label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
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: There's no frustration quite like having to faff around with a log-in to do a journal a *favour*.
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: 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.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: so, and when that time comes she'll tell me that she was having issues with the software, or the model was giving errors, or that it's taking longer to converge than she expected. I.e., nothing I can definitively call her out on. This is a PhD student entering her third year, and I'm worried that she's slipping. I just don't know how to broach this respectfully.
RESPONSE A: Speaking as a phd student, it's not going to be a good talk. That being said, I have questions. - are you actually paying her for 40 hours? In the US, most grad students only get paid for 20 hours a week, and may have other responsibilities. If she's teaching or taking classes, that takes a lot of time - have you addressed the issues and offered support for someone to help troubleshoot? If this is all new modeling/software, everything takes longer, especially if she's running into issues. Troubleshooting new techniques without help and someone to bounce ideas off of is very isolating and it's hard to make progress at all because nothing feels like it'll help - have you made sure she's OK emotionally and in her life? My productivity tanked when my family was having massive health issues. If this is a new problem, cut her some slack, life is really fucking hard right now I suggest having her put together a timeline for her week/summer, and both of you can discuss it and make sure expectations line up. It seems like that might not have been established before, and now the consequences are showing up. Sit down together, and evaluate expectations.
RESPONSE B: Setting up tasks and keeping an eye on the progress is totally fair, just make sure that you realistically estimate the time those tasks need. Sorting out a package installation can take the whole day. Fixing convergence issues can take a week. On top of that, everything takes \*much\* longer for a student who is doing this for the first time. Maybe you should first see if she is actually putting in approximately a full time's worth of work, or if it's a motivation problem.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to talk to a grad student about productivity issues? I'm paying one of my grad students for 40 hours of work per week, and I feel like I'm getting barely half of that. How do I politely approach her on this subject without sounding like I'm micromanaging? I'm fairly new to academia, so I haven't really had to deal with this before. Most of what she's currently working on is funded from an internal pot of money, so it's not like she's missing external deadlines from sponsors. I will tell her that I want a certain model estimated by so-and-so, and when that time comes she'll tell me that she was having issues with the software, or the model was giving errors, or that it's taking longer to converge than she expected. I.e., nothing I can definitively call her out on. This is a PhD student entering her third year, and I'm worried that she's slipping. I just don't know how to broach this respectfully.
RESPONSE A: Just keep it to the facts. She isn't meeting deadlines. This needs to be fixed. Does she need help with modeling because you're finding errors. etc.
RESPONSE B: Are your expectations regarding the amount of work possible in 40 hours based on your own skills, your own skillset in the 3rd year of your phd, or something else entirely? If it's the first, your expectations are too high. If it's the second, think about the differences between your two experiences and think about the ways you might bridge the gap (e.g. maybe you had an officemate who could help you with small hiccups, maybe you were explicitly taught how to deal with models that take a long time to run and ways you can mitigate waiting-around, etc). If it's the third, idk how to help you. Generally people who get to the 3rd year of their phd are not being lazy. They are sometimes burnt out, or hate asking for help, or are furiously spinning their wheels, or a bunch of other stuff, but very few are unproductive on purpose.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do we have famous scientist-influencers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan but no famous philisopher-influencers or other humanities experts on the same level? I originally wanted to ask this question in a philosophy subreddit but I don't think the rules allow for it. I think the question could apply to lots of other humanities though. Not sure if the tag should be interdisciplinary or humanities.
RESPONSE A: They're called "public intellectuals," and there are so, so many from the humanities. Top 100 Public Intellectuals
RESPONSE B: Mary Beard
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do we have famous scientist-influencers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan but no famous philisopher-influencers or other humanities experts on the same level? I originally wanted to ask this question in a philosophy subreddit but I don't think the rules allow for it. I think the question could apply to lots of other humanities though. Not sure if the tag should be interdisciplinary or humanities.
RESPONSE A: They're called "public intellectuals," and there are so, so many from the humanities. Top 100 Public Intellectuals
RESPONSE B: Why doesn't math have a popularizer? Because ordinary people can't understand it. It's too technical. The same is true for physics, but popularizers like Tyson can dumb it down to the point where people *think* they understand it. Philosophy is all about the gnitty gritty specifics in arguments. Most ordinary people don't want to sit through those any more than they want to learn how to take an integral.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do we have famous scientist-influencers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan but no famous philisopher-influencers or other humanities experts on the same level? I originally wanted to ask this question in a philosophy subreddit but I don't think the rules allow for it. I think the question could apply to lots of other humanities though. Not sure if the tag should be interdisciplinary or humanities.
RESPONSE A: They're called "public intellectuals," and there are so, so many from the humanities. Top 100 Public Intellectuals
RESPONSE B: Henry Louis Gates?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do we have famous scientist-influencers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan but no famous philisopher-influencers or other humanities experts on the same level? I originally wanted to ask this question in a philosophy subreddit but I don't think the rules allow for it. I think the question could apply to lots of other humanities though. Not sure if the tag should be interdisciplinary or humanities.
RESPONSE A: Mary Beard
RESPONSE B: Peter Singer and fellow philosophers (e.g. Toby Ord, Will MacAskill, etc.) have arguably influenced the movement of many billions of dollars.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do we have famous scientist-influencers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan but no famous philisopher-influencers or other humanities experts on the same level? I originally wanted to ask this question in a philosophy subreddit but I don't think the rules allow for it. I think the question could apply to lots of other humanities though. Not sure if the tag should be interdisciplinary or humanities.
RESPONSE A: Peter Singer and fellow philosophers (e.g. Toby Ord, Will MacAskill, etc.) have arguably influenced the movement of many billions of dollars.
RESPONSE B: Why doesn't math have a popularizer? Because ordinary people can't understand it. It's too technical. The same is true for physics, but popularizers like Tyson can dumb it down to the point where people *think* they understand it. Philosophy is all about the gnitty gritty specifics in arguments. Most ordinary people don't want to sit through those any more than they want to learn how to take an integral.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Can't say it enough, publishing in journals is very frustrating. I just got contradictory reviews. This is just a rant. I just received the first round of review for this paper that I submitted to a journal. My paper is about delinquency and the first time around when I submitted it, I got rejected but one of the reviews said that I should include this theory that would enhance my argument. Then, I resubmitted it, and this time, the review said, please get rid of the theory as it is pointless. I am this close to stating in my "Response to Reviewers" that I do not want to listen to you (i.e., the current reviewer) because I took my time to write a thoughtful part of my paper to include the theory BECAUSE of a review from the past and now I need to delete it? Obviously I won't write that in my response. I think I'll just delete it. Hope this paper is published this time around.
RESPONSE A: Peer reviewing seems broken in all fields. In my own field (machine learning) it's also a bit of a shit show. It's funny because everyone I ask or talk to regarding peer reviewing agrees with things like "reviews should be sincere and take a holistic view on the value of the paper" or "reviews should not obsess with state-of-the-art performance" etc. Yet, every single review that seems to surface seems to contradict this. I wonder how these reviewers are being selected.
RESPONSE B: That happens fairly often. Maybe just copy and paste the previous version of that section into the manuscript, sounds like an easy fix. One of my papers was submitted in Feb this year, it's still in review.. so annoying
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Can't say it enough, publishing in journals is very frustrating. I just got contradictory reviews. This is just a rant. I just received the first round of review for this paper that I submitted to a journal. My paper is about delinquency and the first time around when I submitted it, I got rejected but one of the reviews said that I should include this theory that would enhance my argument. Then, I resubmitted it, and this time, the review said, please get rid of the theory as it is pointless. I am this close to stating in my "Response to Reviewers" that I do not want to listen to you (i.e., the current reviewer) because I took my time to write a thoughtful part of my paper to include the theory BECAUSE of a review from the past and now I need to delete it? Obviously I won't write that in my response. I think I'll just delete it. Hope this paper is published this time around.
RESPONSE A: That happens fairly often. Maybe just copy and paste the previous version of that section into the manuscript, sounds like an easy fix. One of my papers was submitted in Feb this year, it's still in review.. so annoying
RESPONSE B: It’s such a crapshoot. I find it impossible to get in the head of the people writing these reviews sometimes. We submitted a paper earlier this year to a mid-high journal, a really comprehensive work we were super proud of. The reviews were really positive, complimentary etc, but noted a minor inconsistency in an argument that was unimportant... they offered some helpful constructive feedback alongside straight reject recommendations. Great...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Can't say it enough, publishing in journals is very frustrating. I just got contradictory reviews. This is just a rant. I just received the first round of review for this paper that I submitted to a journal. My paper is about delinquency and the first time around when I submitted it, I got rejected but one of the reviews said that I should include this theory that would enhance my argument. Then, I resubmitted it, and this time, the review said, please get rid of the theory as it is pointless. I am this close to stating in my "Response to Reviewers" that I do not want to listen to you (i.e., the current reviewer) because I took my time to write a thoughtful part of my paper to include the theory BECAUSE of a review from the past and now I need to delete it? Obviously I won't write that in my response. I think I'll just delete it. Hope this paper is published this time around.
RESPONSE A: It’s always possible to disagree with a reviewer and articulate why. Politely state your case and you can probably get by. I’m known for being more argumentative than my colleagues, but I am often successful at pushing back. I get all the ugly feeling out of my system with a first draft. If I still feel I’m right, I tone it down a bit while sticking to my guns. If, on reflection, I now think the reviewer was right, I incorporate their suggestion. Remember, you don’t have to convince reviewers. You have to convince the editor.
RESPONSE B: In my last submission, I had one reviewer tell me the results looked poor, and another one tell me the results were excellent. The problem, in my case, was that the former didn't read the paper thoroughly (there was some feedback to add things that were already in the paper). Otherwise, the paper did explain why the results looked poor, but in actuality are quite good.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Can't say it enough, publishing in journals is very frustrating. I just got contradictory reviews. This is just a rant. I just received the first round of review for this paper that I submitted to a journal. My paper is about delinquency and the first time around when I submitted it, I got rejected but one of the reviews said that I should include this theory that would enhance my argument. Then, I resubmitted it, and this time, the review said, please get rid of the theory as it is pointless. I am this close to stating in my "Response to Reviewers" that I do not want to listen to you (i.e., the current reviewer) because I took my time to write a thoughtful part of my paper to include the theory BECAUSE of a review from the past and now I need to delete it? Obviously I won't write that in my response. I think I'll just delete it. Hope this paper is published this time around.
RESPONSE A: You should include that kind of statement in your response, IMHO. Many peer reviewers don't put a lot of effort into it, or forget their original advice (or it was a new peer reviewer because the old one went MIA). Also, the editors do/should look at such comments, so its good to let them know the situation so they can accept you challenging the reviewers comments.
RESPONSE B: It’s always possible to disagree with a reviewer and articulate why. Politely state your case and you can probably get by. I’m known for being more argumentative than my colleagues, but I am often successful at pushing back. I get all the ugly feeling out of my system with a first draft. If I still feel I’m right, I tone it down a bit while sticking to my guns. If, on reflection, I now think the reviewer was right, I incorporate their suggestion. Remember, you don’t have to convince reviewers. You have to convince the editor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Use of the word "request" by students from South Asia I regularly receive emails from students from India and Pakistan who want to enroll in PG studies or internships. Many of these emails seem fairly formal and respectful BUT make a troubling use of the word "request", in a way that feels downright disrespectful and abrupt. I'm talking about sentences like "I request you to take me under your mentorship", or "I request you to please let the process be continued"... Since I'm not a native speaker I'm not sure whether that's the way other people would perceive this use of the word. Perhaps it's some overly-formal British English turn of phrase that's gone out of fashion elsewhere. And I wonder why so many of these students use it, and where they learn it from. Any thoughts on this?
RESPONSE A: People learn different varieties of English in different language environments (which will influence how they construct phrases in English). I would not worry about this at all.
RESPONSE B: Indian here: Yes written English taught in Indian schools can sometimes be quite old-fashioned. By requesting you to be their mentor, they are basically asking you for an opportunity to interview. And under no circumstance are they trying to be disrespectful to you. In fact, they are actively trying to avoid that at every cost, whether you interview them or not.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Use of the word "request" by students from South Asia I regularly receive emails from students from India and Pakistan who want to enroll in PG studies or internships. Many of these emails seem fairly formal and respectful BUT make a troubling use of the word "request", in a way that feels downright disrespectful and abrupt. I'm talking about sentences like "I request you to take me under your mentorship", or "I request you to please let the process be continued"... Since I'm not a native speaker I'm not sure whether that's the way other people would perceive this use of the word. Perhaps it's some overly-formal British English turn of phrase that's gone out of fashion elsewhere. And I wonder why so many of these students use it, and where they learn it from. Any thoughts on this?
RESPONSE A: It's just one of those things you find in country-specific variations of English. Don't think too much of it. When I came to Thailand I was kinda shocked at how all my students use the word 'diligent' regularly. Keep in mind that their English is, for the most part, shockingly awful. So when I hear the word 'diligent' just being randomly thrown around, it piqued my interest. Turns out it's just some common word here.
RESPONSE B: Indian here: Yes written English taught in Indian schools can sometimes be quite old-fashioned. By requesting you to be their mentor, they are basically asking you for an opportunity to interview. And under no circumstance are they trying to be disrespectful to you. In fact, they are actively trying to avoid that at every cost, whether you interview them or not.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Use of the word "request" by students from South Asia I regularly receive emails from students from India and Pakistan who want to enroll in PG studies or internships. Many of these emails seem fairly formal and respectful BUT make a troubling use of the word "request", in a way that feels downright disrespectful and abrupt. I'm talking about sentences like "I request you to take me under your mentorship", or "I request you to please let the process be continued"... Since I'm not a native speaker I'm not sure whether that's the way other people would perceive this use of the word. Perhaps it's some overly-formal British English turn of phrase that's gone out of fashion elsewhere. And I wonder why so many of these students use it, and where they learn it from. Any thoughts on this?
RESPONSE A: Indian here: Yes written English taught in Indian schools can sometimes be quite old-fashioned. By requesting you to be their mentor, they are basically asking you for an opportunity to interview. And under no circumstance are they trying to be disrespectful to you. In fact, they are actively trying to avoid that at every cost, whether you interview them or not.
RESPONSE B: I get that a lot and I do not consider it as rude or abrupt. It's just some form of English that is spoken there. It may from an old form of English or a direct translation from their own language.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Use of the word "request" by students from South Asia I regularly receive emails from students from India and Pakistan who want to enroll in PG studies or internships. Many of these emails seem fairly formal and respectful BUT make a troubling use of the word "request", in a way that feels downright disrespectful and abrupt. I'm talking about sentences like "I request you to take me under your mentorship", or "I request you to please let the process be continued"... Since I'm not a native speaker I'm not sure whether that's the way other people would perceive this use of the word. Perhaps it's some overly-formal British English turn of phrase that's gone out of fashion elsewhere. And I wonder why so many of these students use it, and where they learn it from. Any thoughts on this?
RESPONSE A: It has less to do with local language and more to do with how we are taught to write letters and emails directed towards authority / decision makers when in school as part of our English language training. Request is a word that features heavily in the taught sentence structure and it indoctrinates what we are conditioned to believe. Respect and reverence for authority and formality as a representation of respect . Whether it be teachers , officers , professors . It's taught as respect intermingled with fear to some degree. So 'request' you see in these conversations represent the bureaucracy as reflected in language.
RESPONSE B: Indian here: Yes written English taught in Indian schools can sometimes be quite old-fashioned. By requesting you to be their mentor, they are basically asking you for an opportunity to interview. And under no circumstance are they trying to be disrespectful to you. In fact, they are actively trying to avoid that at every cost, whether you interview them or not.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Use of the word "request" by students from South Asia I regularly receive emails from students from India and Pakistan who want to enroll in PG studies or internships. Many of these emails seem fairly formal and respectful BUT make a troubling use of the word "request", in a way that feels downright disrespectful and abrupt. I'm talking about sentences like "I request you to take me under your mentorship", or "I request you to please let the process be continued"... Since I'm not a native speaker I'm not sure whether that's the way other people would perceive this use of the word. Perhaps it's some overly-formal British English turn of phrase that's gone out of fashion elsewhere. And I wonder why so many of these students use it, and where they learn it from. Any thoughts on this?
RESPONSE A: People learn different varieties of English in different language environments (which will influence how they construct phrases in English). I would not worry about this at all.
RESPONSE B: Yeah, request is a pretty common "Indianism." Basically different countries around the world have developed their own little linguistic quirks in how ideas and concepts are phrased. Another thing you might come across from South Asian students (or at least Indians) is the ubiquitous use of "sir" when addressing faculty or other people older/senior to them. It took me *ages* before I lost the habit myself and started addressing my faculty by their own names. I definitely understand why it might sound disrespectful, but its not meant to be. In fact its meant to be the opposite. Its meant to be deferential, and its the phrase most of them will have been taught is appropriate for formal requests. If you ever see communications by Indians to officials for instance you'll frequently see the phrase "I request you to do the needful." Its definitely an evolution from the high formal English of the Victorian/Colonial era. These sorts of variations are very common in many ex-colonies of the Empire where English became a sort of local language itself beyond just being a lingua-franca.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: i think this will just re-iterate what I did for my phd, I'm not sure I fully appreciate what I'm supposed to highlight in this section Is this where I showcase the things I can do as a researcher? #####Key competencies I think it's a good idea to have a brief section where you can highlight these but it doesn't seem to be a thing in academic context As my CV stands right now, I have 4 subsections in there: Bioinformatics, Data Science, Informatics, Biology where I highlight my competences that are most relevant to each section. For example the "Data science" parts reads as follows: >Data Science: Experienced in applying and developing statistical analyses and machine learning tech-niques for biological questions. Enjoys handling big amounts of data and takes pride indeveloping and optimizing fast performing computational pipelines. Very comfortable with the Python data science stack of libraries (jupyter, pandas, numpy, sci-kit, sci-py, seaborn,TensorFlow) Should all this just go in the cover letter instead? Or in the research experience somehow? #####Repositories As a bioinformatician, I've created some repositories for which I'm quite proud and I'd like to showcase them. This again doesn't seem to be a thing in academia, what do you think?
RESPONSE A: I have a line in my cover letter- though it helps that his death coincided with a change in direction for me. It’s something like “following the death of my advisor, I changed directions somewhat and ...). On my CV it is also part of the eduction section- something like “PhD in X under mentor Y [deceased, YEAR].” If you feel comfortable asking, I think it helps to have a reference from someone who knew your advisor and is willing to speak to your advisor’s general opinion of you.
RESPONSE B: For your applications are you also including a cover letter? Personal statement? Etc? If so, you could mention it there. “With great sadness my PhD advisor passed away and I have been doing XYZ in the wake of it”.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: does it? #####Research experience Similarly, i think this will just re-iterate what I did for my phd, I'm not sure I fully appreciate what I'm supposed to highlight in this section Is this where I showcase the things I can do as a researcher? #####Key competencies I think it's a good idea to have a brief section where you can highlight these but it doesn't seem to be a thing in academic context As my CV stands right now, I have 4 subsections in there: Bioinformatics, Data Science, Informatics, Biology where I highlight my competences that are most relevant to each section. For example the "Data science" parts reads as follows: >Data Science: Experienced in applying and developing statistical analyses and machine learning tech-niques for biological questions. Enjoys handling big amounts of data and takes pride indeveloping and optimizing fast performing computational pipelines. Very comfortable with the Python data science stack of libraries (jupyter, pandas, numpy, sci-kit, sci-py, seaborn,TensorFlow) Should all this just go in the cover letter instead? Or in the research experience somehow? #####Repositories As a bioinformatician, I've created some repositories for which I'm quite proud and I'd like to showcase them. This again doesn't seem to be a thing in academia, what do you think?
RESPONSE A: I have a line in my cover letter- though it helps that his death coincided with a change in direction for me. It’s something like “following the death of my advisor, I changed directions somewhat and ...). On my CV it is also part of the eduction section- something like “PhD in X under mentor Y [deceased, YEAR].” If you feel comfortable asking, I think it helps to have a reference from someone who knew your advisor and is willing to speak to your advisor’s general opinion of you.
RESPONSE B: Note it in the cover letter. You are right that it may raise questions, best just answer it with a simple sentence in the part of your cover letter where you briefly discuss your research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: and machine learning tech-niques for biological questions. Enjoys handling big amounts of data and takes pride indeveloping and optimizing fast performing computational pipelines. Very comfortable with the Python data science stack of libraries (jupyter, pandas, numpy, sci-kit, sci-py, seaborn,TensorFlow) Should all this just go in the cover letter instead? Or in the research experience somehow? #####Repositories As a bioinformatician, I've created some repositories for which I'm quite proud and I'd like to showcase them. This again doesn't seem to be a thing in academia, what do you think?
RESPONSE A: I have a line in my cover letter- though it helps that his death coincided with a change in direction for me. It’s something like “following the death of my advisor, I changed directions somewhat and ...). On my CV it is also part of the eduction section- something like “PhD in X under mentor Y [deceased, YEAR].” If you feel comfortable asking, I think it helps to have a reference from someone who knew your advisor and is willing to speak to your advisor’s general opinion of you.
RESPONSE B: > Professional Appointments/Employment This is normally there because (at least in my experience) most recent PhD grads have had various jobs prior to applying for postdocs - part-time work as a student, summer jobs, a full-time job between undergrad and grad school, co-ops or internships, etc. > Research experience, Key competencies Personally I think that it makes sense to describe your research experience/specialisations as part of your description of your PhD under "Education", and a "Skills" section below if that isn't covered in the rest of the CV Alternatively, some people only list the degree title/institution/year under "Education" and then include a separate research section. In either case, I agree you shouldn't have it on there twice, and regardless you should definitely also put these things in your cover letter but much more customized to the specific requirements of the job you're appying for.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 't seem to be a thing in academic context As my CV stands right now, I have 4 subsections in there: Bioinformatics, Data Science, Informatics, Biology where I highlight my competences that are most relevant to each section. For example the "Data science" parts reads as follows: >Data Science: Experienced in applying and developing statistical analyses and machine learning tech-niques for biological questions. Enjoys handling big amounts of data and takes pride indeveloping and optimizing fast performing computational pipelines. Very comfortable with the Python data science stack of libraries (jupyter, pandas, numpy, sci-kit, sci-py, seaborn,TensorFlow) Should all this just go in the cover letter instead? Or in the research experience somehow? #####Repositories As a bioinformatician, I've created some repositories for which I'm quite proud and I'd like to showcase them. This again doesn't seem to be a thing in academia, what do you think?
RESPONSE A: > Professional Appointments/Employment This is normally there because (at least in my experience) most recent PhD grads have had various jobs prior to applying for postdocs - part-time work as a student, summer jobs, a full-time job between undergrad and grad school, co-ops or internships, etc. > Research experience, Key competencies Personally I think that it makes sense to describe your research experience/specialisations as part of your description of your PhD under "Education", and a "Skills" section below if that isn't covered in the rest of the CV Alternatively, some people only list the degree title/institution/year under "Education" and then include a separate research section. In either case, I agree you shouldn't have it on there twice, and regardless you should definitely also put these things in your cover letter but much more customized to the specific requirements of the job you're appying for.
RESPONSE B: Note it in the cover letter. You are right that it may raise questions, best just answer it with a simple sentence in the part of your cover letter where you briefly discuss your research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: when you've been on the other side of it, as we all have I'm sure. Any way to get over this while making sure I stay a quality reviewer?
RESPONSE A: It might vary by discipline, but in my discipline it's normal for papers to be rejected once. Unless people are trying to get their papers published quickly, most of my colleagues will aim for a journal that they don't realistically expect to be accepted by, and then quickly resubmit to a more realistic second choice. Rejection is infuriating the first few times it happens, but researchers should soon learn that it's part of the process. The fact that people have put a lot of work in shouldn't concern you - it's not like all that work evaporates when you reject the paper. As long as you give them constructive criticism they can tighten up the paper and resubmit it elsewhere, and that hard work was still worthwhile. It's important to be courteous and constructive, but I don't think you'd be posting this question in the first place if you were an arsehole! The standards calibration thing is always a challenge for me. Perfect research is very rare, and you can pick apart anything if you want to. It is hard to get the right balance between letting minor things go but being strict about the things that really matter. I don't want to be the one arsehole reviewer that tears a paper apart when the other reviewers were fine with it, and likewise I don't want to be the one soft touch who misses something important.
RESPONSE B: I think it's important to keep in mind that you aren't rejecting any papers as a reviewer. That's not your role. You are simply giving evidence-based (hopefully) recommendations, and the editor is the one making the final decision. A good editor should not choose to reject only because a reviewer recommended it, and there are certainly cases where editors overrule reviewers. As you gain experience in the field, you will start to better calibrate your standards to those of the specific journal, but in the meantime, remember that you are a reviewer to assess the facts, not the amount of effort that authors put in.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I Hate Rejecting Papers So I became a reviewer for one of the journals I published to during my PhD and I'm happy to be doing it, but I find that I reject far more papers than I accept and it's bothering me. I can always tell when a great deal of work and thought has gone into a manuscript and it makes me sad to send a rejection recommendation. Obviously, the field would not necessarily benefit if I lowered my standards (assuming they are calibrated properly), and I do make sure to find and note aspects of the paper I like and give grace where I can, but even so, rejecting doesn't feel great, especially when you've been on the other side of it, as we all have I'm sure. Any way to get over this while making sure I stay a quality reviewer?
RESPONSE A: I think it's important to keep in mind that you aren't rejecting any papers as a reviewer. That's not your role. You are simply giving evidence-based (hopefully) recommendations, and the editor is the one making the final decision. A good editor should not choose to reject only because a reviewer recommended it, and there are certainly cases where editors overrule reviewers. As you gain experience in the field, you will start to better calibrate your standards to those of the specific journal, but in the meantime, remember that you are a reviewer to assess the facts, not the amount of effort that authors put in.
RESPONSE B: I think that as long as you point out shortfalls/strengths/impact and give constructive criticism, any editor would be well happy with your reviews. It is not always easy to calibrate your expectations according to the specific journal (especially if you are using your own work as reference it might be a bit trickier to not be biased), but if you feel that rejection is appropriate after comparing to similar articles on the same field I would not think twice about it. As another reply said, there is so much junk being published that proper peer-review is essential to weed out what has been properly done (and in the end, it's up to the editor anyway).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I Hate Rejecting Papers So I became a reviewer for one of the journals I published to during my PhD and I'm happy to be doing it, but I find that I reject far more papers than I accept and it's bothering me. I can always tell when a great deal of work and thought has gone into a manuscript and it makes me sad to send a rejection recommendation. Obviously, the field would not necessarily benefit if I lowered my standards (assuming they are calibrated properly), and I do make sure to find and note aspects of the paper I like and give grace where I can, but even so, rejecting doesn't feel great, especially when you've been on the other side of it, as we all have I'm sure. Any way to get over this while making sure I stay a quality reviewer?
RESPONSE A: I think it's important to keep in mind that you aren't rejecting any papers as a reviewer. That's not your role. You are simply giving evidence-based (hopefully) recommendations, and the editor is the one making the final decision. A good editor should not choose to reject only because a reviewer recommended it, and there are certainly cases where editors overrule reviewers. As you gain experience in the field, you will start to better calibrate your standards to those of the specific journal, but in the meantime, remember that you are a reviewer to assess the facts, not the amount of effort that authors put in.
RESPONSE B: Remember that you are helping the public and the submitter when you reject the paper - you are improving the quality of knowledge and quality of work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I Hate Rejecting Papers So I became a reviewer for one of the journals I published to during my PhD and I'm happy to be doing it, but I find that I reject far more papers than I accept and it's bothering me. I can always tell when a great deal of work and thought has gone into a manuscript and it makes me sad to send a rejection recommendation. Obviously, the field would not necessarily benefit if I lowered my standards (assuming they are calibrated properly), and I do make sure to find and note aspects of the paper I like and give grace where I can, but even so, rejecting doesn't feel great, especially when you've been on the other side of it, as we all have I'm sure. Any way to get over this while making sure I stay a quality reviewer?
RESPONSE A: I go in to every review hoping to read a great paper. I comment and suggest edits in the hope that my suggestions can help to make it a great paper. I really only ever suggest rejection when there are critical/substantial technical flaws not easily addressed or obvious omissions. For instance, my most recent review led to a suggested Major Revision (I debated recommending Reject) because I could not understand the degree of overlap between the authors’ new manuscript and a previous publication of theirs. And the advancement they made wasn’t clearly couched relative to their previous paper. After much consideration, I figured there was a path to making that distinction but it’ll require considerable reconstruction. Nevertheless, the ideas they were advancing were interesting and by suggesting Major Revision rather than Reject, I’m hoping that they tackle the revision in good faith rather than send unchanged elsewhere. The only time I easily reject papers is when they propose baseless notions that contravene logic - rare, but happens.
RESPONSE B: I follow the golden rule: write the review you want to get. The review that I want is honest, thoughtful, and delivered with respect. I end each of my reviews with something like “I hope these comments are helpful, and I wish you the best of luck as you move your work forward.” That’s how I approach the whole thing: how can I help move this work forward?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I Hate Rejecting Papers So I became a reviewer for one of the journals I published to during my PhD and I'm happy to be doing it, but I find that I reject far more papers than I accept and it's bothering me. I can always tell when a great deal of work and thought has gone into a manuscript and it makes me sad to send a rejection recommendation. Obviously, the field would not necessarily benefit if I lowered my standards (assuming they are calibrated properly), and I do make sure to find and note aspects of the paper I like and give grace where I can, but even so, rejecting doesn't feel great, especially when you've been on the other side of it, as we all have I'm sure. Any way to get over this while making sure I stay a quality reviewer?
RESPONSE A: If the paper can be remediated by 1) adding something or taking something away 2) changing the analysis 3) modifying the interpretation and still has value why reject outright? If something else is actually really needed for the experiment do a revision. I reject outright stuff that is not salvageable or is badly thought out and poorly designed .
RESPONSE B: I follow the golden rule: write the review you want to get. The review that I want is honest, thoughtful, and delivered with respect. I end each of my reviews with something like “I hope these comments are helpful, and I wish you the best of luck as you move your work forward.” That’s how I approach the whole thing: how can I help move this work forward?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: done, but most of my days I feel I can walk away from my desk by 2pm. Sometimes earlier. I don't know if it's because there's this ideological view of what doing a PhD requires, but a lot of the blog posts and online posts I read from others suggests that this is an unbelievably busy period and there are simply not enough hours in the day and people's mental health is at stake because of the hours they put in. And honestly, I just don't feel like that. I find it very easy to walk away from my work (either in the evenings or to take breaks now and then) and I wonder if this is detrimental to my completing a satisfactory thesis. None of my supervisors seem to have any cause for concern and I have plans ahead of me, so I'm not stuck for anything to do. I just wonder if there's a toxicity to the whole PhD lifestyle which pressures people into thinking they have to work themselves into dust or it's not good enough. Maybe this is an American mindset. Maybe it's because of the subject matter I'm researching (I can do it all online from my own bedroom). I don't know. Anyone else feel this way?
RESPONSE A: Here's an idea...if you're struggling to find something to do then take a break for a few days. No point spending time at the computer being less productive than you want to be, take a few days off and come back to the computer with a well structured to-do list. If you've scoped out your project with clear deadlines and your supervisor is happy with what you've suggested then don't fret. Take breaks now whilst you can. When you get to the arse-end of year 3 (or even into year 4?) then you'll be gagging for a break.
RESPONSE B: A lot of posts from PhD students on Reddit and YouTube are from STEM. I feel like that contributed a lot to their busy schedule. They have a lot of lab work in addition to what you are doing. If your supervisor is happy, I’m assuming what you are doing is fine for now. I’m sure it’ll change once you start collecting data
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Now that you're in academia, do you really think grades matter? Out of curiosity! I once worked with the head of a PhD program who casually mentioned that the University's grade cutoffs for candidates sometimes leaves them with people who are great at coursework but have no research experience (implied: they drop out too). That's why he's not a fan of the cut-offs but it's the policy... and I'm also wondering if you choose RAs or TAs based wholly on their grades?
RESPONSE A: They matter to the extent you're unlikely\* to succeed in academia if you don't have the ability\*\* to get good (or at least decent) grades, but with all sorts of caveats. In particular, the converse clearly isn't true, i.e., students who are good at exams aren't necessarily good at research. (There's also a restriction of range thing - within the set of people who go into research, I can imagine grades matter less; while your typical D, C student isn't going to be in that set in the first place.) Cut-offs are a particularly blunt measure but given a presumable over-supply of candidates I do get it. \* Pre-empting - unlikely, not impossible. \*\* Mainly, you could think of students who are just weak cognitively, but even, in all its unfairness, if it's environmental, that's still going to be predictive.
RESPONSE B: I had a 2.4 in undergrad, and now am in a TT position at an R1. I was successful in grad school. Because of this, I push my department on admissions to look past the GPA of a student, and at everything else. Courses are (at least in my experience), SO DIFFERENT at the graduate level, that they tend to lend themselves to students differently.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Now that you're in academia, do you really think grades matter? Out of curiosity! I once worked with the head of a PhD program who casually mentioned that the University's grade cutoffs for candidates sometimes leaves them with people who are great at coursework but have no research experience (implied: they drop out too). That's why he's not a fan of the cut-offs but it's the policy... and I'm also wondering if you choose RAs or TAs based wholly on their grades?
RESPONSE A: I had a 2.4 in undergrad, and now am in a TT position at an R1. I was successful in grad school. Because of this, I push my department on admissions to look past the GPA of a student, and at everything else. Courses are (at least in my experience), SO DIFFERENT at the graduate level, that they tend to lend themselves to students differently.
RESPONSE B: In my area of bench science, I'd say there are four weakly interacting components, raw intellect, applied effort, environment and luck, probably in ascending order. In so far as raw intellect and applied effort feed into grades, they assist in getting into good environments. That said, most school and undergraduate grading systems are designed to weed out under-performers, not highlight high achievers, so I don't find grades particularly predictive, and a period of failure to apply effort is often a case of personal circumstances / stress / mental health, rather than the historical assumption of laziness. I'd imagine that this is less the case in theoretical fields with a wider spread on the grading curve.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Now that you're in academia, do you really think grades matter? Out of curiosity! I once worked with the head of a PhD program who casually mentioned that the University's grade cutoffs for candidates sometimes leaves them with people who are great at coursework but have no research experience (implied: they drop out too). That's why he's not a fan of the cut-offs but it's the policy... and I'm also wondering if you choose RAs or TAs based wholly on their grades?
RESPONSE A: I had a 2.4 in undergrad, and now am in a TT position at an R1. I was successful in grad school. Because of this, I push my department on admissions to look past the GPA of a student, and at everything else. Courses are (at least in my experience), SO DIFFERENT at the graduate level, that they tend to lend themselves to students differently.
RESPONSE B: 2.8 undergrad gpa and I'm publishing papers now as a masters student. While I am no longer getting Cs I still hate dedicating so much time for assignments .
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Now that you're in academia, do you really think grades matter? Out of curiosity! I once worked with the head of a PhD program who casually mentioned that the University's grade cutoffs for candidates sometimes leaves them with people who are great at coursework but have no research experience (implied: they drop out too). That's why he's not a fan of the cut-offs but it's the policy... and I'm also wondering if you choose RAs or TAs based wholly on their grades?
RESPONSE A: In my area of bench science, I'd say there are four weakly interacting components, raw intellect, applied effort, environment and luck, probably in ascending order. In so far as raw intellect and applied effort feed into grades, they assist in getting into good environments. That said, most school and undergraduate grading systems are designed to weed out under-performers, not highlight high achievers, so I don't find grades particularly predictive, and a period of failure to apply effort is often a case of personal circumstances / stress / mental health, rather than the historical assumption of laziness. I'd imagine that this is less the case in theoretical fields with a wider spread on the grading curve.
RESPONSE B: Disclaimer: I'm a current PhD student in genetics My first time applying to work in a research lab as an undergraduate, the professor sent me a form to fill out for the application. The questions were just a bunch of stuff like "what's your favorite book?" and "what are your hobbies?" He explained that he hadn't yet found a reliable way to determine if an undergrad would be any good at research. From what I could tell, the only criteria he actually used to filter candidates was their current course schedule to see if they could make it to lab meeting.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Now that you're in academia, do you really think grades matter? Out of curiosity! I once worked with the head of a PhD program who casually mentioned that the University's grade cutoffs for candidates sometimes leaves them with people who are great at coursework but have no research experience (implied: they drop out too). That's why he's not a fan of the cut-offs but it's the policy... and I'm also wondering if you choose RAs or TAs based wholly on their grades?
RESPONSE A: Disclaimer: I'm a current PhD student in genetics My first time applying to work in a research lab as an undergraduate, the professor sent me a form to fill out for the application. The questions were just a bunch of stuff like "what's your favorite book?" and "what are your hobbies?" He explained that he hadn't yet found a reliable way to determine if an undergrad would be any good at research. From what I could tell, the only criteria he actually used to filter candidates was their current course schedule to see if they could make it to lab meeting.
RESPONSE B: 2.8 undergrad gpa and I'm publishing papers now as a masters student. While I am no longer getting Cs I still hate dedicating so much time for assignments .
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Help! My advisor put me in acknowledgment not co authorship. I finished my Masters this year. It was the worst memory in my life due to a conflict with my advisor. Anyway he got asked to conduct a simulation of our group model for the analysis of ensemble models. He told me to work on this project for co-authorship last year. The paper just published early this month and when I see it i was in acknowledgment not co authorship. Instead he is in co authorship. The project is for us to conduct computer simulations and submit its results for their analysis of different model results. I did all the simulations from the beginning to the end. I feel very unfair and confused. What should the difference of co-authorship and acknowledgment be in this case? What should I do? Any help will be very appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Some additional information might help to clarify: How many other authors are on the paper? Are you absolutely sure that they used **your simulation numbers?** or they only used your simulation procedure and not your numbers? If they used your numbers, how did you give them the numbers? Do you still have records of the numbers (sent email) If they used your procedure, did you leave behind/send them the documented steps to do the simulation? Any record (sent email)? Did you have your PI promise of coauthorship on record (email communication)?
RESPONSE B: E.g., see https://provost.yale.edu/policies/academic-integrity/guidance-authorship-scholarly-or-scientific-publications
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Help! My advisor put me in acknowledgment not co authorship. I finished my Masters this year. It was the worst memory in my life due to a conflict with my advisor. Anyway he got asked to conduct a simulation of our group model for the analysis of ensemble models. He told me to work on this project for co-authorship last year. The paper just published early this month and when I see it i was in acknowledgment not co authorship. Instead he is in co authorship. The project is for us to conduct computer simulations and submit its results for their analysis of different model results. I did all the simulations from the beginning to the end. I feel very unfair and confused. What should the difference of co-authorship and acknowledgment be in this case? What should I do? Any help will be very appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Some additional information might help to clarify: How many other authors are on the paper? Are you absolutely sure that they used **your simulation numbers?** or they only used your simulation procedure and not your numbers? If they used your numbers, how did you give them the numbers? Do you still have records of the numbers (sent email) If they used your procedure, did you leave behind/send them the documented steps to do the simulation? Any record (sent email)? Did you have your PI promise of coauthorship on record (email communication)?
RESPONSE B: > The paper just published early this month and when I see it i was in acknowledgment not co authorship. Instead he is in co authorship. After a paper has been published, there is very little you can do about it. My suggestion would be to just let it pass, and maybe get a good letter of recommendation from your advisor as a consolation price. If you try to get back at your advisor either through official channels or unoffical ones (like contacting the editor of the journal or the other authors of the paper), it will most likely backfire on you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: in my life due to a conflict with my advisor. Anyway he got asked to conduct a simulation of our group model for the analysis of ensemble models. He told me to work on this project for co-authorship last year. The paper just published early this month and when I see it i was in acknowledgment not co authorship. Instead he is in co authorship. The project is for us to conduct computer simulations and submit its results for their analysis of different model results. I did all the simulations from the beginning to the end. I feel very unfair and confused. What should the difference of co-authorship and acknowledgment be in this case? What should I do? Any help will be very appreciated.
RESPONSE A: > The paper just published early this month and when I see it i was in acknowledgment not co authorship. Instead he is in co authorship. After a paper has been published, there is very little you can do about it. My suggestion would be to just let it pass, and maybe get a good letter of recommendation from your advisor as a consolation price. If you try to get back at your advisor either through official channels or unoffical ones (like contacting the editor of the journal or the other authors of the paper), it will most likely backfire on you.
RESPONSE B: I disagree there's little you can do. In my field there could be a retraction or a correction. Not including you can be considered academic fraud. If you were promised authorship then you were cheated and you should contact the journal editor (or your co-author first, then editor). Two caveats. 1. You need to have done work worthy of authorship. Other than your advisor screwing you over, this is the obvious reason you'd have no authorship (he still should have let you know ahead of time even if this is true). This really needs to be determined by people in your field looking at the actual paper. Find someone you trust. 2. You need receipts. You need something written promising authorship. This is not worth he said she saiding. Acknowledgement is not worth anything on the job market, but it should actually help while applying for PhD. Obviously the route I'm discussing is scorched earth, so proceed with caution.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: ton of small group discussion that simply isn't going to work in these new socially-distanced classrooms. Our university is telling us to plan for hybrid, which means there's another layer of unnecessary complexity to this. Despite all the complaining about online education, being able to use breakout rooms in Zoom for synchronous small group discussion is actually a huge benefit pedagogically. Except everyone seems to be desperate to get back on campus without really thinking about what it will look like. Do you have any ideas to share about how you're planning to adapt your courses for the fall?
RESPONSE A: Yes, I agree. I don't see in-class classes being feasible, especially a lab or similar setup. The administration, in my experience, view is to pretend everything will be just fine come the fall. I'm not sure if that is optimism or just trying to pretend that there isn't a problem.
RESPONSE B: Last week I spent Monday morning planning out a seminar for my class in September. We're doing hybrid teaching, so we're going to have one cohort who's taking the class online and half (if we're lucky) who are actually in the building. So, I'm planning the class and I want to have them interview each other to identify an entrepreneurial opportunity and then reflect on how they observed it. Online, as you say, it's easy enough. Breakout rooms, shared whiteboards, easy peasy. But then I realised I Can't Do That In Person. 2 meters distance! I'm in Scotland so the guidance is "leave room for a hairy coo". How are we supposed to have in-person seminars people need to shout at each other from across the room to think, pair, share? Frankly, I think the underlying assumption to any in-person teaching plans is that by September we're going to ignore a lot of social distancing guidelines. Either formally as the regulations get changed or informally because that's just the way things have to be for it to work. There is no solution for making teaching work in a Covid world. We're just pretending there is in order to preserve some sense of normality and ensure there is some sort of teaching income.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Am I the only one who can't see how physical distancing is feasible in classrooms? I recently read two great articles from Inside Higher Ed. " At his small, teaching-focused institution, Clark and a facilities colleague spent half a day measuring and "experiencing" every classroom and lab, all of which were designed for active learning. They looked at every space "from the perspectives of cleaning, scheduling, room capacities, HVAC systems, pedagogical practices, student and faculty behaviors, student conduct issues, and more," he wrote to the POD Network. "It's one thing to draw six-foot circles, talk about reduced classroom capacities, and propose wearing masks in class -- it's a whole other thing to actually experience it." Link This article links to Clark's amazing article: The Physically Distanced Classroom: A Day in the Life ​ I spent the morning going through my syllabus and I have a ton of small group discussion that simply isn't going to work in these new socially-distanced classrooms. Our university is telling us to plan for hybrid, which means there's another layer of unnecessary complexity to this. Despite all the complaining about online education, being able to use breakout rooms in Zoom for synchronous small group discussion is actually a huge benefit pedagogically. Except everyone seems to be desperate to get back on campus without really thinking about what it will look like. Do you have any ideas to share about how you're planning to adapt your courses for the fall?
RESPONSE A: Yes, I agree. I don't see in-class classes being feasible, especially a lab or similar setup. The administration, in my experience, view is to pretend everything will be just fine come the fall. I'm not sure if that is optimism or just trying to pretend that there isn't a problem.
RESPONSE B: What about hallways and stairways? This is clearly not feasible.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Am I the only one who can't see how physical distancing is feasible in classrooms? I recently read two great articles from Inside Higher Ed. " At his small, teaching-focused institution, Clark and a facilities colleague spent half a day measuring and "experiencing" every classroom and lab, all of which were designed for active learning. They looked at every space "from the perspectives of cleaning, scheduling, room capacities, HVAC systems, pedagogical practices, student and faculty behaviors, student conduct issues, and more," he wrote to the POD Network. "It's one thing to draw six-foot circles, talk about reduced classroom capacities, and propose wearing masks in class -- it's a whole other thing to actually experience it." Link This article links to Clark's amazing article: The Physically Distanced Classroom: A Day in the Life ​ I spent the morning going through my syllabus and I have a ton of small group discussion that simply isn't going to work in these new socially-distanced classrooms. Our university is telling us to plan for hybrid, which means there's another layer of unnecessary complexity to this. Despite all the complaining about online education, being able to use breakout rooms in Zoom for synchronous small group discussion is actually a huge benefit pedagogically. Except everyone seems to be desperate to get back on campus without really thinking about what it will look like. Do you have any ideas to share about how you're planning to adapt your courses for the fall?
RESPONSE A: What about hallways and stairways? This is clearly not feasible.
RESPONSE B: Seems like large lectures that are not super collaborative could work ok but small group / partner work is going to be a real hurdle for sure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: foot circles, talk about reduced classroom capacities, and propose wearing masks in class -- it's a whole other thing to actually experience it." Link This article links to Clark's amazing article: The Physically Distanced Classroom: A Day in the Life ​ I spent the morning going through my syllabus and I have a ton of small group discussion that simply isn't going to work in these new socially-distanced classrooms. Our university is telling us to plan for hybrid, which means there's another layer of unnecessary complexity to this. Despite all the complaining about online education, being able to use breakout rooms in Zoom for synchronous small group discussion is actually a huge benefit pedagogically. Except everyone seems to be desperate to get back on campus without really thinking about what it will look like. Do you have any ideas to share about how you're planning to adapt your courses for the fall?
RESPONSE A: My university has basically given us a mathematically impossible task. I have an 800 square foot classroom. 27 students. It's packed tight in a normal semester. But no, we aren't making class sizes smaller. (Obviously, because then we would have to hire people). And "it's on the professors to ensure that guidelines are being followed." The only reason why I'm not entirely worried is because they are also requiring that our classes be adaptable for *both* virtual and in-person students (... instead of some remote/virtual classes and some in-person classes... because that would clearly be too hard) and we have to be ready for students to determine their status on a class by class basis throughout the semester (for instance, if a student would be exposed and need to self quarantine or basically if they just decide to stop coming to class because we obviously can't argue with students about whether it's safe or not). So while I haven't quite figured out how to adapt a curriculum to meet all of these needs at once, on the plus side, I am pretty confident nobody will show up for class after the first week.
RESPONSE B: Seems like large lectures that are not super collaborative could work ok but small group / partner work is going to be a real hurdle for sure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Am I the only one who can't see how physical distancing is feasible in classrooms? I recently read two great articles from Inside Higher Ed. " At his small, teaching-focused institution, Clark and a facilities colleague spent half a day measuring and "experiencing" every classroom and lab, all of which were designed for active learning. They looked at every space "from the perspectives of cleaning, scheduling, room capacities, HVAC systems, pedagogical practices, student and faculty behaviors, student conduct issues, and more," he wrote to the POD Network. "It's one thing to draw six-foot circles, talk about reduced classroom capacities, and propose wearing masks in class -- it's a whole other thing to actually experience it." Link This article links to Clark's amazing article: The Physically Distanced Classroom: A Day in the Life ​ I spent the morning going through my syllabus and I have a ton of small group discussion that simply isn't going to work in these new socially-distanced classrooms. Our university is telling us to plan for hybrid, which means there's another layer of unnecessary complexity to this. Despite all the complaining about online education, being able to use breakout rooms in Zoom for synchronous small group discussion is actually a huge benefit pedagogically. Except everyone seems to be desperate to get back on campus without really thinking about what it will look like. Do you have any ideas to share about how you're planning to adapt your courses for the fall?
RESPONSE A: I just don’t see how classrooms are anywhere near the biggest problem. No matter how much we distance in there these kids are still going back to their cramped dorms and apartments.
RESPONSE B: Collaborating in Google Docs or Slides (or similar) may be a way to work in groups in real time from various devices. If you have a main doc/slide open and on your monitor, you can watch each group’s progress from a distance and offer feedback verbally or in the chat. If there is a full class review of what each group discussed, you can project the shared doc while students talk from their seats.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: it here so you probably will as well". I didn't enjoy my time as a software engineer but I didn't go around r/CScareers telling everyone to not aspire to it so what gives? Can anyone explain this?
RESPONSE A: In academia you tend to sit on temporary contracts and projects, and you always have this "carrot" in front of you that the next publication, or next grant application will booster your career if you work hard enough (meaning working late or on weekends), but it seldom does and people become frustrated. In industry you can switch positions more easily and permanent positions are available. Your career is less dependant on lucky observations and luck with publishing.
RESPONSE B: (This is from a social sciences perspective.) Part of the "hidden curriculum" is that it's, roughly speaking, a two-tier system. Naive low-hopers (e.g., no professor-level parents + network) get sucked in, with great idealism, thinking if they're talented and work hard enough (for someone in Tier 1) it'll be like they see it is for people in Tier 1, the people giving cool keynotes about their research, who have the grant money and resources and enough slaves to create work-life balance for themselves etc. But most people won't end up in Tier 1, and discover that Tier 2 is constant stress, overwork, ongoing humiliation, moral injury, a waste of your life, burnout, a truly systemically awful leadership class, and so on. But the next problem is that Tier 2 people get stuck - or aren't aware of their alternatives - after massive investment and sacrifice on their part. They might be terrified to lose their job if they've managed to get anything at all. So it's a dream turned nightmare you can't escape, hence the loathing. And some people in Tier 2, or decent people in Tier 1 with self-awareness, want to warn the next generation of victims. In contrast, people in Tier 1, or in Tier 2 who still aspire to be Tier 1, have an inherent conflict with that because they need fresh PhD students and postdocs to do the actual scientific work for them. So I think that explains a fair bit of the dynamics you see.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: observed there seems to be an above average dislike for ones profession among academics. Most times (I'd say 95%) I ask a question about future career planning to be an academic, the top comment is "Get a job that isn't being an academic - we all hate it here so you probably will as well". I didn't enjoy my time as a software engineer but I didn't go around r/CScareers telling everyone to not aspire to it so what gives? Can anyone explain this?
RESPONSE A: One of my professors said that she loves teaching and working with students but doesn't like all of the meetings that go with it.
RESPONSE B: (This is from a social sciences perspective.) Part of the "hidden curriculum" is that it's, roughly speaking, a two-tier system. Naive low-hopers (e.g., no professor-level parents + network) get sucked in, with great idealism, thinking if they're talented and work hard enough (for someone in Tier 1) it'll be like they see it is for people in Tier 1, the people giving cool keynotes about their research, who have the grant money and resources and enough slaves to create work-life balance for themselves etc. But most people won't end up in Tier 1, and discover that Tier 2 is constant stress, overwork, ongoing humiliation, moral injury, a waste of your life, burnout, a truly systemically awful leadership class, and so on. But the next problem is that Tier 2 people get stuck - or aren't aware of their alternatives - after massive investment and sacrifice on their part. They might be terrified to lose their job if they've managed to get anything at all. So it's a dream turned nightmare you can't escape, hence the loathing. And some people in Tier 2, or decent people in Tier 1 with self-awareness, want to warn the next generation of victims. In contrast, people in Tier 1, or in Tier 2 who still aspire to be Tier 1, have an inherent conflict with that because they need fresh PhD students and postdocs to do the actual scientific work for them. So I think that explains a fair bit of the dynamics you see.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do academics seem to loath their profession? This isn't a hard and fast rule but I've observed there seems to be an above average dislike for ones profession among academics. Most times (I'd say 95%) I ask a question about future career planning to be an academic, the top comment is "Get a job that isn't being an academic - we all hate it here so you probably will as well". I didn't enjoy my time as a software engineer but I didn't go around r/CScareers telling everyone to not aspire to it so what gives? Can anyone explain this?
RESPONSE A: In academia you tend to sit on temporary contracts and projects, and you always have this "carrot" in front of you that the next publication, or next grant application will booster your career if you work hard enough (meaning working late or on weekends), but it seldom does and people become frustrated. In industry you can switch positions more easily and permanent positions are available. Your career is less dependant on lucky observations and luck with publishing.
RESPONSE B: The thing that gnawed on my advisor was that If he had a losing streak on grants for a few years where he was ONLY in the top 85 percent and not top 90 percent, he would have to fire his staff and destroy the career trajectory of his students and postdocs. And it would be his fault for failing to run a successful lab.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do academics seem to loath their profession? This isn't a hard and fast rule but I've observed there seems to be an above average dislike for ones profession among academics. Most times (I'd say 95%) I ask a question about future career planning to be an academic, the top comment is "Get a job that isn't being an academic - we all hate it here so you probably will as well". I didn't enjoy my time as a software engineer but I didn't go around r/CScareers telling everyone to not aspire to it so what gives? Can anyone explain this?
RESPONSE A: One of my professors said that she loves teaching and working with students but doesn't like all of the meetings that go with it.
RESPONSE B: The thing that gnawed on my advisor was that If he had a losing streak on grants for a few years where he was ONLY in the top 85 percent and not top 90 percent, he would have to fire his staff and destroy the career trajectory of his students and postdocs. And it would be his fault for failing to run a successful lab.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do academics seem to loath their profession? This isn't a hard and fast rule but I've observed there seems to be an above average dislike for ones profession among academics. Most times (I'd say 95%) I ask a question about future career planning to be an academic, the top comment is "Get a job that isn't being an academic - we all hate it here so you probably will as well". I didn't enjoy my time as a software engineer but I didn't go around r/CScareers telling everyone to not aspire to it so what gives? Can anyone explain this?
RESPONSE A: I think the core of this is that PhD students have an inaccurate view of what their work life will be like. Often they went to elite colleges for their undergrads and grad studies and they expect to have a career like that of the professors they studied under. Instead, they often struggle to get hired ANYWHERE or end up at a lower-tier school and are then unhappy about the discrepancy between their career expectations and reality. The bitterness is probably a result of the years they dedicated to accomplishing something that isn't what they'd hoped it would be.
RESPONSE B: In academia you tend to sit on temporary contracts and projects, and you always have this "carrot" in front of you that the next publication, or next grant application will booster your career if you work hard enough (meaning working late or on weekends), but it seldom does and people become frustrated. In industry you can switch positions more easily and permanent positions are available. Your career is less dependant on lucky observations and luck with publishing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: creep to me, I don't want to elaborate in case he's on this subreddit. I know he uses Reddit a lot. I didn't really work with anyone else in the department, and I have no interest in reporting it - it's well known, my department doesn't care. I also don't want to bring this up in a new application, I don't want to seem like I'm slandering someone - and frankly, it's probably irrational, but I'd feel unprofessional talking about it. I'm finally in a place where I want to apply for my PhD, but I don't know how to explain the fact I won't have a letter of reference from the person I did my undergraduate thesis with. I honestly don't even know who else I can ask for a letter from - it's been so long since I left that I don't think any professors would remember me. Does anyone have any idea how I can frame this without it coming off as unprofessional, or like *I* did something to sour the relationship? ​ Thanks Reddit.
RESPONSE A: (a) I'm sorry. That is terrible and incredibly inappropriate and wrong. (b) I would request three letters from faculty that know you best beyond the POS faculty member. I'd give them a few weeks notice, full info on your career goals/work, etc., and then build a really, really excellent application letter/all that jazz. I'd think strategically about those letters. Think about what each faculty member could emphasize. When a student of mine asks for letters. I ask them to give me as much detail as possible, what they want to me to emphasize, etc. Best of luck to you and take care
RESPONSE B: I agree with all the other comments but just want to add if you have been working in the same field that you wabt to go into you can often get a letter of rec from a boss or supervisor from that job. Especially if they have an advanced degree. I wouldn't have it be your only leter of rec but if you need multiple it can be one of them easy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why does it seem that students who have a science background or are more science-minded tend to do quite well in arts subjects but not vice versa? I was not getting any luck in getting an answer in r/NoStupidQuestions so I thought this would be relevant here I'm currently both a science and arts student and I have noticed this to be quite true in most cases. Arts student will complain about struggling through a math or science requirement, while science students in arts classes tend to fair better I noticed that institutions think this is the case as well as I also noticed that universities will have courses such as "calculus for the social sciences" or "biology for the arts" which is known to be less rigorous than the main calculus/biology class. On the other hand, I don't commonly see them offer "philosophy for the sciences" or "sociology for engineers". If science students wish to take arts classes, they are expected to enroll in the main class
RESPONSE A: I think part of it is the prerequisite knowledge. For an introductory college humanities class, you need to be able to read, write, and think critically. For even a remedial math class, you need all of the above plus all the math you’ve learned up to that point. Someone who is good at math already has the skills to do well in other fields. They just have to learn domain-specific information. Regardless of your major, everyone will show up to an intro philosophy class with almost no philosophy background. You can’t show up to a calculus class with good critical thinking skills and no math knowledge expecting it to go well. The cumulative nature of math also explains the existence of courses like “calculus for social sciences”. A standard calculus track is teaching you some math you’ll use in your field but also preparing you for more math which is usually the hardest part. If someone doesn’t need more math, they’re better off just learning what they’ll actually need.
RESPONSE B: My experience is exactly the opposite, speaking as someone who came from the performing arts into science. The so-called “soft skills” I learned in the arts always seems to be in high demand. Conversely, People with strong sciences suffer in the arts greatly, hence the demand for such classes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . Arts student will complain about struggling through a math or science requirement, while science students in arts classes tend to fair better I noticed that institutions think this is the case as well as I also noticed that universities will have courses such as "calculus for the social sciences" or "biology for the arts" which is known to be less rigorous than the main calculus/biology class. On the other hand, I don't commonly see them offer "philosophy for the sciences" or "sociology for engineers". If science students wish to take arts classes, they are expected to enroll in the main class
RESPONSE A: The real answer? I hate to say it (and I'm certain I'll be downvoted to hell for this), but as a whole, succeeding in science/math disciplines generally requires more hours, study time, and discipline. As a whole, excellent science students cultivate from an early point in their academic journey that struggling/not understanding something is natural, and learn to push through it. With the humanities/arts, many of those students who take sciences courses may not used to that sudden realization that something makes absolutely no sense, and are likely to immediately self-label themselves in those courses as "not good students" even though they are probably highly capable in those fields as well.
RESPONSE B: I think part of it is the prerequisite knowledge. For an introductory college humanities class, you need to be able to read, write, and think critically. For even a remedial math class, you need all of the above plus all the math you’ve learned up to that point. Someone who is good at math already has the skills to do well in other fields. They just have to learn domain-specific information. Regardless of your major, everyone will show up to an intro philosophy class with almost no philosophy background. You can’t show up to a calculus class with good critical thinking skills and no math knowledge expecting it to go well. The cumulative nature of math also explains the existence of courses like “calculus for social sciences”. A standard calculus track is teaching you some math you’ll use in your field but also preparing you for more math which is usually the hardest part. If someone doesn’t need more math, they’re better off just learning what they’ll actually need.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: science and arts student and I have noticed this to be quite true in most cases. Arts student will complain about struggling through a math or science requirement, while science students in arts classes tend to fair better I noticed that institutions think this is the case as well as I also noticed that universities will have courses such as "calculus for the social sciences" or "biology for the arts" which is known to be less rigorous than the main calculus/biology class. On the other hand, I don't commonly see them offer "philosophy for the sciences" or "sociology for engineers". If science students wish to take arts classes, they are expected to enroll in the main class
RESPONSE A: Some of the humanities requires abstract thought that translates into the sciences (and vice versa), but the quantitative/discrete analytical skills doesn’t translate into the humanities??? That’s my guess, but this may not be the case. After having not done any literary analysis for 5yrs between high school and my last semester of college (I’m an engineering student), I definitely struggled in my African American studies class. The teacher taught at a graduate level for an introductory level class, making it even more difficult, but my friends in the humanities didn’t struggle anywhere near as much as I did.
RESPONSE B: I think part of it is the prerequisite knowledge. For an introductory college humanities class, you need to be able to read, write, and think critically. For even a remedial math class, you need all of the above plus all the math you’ve learned up to that point. Someone who is good at math already has the skills to do well in other fields. They just have to learn domain-specific information. Regardless of your major, everyone will show up to an intro philosophy class with almost no philosophy background. You can’t show up to a calculus class with good critical thinking skills and no math knowledge expecting it to go well. The cumulative nature of math also explains the existence of courses like “calculus for social sciences”. A standard calculus track is teaching you some math you’ll use in your field but also preparing you for more math which is usually the hardest part. If someone doesn’t need more math, they’re better off just learning what they’ll actually need.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why does it seem that students who have a science background or are more science-minded tend to do quite well in arts subjects but not vice versa? I was not getting any luck in getting an answer in r/NoStupidQuestions so I thought this would be relevant here I'm currently both a science and arts student and I have noticed this to be quite true in most cases. Arts student will complain about struggling through a math or science requirement, while science students in arts classes tend to fair better I noticed that institutions think this is the case as well as I also noticed that universities will have courses such as "calculus for the social sciences" or "biology for the arts" which is known to be less rigorous than the main calculus/biology class. On the other hand, I don't commonly see them offer "philosophy for the sciences" or "sociology for engineers". If science students wish to take arts classes, they are expected to enroll in the main class
RESPONSE A: Some of the humanities requires abstract thought that translates into the sciences (and vice versa), but the quantitative/discrete analytical skills doesn’t translate into the humanities??? That’s my guess, but this may not be the case. After having not done any literary analysis for 5yrs between high school and my last semester of college (I’m an engineering student), I definitely struggled in my African American studies class. The teacher taught at a graduate level for an introductory level class, making it even more difficult, but my friends in the humanities didn’t struggle anywhere near as much as I did.
RESPONSE B: Science at a high level demands creative thinking and new approaches. Art at a high level doesn't demand scientific methods or calculations. Both science and art are incredibly broad, just kinda working with what youve given.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why does it seem that students who have a science background or are more science-minded tend to do quite well in arts subjects but not vice versa? I was not getting any luck in getting an answer in r/NoStupidQuestions so I thought this would be relevant here I'm currently both a science and arts student and I have noticed this to be quite true in most cases. Arts student will complain about struggling through a math or science requirement, while science students in arts classes tend to fair better I noticed that institutions think this is the case as well as I also noticed that universities will have courses such as "calculus for the social sciences" or "biology for the arts" which is known to be less rigorous than the main calculus/biology class. On the other hand, I don't commonly see them offer "philosophy for the sciences" or "sociology for engineers". If science students wish to take arts classes, they are expected to enroll in the main class
RESPONSE A: Some of the humanities requires abstract thought that translates into the sciences (and vice versa), but the quantitative/discrete analytical skills doesn’t translate into the humanities??? That’s my guess, but this may not be the case. After having not done any literary analysis for 5yrs between high school and my last semester of college (I’m an engineering student), I definitely struggled in my African American studies class. The teacher taught at a graduate level for an introductory level class, making it even more difficult, but my friends in the humanities didn’t struggle anywhere near as much as I did.
RESPONSE B: humanities students are socialized from a young age to believe they can only be good at one or the other. That, with a combination of poor teaching in K-12, translates to feeling defeated before they start.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: So I guess my new job market fear is being falsely accused of sexual harassment by a competing applicant https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/magazine/title-ix-sexual-harassment-accusations.html Have you guys read this? tl;dr woman gets coveted job at UMich and is waiting for spousal hire news; woman's colleague tries to sabotage her offer by submitting fraudulent sexual harassment complaints to UMich and spouse's current university (use archive.is or clear your cache for non-paywalled version) So I guess, outside of this dude being a fucking psycho which obviously most people are not, this experience really highlights how unprotected anyone who works in academia is. Starting with the fact that people wouldn't be so desperate for jobs if their career choice didn't leave them to languish in Lubbock, TX or go back to low-skilled labor.
RESPONSE A: I mean yeah, that’s what happens when we throw due process out the window and allow people’s lives to be ruined because of he-said she-said rumors And even if you’re found innocent, good luck getting the stain off your name Edit: I’m not a hateful person and I understand that it’s a complicated situation, but I think we need a system which works for everybody equally.
RESPONSE B: This is absolutely terrifying. How do you even defend yourself against that? And all it needs is someone with too much time on their hands. Buddy was sloppy, used his real phone number with his fake e-mail address, and used the same e-mail address to impersonate different people. But someone more prepared... god damn.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: So I guess my new job market fear is being falsely accused of sexual harassment by a competing applicant https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/magazine/title-ix-sexual-harassment-accusations.html Have you guys read this? tl;dr woman gets coveted job at UMich and is waiting for spousal hire news; woman's colleague tries to sabotage her offer by submitting fraudulent sexual harassment complaints to UMich and spouse's current university (use archive.is or clear your cache for non-paywalled version) So I guess, outside of this dude being a fucking psycho which obviously most people are not, this experience really highlights how unprotected anyone who works in academia is. Starting with the fact that people wouldn't be so desperate for jobs if their career choice didn't leave them to languish in Lubbock, TX or go back to low-skilled labor.
RESPONSE A: This is absolutely terrifying. How do you even defend yourself against that? And all it needs is someone with too much time on their hands. Buddy was sloppy, used his real phone number with his fake e-mail address, and used the same e-mail address to impersonate different people. But someone more prepared... god damn.
RESPONSE B: Holy shit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: So I guess my new job market fear is being falsely accused of sexual harassment by a competing applicant https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/magazine/title-ix-sexual-harassment-accusations.html Have you guys read this? tl;dr woman gets coveted job at UMich and is waiting for spousal hire news; woman's colleague tries to sabotage her offer by submitting fraudulent sexual harassment complaints to UMich and spouse's current university (use archive.is or clear your cache for non-paywalled version) So I guess, outside of this dude being a fucking psycho which obviously most people are not, this experience really highlights how unprotected anyone who works in academia is. Starting with the fact that people wouldn't be so desperate for jobs if their career choice didn't leave them to languish in Lubbock, TX or go back to low-skilled labor.
RESPONSE A: yeah. ITS CRAZY. that guy is sick.
RESPONSE B: Holy shit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you... Do it all? I've been at a crossroads with academia for more than a year now. I'm a post doc right now (courting industry jobs because my current environment has been toxic for my mental health). I love my topic, I love the IDEA of what academia could be for me, but I've seen very little of it materialize for me (I'm also tired of a post doc that looks good on paper but in practice has been unsupportive, and often hostile). I think I'm at a point where I'm tired of the weird facade academia makes everyone put on like they're at peak productivity and continuously improving (when my experience has been that a lot of it is hand waving). Tonight I was thinking about all the things I have to tackle this coming week and I wondered... Is this it forever if I choose to stay? Presentations/teaching, re-hauling analyses / manuscripts, meetings that go no where or at least feel that way, and all the other things that come with academia. Honestly writing it out doesn't make it seem so bad, but then there's the conflict of all the projects and things feel like they are ALL urgent or a priority, juggling deadlines, and unexpected things that come up, PLUS trying to have a life outside of work. How do you (honestly) deal with it all? I don't even have courses to teach besides occasional guest lectures and I constantly feel like I'm drowning with just my research commitments. I try not to compare my progress/pace with others but some days it's hard not to. But right now I actually do want to know how others manage to handle all these things successfully.
RESPONSE A: There are many things I am required to do. Not to do to the best of my ability, just to complete. You have to prioritise your standards.
RESPONSE B: Energy drinks and staying up till 5 am. Don't be me. Get a job at a better school (no matter how much you love students who are struggling) or get a job in industry.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you... Do it all? I've been at a crossroads with academia for more than a year now. I'm a post doc right now (courting industry jobs because my current environment has been toxic for my mental health). I love my topic, I love the IDEA of what academia could be for me, but I've seen very little of it materialize for me (I'm also tired of a post doc that looks good on paper but in practice has been unsupportive, and often hostile). I think I'm at a point where I'm tired of the weird facade academia makes everyone put on like they're at peak productivity and continuously improving (when my experience has been that a lot of it is hand waving). Tonight I was thinking about all the things I have to tackle this coming week and I wondered... Is this it forever if I choose to stay? Presentations/teaching, re-hauling analyses / manuscripts, meetings that go no where or at least feel that way, and all the other things that come with academia. Honestly writing it out doesn't make it seem so bad, but then there's the conflict of all the projects and things feel like they are ALL urgent or a priority, juggling deadlines, and unexpected things that come up, PLUS trying to have a life outside of work. How do you (honestly) deal with it all? I don't even have courses to teach besides occasional guest lectures and I constantly feel like I'm drowning with just my research commitments. I try not to compare my progress/pace with others but some days it's hard not to. But right now I actually do want to know how others manage to handle all these things successfully.
RESPONSE A: There are many things I am required to do. Not to do to the best of my ability, just to complete. You have to prioritise your standards.
RESPONSE B: I feel the same way you do!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: like they're at peak productivity and continuously improving (when my experience has been that a lot of it is hand waving). Tonight I was thinking about all the things I have to tackle this coming week and I wondered... Is this it forever if I choose to stay? Presentations/teaching, re-hauling analyses / manuscripts, meetings that go no where or at least feel that way, and all the other things that come with academia. Honestly writing it out doesn't make it seem so bad, but then there's the conflict of all the projects and things feel like they are ALL urgent or a priority, juggling deadlines, and unexpected things that come up, PLUS trying to have a life outside of work. How do you (honestly) deal with it all? I don't even have courses to teach besides occasional guest lectures and I constantly feel like I'm drowning with just my research commitments. I try not to compare my progress/pace with others but some days it's hard not to. But right now I actually do want to know how others manage to handle all these things successfully.
RESPONSE A: Through a decision that was only partly in my control I’m no longer employed within an academic institution, and I wish I had your problems. I still work with various groups, mostly for free because I love science and I really want to improve and be better, and push the limits! Let me reassure you that if you do choose to leave unless you have something very fascinating and wonderful to do and achieve in life you will become very bored. The stress and workload of academia are worth it to be a part of the frontiers of human knowledge. Before you make any big decision, remember what got you motivated to do your studies, high five some of your students and talk to them about their lives, and go tell your department chair that he’s doing an awesome job. Then think about what you have and what you want in life very carefully. Fuck tiredness, go to the gym, roll into a new project, and rekindle your passions ❤️
RESPONSE B: There are many things I am required to do. Not to do to the best of my ability, just to complete. You have to prioritise your standards.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: to have a life outside of work. How do you (honestly) deal with it all? I don't even have courses to teach besides occasional guest lectures and I constantly feel like I'm drowning with just my research commitments. I try not to compare my progress/pace with others but some days it's hard not to. But right now I actually do want to know how others manage to handle all these things successfully.
RESPONSE A: I’m a postdoc too, and I think the first thing to recognize is there are things you *have* to do and many, many optional ones. Like, my job right now is to crank out papers. Second to that I will only accept jobs I legit *want* to do, like take on a summer student or outreach or a search committee. I’m not afraid to say no when it’s not a job I actually want to do. Second, a supportive supervisor who recognizes the above and won’t pile on random things that won’t help you with the primary goal makes all the difference. I’m sorry to hear you don’t have that, that can be overwhelming. :( Third, people don’t want to say this too loud, but a supportive life partner makes all the difference. My academic life became *way* easier once we met and moved in together because my husband doesn’t mind running laundry while he works from home, is really handy when things need fixing, and can cook dinner on nights when I need to work a little extra. Sure I will fold the laundry, make up by cooking the next night, etc, but the fact of the matter is I’ve outsourced a lot of non work related tasks to someone who doesn’t mind them, and that frees up so much mentally! I 100% acknowledge that this last point is not fair and our fields should not be set up so one supportive partner is so important to do your job. But I’d be lying if I said that wasn’t a healthy chunk of my postdoc productivity right there.
RESPONSE B: Energy drinks and staying up till 5 am. Don't be me. Get a job at a better school (no matter how much you love students who are struggling) or get a job in industry.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: there's the conflict of all the projects and things feel like they are ALL urgent or a priority, juggling deadlines, and unexpected things that come up, PLUS trying to have a life outside of work. How do you (honestly) deal with it all? I don't even have courses to teach besides occasional guest lectures and I constantly feel like I'm drowning with just my research commitments. I try not to compare my progress/pace with others but some days it's hard not to. But right now I actually do want to know how others manage to handle all these things successfully.
RESPONSE A: I feel the same way you do!
RESPONSE B: I’m a postdoc too, and I think the first thing to recognize is there are things you *have* to do and many, many optional ones. Like, my job right now is to crank out papers. Second to that I will only accept jobs I legit *want* to do, like take on a summer student or outreach or a search committee. I’m not afraid to say no when it’s not a job I actually want to do. Second, a supportive supervisor who recognizes the above and won’t pile on random things that won’t help you with the primary goal makes all the difference. I’m sorry to hear you don’t have that, that can be overwhelming. :( Third, people don’t want to say this too loud, but a supportive life partner makes all the difference. My academic life became *way* easier once we met and moved in together because my husband doesn’t mind running laundry while he works from home, is really handy when things need fixing, and can cook dinner on nights when I need to work a little extra. Sure I will fold the laundry, make up by cooking the next night, etc, but the fact of the matter is I’ve outsourced a lot of non work related tasks to someone who doesn’t mind them, and that frees up so much mentally! I 100% acknowledge that this last point is not fair and our fields should not be set up so one supportive partner is so important to do your job. But I’d be lying if I said that wasn’t a healthy chunk of my postdoc productivity right there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it even realistic/feasible to become a professor anymore? I have always wanted to become a professor. I absolutely love teaching and was fortunate enough to have my name published on some publications throughout undergrad and grad school. However, due to the current job market, it seems that all Academia is filled with now are burnt out people making below minimum wages as adjunct professors. I want to become a professor, but I also need to put food on the table for my family. Is it actually realistic to become a professor without being some research rockstar? (especially with projected college attendance) If not, is a lecturer position easier to obtain? I’m asking because I have a choice to either go into industry with my masters or get my Ph.D (and I don’t want to commit more time to grad school if the job market is as awful as people say it is).
RESPONSE A: I’m applying for a workforce education position in my subject area (diversity and inclusion) and it pays more in Year One than I would make as an Associate Professor at the R1 I am getting my PhD at. Twice as much as the post doc I applied for. 40 hour week. Long term potential. Will I research? No. But will I miss it? Might not. Academia is a pyramid scheme and those who have made it will disproportionality tell you it’s possible.
RESPONSE B: Yes, but you must be a business professor or the brightest most hardworking well-connected person in some other field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it even realistic/feasible to become a professor anymore? I have always wanted to become a professor. I absolutely love teaching and was fortunate enough to have my name published on some publications throughout undergrad and grad school. However, due to the current job market, it seems that all Academia is filled with now are burnt out people making below minimum wages as adjunct professors. I want to become a professor, but I also need to put food on the table for my family. Is it actually realistic to become a professor without being some research rockstar? (especially with projected college attendance) If not, is a lecturer position easier to obtain? I’m asking because I have a choice to either go into industry with my masters or get my Ph.D (and I don’t want to commit more time to grad school if the job market is as awful as people say it is).
RESPONSE A: Yes, but you must be a business professor or the brightest most hardworking well-connected person in some other field.
RESPONSE B: Beyond what others have said, in my experience people who left academia because they didn't find opportunities landed elsewhere pretty comfortably--after all, they're invariably smart people capable of self-directed work on projects with very long timeframes. In other words, they're quite valuable. The people I've seen most unhappy are those who, in retrospect, probably should have left earlier. But even that unhappiness was usually temporary. I also think there's a tendency to paint academia as a nirvana of the mind and industry or the private sector more generally as as an intellectual wasteland and both these stereotypes are way off.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it even realistic/feasible to become a professor anymore? I have always wanted to become a professor. I absolutely love teaching and was fortunate enough to have my name published on some publications throughout undergrad and grad school. However, due to the current job market, it seems that all Academia is filled with now are burnt out people making below minimum wages as adjunct professors. I want to become a professor, but I also need to put food on the table for my family. Is it actually realistic to become a professor without being some research rockstar? (especially with projected college attendance) If not, is a lecturer position easier to obtain? I’m asking because I have a choice to either go into industry with my masters or get my Ph.D (and I don’t want to commit more time to grad school if the job market is as awful as people say it is).
RESPONSE A: Yes, but you must be a business professor or the brightest most hardworking well-connected person in some other field.
RESPONSE B: I'm a community college professor who worked in industry first. If teaching really is your jam, I might suggest going into industry but then teaching nights or online first as an adjunct. I wanted to try teaching and got on as adjunct fairly quickly to teach at night while working industry during the day. Absolutely loved teaching and got lucky getting a full time gig. Research is not my forte, so I'm exactly where I need to be. At the community college level you do realistically have to put in some time as adjunct because the full time positions usually don't open up all that often and we are going to usually hire people we know are good professors from our pool of adjuncts. Not always, but most of the time. I will say that right now in my department there is a lot of turnover happening with covid and online classes convincing a lot of the old guard to retire before they originally planned. We had three positions open up this summer and I haven't seen that before. Maybe look that route wherever you are. I'll add that PhDs get paid better, I only have my masters. I still can support a family of four off of my income, fwiw.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it even realistic/feasible to become a professor anymore? I have always wanted to become a professor. I absolutely love teaching and was fortunate enough to have my name published on some publications throughout undergrad and grad school. However, due to the current job market, it seems that all Academia is filled with now are burnt out people making below minimum wages as adjunct professors. I want to become a professor, but I also need to put food on the table for my family. Is it actually realistic to become a professor without being some research rockstar? (especially with projected college attendance) If not, is a lecturer position easier to obtain? I’m asking because I have a choice to either go into industry with my masters or get my Ph.D (and I don’t want to commit more time to grad school if the job market is as awful as people say it is).
RESPONSE A: Nailed it. Adjunct indentured service. Its a pyramid scheme with the corporate wanks exploiting the proletariat just like most capital businesses in 2020. Don’t do it for cash or ROI on yer lame PhD. Get in and stay in the relationship for the only reason that martyrs...the kids.
RESPONSE B: Yes, but you must be a business professor or the brightest most hardworking well-connected person in some other field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I'm an undergrad and I was invited to give a talk, expenses paid!! I'm sorry if this is the wrong sub, or against the rules, but no one around me knows enough about academia to be as excited as I am. This is going to be my fourth talk, but the first one I've actually be invited to without having to submit anything. I'm so psyched!! This is going to be amazing for my applications, and amazing experience as well.
RESPONSE A: Fantastic! I'm curious, what will you be talking about?
RESPONSE B: Well done! Knock ‘em dead!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I'm an undergrad and I was invited to give a talk, expenses paid!! I'm sorry if this is the wrong sub, or against the rules, but no one around me knows enough about academia to be as excited as I am. This is going to be my fourth talk, but the first one I've actually be invited to without having to submit anything. I'm so psyched!! This is going to be amazing for my applications, and amazing experience as well.
RESPONSE A: Well done! Knock ‘em dead!
RESPONSE B: Congratulations! Academia needs to be open to diverse voices, and it's critical that the workshop host institution isn't putting any barriers to your participation. How do you reach the podium? Is there a small ladder or a rope hung from the wall near the dais? Do they provide tall trees for your accommodation needs? Are they offering reimbursement in appropriate remunerative units, such as dollars or acorns?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My PhD student constantly tries to manipulate me. We are in the U.K. and the subject is computer science. Whenever he emails or talks to me he uses weird wording and always tries to manipulate me to comply with something and then pretends it’s something else that we agreed on. He never says yes or no when I ask him about anything really. Always vague language. What can I do? I have reported him and nothing happens.
RESPONSE A: Stop asking him questions that he can hand-wave away. Enforce clear deadlines with well described outcomes. Communicate by email, so there is a written record. Be explicit when you dismiss something he's trying to manipulate you about, so there is no ambigueity, and redirect the conversation to what you want it to cover. You're his supervisor, not his undergraduate!
RESPONSE B: Don’t respond to his emails that includes this manipulation. You are his supervisor, yes?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My PhD student constantly tries to manipulate me. We are in the U.K. and the subject is computer science. Whenever he emails or talks to me he uses weird wording and always tries to manipulate me to comply with something and then pretends it’s something else that we agreed on. He never says yes or no when I ask him about anything really. Always vague language. What can I do? I have reported him and nothing happens.
RESPONSE A: Tell him to take a writing course so that he can improve his English, otherwise you’ll have to fire him since his communication skills are too opaque.
RESPONSE B: You’re his supervisor. You need to learn how to do that and what it means. Even if you did agree to something explicit in an email, you have the authority to turn around and tell him you changed your mind. He has absolutely no power to “trick” you into anything as your word is pretty much final. Now, you shouldn’t abuse that and you should be supportive, fair, etc but if he’s playing stupid games, let him win a few stupid prizes. It sounds like you also might need support from more experienced supervisors, normally if someone is inexperienced there’d be a second supervisor with more experience (and as a backup in case you’re hit by a bus). Do you have a second supervisor? If not, talk to whoever is your departmental PGR tutor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My PhD student constantly tries to manipulate me. We are in the U.K. and the subject is computer science. Whenever he emails or talks to me he uses weird wording and always tries to manipulate me to comply with something and then pretends it’s something else that we agreed on. He never says yes or no when I ask him about anything really. Always vague language. What can I do? I have reported him and nothing happens.
RESPONSE A: Can you fire him?
RESPONSE B: You’re his supervisor. You need to learn how to do that and what it means. Even if you did agree to something explicit in an email, you have the authority to turn around and tell him you changed your mind. He has absolutely no power to “trick” you into anything as your word is pretty much final. Now, you shouldn’t abuse that and you should be supportive, fair, etc but if he’s playing stupid games, let him win a few stupid prizes. It sounds like you also might need support from more experienced supervisors, normally if someone is inexperienced there’d be a second supervisor with more experience (and as a backup in case you’re hit by a bus). Do you have a second supervisor? If not, talk to whoever is your departmental PGR tutor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My PhD student constantly tries to manipulate me. We are in the U.K. and the subject is computer science. Whenever he emails or talks to me he uses weird wording and always tries to manipulate me to comply with something and then pretends it’s something else that we agreed on. He never says yes or no when I ask him about anything really. Always vague language. What can I do? I have reported him and nothing happens.
RESPONSE A: I don't know about how it works at other universities, but where I am now we get briefly evaluated every year (nothing intense, it's basically just the advisor signing off on 'yes, this person is making satisfactory progress'). But that does imply that an advisor could say "sorry, we're not renewing funding for this student this year"-- if this student is such a bad fit for you perhaps that's an option?
RESPONSE B: You’re his supervisor. You need to learn how to do that and what it means. Even if you did agree to something explicit in an email, you have the authority to turn around and tell him you changed your mind. He has absolutely no power to “trick” you into anything as your word is pretty much final. Now, you shouldn’t abuse that and you should be supportive, fair, etc but if he’s playing stupid games, let him win a few stupid prizes. It sounds like you also might need support from more experienced supervisors, normally if someone is inexperienced there’d be a second supervisor with more experience (and as a backup in case you’re hit by a bus). Do you have a second supervisor? If not, talk to whoever is your departmental PGR tutor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My PhD student constantly tries to manipulate me. We are in the U.K. and the subject is computer science. Whenever he emails or talks to me he uses weird wording and always tries to manipulate me to comply with something and then pretends it’s something else that we agreed on. He never says yes or no when I ask him about anything really. Always vague language. What can I do? I have reported him and nothing happens.
RESPONSE A: Too vague.
RESPONSE B: Tell him to take a writing course so that he can improve his English, otherwise you’ll have to fire him since his communication skills are too opaque.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: rd year (4 year PhD program) I have finished course requirements for my program and have been working on this research project for about two years now. Last year or so was particularly bad for me, zero productivity, motivation problems, this feeling of "I was hoping to learn X from my PhD and be an expert in that, but I am no where being a close to an expert in anything". On top of that, I have this constant feeling of not learning anything new. I had this feeling before and that lead to a lot of apathy towards my projects / PhD. I do not want to get there again. ​ Question : Do you all have similar feeling(s)? Have you able to develop any habits that help combat this feeling? stuff like : Read a research paper every week / Implement (in code) a new research paper every week? ​ To give some context, I am doing my PhD in trying to solve problems in Computational Materials Science using Machine learning. I did my MSc. in Machine learning and want to keep learning more in that field. But I am not a Physicist. At this point I feel I can not call myself an expert in Material Science nor Machine learning.
RESPONSE A: Serious answer: 1. This is a problem most people have. You’re not alone. 2. start writing your thesis. Really. You should aim your thesis at a good graduate level, ie you, just before you started. When you start trying to explain what you know now, to the person who knows what you did when you started, trust me, you’ll see very quickly the expert you’ve become.
RESPONSE B: I still feel that way, years after finishing mine. It’s gotten miles better though. I think it just comes with time, because you slowly know your area more and more. My best advice is to try to read at least one paper a day, amassing your foundational knowledge. Use a reference management system so that you can see how much you’ve read and find things easily. And then write as much as you can so that you practice citation retrieval more until it comes second nature that X articles fit there. That’s expertise right there!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I combat the feeling of "I am not becoming an expert in anything" during my PhD? Hello Fellow Academics, I am a PhD student in my 3rd year (4 year PhD program) I have finished course requirements for my program and have been working on this research project for about two years now. Last year or so was particularly bad for me, zero productivity, motivation problems, this feeling of "I was hoping to learn X from my PhD and be an expert in that, but I am no where being a close to an expert in anything". On top of that, I have this constant feeling of not learning anything new. I had this feeling before and that lead to a lot of apathy towards my projects / PhD. I do not want to get there again. ​ Question : Do you all have similar feeling(s)? Have you able to develop any habits that help combat this feeling? stuff like : Read a research paper every week / Implement (in code) a new research paper every week? ​ To give some context, I am doing my PhD in trying to solve problems in Computational Materials Science using Machine learning. I did my MSc. in Machine learning and want to keep learning more in that field. But I am not a Physicist. At this point I feel I can not call myself an expert in Material Science nor Machine learning.
RESPONSE A: Read the classic Dunning-Kruger paper to recognize that understanding the limits of your competence is a sign of competence. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/
RESPONSE B: I sort of am in a similar field and I think in general the key is to adjust your expectations a bit, and focus on gaining competency. Expertise is incremental. Also, computational materials science is sort of one of those fields that is almost more methods and process based than domain based, if that makes sense? So it might feel like you don’t know a lot about any one single specific problem, if you’re more focused on the process of how to solve problems.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: apathy towards my projects / PhD. I do not want to get there again. ​ Question : Do you all have similar feeling(s)? Have you able to develop any habits that help combat this feeling? stuff like : Read a research paper every week / Implement (in code) a new research paper every week? ​ To give some context, I am doing my PhD in trying to solve problems in Computational Materials Science using Machine learning. I did my MSc. in Machine learning and want to keep learning more in that field. But I am not a Physicist. At this point I feel I can not call myself an expert in Material Science nor Machine learning.
RESPONSE A: I didn't feel like an expert until I defended and it was clear that I knew more about my work, it's highlights, flaws, and next steps, than every other person in that room. So, I wouldn't worry about the fact than in year 3 out of 4 you don't feel like an expert yet. You're not done.
RESPONSE B: Your feeling are totally normal OP, even as people graduate and become postdocs. You're likely picking up more knowledge and experience than you realize. I've certainly had such experiences in physics (my field), and I'm sure the machine learning stuff is a bit out there. I think we all also have to give ourselves a little credit for just making it through 2020-2022. Languishing and feeling like you're not accomplishing anything has been a common experience for people during these times. I imagine it's especially tough for grad students who are in such a formative part of their careers. I'm bogged down in those emotions myself, trying to make progress on a physical apparatus for our research. The only advice I can give is to try to be kind to yourself, and as you suggest, really break down into simple incremental tasks you can do each week. Start that thesis document, even if it just meant copying another document and writing the title in overleaf. Look for an interesting reference or paper, even if you just read the abstract. Hang in there and know you're not alone.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I look these people in the eye knowing that everyone now thinks of me as a trashy loose cannon instead of the promising young student I was a few weeks ago?**
RESPONSE A: I'm very sorry you are going through this horrible situation. You acknowledge that you made a huge mistake, I think it is right. I don't know what you wrote in that email and if it was bad enough to justify they don't show any sympathy for what you are going through, although I am not that surprised considering most people in academia are from a very privileged background and are not likely to understand at all what you are going through. Anyways, here I what I would do if I were you: I think you should first write to the airline and hotel to politely ask for reimbursements. You are not the only one cancelling travel right now. You should then write to the conference organizers saying that you are very sorry for your email. That you are going through a very rough time right now but it is no excuse for what you said in that message. That you took action to be reimbursed by the airline etc. and shouldn't have burdened them with your personal issues. That you are again very very sorry. Send a separate message to your advisor to say that you are sorry you got them involved in all of this and that you sent an apology message to the organizers. You could ask the ombudsman to review these emails if they seem open to it. After that, keep your head up and power through. Time will pass and they will forget about it. Remember that you're a lot tougher than most of your colleagues and will get over this. Continue doing awesome work, that will be what people will remember in the end.
RESPONSE B: I understand that you might have kiss some boots to make things right, but honestly don't beat yourself up about this. Was it a bit unprofessional? Sure. But what the conference organizer did, first refusing to reimburse you and then forwarding your email, was far worse in my books. You are a student and it sounds like you are a good person going through a really hard time. What's their excuse for the way they acted? No decent human in your department will think poorly of you for this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Loss of a student TW: suicide Hi all, So sorry for the sad subject, but I could really use some advice. I'm a TA, and I found out recently that one of my students died by suicide a couple months ago. They were a student that I interacted with and met with a lot, and who I genuinely really cared about. I found out that they had passed away from a university-wide email announcing the recipients of posthumous degrees (not saying that I should have been on the list of people informed, but it was a rough way to find out). Has anyone else experienced this, and how did you handle it? It's hitting me pretty hard, and I'm really struggling. Thanks 3 (cross posted to r/GradSchool but I'm not sure it went through)
RESPONSE A: I have lost 3 students over the course of my teaching career - one of them by suicide. It still bothers me, and I still sometimes wonder if there is anything I could have said or done to make a difference. As others mentioned, use any counseling services available to you. I also have a Google doc where I write down the student’s name and things I remember about them, so I know they won’t be forgotten.
RESPONSE B: Rip
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Loss of a student TW: suicide Hi all, So sorry for the sad subject, but I could really use some advice. I'm a TA, and I found out recently that one of my students died by suicide a couple months ago. They were a student that I interacted with and met with a lot, and who I genuinely really cared about. I found out that they had passed away from a university-wide email announcing the recipients of posthumous degrees (not saying that I should have been on the list of people informed, but it was a rough way to find out). Has anyone else experienced this, and how did you handle it? It's hitting me pretty hard, and I'm really struggling. Thanks 3 (cross posted to r/GradSchool but I'm not sure it went through)
RESPONSE A: Rip
RESPONSE B: Losing a student in any manner is very sad and difficult; sucide perhaps especially shocking and disorienting. I’m so sorry for your loss. Sad to say, if you remain in academia, this kind of thing happens from time to time and is always upsetting. I lost a former student about six years ago and still think about it. It’s definitely worthwhile to pursue grief counseling.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: recently that one of my students died by suicide a couple months ago. They were a student that I interacted with and met with a lot, and who I genuinely really cared about. I found out that they had passed away from a university-wide email announcing the recipients of posthumous degrees (not saying that I should have been on the list of people informed, but it was a rough way to find out). Has anyone else experienced this, and how did you handle it? It's hitting me pretty hard, and I'm really struggling. Thanks 3 (cross posted to r/GradSchool but I'm not sure it went through)
RESPONSE A: I’m really sorry for your loss. Losing a student or former student is incredibly difficult, and I hope you feel like you have folks to talk to right now. I lost two students by suicide within quick succession. I was close with both, but particularly the second. He would always eat lunch in my room and was one of those kids we had to drag across the finish line to graduate. I felt a lot of guilt because after he graduated he would message me on social media to chat, but I never really felt comfortable with talking online. In hindsight, he was clearly very lonely and needed someone to talk to. I wish I had recognized it then, but I didn’t. I tried to channel the guilt I felt by telling myself I’d do better for the next student who needed me, but this didn’t really help resolve my pain. The pain is still there nearly five years later, but it’s not nearly as acute as it was for this first half a year. If you get the chance, attending a funeral was helpful for managing my grief. The first student did have a funeral and I felt a lot more closure being able to spend time with other members from our school community. The second student didn’t have a funeral, and it seemed like it was more difficult to resolve my grief without the social/ceremonial aspects of saying goodbye with others. It’s tough to continue moving forward after losing a young person. Take stock of the resources available to you and make sure you’re taking care of yourself. Sorry again for your loss.
RESPONSE B: Rip
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Loss of a student TW: suicide Hi all, So sorry for the sad subject, but I could really use some advice. I'm a TA, and I found out recently that one of my students died by suicide a couple months ago. They were a student that I interacted with and met with a lot, and who I genuinely really cared about. I found out that they had passed away from a university-wide email announcing the recipients of posthumous degrees (not saying that I should have been on the list of people informed, but it was a rough way to find out). Has anyone else experienced this, and how did you handle it? It's hitting me pretty hard, and I'm really struggling. Thanks 3 (cross posted to r/GradSchool but I'm not sure it went through)
RESPONSE A: Rip
RESPONSE B: I had a lab mate die by suicide years ago, someone I coincidentally had known for years outside of academia. It came as a huge surprise, but their family was careful to tell people after the fact that, while devastated, it wasn't a complete surprise to them. This person had been dealing with issues for years and hid them from the wider world very well. At the time, that they died by suicide really bothered me. I couldn't wrap my head around it. With some hindsight, I feel about it more like the two kids I knew form high school who died in a car crash. The outcome is such a tragic waste of potential, but the cause wasn't really within the victims' control.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Loss of a student TW: suicide Hi all, So sorry for the sad subject, but I could really use some advice. I'm a TA, and I found out recently that one of my students died by suicide a couple months ago. They were a student that I interacted with and met with a lot, and who I genuinely really cared about. I found out that they had passed away from a university-wide email announcing the recipients of posthumous degrees (not saying that I should have been on the list of people informed, but it was a rough way to find out). Has anyone else experienced this, and how did you handle it? It's hitting me pretty hard, and I'm really struggling. Thanks 3 (cross posted to r/GradSchool but I'm not sure it went through)
RESPONSE A: i'm sorry for you loss. when i was an RA (resident advisor) i lost two of my residents in one year and it was awful. i am now a lot more forward about mental health with undergraduate students, i think that's really all you can do. poor mental health in our undergraduate students in a huge issue and i know there are many people in student affairs at every institution thinking about this and uncovering ways to approach it. definitely reach out to your university counseling services about this, they have people in place for situations like this.
RESPONSE B: As someone who battles suicidal ideation and depression, I just wanted to say thank you for caring about your students. I’m sorry you’re hurting, but that student would be really touched to know you remember them. I don’t know if it’s allowed, but I’d encourage you to email the parents and share your memories with them and express your sympathy. Maybe that’s considered unprofessional, but if so, I’d say that’s really fucking sad as it further stigmatizes suicide. And the parents want to know, now more than ever, that their child is and was loved. Thanks for caring.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ve been a very successful student. I've published three solo-authored articles, won a prestigious grant, and have several more papers in the pipeline. The problem is, I'm completely done with academia. I have completely lost my drive for research, and I've never enjoyed teaching. I have always feared the early-career instability and stress of getting tenure, and I have no desire to sacrifice my personal life or anything else for the sake of academia. I've been on the market twice and actually received a tenure track offer. However, I turned it down for many reasons, including that my chronic anxiety became debilitatingly bad as soon as I received the offer. I also have a two-body problem and am not willing to live apart from my spouse for an infinite amount of time and deal with the constant stress of being on the job market over and over until we find a solution. Although I turned down a tenure track job (!) and have mentioned to my advisor several times that I don't want a teaching-heavy job, don't want a postdoc or other temporary gig, and am interested in industry, he is in complete denial. Others in my department know I plan to leave, and when the topic comes up, he tells them they're wrong! Even now that I've given up on the academic market and have begun seriously applying to nonacademic positions, he keeps pushing me to stay another year and try the academic market again. I'm at my wits' end and don't know what to do. Any advice would be appreciated.
RESPONSE A: You're leaving academia. Find a job you actually like. Their opinion really doesn't matter if you're leaving the profession anyways.
RESPONSE B: Your PI is just a PI. Don’t let them have any affect on your life other than a positive one (as much as you have control of this…). When you’re in the thick of it it’s hard not to see them as an all knowing entity, even if they’re actually a POS (speaking from personal experience…), but the further away you get the more you realise they’re just a person, and their opinion means nothing unless you want it to.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: plan to leave, and when the topic comes up, he tells them they're wrong! Even now that I've given up on the academic market and have begun seriously applying to nonacademic positions, he keeps pushing me to stay another year and try the academic market again. I'm at my wits' end and don't know what to do. Any advice would be appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Yeah I'm in the "so what?" camp. Similar position: about to wrap up in a social science field, have always been a good student, and am completely disinterested in remaining in the academic world, at least in the R1, research-focused world of TT jobs and postdocs. My advisor literally today emailed me an announcement for a postdoc in DC even though I've made clear that I'm in a holding pattern for at minimum a year, completely disinterested in moving to a totally different region of the country while my wife would have to stay where we are at present. I could be annoyed by that ... but I'm not. Because my advisor cares about me and wants to see me be successful. That doesn't translate perfectly because he's from a different generation than me with different priorities and with wildly different level of commitment to the academic world. I'll politely thank him for forwarding something, and then delete the announcement--I have no interest in that position. But I do appreciate that he sent it. Your advisor is looking out for you, just doesn't \*get\* you. That's annoying, but it's not like you're telling us he's refusing to write LORs for other jobs. I know my advisor would write a LOR that extolled my virtues -- even if he said "but Jack-ums *should* be doing academia!" Something to learn about industry: once you do get a job in industry, NO ONE is going to care about your advisor's LOR any more. Your future recommenders will be your bosses in industry. So just get this job and don't sweat the advisor.
RESPONSE B: What field are you in that offers tenure track positions to PhD students?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: he keeps pushing me to stay another year and try the academic market again. I'm at my wits' end and don't know what to do. Any advice would be appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Go into industry and chill until your burn out has passed. It will after a couple years and you may even start reading for fun again. No lie! It happened to me. You don't owe anyone other than your family anything. Move on if it serves you.
RESPONSE B: Yeah I'm in the "so what?" camp. Similar position: about to wrap up in a social science field, have always been a good student, and am completely disinterested in remaining in the academic world, at least in the R1, research-focused world of TT jobs and postdocs. My advisor literally today emailed me an announcement for a postdoc in DC even though I've made clear that I'm in a holding pattern for at minimum a year, completely disinterested in moving to a totally different region of the country while my wife would have to stay where we are at present. I could be annoyed by that ... but I'm not. Because my advisor cares about me and wants to see me be successful. That doesn't translate perfectly because he's from a different generation than me with different priorities and with wildly different level of commitment to the academic world. I'll politely thank him for forwarding something, and then delete the announcement--I have no interest in that position. But I do appreciate that he sent it. Your advisor is looking out for you, just doesn't \*get\* you. That's annoying, but it's not like you're telling us he's refusing to write LORs for other jobs. I know my advisor would write a LOR that extolled my virtues -- even if he said "but Jack-ums *should* be doing academia!" Something to learn about industry: once you do get a job in industry, NO ONE is going to care about your advisor's LOR any more. Your future recommenders will be your bosses in industry. So just get this job and don't sweat the advisor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: nial I'm in my final year of my PhD in a social science field, and I've been a very successful student. I've published three solo-authored articles, won a prestigious grant, and have several more papers in the pipeline. The problem is, I'm completely done with academia. I have completely lost my drive for research, and I've never enjoyed teaching. I have always feared the early-career instability and stress of getting tenure, and I have no desire to sacrifice my personal life or anything else for the sake of academia. I've been on the market twice and actually received a tenure track offer. However, I turned it down for many reasons, including that my chronic anxiety became debilitatingly bad as soon as I received the offer. I also have a two-body problem and am not willing to live apart from my spouse for an infinite amount of time and deal with the constant stress of being on the job market over and over until we find a solution. Although I turned down a tenure track job (!) and have mentioned to my advisor several times that I don't want a teaching-heavy job, don't want a postdoc or other temporary gig, and am interested in industry, he is in complete denial. Others in my department know I plan to leave, and when the topic comes up, he tells them they're wrong! Even now that I've given up on the academic market and have begun seriously applying to nonacademic positions, he keeps pushing me to stay another year and try the academic market again. I'm at my wits' end and don't know what to do. Any advice would be appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Really don't see what the problem is here.
RESPONSE B: Your PI is just a PI. Don’t let them have any affect on your life other than a positive one (as much as you have control of this…). When you’re in the thick of it it’s hard not to see them as an all knowing entity, even if they’re actually a POS (speaking from personal experience…), but the further away you get the more you realise they’re just a person, and their opinion means nothing unless you want it to.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ​ Thanks again
RESPONSE A: Just saw in this thread somewhere that this is in France. I'm from France and in academia so here are some tips. I won't speak about who's right or wrong here, but only the exact next legal steps you could take. No need to waste time on a lawyer in France. They have the full right to fire you for any reason (which could also be that they're just generally not satisfied) as long as you're still in probation period. If you can still survive in the lab beyond the probation period, then you're set and stable for this year at least. Now let's speak of the case where you either resign or they fire you. You must have come through 'Visa Talent Chercheur'. If it is already validated, you can stay from 3 months to 1 year in france without issues even if you're fired. Beyond that, if you do not have another position, you gotta go back (or become irregular, and I don't advice that). Now in that time, you could first do student jobs (you're considered a student while in phd in france). Be sure to have on you certificates that you're a student before you get fired, so that you can still get those jobs even if fired. Those jobs will keep you fed at least. At the same time, look for a new phds. I would advice in this part to resign and get the recommendation from them, as its extremely important in France to have a french recommendation for a phd, and expect that if you don't have it, your new phd PIs would definitively ask your old PIs about why you didn't continue with them, so expect trouble there. That's why again, OP, you should definitively get a letter of recommendation before leaving. Another option is getting a job in industry. Kind of tough as the company recruiting you would need to get a work permit for you, but still an avenue of possibility. EDIT : added my country
RESPONSE B: Go to your graduate school. They are there to represent graduate students. Like HR but for students and on your side.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: me improve but I didn't"? ​ Thank you so much for reading my story. Please don't hesitate to comment!! I really can use all the help and tips I can get!! ​ PS: I know I have not given a lot of specific details, but I would also like to stay as anonymous as possible just to avoid potential problems. But if you think that there is something important that could be missing please let me know! ​ Thanks again
RESPONSE A: Whatever the outcome, I would sincerely consider pursuing your PhD elsewhere. Your co-supervisor being so critical after a day or two working with you and saying things like "you'll never find collaborators" when you're barely a couple of months into your project is wild. Then them creating a list for improvement and 1) not telling you what it is and 2) expecting you to improve in a week or two is insane, unprofessional, purposefully stress-inducing and ultimately a consequence of their own poor communication about what the project and its aims are. It sounds like they wanted a postdoc trained in the techniques but could only afford a grad student.
RESPONSE B: It sounds like there is a major lack of communication between the PIs and students (yourself). Their expectations have not been made clear, and thus you've been unable to meet them. The fact that they won't tell you in what ways they want to see improvement from you sucks. You're still a STUDENT, and they are there to guide you. As much as people talk about grad school being hell, it shouldn't be because of your advisors. Grad school is so hard and so much work, and your advisors should be there to help you and answer questions. If you don't see yourself getting along with your current advisors and being happy doing your research, I recommend you leave. Things are only going to get harder. I'm sorry you're going through this, and I know how hard of a decision this is going to be for you. I went through something similar, and to have your advisor threaten to fire you without the ability to explain yourself feels so shitty. I wish you the best of luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Science professor at major US university promoting capitol rioters, election disinformation, COVID conspiracy theories, etc. on Twitter. Who do I report this to? I recently came across the Twitter account of an academic research scientist (professor at a well known university) and saw that he has thousands of tweets promoting all sorts of insane conspiracy theories, pro-Trump propaganda from extreme right wing news sources, and even conspiracy theories about COVID-19. The COVID stuff is really shocking because it is not that far from his field of research! He looks to be a mid-level professor. This is disturbing to me. Scientists are supposed to be promoters of reason, truth, and evidence. What this person is doing is the antithesis of that. This Twitter account is under his real name, but it seems to be flying under the radar because he is only following a bunch of right wing propagandists. He has no followers in his field and isn't following any other scientists. I have verified that it is indeed the professor's account. His username is a science term from his field, and he has posted some slightly less inflammatory things publicly on facebook also where his photo is visible. What should I do in this situation? Contact his academic department? Retweet some of his stuff to draw attention to it? His research is funded by the US government and I don't think a conspiracy nut and propagandist should be in charge of a federally funded research lab.
RESPONSE A: Report to a journalists or write an email to the university or write a Twitter thread. Many things you can do or write a medium article.
RESPONSE B: Come on, tell us! Who is it?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Science professor at major US university promoting capitol rioters, election disinformation, COVID conspiracy theories, etc. on Twitter. Who do I report this to? I recently came across the Twitter account of an academic research scientist (professor at a well known university) and saw that he has thousands of tweets promoting all sorts of insane conspiracy theories, pro-Trump propaganda from extreme right wing news sources, and even conspiracy theories about COVID-19. The COVID stuff is really shocking because it is not that far from his field of research! He looks to be a mid-level professor. This is disturbing to me. Scientists are supposed to be promoters of reason, truth, and evidence. What this person is doing is the antithesis of that. This Twitter account is under his real name, but it seems to be flying under the radar because he is only following a bunch of right wing propagandists. He has no followers in his field and isn't following any other scientists. I have verified that it is indeed the professor's account. His username is a science term from his field, and he has posted some slightly less inflammatory things publicly on facebook also where his photo is visible. What should I do in this situation? Contact his academic department? Retweet some of his stuff to draw attention to it? His research is funded by the US government and I don't think a conspiracy nut and propagandist should be in charge of a federally funded research lab.
RESPONSE A: First of all, I agree with you about the validity (or incorrectness, I should say) of these tweets and their content. However, what’s the point? Why try to ruin someone’s career and life just because you disagree? Did this professor tweet anything actually illegal, or just that you (and I) disagree with? It’s already public, just leave it alone and move on.
RESPONSE B: Come on, tell us! Who is it?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Science professor at major US university promoting capitol rioters, election disinformation, COVID conspiracy theories, etc. on Twitter. Who do I report this to? I recently came across the Twitter account of an academic research scientist (professor at a well known university) and saw that he has thousands of tweets promoting all sorts of insane conspiracy theories, pro-Trump propaganda from extreme right wing news sources, and even conspiracy theories about COVID-19. The COVID stuff is really shocking because it is not that far from his field of research! He looks to be a mid-level professor. This is disturbing to me. Scientists are supposed to be promoters of reason, truth, and evidence. What this person is doing is the antithesis of that. This Twitter account is under his real name, but it seems to be flying under the radar because he is only following a bunch of right wing propagandists. He has no followers in his field and isn't following any other scientists. I have verified that it is indeed the professor's account. His username is a science term from his field, and he has posted some slightly less inflammatory things publicly on facebook also where his photo is visible. What should I do in this situation? Contact his academic department? Retweet some of his stuff to draw attention to it? His research is funded by the US government and I don't think a conspiracy nut and propagandist should be in charge of a federally funded research lab.
RESPONSE A: I am extremely uncomfortable with the mentality that if someone has an egregious idea that I don't like that I should try to ruin their life.
RESPONSE B: Report to a journalists or write an email to the university or write a Twitter thread. Many things you can do or write a medium article.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Science professor at major US university promoting capitol rioters, election disinformation, COVID conspiracy theories, etc. on Twitter. Who do I report this to? I recently came across the Twitter account of an academic research scientist (professor at a well known university) and saw that he has thousands of tweets promoting all sorts of insane conspiracy theories, pro-Trump propaganda from extreme right wing news sources, and even conspiracy theories about COVID-19. The COVID stuff is really shocking because it is not that far from his field of research! He looks to be a mid-level professor. This is disturbing to me. Scientists are supposed to be promoters of reason, truth, and evidence. What this person is doing is the antithesis of that. This Twitter account is under his real name, but it seems to be flying under the radar because he is only following a bunch of right wing propagandists. He has no followers in his field and isn't following any other scientists. I have verified that it is indeed the professor's account. His username is a science term from his field, and he has posted some slightly less inflammatory things publicly on facebook also where his photo is visible. What should I do in this situation? Contact his academic department? Retweet some of his stuff to draw attention to it? His research is funded by the US government and I don't think a conspiracy nut and propagandist should be in charge of a federally funded research lab.
RESPONSE A: First of all, I agree with you about the validity (or incorrectness, I should say) of these tweets and their content. However, what’s the point? Why try to ruin someone’s career and life just because you disagree? Did this professor tweet anything actually illegal, or just that you (and I) disagree with? It’s already public, just leave it alone and move on.
RESPONSE B: I am extremely uncomfortable with the mentality that if someone has an egregious idea that I don't like that I should try to ruin their life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Science professor at major US university promoting capitol rioters, election disinformation, COVID conspiracy theories, etc. on Twitter. Who do I report this to? I recently came across the Twitter account of an academic research scientist (professor at a well known university) and saw that he has thousands of tweets promoting all sorts of insane conspiracy theories, pro-Trump propaganda from extreme right wing news sources, and even conspiracy theories about COVID-19. The COVID stuff is really shocking because it is not that far from his field of research! He looks to be a mid-level professor. This is disturbing to me. Scientists are supposed to be promoters of reason, truth, and evidence. What this person is doing is the antithesis of that. This Twitter account is under his real name, but it seems to be flying under the radar because he is only following a bunch of right wing propagandists. He has no followers in his field and isn't following any other scientists. I have verified that it is indeed the professor's account. His username is a science term from his field, and he has posted some slightly less inflammatory things publicly on facebook also where his photo is visible. What should I do in this situation? Contact his academic department? Retweet some of his stuff to draw attention to it? His research is funded by the US government and I don't think a conspiracy nut and propagandist should be in charge of a federally funded research lab.
RESPONSE A: I think he should have the freedom to hold and express his incorrect ideas.
RESPONSE B: I am extremely uncomfortable with the mentality that if someone has an egregious idea that I don't like that I should try to ruin their life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's your unpopular opinion about your field? Title.
RESPONSE A: I'm in religion, technically in 'theology' not religious studies. I train ministers and chaplains. I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist. More agnostic than atheist, but even if God does exist, I don't think They matter that much. I think all the time angsting over who God is or what God wants is a distraction from making a better society here and now. But I try to understand why others think it's so important.
RESPONSE B: I am in some mash up of drug discovery, computational chemistry, and computational physics. Honestly, methods papers don't get the love they deserve and more people need to run replicates to ensure that their simulations have not gone into weird phase space. Also a lot of experimentalists have no clue what a simulation can and can not show.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What's your unpopular opinion about your field? Title.
RESPONSE A: I am in some mash up of drug discovery, computational chemistry, and computational physics. Honestly, methods papers don't get the love they deserve and more people need to run replicates to ensure that their simulations have not gone into weird phase space. Also a lot of experimentalists have no clue what a simulation can and can not show.
RESPONSE B: The findings of most human-environment research point in directions that are economically inconvenient. Politicians are aware of what we're saying and what needs to be done but don't care because it would affect their fundraising and ability to be re-elected.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's your unpopular opinion about your field? Title.
RESPONSE A: I'm in public health nutrition. Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes are gross. People talk about how they are super effective as a public health intervention because "low socio-economic status populations bear the brunt of the burden of disease associated with SSB and they are most 'price sensitive' to the taxes and so they are most effective where they are needed most." I don't *deny* any of that's true, but hearing all the "equity is important, we must respect the individual!" public health practitioners basically say "This intervention works by leveraging the fact people are poor to make them behave in the way we think they need to," is *so* gross and is textbook paternalism. If asked about this aspect they'll say that the taxes can go back into public health interventions that will better the health of the community like that makes it less gross. It doesn't. Fund your interventions in ways that don't raise funds by burdening those already so burdened in the name of helping them.
RESPONSE B: I am in some mash up of drug discovery, computational chemistry, and computational physics. Honestly, methods papers don't get the love they deserve and more people need to run replicates to ensure that their simulations have not gone into weird phase space. Also a lot of experimentalists have no clue what a simulation can and can not show.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's your unpopular opinion about your field? Title.
RESPONSE A: Lots in education, somehow, still think that schooling is primarily a psychological process in which social forces don't matter. Similarly, Theories and approaches, especially in contemporary neoliberal america, get stripped of their original social and political commitments. I saw a syllabus for a course on Critical Pedagogy and it didnt have a single reading by Freire or any other progressive. Critical Literacy gets transformed into "Critical Thinking"
RESPONSE B: I am in some mash up of drug discovery, computational chemistry, and computational physics. Honestly, methods papers don't get the love they deserve and more people need to run replicates to ensure that their simulations have not gone into weird phase space. Also a lot of experimentalists have no clue what a simulation can and can not show.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's your unpopular opinion about your field? Title.
RESPONSE A: I'm in religion, technically in 'theology' not religious studies. I train ministers and chaplains. I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist. More agnostic than atheist, but even if God does exist, I don't think They matter that much. I think all the time angsting over who God is or what God wants is a distraction from making a better society here and now. But I try to understand why others think it's so important.
RESPONSE B: People fly too often. Everyone expects a solution that makes aviation greener without constraining "the growth of the industry", but it's possible that commercial air travel is inherently unsustainable. Even if we find it's possible (physically, safely, practically) to eliminate aviation's climate impact, flight ticket prices will increase, perhaps to the point where only the wealthy can afford to fly. Passenger rail is likely a better investment for greening transportation, which is an unfortunate opinion for an aerospace engineer to hold.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Dating struggles as an older phd student...to date or not to date? Dating as an older non-traditional phd student has been hella hard. Recently divorced and I’m in my 40’s (f). I’m currently in my 3rd year in a mathematics program. I met a really great guy who’s also a non-traditional student and is studying English. He’s in his 40’s too and divorced. The catch? He’s in his junior year of undergrad at the college I teach in. I’ve never taught him and won’t teach him at all. No supervisory responsibility or anything like that. In fact, we met at the food hall on campus! I want to give this a go but I don’t want backlash. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: Don’t let your life slip away while your doing your PhD, have some fun and enjoy yourself!
RESPONSE B: Do what makes you happy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Dating struggles as an older phd student...to date or not to date? Dating as an older non-traditional phd student has been hella hard. Recently divorced and I’m in my 40’s (f). I’m currently in my 3rd year in a mathematics program. I met a really great guy who’s also a non-traditional student and is studying English. He’s in his 40’s too and divorced. The catch? He’s in his junior year of undergrad at the college I teach in. I’ve never taught him and won’t teach him at all. No supervisory responsibility or anything like that. In fact, we met at the food hall on campus! I want to give this a go but I don’t want backlash. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: Do what makes you happy.
RESPONSE B: Yay! I say go for it. You’re not faculty and as long as you’re not teaching him, it’s all good
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Dating struggles as an older phd student...to date or not to date? Dating as an older non-traditional phd student has been hella hard. Recently divorced and I’m in my 40’s (f). I’m currently in my 3rd year in a mathematics program. I met a really great guy who’s also a non-traditional student and is studying English. He’s in his 40’s too and divorced. The catch? He’s in his junior year of undergrad at the college I teach in. I’ve never taught him and won’t teach him at all. No supervisory responsibility or anything like that. In fact, we met at the food hall on campus! I want to give this a go but I don’t want backlash. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: Ma’am I know a guy (37M) in my program who just got his PhD and has literally dated solely undergrads throughout his degree under more ethically questionable circumstances and nobody bats a fucking eye except me and my girlfriend because the dude has other major red flags nobody else for some reason sees. So yeah send it
RESPONSE B: Do what makes you happy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Dating struggles as an older phd student...to date or not to date? Dating as an older non-traditional phd student has been hella hard. Recently divorced and I’m in my 40’s (f). I’m currently in my 3rd year in a mathematics program. I met a really great guy who’s also a non-traditional student and is studying English. He’s in his 40’s too and divorced. The catch? He’s in his junior year of undergrad at the college I teach in. I’ve never taught him and won’t teach him at all. No supervisory responsibility or anything like that. In fact, we met at the food hall on campus! I want to give this a go but I don’t want backlash. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: Conflict of interest lesson for you: Conflicts of interests exist. They are not a problem if your are up front about them and clearly address them. Most serious universities will have clear rules about this - dramas only arise when the conflict of interest is not declared and thus not dealt with. I would recommend being up front and honest. I wouldn’t recommend worrying! You’re clearly not being predatory here.
RESPONSE B: I remember in my undergrad there was an elder student living in the halls as a TA. I suspect he was on some spectrum of Asperger’s or even Autism. He was older, socially awkward, not really I’m good shape, and clearly single (likely a virgin). Always appeared at parties and wanted to talk to girls but too shy. For him, I can see dating life was a real struggle. If you have the opportunity, you should go for it as there doesn’t appear to be any real conflict.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |