in my letter of resignation? Truth is, I hate my job. I hate being a professor. I hate working as hard as I do, and still I'm begging federal institutions for grants and money. I hate making exams, and grading papers. I hate my life. I'm planning to leave whether or not I have a job lined up because I'm just that miserable. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't sabotage my reputation. Advice please.
RESPONSE A: Don't over think it. I was in a similar position, knowing for almost a year that I was going to leave. You can avoid most long term commitments if you just tell people that your plate is too full to take on new projects. You don't owe the department anything beyond professional courtesy - that means do your best to ensure a smooth transition of your responsibilities. But the will be loose ends, and that's just the nature of leaving a job. Regarding your resignation, all you need to do is give them the amount of notice your contract specifies, and your resignation letter just needs to say that you're leaving to pursue other opportunities. It's a formality, not a chance to express your feelings.
RESPONSE B: If you can, take a sabbatical first! Grass is always greener on the other side but it might not end up being the case.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: By this time next year I plan to resign from my TT position and relocate back to my hometown. I'm embarking on a new career path in search of newer opportunities that don't place me in a position of severe economic impoverishment and overwork. How do I resign without sabotaging my reputation? How do continue to work throughout the year, showing "productivity" while knowing deep down that I will be resigning by the academic-year's end? When do I submit my letter of resignation, to give the department enough time to adjust? What do I say in my letter of resignation? Truth is, I hate my job. I hate being a professor. I hate working as hard as I do, and still I'm begging federal institutions for grants and money. I hate making exams, and grading papers. I hate my life. I'm planning to leave whether or not I have a job lined up because I'm just that miserable. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't sabotage my reputation. Advice please.
RESPONSE A: I think if you leave and aren't a jerk about it, you'll be fine. Not your question, but have you worked outside of academia before? I say this as somebody who had a ten year career in a completely different field before getting my PhD and it sucked. I know some non-academics love their jobs, so obviously my experience isn't everybody's, but if there's any way to test the waters a bit before you make the leap, I would encourage it. Anyway, good luck!!
RESPONSE B: I don't have any advice but I just wanted to say I am sorry you're miserable and I hope you find your way to a job that makes you happier.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: By this time next year I plan to resign from my TT position and relocate back to my hometown. I'm embarking on a new career path in search of newer opportunities that don't place me in a position of severe economic impoverishment and overwork. How do I resign without sabotaging my reputation? How do continue to work throughout the year, showing "productivity" while knowing deep down that I will be resigning by the academic-year's end? When do I submit my letter of resignation, to give the department enough time to adjust? What do I say in my letter of resignation? Truth is, I hate my job. I hate being a professor. I hate working as hard as I do, and still I'm begging federal institutions for grants and money. I hate making exams, and grading papers. I hate my life. I'm planning to leave whether or not I have a job lined up because I'm just that miserable. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't sabotage my reputation. Advice please.
RESPONSE A: You might want to look into your institution’s leave of absence policy. You might be able to take a year’s leave of absence that way if your new opportunity doesn’t work out, you’d still have a job to go back to. I am a bit risk adverse when it comes to jobs and so I’d feel more comfortable with a safety net. Of course, everyone’s different when it comes to these kinds of things. I wish you the best of luck sorting this out. I know how hard this can be.
RESPONSE B: I think if you leave and aren't a jerk about it, you'll be fine. Not your question, but have you worked outside of academia before? I say this as somebody who had a ten year career in a completely different field before getting my PhD and it sucked. I know some non-academics love their jobs, so obviously my experience isn't everybody's, but if there's any way to test the waters a bit before you make the leap, I would encourage it. Anyway, good luck!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: sabotaging my reputation? How do continue to work throughout the year, showing "productivity" while knowing deep down that I will be resigning by the academic-year's end? When do I submit my letter of resignation, to give the department enough time to adjust? What do I say in my letter of resignation? Truth is, I hate my job. I hate being a professor. I hate working as hard as I do, and still I'm begging federal institutions for grants and money. I hate making exams, and grading papers. I hate my life. I'm planning to leave whether or not I have a job lined up because I'm just that miserable. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't sabotage my reputation. Advice please.
RESPONSE A: You dont owe anyone anything, but it is a small world and you could conceivably need a LOR. In any case, it doesn't really hurt to be considerate. If you are really sure that you want to leave, I would at least tell your chair so that they have some heads up that they will have to replace you. But that is only my 2 cents. If you have the chance to get out and do some consulting or job interview before you pull the plug, even if the things you get are not your long term goals, I would really advise you strongly to see if the other options are actually worse. Also advise at least a perfunctory job search in whatever you think the alternatives are to get a feeling for if they are alternatives for you. But this is in the context that I would not quit a job without having another job under any circumstances .
RESPONSE B: I think if you leave and aren't a jerk about it, you'll be fine. Not your question, but have you worked outside of academia before? I say this as somebody who had a ten year career in a completely different field before getting my PhD and it sucked. I know some non-academics love their jobs, so obviously my experience isn't everybody's, but if there's any way to test the waters a bit before you make the leap, I would encourage it. Anyway, good luck!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: leave whether or not I have a job lined up because I'm just that miserable. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't sabotage my reputation. Advice please.
RESPONSE A: Chair here. I've had colleagues resign. No hard feelings, but I'd personally *absolutely* prefer to have a private heads-up as far in advance as possible because if someone leaves without warning in late spring I'd have to scramble to cover their classes for fall, or even risk losing the line. It wouldn't be a problem to keep that info confidential, but even better if the dean knew too so we could start conversations about a term hire to cover the classes. Nobody I know has resigned from a tenure-track position *without* telling the chair in advance at my school. It's a courtesy to do so. I've had no problems providing positive references for people who have left of their own accord that way. If someone simply bailed in May and left us hanging, though, I'd consider that unprofessional and would be much less willing to provide more than a basic "yes, she worked here" sort of reference. People leave academia all the time. Two friends of my did so one year after earning tenure. It's not uncommon, but doing it professionally will make it easier for everyone.
RESPONSE B: You dont owe anyone anything, but it is a small world and you could conceivably need a LOR. In any case, it doesn't really hurt to be considerate. If you are really sure that you want to leave, I would at least tell your chair so that they have some heads up that they will have to replace you. But that is only my 2 cents. If you have the chance to get out and do some consulting or job interview before you pull the plug, even if the things you get are not your long term goals, I would really advise you strongly to see if the other options are actually worse. Also advise at least a perfunctory job search in whatever you think the alternatives are to get a feeling for if they are alternatives for you. But this is in the context that I would not quit a job without having another job under any circumstances .
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I don’t think I want to get my PhD anymore, but I don’t know what else to do. I’m (22F) a first year PhD student in physics, and I kind of absolutely hate it. I know at least some of the problem is my mental health, adjusting to having moved across the country, and a bunch of non-school external stressors that I have been dealing with... I’m in therapy and I take meds. But I wake up and dread my classes. I dread my research. I feel like a disappointment to my advisor who is so nice and puts so much faith in me. I’m skipping class and sleeping and I’m still so exhausted. I don’t think this is what I want to do, and academica was never something I planned on doing after my doctorate anyway. I think I just want it so everyone knows I’m smart. And it’s always been my plan. But I don’t know what to do from here. I kind of want to teach. My mom was a teacher and she hated it, but I think I would enjoy teaching math, and it seems like that’s at least somewhat in demand. I don’t know what to do. Any advice from teachers, grad students, physicists, or anyone would be useful. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Youre figuring this out in first year? Good for you, quit. Quit right away. The sunk cost fallacy (which is less of a fallacy because you do only get your PhD at the end so you kinda get stuck gutting out out) gets worse with every passing year. Run now.
RESPONSE B: I'm so glad that you are addressing your mental health, above all else. Don't be miserable for something you hate when you can be stressed (but not miserable) for something you love! Also, you are so young, you have lots of years to change your mind again and again. Love to you :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I don’t think I want to get my PhD anymore, but I don’t know what else to do. I’m (22F) a first year PhD student in physics, and I kind of absolutely hate it. I know at least some of the problem is my mental health, adjusting to having moved across the country, and a bunch of non-school external stressors that I have been dealing with... I’m in therapy and I take meds. But I wake up and dread my classes. I dread my research. I feel like a disappointment to my advisor who is so nice and puts so much faith in me. I’m skipping class and sleeping and I’m still so exhausted. I don’t think this is what I want to do, and academica was never something I planned on doing after my doctorate anyway. I think I just want it so everyone knows I’m smart. And it’s always been my plan. But I don’t know what to do from here. I kind of want to teach. My mom was a teacher and she hated it, but I think I would enjoy teaching math, and it seems like that’s at least somewhat in demand. I don’t know what to do. Any advice from teachers, grad students, physicists, or anyone would be useful. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: >But I don’t know what to do from here. I don't know what you want to do as a career but based the skills you've learned as a physics PhD students could be very valuable in different fields because you guys are part time data scientists, part time CS / electrical engineers, part time mathematicians, and part time experimentalists. The combination of skill sets that you have might land you a job in other industries. Good luck.
RESPONSE B: Youre figuring this out in first year? Good for you, quit. Quit right away. The sunk cost fallacy (which is less of a fallacy because you do only get your PhD at the end so you kinda get stuck gutting out out) gets worse with every passing year. Run now.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I don’t think I want to get my PhD anymore, but I don’t know what else to do. I’m (22F) a first year PhD student in physics, and I kind of absolutely hate it. I know at least some of the problem is my mental health, adjusting to having moved across the country, and a bunch of non-school external stressors that I have been dealing with... I’m in therapy and I take meds. But I wake up and dread my classes. I dread my research. I feel like a disappointment to my advisor who is so nice and puts so much faith in me. I’m skipping class and sleeping and I’m still so exhausted. I don’t think this is what I want to do, and academica was never something I planned on doing after my doctorate anyway. I think I just want it so everyone knows I’m smart. And it’s always been my plan. But I don’t know what to do from here. I kind of want to teach. My mom was a teacher and she hated it, but I think I would enjoy teaching math, and it seems like that’s at least somewhat in demand. I don’t know what to do. Any advice from teachers, grad students, physicists, or anyone would be useful. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Youre figuring this out in first year? Good for you, quit. Quit right away. The sunk cost fallacy (which is less of a fallacy because you do only get your PhD at the end so you kinda get stuck gutting out out) gets worse with every passing year. Run now.
RESPONSE B: Sounds like its time for a deep think. Change can be good but determining where you want to go from here can be a challenge. If the coursework etc is adding to your health dilemmas, Personally I don’t think it’s worth the hit to your mental health.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: up and dread my classes. I dread my research. I feel like a disappointment to my advisor who is so nice and puts so much faith in me. I’m skipping class and sleeping and I’m still so exhausted. I don’t think this is what I want to do, and academica was never something I planned on doing after my doctorate anyway. I think I just want it so everyone knows I’m smart. And it’s always been my plan. But I don’t know what to do from here. I kind of want to teach. My mom was a teacher and she hated it, but I think I would enjoy teaching math, and it seems like that’s at least somewhat in demand. I don’t know what to do. Any advice from teachers, grad students, physicists, or anyone would be useful. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Youre figuring this out in first year? Good for you, quit. Quit right away. The sunk cost fallacy (which is less of a fallacy because you do only get your PhD at the end so you kinda get stuck gutting out out) gets worse with every passing year. Run now.
RESPONSE B: Sometimes it takes actually diving into something to make us realize what is and isn't for us. There's a big fucking difference between THINKING you want something and actually doing that thing. I just moved to another country and uprooted my life, just to have pretty much the exact same thought process you're having. I dropped out and am heading back to the states in a couple days. I'm not saying that's what you'll end up doing, or even recommending it (I just don't know enough about your situation), but really think about what makes you happy and what YOU want, not what other's expect out of you. Life is too short for anything else. And if you don't know what you want, or what makes you happy yet (that's totally normal), then perhaps a break for diving into a PhD would be a healthy choice as well. Seems to me you've made up your mind to give it a break though, and you're looking for some validation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I don’t think I want to get my PhD anymore, but I don’t know what else to do. I’m (22F) a first year PhD student in physics, and I kind of absolutely hate it. I know at least some of the problem is my mental health, adjusting to having moved across the country, and a bunch of non-school external stressors that I have been dealing with... I’m in therapy and I take meds. But I wake up and dread my classes. I dread my research. I feel like a disappointment to my advisor who is so nice and puts so much faith in me. I’m skipping class and sleeping and I’m still so exhausted. I don’t think this is what I want to do, and academica was never something I planned on doing after my doctorate anyway. I think I just want it so everyone knows I’m smart. And it’s always been my plan. But I don’t know what to do from here. I kind of want to teach. My mom was a teacher and she hated it, but I think I would enjoy teaching math, and it seems like that’s at least somewhat in demand. I don’t know what to do. Any advice from teachers, grad students, physicists, or anyone would be useful. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: I'm so glad that you are addressing your mental health, above all else. Don't be miserable for something you hate when you can be stressed (but not miserable) for something you love! Also, you are so young, you have lots of years to change your mind again and again. Love to you :)
RESPONSE B: Sounds like its time for a deep think. Change can be good but determining where you want to go from here can be a challenge. If the coursework etc is adding to your health dilemmas, Personally I don’t think it’s worth the hit to your mental health.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How the hell do you enjoy reading papers? I am a STEM student about to go into his final year of undergrad. I have been reading scientific papers and conducting research since my first semester and while I have gotten *better* at reading papers, it still sucks SO much to do so. I do not know what it is. Every time I start reading a paper I get like a page in and my mind goes 'wow this is boring and it sucks' and I stop. I will all the time hear post-docs and my PI talk about how cool a paper was and I cannot fathom how they think so. To be perfectly clear, I think my research is amazing and I love learning. Lectures are my favorite thing but something about scientific papers just turns me off so hard. Does anyone else feel this way? Does anyone have tips on how to make papers more palatable?
RESPONSE A: The more you read, the more you learn about the field as a whole and the easier it gets to read and understand new contributions with less effort. At that point reading new literature become more fun because it doesn’t always seem like a heavy mental lift, you’re just adding a pebble to the beach.
RESPONSE B: As a research scientist, I bloody hate reading papers, even my own. I just force myself and hate every second.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How the hell do you enjoy reading papers? I am a STEM student about to go into his final year of undergrad. I have been reading scientific papers and conducting research since my first semester and while I have gotten *better* at reading papers, it still sucks SO much to do so. I do not know what it is. Every time I start reading a paper I get like a page in and my mind goes 'wow this is boring and it sucks' and I stop. I will all the time hear post-docs and my PI talk about how cool a paper was and I cannot fathom how they think so. To be perfectly clear, I think my research is amazing and I love learning. Lectures are my favorite thing but something about scientific papers just turns me off so hard. Does anyone else feel this way? Does anyone have tips on how to make papers more palatable?
RESPONSE A: Happens over time. I'm able to sort of skim my eyes over bits like historical precedent and significance statements. Typically I read the abstract them go to the methods. If the methods are crap I don't need to continue. If they are good I read the results, scan the intro, then read the conclusion.
RESPONSE B: As a research scientist, I bloody hate reading papers, even my own. I just force myself and hate every second.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How the hell do you enjoy reading papers? I am a STEM student about to go into his final year of undergrad. I have been reading scientific papers and conducting research since my first semester and while I have gotten *better* at reading papers, it still sucks SO much to do so. I do not know what it is. Every time I start reading a paper I get like a page in and my mind goes 'wow this is boring and it sucks' and I stop. I will all the time hear post-docs and my PI talk about how cool a paper was and I cannot fathom how they think so. To be perfectly clear, I think my research is amazing and I love learning. Lectures are my favorite thing but something about scientific papers just turns me off so hard. Does anyone else feel this way? Does anyone have tips on how to make papers more palatable?
RESPONSE A: Usually when I talk about how "good" a paper is, I don't necessarily mean it's a riveting read the way a novel would be, but that the results are interesting or exciting. I definitely agree with people saying you should read it non-linearly. It's a different way of writing and should be a different way of reading. Usually I read the abstract and conclusion then look at the figures. Sometimes the intro if I'm not as familiar with the background. I'll then read the body carefully if it's a study I may want to replicate.
RESPONSE B: The more you read, the more you learn about the field as a whole and the easier it gets to read and understand new contributions with less effort. At that point reading new literature become more fun because it doesn’t always seem like a heavy mental lift, you’re just adding a pebble to the beach.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: The other day, I saw someone ask why anyone would even get a PhD. As I lay here on the floor of my office having an allergic reaction to MucinexDM, I am reminded why I don’t work in the corporate world. This is why. So we can lay on the floor and suffer in peace.
RESPONSE A: I do it in the corporate world and I can afford better drugs!!
RESPONSE B: Professorship = naps I rarely take them but love knowing I can.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: The other day, I saw someone ask why anyone would even get a PhD. As I lay here on the floor of my office having an allergic reaction to MucinexDM, I am reminded why I don’t work in the corporate world. This is why. So we can lay on the floor and suffer in peace.
RESPONSE A: I do it in the corporate world and I can afford better drugs!!
RESPONSE B: When I was in the private sector I had that sort of autonomy. I left it because most private sector fields are fully neoliberal, and the academy isn't, yet. Plenty of knowledge work jobs offer that sort of flexibility, they're just more volatile, more susceptible to short term market shifts, and more likely to radically shift when middle or upper management does. Basically, no tenure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: The other day, I saw someone ask why anyone would even get a PhD. As I lay here on the floor of my office having an allergic reaction to MucinexDM, I am reminded why I don’t work in the corporate world. This is why. So we can lay on the floor and suffer in peace.
RESPONSE A: When I taught at the college level, my office was miserable. Tiny, smelly carpet, horrible heat and A.C. system in building... heard all the shenanigans from the hall. I may not have as much privacy now that I'm back to teaching high school, but my office and salary situations are honestly much better.
RESPONSE B: I got out of academia and went into the corporate world and I work from home. Just sayin’!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some uncomfortable truths in academia? People have a tendency to ignore the more unsavory aspects of whatever line of work you're in. What is yours for academia?
RESPONSE A: nobody on the zoom call is wearing pants
RESPONSE B: The expectation (and obligation) to do free addition work in an already underpaid job. I mean this for grad students, post docs and most faculty.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some uncomfortable truths in academia? People have a tendency to ignore the more unsavory aspects of whatever line of work you're in. What is yours for academia?
RESPONSE A: it is literally a pyramid scheme. let's start there.
RESPONSE B: The vast majority of us will not get tenure track positions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some uncomfortable truths in academia? People have a tendency to ignore the more unsavory aspects of whatever line of work you're in. What is yours for academia?
RESPONSE A: The vast majority of us will not get tenure track positions.
RESPONSE B: We spend more time working with, complaining about, and trying to prevent cheating among a small percent of bad students—but that makes it feel like all we’re doing is trying to deal with those bad students. It can make teaching feel demoralizing at times.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some uncomfortable truths in academia? People have a tendency to ignore the more unsavory aspects of whatever line of work you're in. What is yours for academia?
RESPONSE A: nobody on the zoom call is wearing pants
RESPONSE B: The vast majority of us will not get tenure track positions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some uncomfortable truths in academia? People have a tendency to ignore the more unsavory aspects of whatever line of work you're in. What is yours for academia?
RESPONSE A: The university (or journal or society) is a business. It’s a non-profit, but that simply means they spend what they take in and as a result: Cash Rules Everything Around Me!
RESPONSE B: The vast majority of us will not get tenure track positions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: The application period was open for only one month. * They asked if it was okay to call my references but never contacted any of them. IME in my field references are usually contacted for all finalist candidates. * The start date was mid-academic-year and only about 3 months after the application close date. The successful candidate would need to either be unemployed or have an extremely flexible position (thankfully I have the latter) to be able to start mid-year. Or already be on campus... * There's a long-time adjunct in this department with specific (course name/number) teaching duties identical to the courses listed in the job advertisement, with exactly the course load stated in the job ad. The adjunct's spouse has an upper-level administrative position at the same university. Any one of these alone I would brush off, but I've been on the other side of a process that felt very similar. I also think that this happens more frequently than we might expect--I know of a handful of cases like this. In fact, now that I think of it I can think of four cases off the top of my head where I was at least tangentially affected, either on a search committee or in a department, by a rigged search that was either attempted or successfully carried out. (The score is 2-2 if you're curious). What I suspect here is that the "candidate" already on campus was promised this position but according to the institution's rules, they had to do a national search. I happened upon the job listing just by chance and they had to play along; maybe having me in the pool even helped at some level. Faculty and many/most committee members were in the dark until the final "decision" had to be made. As I wrote at the beginning, this is mostly just me venting. It may just be me coping with rejection. The position was really ideal, though--I've never seen such a perfect fit (from me-as-candidate point of view). This might be one of the final straws that gets me out of academia. Thanks for reading my rant :)
RESPONSE A: Are you full time or adjunct?
RESPONSE B: Not paranoid at all. It happens.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 's a long-time adjunct in this department with specific (course name/number) teaching duties identical to the courses listed in the job advertisement, with exactly the course load stated in the job ad. The adjunct's spouse has an upper-level administrative position at the same university. Any one of these alone I would brush off, but I've been on the other side of a process that felt very similar. I also think that this happens more frequently than we might expect--I know of a handful of cases like this. In fact, now that I think of it I can think of four cases off the top of my head where I was at least tangentially affected, either on a search committee or in a department, by a rigged search that was either attempted or successfully carried out. (The score is 2-2 if you're curious). What I suspect here is that the "candidate" already on campus was promised this position but according to the institution's rules, they had to do a national search. I happened upon the job listing just by chance and they had to play along; maybe having me in the pool even helped at some level. Faculty and many/most committee members were in the dark until the final "decision" had to be made. As I wrote at the beginning, this is mostly just me venting. It may just be me coping with rejection. The position was really ideal, though--I've never seen such a perfect fit (from me-as-candidate point of view). This might be one of the final straws that gets me out of academia. Thanks for reading my rant :)
RESPONSE A: Happens all the time. IMHO, 8/10 post-doctoral positions are made for the candidate. Academia is rotten. Get out.
RESPONSE B: Definitely happens. I think you're right that that's what happened to you. FWIW I've also heard of it going the the other way -- a candidate is promised a position but they just have to advertise it for legal reasons, but then the department decides they do want someone else, leaving the person the position was made for in the lurch. Ghost positions really just suck all around.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: felt very similar. I also think that this happens more frequently than we might expect--I know of a handful of cases like this. In fact, now that I think of it I can think of four cases off the top of my head where I was at least tangentially affected, either on a search committee or in a department, by a rigged search that was either attempted or successfully carried out. (The score is 2-2 if you're curious). What I suspect here is that the "candidate" already on campus was promised this position but according to the institution's rules, they had to do a national search. I happened upon the job listing just by chance and they had to play along; maybe having me in the pool even helped at some level. Faculty and many/most committee members were in the dark until the final "decision" had to be made. As I wrote at the beginning, this is mostly just me venting. It may just be me coping with rejection. The position was really ideal, though--I've never seen such a perfect fit (from me-as-candidate point of view). This might be one of the final straws that gets me out of academia. Thanks for reading my rant :)
RESPONSE A: Definitely happens. I think you're right that that's what happened to you. FWIW I've also heard of it going the the other way -- a candidate is promised a position but they just have to advertise it for legal reasons, but then the department decides they do want someone else, leaving the person the position was made for in the lurch. Ghost positions really just suck all around.
RESPONSE B: While there are internal candidates all the time, some of these red flags aren’t flags. The job was posted on chronicle of higher Ed, which is a large job search site. The job was posted for a month? That’s totally normal, and longer than a lot of jobs I have seen and applied for in the past. Start dates: at least where I am at, you can leave a job anytime. So if it’s mid semester and I’m a TT professor, I would just quit and leave for the new gig.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: an extremely flexible position (thankfully I have the latter) to be able to start mid-year. Or already be on campus... * There's a long-time adjunct in this department with specific (course name/number) teaching duties identical to the courses listed in the job advertisement, with exactly the course load stated in the job ad. The adjunct's spouse has an upper-level administrative position at the same university. Any one of these alone I would brush off, but I've been on the other side of a process that felt very similar. I also think that this happens more frequently than we might expect--I know of a handful of cases like this. In fact, now that I think of it I can think of four cases off the top of my head where I was at least tangentially affected, either on a search committee or in a department, by a rigged search that was either attempted or successfully carried out. (The score is 2-2 if you're curious). What I suspect here is that the "candidate" already on campus was promised this position but according to the institution's rules, they had to do a national search. I happened upon the job listing just by chance and they had to play along; maybe having me in the pool even helped at some level. Faculty and many/most committee members were in the dark until the final "decision" had to be made. As I wrote at the beginning, this is mostly just me venting. It may just be me coping with rejection. The position was really ideal, though--I've never seen such a perfect fit (from me-as-candidate point of view). This might be one of the final straws that gets me out of academia. Thanks for reading my rant :)
RESPONSE A: Definitely happens. I think you're right that that's what happened to you. FWIW I've also heard of it going the the other way -- a candidate is promised a position but they just have to advertise it for legal reasons, but then the department decides they do want someone else, leaving the person the position was made for in the lurch. Ghost positions really just suck all around.
RESPONSE B: Are you full time or adjunct?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: There's a long-time adjunct in this department with specific (course name/number) teaching duties identical to the courses listed in the job advertisement, with exactly the course load stated in the job ad. The adjunct's spouse has an upper-level administrative position at the same university. Any one of these alone I would brush off, but I've been on the other side of a process that felt very similar. I also think that this happens more frequently than we might expect--I know of a handful of cases like this. In fact, now that I think of it I can think of four cases off the top of my head where I was at least tangentially affected, either on a search committee or in a department, by a rigged search that was either attempted or successfully carried out. (The score is 2-2 if you're curious). What I suspect here is that the "candidate" already on campus was promised this position but according to the institution's rules, they had to do a national search. I happened upon the job listing just by chance and they had to play along; maybe having me in the pool even helped at some level. Faculty and many/most committee members were in the dark until the final "decision" had to be made. As I wrote at the beginning, this is mostly just me venting. It may just be me coping with rejection. The position was really ideal, though--I've never seen such a perfect fit (from me-as-candidate point of view). This might be one of the final straws that gets me out of academia. Thanks for reading my rant :)
RESPONSE A: Definitely happens. I think you're right that that's what happened to you. FWIW I've also heard of it going the the other way -- a candidate is promised a position but they just have to advertise it for legal reasons, but then the department decides they do want someone else, leaving the person the position was made for in the lurch. Ghost positions really just suck all around.
RESPONSE B: I feel bad for you but they literally have to advertise the position and go through the motions - it is the law. What precisely do you want them to do?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Anyone Else Sick of Shitty Online Applications? So many of these are either poorly designed, mildly abusive, or flat out broken. Why do you need me to tell you everything that is in my CV that I just uploaded on your site? Why can’t I put international phone numbers in my application without triggering errors? Why do you want my high school address, gpa, and number of credits? No you may not have my social security number to check my background and credit before I’m selected to interview. These things are designed by sociopaths.
RESPONSE A: I assume you are talking about academic job applications where you end up having to fill out the university’s internal job application. I think most folks just skip as much of that as possible. It wastes so much time when all you are trying to do is upload the actual application.
RESPONSE B: I applied to a job at Princeton (which I won't get, but hey). The application website is one page. No login or account. Just put in name and email info; upload the cover letter, CV, and work sample; write down the names and emails of references; and check the various demographic boxes. Couldn't have taken more than five minutes. It really made me appreciate just how bad every other one of these is. Particularly CUNY's. CUNY's is terrible.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Anyone Else Sick of Shitty Online Applications? So many of these are either poorly designed, mildly abusive, or flat out broken. Why do you need me to tell you everything that is in my CV that I just uploaded on your site? Why can’t I put international phone numbers in my application without triggering errors? Why do you want my high school address, gpa, and number of credits? No you may not have my social security number to check my background and credit before I’m selected to interview. These things are designed by sociopaths.
RESPONSE A: Yes! I once had an application for a job ask me to type in every single university module I had done and the grade. Could’ve just uploaded the transcript and saved so much time.
RESPONSE B: This will get buried but I am more tired of having to write 10+ pages of documents tailored for that specific place / position, only to have my application completely ignored. I might as well start printing my docs straight into trash :(
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Anyone Else Sick of Shitty Online Applications? So many of these are either poorly designed, mildly abusive, or flat out broken. Why do you need me to tell you everything that is in my CV that I just uploaded on your site? Why can’t I put international phone numbers in my application without triggering errors? Why do you want my high school address, gpa, and number of credits? No you may not have my social security number to check my background and credit before I’m selected to interview. These things are designed by sociopaths.
RESPONSE A: This will get buried but I am more tired of having to write 10+ pages of documents tailored for that specific place / position, only to have my application completely ignored. I might as well start printing my docs straight into trash :(
RESPONSE B: Oh god yes. Like why do you need EVERY JOB I HAVE EVER HAD. The supervisor for my first tutoring job is deceased. No you can't talk to her.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |