Datasets:

blackhc

/

SteamSHP_formatted

like 0

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: No problems at all -- you're a student, and you aren't going to be his TA unless he still has to do his required English. When you're faculty, TT or sessional, you have to worry about things like this, but not as a student. 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

A

POST: Authorship denied because of sudden quitting My gf has been working as a graduate research assistant for about a year now. Her PI tasked her with a paper and much more work. In the end the work was bearing too much on her and she decided to quit abruptly. The problem is there is a paper that is practically finished but the PI is threatening to deny her authorship and may only put her in the acknowledgements even though she did all the data collection and wrote the majority of the paper. This seems highly unprofessional to me but I am not in the field of acadamia. I would like to know others opinion on this. RESPONSE A: That is unethical, as others observed and can be reported to the campus Research Integrity Officer as a case of plagiarism. The PI cannot remove an author simply because they quit. RESPONSE B: If she wrote the majority of the paper, she is definitely entitled to authorship, perhaps even first-author, given that she also did data collection. Was she involved the data analysis portion? Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Authorship denied because of sudden quitting My gf has been working as a graduate research assistant for about a year now. Her PI tasked her with a paper and much more work. In the end the work was bearing too much on her and she decided to quit abruptly. The problem is there is a paper that is practically finished but the PI is threatening to deny her authorship and may only put her in the acknowledgements even though she did all the data collection and wrote the majority of the paper. This seems highly unprofessional to me but I am not in the field of acadamia. I would like to know others opinion on this. RESPONSE A: That is unethical, as others observed and can be reported to the campus Research Integrity Officer as a case of plagiarism. The PI cannot remove an author simply because they quit. RESPONSE B: It depends on the extent of her contribution. Just data collection isn’t necessarily enough, but if she contributed significantly to the analysis and writing she’s an author. If she can’t work something out with her PI, next steps would be to see either the director of graduate studies for her program or, if the grad students are unionized (rare in the US) a union rep. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: and much more work. In the end the work was bearing too much on her and she decided to quit abruptly. The problem is there is a paper that is practically finished but the PI is threatening to deny her authorship and may only put her in the acknowledgements even though she did all the data collection and wrote the majority of the paper. This seems highly unprofessional to me but I am not in the field of acadamia. I would like to know others opinion on this. RESPONSE A: A bunch of comments are debating whether she should be author. This is beside the point. If the professor is threatening to deny her authorship because she's leaving the group, it implies that authorship is deserved. Full stop. If the paper isn't completely finished then it isn't going to get submitted unless she or someone else resumes the work. So it sounds like someone else is going to have to pick this up, and it would be difficult to prevent the PI from changing the author order. It would be shitty/unethical/unprofessional to remove the graduate student from the paper entirely. u/jogam has a couple of ideas that seem to be pretty good to me. RESPONSE B: If she collected the data and write a majority of the paper, then authorship of some sort should be warranted. However, because she left before it was submitted she cannot expect her position in the author list to remain wherever it was depending on how much is left to be done. For example: * Did she analyze the data she collected? * Was she involved in subsequent editing of the paper after she left? You can write the initial draft but manuscripts often go through numerous rounds of editing. * Will she address reviewer comments once those come back? * Will she do reviewer requested experiments? It's most likely that the reviewers will ask for more experiments. * Will she edit the manuscript to address reviewer comments? * If the paper is rejected, then it will probably have to be repackaged for another journal which means more editing, revisions, etc. Will she be involved in that? These are just a couple of things that come to mind. She most likely deserves authorship, but things like what I listed above will most likely determine her order of authorship. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Yo professors, do you ever get annoyed at students that visit you every day during your office hours? Taking my discrete math class this semeseter, easily the hardest class ive ever taken. im a junior ​ im literally visiting my professor every day (he says if his office door is open, hes open to meet). ​ Am i annoying him by visiting him every day? I need a C+ in this class and this class is FUCKING HARD. ​ so do yall get annoyed at students that meet every single day? ​ he did tell me im the only student that visits /meets him on teams via online during office hours.. RESPONSE A: Don’t worry overthink it. You are paying for this class (with money and with the time you are devoting to this class) It’s a mark of growth to ask for help when you need it. He has office hours for a reason ...to help you out. RESPONSE B: I would always rather a student come to office hours and get the support they need to succeed in the class than struggle and not come to office hours. I can guarantee you that every professor would also rather have a student come to office hours and get the passing grade they need rather than never come to office hours and send an email at the end of the semester saying "I really need a C+ in the class, can you bump me up?" You want a certain grade in a difficult class, and you are putting in the work to get it. You are doing the right things. (It does sound like this professor has an open door policy and you're using that, as stated. If he has specific office hours, too, you might try to make an effort to stop by at those times, if you're available, rather than at other times on those days. But I wouldn't feel bad about using his policy as advertised.) Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Yo professors, do you ever get annoyed at students that visit you every day during your office hours? Taking my discrete math class this semeseter, easily the hardest class ive ever taken. im a junior ​ im literally visiting my professor every day (he says if his office door is open, hes open to meet). ​ Am i annoying him by visiting him every day? I need a C+ in this class and this class is FUCKING HARD. ​ so do yall get annoyed at students that meet every single day? ​ he did tell me im the only student that visits /meets him on teams via online during office hours.. RESPONSE A: Office hours are there to be used, but I CAN get frustrated if it feels like the student is using them like a crutch instead of working through it on their own. As long as you're listening and putting in the work, rather than thinking office hours are a substitute for working on your own, you're fine. RESPONSE B: Honestly, if he was annoyed and still kept his office door open, it's on him. It doesn't sound like you disrespected any boundaries. I also agree with everyone else. This is what profs get paid for and most of us love to see our students try hard and get rewarded for their efforts (this doesn't always mean get A's) Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Yo professors, do you ever get annoyed at students that visit you every day during your office hours? Taking my discrete math class this semeseter, easily the hardest class ive ever taken. im a junior ​ im literally visiting my professor every day (he says if his office door is open, hes open to meet). ​ Am i annoying him by visiting him every day? I need a C+ in this class and this class is FUCKING HARD. ​ so do yall get annoyed at students that meet every single day? ​ he did tell me im the only student that visits /meets him on teams via online during office hours.. RESPONSE A: Don’t worry overthink it. You are paying for this class (with money and with the time you are devoting to this class) It’s a mark of growth to ask for help when you need it. He has office hours for a reason ...to help you out. RESPONSE B: Office hours are there to be used, but I CAN get frustrated if it feels like the student is using them like a crutch instead of working through it on their own. As long as you're listening and putting in the work, rather than thinking office hours are a substitute for working on your own, you're fine. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Yo professors, do you ever get annoyed at students that visit you every day during your office hours? Taking my discrete math class this semeseter, easily the hardest class ive ever taken. im a junior ​ im literally visiting my professor every day (he says if his office door is open, hes open to meet). ​ Am i annoying him by visiting him every day? I need a C+ in this class and this class is FUCKING HARD. ​ so do yall get annoyed at students that meet every single day? ​ he did tell me im the only student that visits /meets him on teams via online during office hours.. RESPONSE A: Office hours are there to be used, but I CAN get frustrated if it feels like the student is using them like a crutch instead of working through it on their own. As long as you're listening and putting in the work, rather than thinking office hours are a substitute for working on your own, you're fine. RESPONSE B: The only time I get annoyed is if students don't try in class, don't read the syllabus (I'm one of THOSE), or don't come to class... then come to my office all the time. I actually appreciate when students are in my office hours. To me that shows that they are making an effort and truly care about the class. I've had a few that are the "only ones" as well.... and they did well in the class as a result of asking lots of questions! Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Yo professors, do you ever get annoyed at students that visit you every day during your office hours? Taking my discrete math class this semeseter, easily the hardest class ive ever taken. im a junior ​ im literally visiting my professor every day (he says if his office door is open, hes open to meet). ​ Am i annoying him by visiting him every day? I need a C+ in this class and this class is FUCKING HARD. ​ so do yall get annoyed at students that meet every single day? ​ he did tell me im the only student that visits /meets him on teams via online during office hours.. RESPONSE A: If you're going during office hours, then there's no issue at all. If he says it's okay to go whenever his door is open, then that's on him and I wouldn't worry about it. If you go every day because his door is open and not because he has office hours, there is some etiquette. Try to contain it to once a day (unless he has office hours multiple times in the same day), and try to keep it to quicker questions. These aren't office hours and he has other work to do, so this isn't the time for open ended questions. If you follow that you might annoy him a bit, but you won't cross any lines. RESPONSE B: Office hours are there to be used, but I CAN get frustrated if it feels like the student is using them like a crutch instead of working through it on their own. As long as you're listening and putting in the work, rather than thinking office hours are a substitute for working on your own, you're fine. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: I work seems pointless I recently graduated undergrad. I was super diligent and got to publish my senior thesis to a conference. I just recently spoke at a conference on said paper. I am enrolled in a masters program, I know I want to be a professor/researcher and do a PhD and the whole shebang. But with the conference, listening to everyone’s presentations on small details of hypothetical scenarios... I am just left thinking, is any of this important? Why am I spending my time on this, when the world is going to crap? I don’t think that I dislike research... I think that I need to move to another field that is a little more applied and tied to real world problems. Has anyone else felt this way before? Would love to hear stories. Maybe I just depressed at the pandemic/climate change/political environment etc. Edit: rip title, “MY work” RESPONSE A: Have you read Andrew Kay's essay called "Fanning the Flames While the Humanities Burn"? From your post it doesn't sound like you're in the humanities, but in this essay Kay talks at length about the seeming frivolity of hyper-niche research that doesn't seem to affect anyone else and the commiserate disheartenment. It's definitely worth a read, even if you're not in the humanities. Edit: The Kay article is actually called "Academy's Extinction Event." "Fanning the Flames" is a response to it by Anastasia Berg. They're both worth a read, but I wanted to make sure I was referencing the correct piece. RESPONSE B: Use your position as an academic to organize and agitate for societal change. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: I work seems pointless I recently graduated undergrad. I was super diligent and got to publish my senior thesis to a conference. I just recently spoke at a conference on said paper. I am enrolled in a masters program, I know I want to be a professor/researcher and do a PhD and the whole shebang. But with the conference, listening to everyone’s presentations on small details of hypothetical scenarios... I am just left thinking, is any of this important? Why am I spending my time on this, when the world is going to crap? I don’t think that I dislike research... I think that I need to move to another field that is a little more applied and tied to real world problems. Has anyone else felt this way before? Would love to hear stories. Maybe I just depressed at the pandemic/climate change/political environment etc. Edit: rip title, “MY work” RESPONSE A: Have you read Andrew Kay's essay called "Fanning the Flames While the Humanities Burn"? From your post it doesn't sound like you're in the humanities, but in this essay Kay talks at length about the seeming frivolity of hyper-niche research that doesn't seem to affect anyone else and the commiserate disheartenment. It's definitely worth a read, even if you're not in the humanities. Edit: The Kay article is actually called "Academy's Extinction Event." "Fanning the Flames" is a response to it by Anastasia Berg. They're both worth a read, but I wanted to make sure I was referencing the correct piece. RESPONSE B: That isn't just your field. Research is incremental, the more you understand how those small steps translate into large understandings, the sooner you can see the importance in your own small steps. If you're looking for big findings, go back in time, not to a different program. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: I work seems pointless I recently graduated undergrad. I was super diligent and got to publish my senior thesis to a conference. I just recently spoke at a conference on said paper. I am enrolled in a masters program, I know I want to be a professor/researcher and do a PhD and the whole shebang. But with the conference, listening to everyone’s presentations on small details of hypothetical scenarios... I am just left thinking, is any of this important? Why am I spending my time on this, when the world is going to crap? I don’t think that I dislike research... I think that I need to move to another field that is a little more applied and tied to real world problems. Has anyone else felt this way before? Would love to hear stories. Maybe I just depressed at the pandemic/climate change/political environment etc. Edit: rip title, “MY work” RESPONSE A: Have you read Andrew Kay's essay called "Fanning the Flames While the Humanities Burn"? From your post it doesn't sound like you're in the humanities, but in this essay Kay talks at length about the seeming frivolity of hyper-niche research that doesn't seem to affect anyone else and the commiserate disheartenment. It's definitely worth a read, even if you're not in the humanities. Edit: The Kay article is actually called "Academy's Extinction Event." "Fanning the Flames" is a response to it by Anastasia Berg. They're both worth a read, but I wanted to make sure I was referencing the correct piece. RESPONSE B: I feel exactly the same way and I am an assistant professor in Biomedical engineering. I wish I could start over in greentech or just something that would make a difference for the environment. What use is a tissue engineered kidney is all the water is polluted anyway... Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Thanks for your support, r/AskAcademia Just have to share that I successfully defended a PhD in deep-sea microbial ecology today. I wanted to say thanks to this community for keeping me grounded and sane over the last year or so. This sub has been my resource for many things including planning my next steps. So thanks y’all for sharing your experiences and expertise. RESPONSE A: \> keeping me grounded and sane Dunno which sub you’ve been browsing m8 but it sure ain’t this one RESPONSE B: 🏆 Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Thanks for your support, r/AskAcademia Just have to share that I successfully defended a PhD in deep-sea microbial ecology today. I wanted to say thanks to this community for keeping me grounded and sane over the last year or so. This sub has been my resource for many things including planning my next steps. So thanks y’all for sharing your experiences and expertise. RESPONSE A: Congrats Dr. Smallthingsrock RESPONSE B: Excellent, congratulations. What was your topic, if you don’t mind me asking? Did some subsurface micro far inland that turned up isolates very similar to those found in distant ocean water columns— personally, I’d love to revisit any number of related topics— consortium, quorum sensing, extremophile traits, metabolism etc. Miss just growing new stuff in the lab. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Thanks for your support, r/AskAcademia Just have to share that I successfully defended a PhD in deep-sea microbial ecology today. I wanted to say thanks to this community for keeping me grounded and sane over the last year or so. This sub has been my resource for many things including planning my next steps. So thanks y’all for sharing your experiences and expertise. RESPONSE A: 🏆 RESPONSE B: Congrats Dr. Smallthingsrock Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: ’m still scared about how he is going to handle it. I’m also scared about how I will handle being a mom and a grad student. I guess I’m just asking anyone who has gone through something like this for advice. What can I expect? And a bit of reassurance that you all made it through. Thanks! RESPONSE A: Congratulations! I actually think that on the whole academia trajectory, having a baby in graduate school is the very best time. You have a degree of flexibility around your work that is unlike most other jobs. The only downside is the money -- it can be hard to afford childcare and an extra bedroom. Some wise words from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which I wholeheartedly agree with: ​ >*"Work-life balance was a term not yet coined in the years my children were young; it is aptly descriptive of the time distribution I experienced. My success in law school, I have no doubt, was in large measure because of baby Jane. I attended classes and studied diligently until 4 in the afternoon; the next hours were Jane's time, spent at the park, playing silly games or singing funny songs, reading picture books and A. A. Milne poems, and bathing and feeding her. After Jane's bedtime, I returned to the law books with renewed will. Each part of my life provided respite from the other and gave me a sense of proportion that classmates trained only on law studies lacked."* RESPONSE B: My PhD "classmate" is now pregnant with second time during the PhD, and she is doing more-or-less fine. Her firstborn became something like "department child". I am not so qualified to give any advice (it is hart to be a sigle mother when you are childless man)... but our uni. is supportive to mothers, you could have tree years of maternaly leave and it wont affect your scholarship in any way, your positon will remain untouched, and there is a state guaratee financial support during pregnancy... so she is doing good now and she plan to finish the thesis before the birth (hope she will finish :) ) So it is not imposible to be pregnant during the PhD Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: cares about his students, but I’m still scared about how he is going to handle it. I’m also scared about how I will handle being a mom and a grad student. I guess I’m just asking anyone who has gone through something like this for advice. What can I expect? And a bit of reassurance that you all made it through. Thanks! RESPONSE A: I am in the final push of my PhD (social sciences) and I had 2 kids during my PhD. I live in Canada where it is normal to take 1 year of parental leave for each child, and I did qualify for some financial support. Also I got some discount for on-camps childcare (still over $1000/month). Having 2 little kids during COVID was pretty awful and isolating, but otherwise I really appreciated the flexibility. For me, I knew I wanted to have kids, so part of the equation was also my age, my partner’s age, and knowing that it was kinda “now or never.” I guess it was like an “ask questions later” type thing - I’m having kids, so how do I make this work? I did have to lower my expectations a LOT. The amount of things I could get done on my to-do list dropped dramatically after having kid #1, and plummeted after kid #2. I beat myself up for a long time about that, but I am coming to terms with it. Also, I may not win any awards for my dissertation, but I’m also okay with that too. I want a balanced life, and the PhD is part of it. YMMD. Edited to add: Congrats!! I remember feeling nervous to tell my supervisors about the pregnancy out of fear of “disappointing” them, and one supervisor did say something like “if you’re not a parent, your thesis is your baby; now you’ll have a real baby, and the thesis is second fiddle” or something 🤷🏻‍♀️ but in all honesty they didn’t care too much, and in the end it’s YOUR life!! ❤️ RESPONSE B: Thanks everyone. This thread has made me feel better like I don’t have to choose between a family and a career path PhD Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Pregnant during PhD program Hi everyone! I just found out that I’m pregnant. My husband and I are over the moon, but the anxiety is starting to creep up on me. I am finishing up my second year of my PhD program in biology and the baby will be due in the beginning/middle of my third year. Quals are at the end of the third year. I am really lucky and I have a really supportive PI who cares about his students, but I’m still scared about how he is going to handle it. I’m also scared about how I will handle being a mom and a grad student. I guess I’m just asking anyone who has gone through something like this for advice. What can I expect? And a bit of reassurance that you all made it through. Thanks! RESPONSE A: Thanks everyone. This thread has made me feel better like I don’t have to choose between a family and a career path PhD RESPONSE B: I got pregnant while doing coursework for my Ph.D. (I call him my social theory baby), and it was fine. I had a rough semester ending (since he was born in November), but things ended up okay. The most challenging part was definitely writing my dissertation, and I needed help from family and my partner in order to manage it. You can do it! Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: ch the interview and I will feel even worse because it was such a small hiring pool. I want to do well and have been practicing answering interview questions and reading up on the project topic for the last week. But I still feel like it won't be enough. How do I ace the interview and go on to live my dream position? RESPONSE A: I would sit quietly and really imagine my day to day life in that job. How will I feel? What will I contribute? Who will I work with? How will I collaborate with them? Where will I live? What will I eat? I think too often candidates practice expressing the highlights of the work they have already done in the past, but the interviewer needs to know what the candidate will do in the future, in the interviewer's future. Not only that, but what the candidate will do must be what the interviewer needs. So, they must have a shared vision of the future. They both have to imagine they will work well together and be productive before the interviewer can offer the job to that candidate. Also, the candidate must listen attentively. Sometimes an interviewer will explain the project and/or specific needs he requires of the postdoc only during the interview. This information is not written in the advertisement so the candidate has no way to prepare for it. Keep your wits about you. RESPONSE B: I agree with everyone’s suggestions here. I wanted to provided one more counter perspective that no one has mentioned yet. Sounds like you’re suffering imposter’s syndrome. Easier said than done, but as soon as you shake that feeling and start realizing your value, the less tense and more free you’ll feel to talk about your passion for the science. Just remember, even if you don’t get this exact position there are so many potential positions that can offer just as auspicious of an opportunity. If you’ve already got this far and got this level of interest, then that means you’ll inevitably land a nice position somewhere. Once you free yourself of the notion that this is do or die, it will liberate you to be more yourself during the interview. You’ll begin to focus on what you think/feel rather than saying what you think they want to hear (which is a terrible trap to fall into). Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: on this assignment due to trouble at home, apologizing profusely. He only just got back to me with a no and a suggestion to see a therapist for my home troubles. He might have meant well with the suggestion, but I cannot help but feel a little ashamed. I'm worried I have lost good standing with him and I am worried I have offended him. I hope he does not think I lied. I don't know whether I should respond with an apology, but I don't know what to apologize for? Anyways, I may just be overthinking this... Pandemic stress... Thank you for your time nonetheless. RESPONSE A: This sounds like a stressful situation, and I'm sorry that you are experiencing it. I can't speak for your specific professor, but I do not think it's likely that you harmed your good standing. In general, as long as you approach a request for an extension respectfully (e.g., it's not an indignant demand), you should be fine. A professor may not give an extension for a number of reasons (e.g., they do not believe it would be fair to other students who might also be struggling, they do not provide extensions except with a Dean's note, it was too short of notice, etc.), but it doesn't mean that they think ill of you for asking for one. My advice to you is to do what you can to submit the best work you can today. Or, if the late penalty is relatively light (e.g., 10%) and you think having an extra day will help you to have a substantially better assignment, go ahead and take a penalty if you need to. It sucks when circumstances beyond your control affect your grade in a class. Ultimately, you can only do your best, and it is okay if your best today is not quite as good as your best under better circumstances. Good luck. RESPONSE B: You are probably overthinking. He denied your request for an extension but the suggestion that therapy may be helpful was likely genuine. Nothing to feel ashamed about helping your grandparents when they were unwell - your professor may even have a higher opinion of your character for doing so. Hang in there! Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: I haven't been able to handle, thankfully. However, after they got their vaccines on Thursday, they fell unwell and I've been pressed for time as I've managed caring for them, finishing this paper, and working. I reached out to my instructor on Friday morning with a brief email asking for an extension on this assignment due to trouble at home, apologizing profusely. He only just got back to me with a no and a suggestion to see a therapist for my home troubles. He might have meant well with the suggestion, but I cannot help but feel a little ashamed. I'm worried I have lost good standing with him and I am worried I have offended him. I hope he does not think I lied. I don't know whether I should respond with an apology, but I don't know what to apologize for? Anyways, I may just be overthinking this... Pandemic stress... Thank you for your time nonetheless. RESPONSE A: Uhhhhh Friday for a paper due Monday is really short notice. He should've accommodated you if possible, but it may not be possible - end of semester, grades are due, etc. I would have tried the dean if you had more time, but at this point I'd just finish the assignment and submit. It's honestly not a big deal. RESPONSE B: Also, as a professor and mental health professional (I'm a clinical psychologist, and teach psychology), I'm concerned about all the responses that say it's out of line for a professor to refer a student to counseling. 99% of faculty have no mental health training. They can't be the students' therapists. If they think there is something going on that is out of their league, it's appropriate (and best practice!) to refer the student politely and respectfully to a counselor. This is not an insult. In fact, acting like it's taboo to refer to counseling *increases the stigma around mental health support*. Counseling should be a normalized part of coping with difficult situations - particularly in college where there's often a free or low-cost on-campus resource that's easy to access. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: them and have been having trouble with school ever since. Nothing I haven't been able to handle, thankfully. However, after they got their vaccines on Thursday, they fell unwell and I've been pressed for time as I've managed caring for them, finishing this paper, and working. I reached out to my instructor on Friday morning with a brief email asking for an extension on this assignment due to trouble at home, apologizing profusely. He only just got back to me with a no and a suggestion to see a therapist for my home troubles. He might have meant well with the suggestion, but I cannot help but feel a little ashamed. I'm worried I have lost good standing with him and I am worried I have offended him. I hope he does not think I lied. I don't know whether I should respond with an apology, but I don't know what to apologize for? Anyways, I may just be overthinking this... Pandemic stress... Thank you for your time nonetheless. RESPONSE A: One thing that I left out of my initial comment; I have never taken a request from a student personally. What I have done is reflect on the demands of the course; does the content meet the expected performance, is there sufficient time for mastery, etc. I welcome the feedback, questions from students because it improves experience and mastery RESPONSE B: Also, as a professor and mental health professional (I'm a clinical psychologist, and teach psychology), I'm concerned about all the responses that say it's out of line for a professor to refer a student to counseling. 99% of faculty have no mental health training. They can't be the students' therapists. If they think there is something going on that is out of their league, it's appropriate (and best practice!) to refer the student politely and respectfully to a counselor. This is not an insult. In fact, acting like it's taboo to refer to counseling *increases the stigma around mental health support*. Counseling should be a normalized part of coping with difficult situations - particularly in college where there's often a free or low-cost on-campus resource that's easy to access. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: it mean to be "good at research?" I asked him the same and he didn't really give me a straightforward answer after I retorted that everybody has their own measures of success. I took a look at this Quora question that's answered by one of my favorite Quora people but I was curious what other people on this subreddit may think. My personal criteria for one to be good at research is to first and foremost actually enjoy it (e.g. enjoy the feeling of realizing how "dumb" one is and enjoy the process of filling in knowledge gaps). I personally don't hold "publish a lot of papers" as a criterion but I've noticed the majority of people do. RESPONSE A: First, don't worry about Tom, as others have said. What I think makes a good researcher is the following: 1. Motivated 2. Knows how to do a good literature review and find the gap in the literature. 3. Ethical At the end of the day, research is knowing what's been done and knowing what needs to done, then filling that gap or part of that gap or even just attempting to fill the gap. RESPONSE B: This Tom is an early PhD student, meaning he still hardly knows his arse from his elbow. Unless his field is the study of student success in higher educaton he can roll up those papers, insert them into himself and spin on it. Right now he's getting high off his own supply, but that attitude isn't going to get him far when he has his own struggles in his work and suddenly he's the stupid one. One of my best lecturers, Peter Mayhew, would always say that he never fely like he was the smartest person in the room in his career, and that he got where he was through persistence and hard work, humility, and an eagerness to learn from those around him. Beig good at what you do isn't about having some magic spark, its about working at it and dilligent proffesional development. They are the qualities that made him and excellent evolutionary biologist, and a good teacher. They are also the qualities that make someone a memorable person. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: call him Tom. Tom also happens to be one of those people who I would call "pretentious" in the sense that his usual attitude is "I don't need people who work hard I need people who are actually good." Just for some background information, I'm a second semester MSCS student. I plan to applying to PhD programs abroad this fall so that when I graduate next spring I can start right away. The context of how the title of this post came to be is that Tom usually tells me things like "among your line of batchmates (people who entered the lab the same year) A and B are going to be the ones who shine" (I may be taking this the wrong way but the way he says it seems to imply that I'm not good enough), "I get that you enjoy research, but you really need to ask yourself if you're actually good at it," etc. and last night that really got me thinking. What exactly does it mean to be "good at research?" I asked him the same and he didn't really give me a straightforward answer after I retorted that everybody has their own measures of success. I took a look at this Quora question that's answered by one of my favorite Quora people but I was curious what other people on this subreddit may think. My personal criteria for one to be good at research is to first and foremost actually enjoy it (e.g. enjoy the feeling of realizing how "dumb" one is and enjoy the process of filling in knowledge gaps). I personally don't hold "publish a lot of papers" as a criterion but I've noticed the majority of people do. RESPONSE A: My name is Tom, and I feel attacked reading these comments. But Tom sounds like a real turd! RESPONSE B: First, don't worry about Tom, as others have said. What I think makes a good researcher is the following: 1. Motivated 2. Knows how to do a good literature review and find the gap in the literature. 3. Ethical At the end of the day, research is knowing what's been done and knowing what needs to done, then filling that gap or part of that gap or even just attempting to fill the gap. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: story only comes together when pen hits paper, and some parts of the story end up needing to be emphasized while others can be ignored. In the past, I tried to stick to pre-made figures and maintain the expectation that they weren't going to change. Ultimately I found that this unnecessarily constrained the story I ended up being able to tell and became a waste of time since I just remake the figures anyway. RESPONSE A: It's highly field dependent, as well as dependent on the sheer volume of data you need to chew on (the more numbers you deal with, the more a graph becomes necessary to remotely grasp what the data is saying), but in my experience I'd say it's so obvious as to be less advice, and more "if you're not doing it this way you're literally doing it wrong." That's not to say that *every* graph and figure has to be made in advance, as occasionally you do run into a situation where you need a "novel" graph in order to illustrate some point. But generally speaking all of your major and/or "core" graphs should be made in the analysis phase, to the degree that you probably want all of your graphs to be made by your post-processing and analysis software. Granted, I'm in a field where the graphs genuinely don't change in terms of overall formatting from paper to paper, so I'm a bit spoiled, but still. RESPONSE B: My experience comes from biology where not only is this a good strategy for writing a paper it's good for starting a project. Make up figures on a whiteboard of how the project could play out. Can you make sense of all the possible outcomes? Are there some answers that are better than others? If all the possible answers are interesting and interpretable then you have a good project design. If only some answers give you intelligible answers then you have a poor(er) design. Once you have data, drafting the figures gives you an outline of the paper. This is how people read papers. Often they just look at the figures to scrape the information they are interested in. It's the storyboard and the hard data that determines what you ultimately can say. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: ly constrained the story I ended up being able to tell and became a waste of time since I just remake the figures anyway. RESPONSE A: It is excellent advice ... that should be thrown away once you actually start writing the paper. There are some parts of a paper you can write in advance, but you don’t really know what story you are going to tell until you have analyzed your data, and ideally the figures should tell the story on their own. Getting the figures right is therefore some of the most important work of writing the paper. BUT in the process of writing, sometimes you have insights that change the way you understand the data or how you want to present it, leading you to change the figures. I once wrote a paper and while putting together the talk about it I had a flash of insight about a new, better way to present the ideas. I ended up with a much better presentation based on completely different figures. The paper was mostly mathematical proofs and the talk ended up being mostly conceptual figures explaining the ideas in the proofs. Had I stuck with the original figures, it would have been a dud (honestly, I was even bored creating the original presentation). Instead, several people told me afterward it was their favorite conference talk. Bottom line: it is helpful to think about the story you want to tell and how to tell it through the figures before you start writing in earnest, sort of like storyboarding your paper, but be open to changing them as you go along. RESPONSE B: My experience comes from biology where not only is this a good strategy for writing a paper it's good for starting a project. Make up figures on a whiteboard of how the project could play out. Can you make sense of all the possible outcomes? Are there some answers that are better than others? If all the possible answers are interesting and interpretable then you have a good project design. If only some answers give you intelligible answers then you have a poor(er) design. Once you have data, drafting the figures gives you an outline of the paper. This is how people read papers. Often they just look at the figures to scrape the information they are interested in. It's the storyboard and the hard data that determines what you ultimately can say. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: "Make all the figures before you start writing the paper" is terrible advice Biomedical sciences student here. I am curious what people think of this statement. Personally, I have heard it from many PIs, including my own, leading me to believe it is a common bit of philosophy throughout academia. Based on my experience, this has been garbage advice. Sure, you need to know your data, and you need to have it analyzed before you start writing. But I have found that the story only comes together when pen hits paper, and some parts of the story end up needing to be emphasized while others can be ignored. In the past, I tried to stick to pre-made figures and maintain the expectation that they weren't going to change. Ultimately I found that this unnecessarily constrained the story I ended up being able to tell and became a waste of time since I just remake the figures anyway. RESPONSE A: I think writing is an extremely personal process and you have to try what works for different people before finding your method. I don't like making my figures first, but I like making my section/subsection/subsubsection. I like writing my abstract first, even though many people say not to. Overall you need to write a cohesive story for your paper to be on its way to be good, but there's not one way that works. I think the "make your figures before writing the paper" is just another advice like this. Making your figures gives you an idea of where and how you want to take this paper. It gives you the story you need RESPONSE B: I make all the figures and do all the analyses before starting writing. You need a story first and that comes from the interpretation of your results! Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: "Make all the figures before you start writing the paper" is terrible advice Biomedical sciences student here. I am curious what people think of this statement. Personally, I have heard it from many PIs, including my own, leading me to believe it is a common bit of philosophy throughout academia. Based on my experience, this has been garbage advice. Sure, you need to know your data, and you need to have it analyzed before you start writing. But I have found that the story only comes together when pen hits paper, and some parts of the story end up needing to be emphasized while others can be ignored. In the past, I tried to stick to pre-made figures and maintain the expectation that they weren't going to change. Ultimately I found that this unnecessarily constrained the story I ended up being able to tell and became a waste of time since I just remake the figures anyway. RESPONSE A: I agree with most of the comments here, but in my experience, Figure 1 or maybe 2 (depending on the length of the paper) might change dramatically depending on the type of narrative and how it evolves during the writing process. These are usually intro figures and depend heavily on the written intro. Chemistry PhD candidate here (chem bio) which I think publication-wise should be relatively similar. RESPONSE B: I make all the figures and do all the analyses before starting writing. You need a story first and that comes from the interpretation of your results! Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Advice to your younger academic self If you could go back and tell your younger self one thing about academia or the PhD process, what would you say? What did you wish you had known early on? I’ve been asked to speak at an induction day for new PhD students and would love to hear your experiences/advice (as students and/or supervisors) - and to share them with my group and others on here. Apologies if there’s a recent thread on this. RESPONSE A: Choose an advisor who's good at networking and has a very good standing in the community. That really helps. RESPONSE B: 1. a huge portion of the job is public speaking, which I did not realize when I started out. 2. the labor situation is as bad as everyone says. 3. publish, publish, publish. 4. a huge portion of the job is being able to get other people (readers, students) excited about difficult, abstract, boring things and to help them see value and interest in knowledge (even if it doesn't have immediate instrumental application). Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Advice to your younger academic self If you could go back and tell your younger self one thing about academia or the PhD process, what would you say? What did you wish you had known early on? I’ve been asked to speak at an induction day for new PhD students and would love to hear your experiences/advice (as students and/or supervisors) - and to share them with my group and others on here. Apologies if there’s a recent thread on this. RESPONSE A: I have two: 1. Please publish more!! The job market is seriously as bad as they say it is. Focusing on your teaching will NOT HELP YOU. 2. You wouldn’t be in the program if you couldn’t do it. You absolutely can. Don’t let imposter syndrome keep you hiding from opportunities. RESPONSE B: I would say to decide what your end goal is with your degree and make every effort to spend time working towards that goal. For example, I wanted to go towards professoring at a small teaching focused college and the advisor I first picked didn't really care what my goals were. I ended up quitting the first lab and switched to an advisor who was willing to help me work toward my goals but I essentially wasted my first year and a half because my advisor only wanted me to spend my time in the lab and discouraged me from spending time on my teaching. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Advice to your younger academic self If you could go back and tell your younger self one thing about academia or the PhD process, what would you say? What did you wish you had known early on? I’ve been asked to speak at an induction day for new PhD students and would love to hear your experiences/advice (as students and/or supervisors) - and to share them with my group and others on here. Apologies if there’s a recent thread on this. RESPONSE A: I have two: 1. Please publish more!! The job market is seriously as bad as they say it is. Focusing on your teaching will NOT HELP YOU. 2. You wouldn’t be in the program if you couldn’t do it. You absolutely can. Don’t let imposter syndrome keep you hiding from opportunities. RESPONSE B: My 5c. Focus on the work your advisor sets but don’t be afraid to venture into other parts of the literature that you find interesting. Be as happy as you can be during the challenges you will face. My biggest regret is not being able to stay more positive and happy throughout what were some of the most difficult and challenging times of my life. The professors I worked with changed my life for the better and they will probably never know or understand how difficult it was for me to finish my studies, or how useful their help was in getting me there. Be focused. The process can be demoralizing, humiliating and seem impossible at times, it’s critically important to remain focused. Be grateful to the professors and those around you especially when it feels like they’re busy with other things and not focused on whatever it is that is critically important to your project. Pretty much everyone in academia, especially professors, are doing what they do because they want to help other people, and not enough thanks is given for that. Be kind. Spend a few minutes a day being kind to the staff at the university. Tell them a joke or an insight into your work etc... Learn to use a digital citation manager endnote or zotero on day 1. File everything so that if you returned to the file system in ten years you could easily pick up where you left off. Go to as many relevant science-based conferences as you can. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Advice to your younger academic self If you could go back and tell your younger self one thing about academia or the PhD process, what would you say? What did you wish you had known early on? I’ve been asked to speak at an induction day for new PhD students and would love to hear your experiences/advice (as students and/or supervisors) - and to share them with my group and others on here. Apologies if there’s a recent thread on this. RESPONSE A: I have two: 1. Please publish more!! The job market is seriously as bad as they say it is. Focusing on your teaching will NOT HELP YOU. 2. You wouldn’t be in the program if you couldn’t do it. You absolutely can. Don’t let imposter syndrome keep you hiding from opportunities. RESPONSE B: in the vein of uncommon or contrarian advice: “implement things from scratch instead of relying on or trying to modify existing open-source implementations”. Working in applied computational statistical methods development I wasted a huge amount of time trying to wrap my head around convoluted, buggy backends after being convinced not to reinvent square wheels. Unfortunately off-the-shelf wheels were riddled with holes that were very difficult for me to fix (as someone without a formal CS background — any fairly trivial change would require that I edit a dozen files, none of which was documented anywhere). Things went much smoother when I started doing everything except low-medium level stuff from scratch (i.e. using only very established statistical computing libraries... which incidentally went eschewed by other software I’d been trying to modify and use, which is where a lot of the bugs came from). Getting novel algorithmic tricks implemented went from something very frustrating to something with much more rapid turnaround. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Advice to your younger academic self If you could go back and tell your younger self one thing about academia or the PhD process, what would you say? What did you wish you had known early on? I’ve been asked to speak at an induction day for new PhD students and would love to hear your experiences/advice (as students and/or supervisors) - and to share them with my group and others on here. Apologies if there’s a recent thread on this. RESPONSE A: I would say to decide what your end goal is with your degree and make every effort to spend time working towards that goal. For example, I wanted to go towards professoring at a small teaching focused college and the advisor I first picked didn't really care what my goals were. I ended up quitting the first lab and switched to an advisor who was willing to help me work toward my goals but I essentially wasted my first year and a half because my advisor only wanted me to spend my time in the lab and discouraged me from spending time on my teaching. RESPONSE B: Figure out how to do the PhD in a way that is what you want it to be and makes you happy. Being miserable working day and night for 5+ years, to get a job where you can continue to be miserable, just doesn't make sense. For me, that means working 9-5 M-F. I had to come to terms with the fact that doing so might mean I wouldn't get an academic job, but improved my life so dramatically (and I got a job at a school that values work-life balance, and not at schools where I would have hated my life -- living the life you want also serves as a matching mechanism). Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: less curious about the specific outcomes (publications, high grades, engagement, etc.), but more about the characteristics and habits great students have. Could it be creativity? Productivity? The ability to ask relevant research questions and design experiments? The ability to conduct experiments independently and discuss the results meaningfully? Put another way, aside from tangible results, what (soft) skills should I aim to gain in grad school to become a better academic? What makes you say, *wow, I am really impressed by this student*? Hope the question is clear. Thanks for your input! RESPONSE A: “…a part of grad school and growing is asking dumb questions, lots of them.” No, it’s really not. There are two really big misunderstandings on this. First, “there’s no such thing as a stupid question” is absolutely false. Second, “it doesn’t hurt to ask” is also not true. Hopefully for you, you aren’t using the term “dumb question” correctly. A dumb question is one where the answer should be obvious to you (not just obvious to the person your asking), or you’ve been told before, or one you can look up yourself as quickly as it takes you to ask. A dumb question is one that annoys the person you ask because they shouldn’t have to answer it for you. And this is where “it doesn’t hurt to ask” is dead wrong. Everyone asks dumb questions on occasion, but someone who does it “a lot” is someone I can’t trust to work on complicated projects, or without more supervision than I give other students, and that means it’s someone I can’t write a good letter of recommendation for. Students at all levels need to figure out how to tell if a question is a stupid question or not. If you’re not sure, ask. A few times doesn’t hurt. But from someone who hopes to be an independent researcher one day, you really need to figure it out quick. RESPONSE B: Students who have impressed me most have (1) had the desire and ability to become strong in the fundamentals of the field and then (2) work with me as partners in pushing research in a direction that they find personally interesting. I suppose that’s a combination of ability, interest, and professionalism. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: 'm less curious about the specific outcomes (publications, high grades, engagement, etc.), but more about the characteristics and habits great students have. Could it be creativity? Productivity? The ability to ask relevant research questions and design experiments? The ability to conduct experiments independently and discuss the results meaningfully? Put another way, aside from tangible results, what (soft) skills should I aim to gain in grad school to become a better academic? What makes you say, *wow, I am really impressed by this student*? Hope the question is clear. Thanks for your input! RESPONSE A: The best grad students seem to have their own agenda that is interdependent with their mentor's research. They use their mentor for advice, but don't need hand holding for everything. They are driven by their own goals and find a mentor that facilities progress in that direction. RESPONSE B: “…a part of grad school and growing is asking dumb questions, lots of them.” No, it’s really not. There are two really big misunderstandings on this. First, “there’s no such thing as a stupid question” is absolutely false. Second, “it doesn’t hurt to ask” is also not true. Hopefully for you, you aren’t using the term “dumb question” correctly. A dumb question is one where the answer should be obvious to you (not just obvious to the person your asking), or you’ve been told before, or one you can look up yourself as quickly as it takes you to ask. A dumb question is one that annoys the person you ask because they shouldn’t have to answer it for you. And this is where “it doesn’t hurt to ask” is dead wrong. Everyone asks dumb questions on occasion, but someone who does it “a lot” is someone I can’t trust to work on complicated projects, or without more supervision than I give other students, and that means it’s someone I can’t write a good letter of recommendation for. Students at all levels need to figure out how to tell if a question is a stupid question or not. If you’re not sure, ask. A few times doesn’t hurt. But from someone who hopes to be an independent researcher one day, you really need to figure it out quick. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: PIs, what do you find most impressive about exceptional grad students? I know it's not about knowing the answers to everything (as I was once led to believe), but a part of grad school and growing is asking dumb questions, lots of them. This is especially so if one worked in an interdisciplinary field. What then, separates mediocre, good, and exceptional students? When is the last time a student genuinely impressed you? What did he/she do? I'm less curious about the specific outcomes (publications, high grades, engagement, etc.), but more about the characteristics and habits great students have. Could it be creativity? Productivity? The ability to ask relevant research questions and design experiments? The ability to conduct experiments independently and discuss the results meaningfully? Put another way, aside from tangible results, what (soft) skills should I aim to gain in grad school to become a better academic? What makes you say, *wow, I am really impressed by this student*? Hope the question is clear. Thanks for your input! RESPONSE A: Time management skills. I just graduated with my MA and there were two other students in my cohort that I was constantly impressed by because of their insane time management skills. One of them is a mother to twin girls who works a part time job outside of her GTA responsibilities and she was constantly submitting grant applications, writing multiple manuscripts, and consistently working on her research in the lab. The other also worked a job outside of her GTA responsibilities and lab work on top of planning a massive wedding complete with meticulously crafted 3D representations of the venue and decor. I have absolutely no idea how they managed to do all of the stuff that they did with only 24 hours in a day. I am exceptionally jealous of and massively impressed with their time management skills. RESPONSE B: The best grad students seem to have their own agenda that is interdependent with their mentor's research. They use their mentor for advice, but don't need hand holding for everything. They are driven by their own goals and find a mentor that facilities progress in that direction. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: skills should I aim to gain in grad school to become a better academic? What makes you say, *wow, I am really impressed by this student*? Hope the question is clear. Thanks for your input! RESPONSE A: Being someone I can trust to do good work without needing to manage you much is really what it boils down to. Like if I give a deadline, I expect it to be met. If it can't be, that's ok as long as there's an extenuating circumstance and I know about it ahead of time. Regularly meeting deadlines, being concientious (but not anxious - I have enough of my own anxiety, I don't need yours), responding well to constructive feedback, being dependable, and actually being interested in the work. Being respectful obviously too, and having good boundaries RESPONSE B: “…a part of grad school and growing is asking dumb questions, lots of them.” No, it’s really not. There are two really big misunderstandings on this. First, “there’s no such thing as a stupid question” is absolutely false. Second, “it doesn’t hurt to ask” is also not true. Hopefully for you, you aren’t using the term “dumb question” correctly. A dumb question is one where the answer should be obvious to you (not just obvious to the person your asking), or you’ve been told before, or one you can look up yourself as quickly as it takes you to ask. A dumb question is one that annoys the person you ask because they shouldn’t have to answer it for you. And this is where “it doesn’t hurt to ask” is dead wrong. Everyone asks dumb questions on occasion, but someone who does it “a lot” is someone I can’t trust to work on complicated projects, or without more supervision than I give other students, and that means it’s someone I can’t write a good letter of recommendation for. Students at all levels need to figure out how to tell if a question is a stupid question or not. If you’re not sure, ask. A few times doesn’t hurt. But from someone who hopes to be an independent researcher one day, you really need to figure it out quick. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: (as I was once led to believe), but a part of grad school and growing is asking dumb questions, lots of them. This is especially so if one worked in an interdisciplinary field. What then, separates mediocre, good, and exceptional students? When is the last time a student genuinely impressed you? What did he/she do? I'm less curious about the specific outcomes (publications, high grades, engagement, etc.), but more about the characteristics and habits great students have. Could it be creativity? Productivity? The ability to ask relevant research questions and design experiments? The ability to conduct experiments independently and discuss the results meaningfully? Put another way, aside from tangible results, what (soft) skills should I aim to gain in grad school to become a better academic? What makes you say, *wow, I am really impressed by this student*? Hope the question is clear. Thanks for your input! RESPONSE A: I've seen a lot of people go on to get really competitive academic and industry jobs and the number one skill they have had (along with genuine intellectual curiosity), bar none, is time management. These were mostly people who did *not* work crazy long hours or most (if any) weekends, often because of family commitments. Some had to make it 9 to 5, if thats not possible it never really extends much beyond that because 1) they couldn't and 2) I really think its counterproductive. They were people who could stay focused and organized to produce a steady stream of small steps forward and deliverables day in and day out with an eye on a goal (usually a big paper or a fellowship etc). From a mangers perspective, someone like this is the best, especially if they can communicate what is working and what isn't. RESPONSE B: I think a lot of it boils down to finding a right mentor. A lot of success in grad school depends on luck and whether your project is successful or not. That is of course the essence of research. In my opinion, I have seen everyone of my cohorts work hard but the results vary because of varying factors. For example, a good student with a PI who doesn’t the mentor the student would go through a hard time. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: What type of cranks does your discipline attract? I'm in religious studies and just got an email from someone letting me know his bizarre theories about the Bible. RESPONSE A: I’m in German Studies.... so Nazis.... lots and lots of fucking Nazis. RESPONSE B: I do geochronology and a lot of my group works on Early Earth. We get weird postcards a couple times a year, and weird emails several times a year. My supervisor also has been "cited" by Answers in Genesis multiple times... ​ Edit: I realized I didn't specify what type of weird it was. Mostly creationists insisting the Earth isn't that old, or that radiogenic elements' decay constants are actually much higher, etc. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: What type of cranks does your discipline attract? I'm in religious studies and just got an email from someone letting me know his bizarre theories about the Bible. RESPONSE A: I’m in German Studies.... so Nazis.... lots and lots of fucking Nazis. RESPONSE B: Celtic studies/medieval Irish history attracts a lot of people who identify with pop-history representations of Irish culture/society who are absolutely furious to discover that much of what's out there (especially with regards to the religion[s] practised in Ireland prior to Christianisation) is not an accurate representation of the historical record. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: What type of cranks does your discipline attract? I'm in religious studies and just got an email from someone letting me know his bizarre theories about the Bible. RESPONSE A: Assyriology, Sumerology, and Biblical Studies. Anything from Ancient Aliens folks to biblical fundamentalists to Atheist fundamentalists. Absolute insanity. RESPONSE B: I’m in German Studies.... so Nazis.... lots and lots of fucking Nazis. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: What type of cranks does your discipline attract? I'm in religious studies and just got an email from someone letting me know his bizarre theories about the Bible. RESPONSE A: I’m in German Studies.... so Nazis.... lots and lots of fucking Nazis. RESPONSE B: Libertarians. CS PhD. It's.... upsetting Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: What type of cranks does your discipline attract? I'm in religious studies and just got an email from someone letting me know his bizarre theories about the Bible. RESPONSE A: Anthropology/human evolution/fossils. I get angry Creationists and the “is this totally normal rock I found in my back yard a precious fossil?” types. The latter is usually accompanied by a blurry, low resolution photo of said rock. RESPONSE B: I’m in German Studies.... so Nazis.... lots and lots of fucking Nazis. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: So so tired. How to rediscover my lost passion and drive Perhaps this feeling has been cliche by now, with everything going on in the world. But does anyone else out there just feel totally *done*? I'm going into my 3rd year of my PhD (out of 4 total), my "analysis year". (Previous two were mostly lots and lots of fieldwork, collecting data, presentations, some general analyses and papers but not focused on detailed analyses.) I used to love my research. I still do, but feel totally separate from it. Just can't motivate myself to work on anything for my dissertation the past few weeks. I'm tired all of the time and don't know how to refuel my drive... I'm guessing others must feel the same way. Suggestions on how to get out of this slump? How to feel refreshed, recharged, and passionate again? There's just so many shitty chaotic things occurring, speaking from the US perspective but globally as well. How does anyone focus on research, or anything for that matter, anymore? I'm just so tired... RESPONSE A: My perspective is a little different. I don't need to be passionate about my work. I treat my research and teaching as a job, and that helps me stay motivated and productive. Maybe try to find things other than passion that motivate you to complete your PhD. Edited to add: Of course, there is a mental health aspect of your post that I haven't addressed. I second the suggestion to take a few days off to mentally recharge. RESPONSE B: Ughh I feel this. I feel exhausted ALL the time and its making it impossible for me to get anything done. But then the longer I go without getting things done, the more stressed and tired I get. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: So so tired. How to rediscover my lost passion and drive Perhaps this feeling has been cliche by now, with everything going on in the world. But does anyone else out there just feel totally *done*? I'm going into my 3rd year of my PhD (out of 4 total), my "analysis year". (Previous two were mostly lots and lots of fieldwork, collecting data, presentations, some general analyses and papers but not focused on detailed analyses.) I used to love my research. I still do, but feel totally separate from it. Just can't motivate myself to work on anything for my dissertation the past few weeks. I'm tired all of the time and don't know how to refuel my drive... I'm guessing others must feel the same way. Suggestions on how to get out of this slump? How to feel refreshed, recharged, and passionate again? There's just so many shitty chaotic things occurring, speaking from the US perspective but globally as well. How does anyone focus on research, or anything for that matter, anymore? I'm just so tired... RESPONSE A: I'm not sure where you're at, but I know for many quarantine is really draining. Even if you're just staying inside all the time, that itself is very draining. Stay strong! RESPONSE B: My perspective is a little different. I don't need to be passionate about my work. I treat my research and teaching as a job, and that helps me stay motivated and productive. Maybe try to find things other than passion that motivate you to complete your PhD. Edited to add: Of course, there is a mental health aspect of your post that I haven't addressed. I second the suggestion to take a few days off to mentally recharge. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: and drive Perhaps this feeling has been cliche by now, with everything going on in the world. But does anyone else out there just feel totally *done*? I'm going into my 3rd year of my PhD (out of 4 total), my "analysis year". (Previous two were mostly lots and lots of fieldwork, collecting data, presentations, some general analyses and papers but not focused on detailed analyses.) I used to love my research. I still do, but feel totally separate from it. Just can't motivate myself to work on anything for my dissertation the past few weeks. I'm tired all of the time and don't know how to refuel my drive... I'm guessing others must feel the same way. Suggestions on how to get out of this slump? How to feel refreshed, recharged, and passionate again? There's just so many shitty chaotic things occurring, speaking from the US perspective but globally as well. How does anyone focus on research, or anything for that matter, anymore? I'm just so tired... RESPONSE A: I'm not sure where you're at, but I know for many quarantine is really draining. Even if you're just staying inside all the time, that itself is very draining. Stay strong! RESPONSE B: 2 suggestions:Work out every single day, seriously. Start small and progressively increase. Physical health can help you feel more energized. I know this is a very common suggestion, but this is how I keep myself focused. I run a mile everyday which really isn't much, but in the long run I've would've ran 365 miles after year. I like short simple workouts because it doesn't conflict with your schedule and if you're consistent you'll see results both mentally and physically. And I'm in STEM too, I have to tell you this is very common, especially when you've been spending time on all of the low level stuff (coding, collecting data, math, etc). My second suggestion is to watch movies on your subject, play video games on your subject, travel (maybe just road trip due to covid for safety), etc. I just notice that seeing your subject in a high/abstract level can get you excited again. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: So so tired. How to rediscover my lost passion and drive Perhaps this feeling has been cliche by now, with everything going on in the world. But does anyone else out there just feel totally *done*? I'm going into my 3rd year of my PhD (out of 4 total), my "analysis year". (Previous two were mostly lots and lots of fieldwork, collecting data, presentations, some general analyses and papers but not focused on detailed analyses.) I used to love my research. I still do, but feel totally separate from it. Just can't motivate myself to work on anything for my dissertation the past few weeks. I'm tired all of the time and don't know how to refuel my drive... I'm guessing others must feel the same way. Suggestions on how to get out of this slump? How to feel refreshed, recharged, and passionate again? There's just so many shitty chaotic things occurring, speaking from the US perspective but globally as well. How does anyone focus on research, or anything for that matter, anymore? I'm just so tired... RESPONSE A: One thing I've found PhD candidates absolutely *terrible* at without encouragement is taking actual leave. Go on leave for a minimum of a week. 10 days is better. DO not check your emails. Do not do anything work related. Do whatever you can to make it feel like holiday - visit friends or family, travel (if that's possible in current circumstances), etc. It is an unhealthy and unsustainable approach to just keep ploughing on without giving yourself a break from things. RESPONSE B: Repost this message in r/PhD ! There's a lot of open discussions about this kind of topics :) Cheers Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: What’s life like Post-PhD? Does one feels less dumb? Only interested in unpopular opinions. RESPONSE A: No it’s great. On days when I’m lounging around being a useless lump, I catch myself and I’m like “damn I’m a doctor!” And then I feel fancy and validated as I uselessly lump around. RESPONSE B: Nope. Just check out imposter syndrome... Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: What’s life like Post-PhD? Does one feels less dumb? Only interested in unpopular opinions. RESPONSE A: For his epitaph, Paul Erdős suggested "I've finally stopped getting dumber." (Hungarian: "Végre nem butulok tovább"). RESPONSE B: No it’s great. On days when I’m lounging around being a useless lump, I catch myself and I’m like “damn I’m a doctor!” And then I feel fancy and validated as I uselessly lump around. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: What’s life like Post-PhD? Does one feels less dumb? Only interested in unpopular opinions. RESPONSE A: No it’s great. On days when I’m lounging around being a useless lump, I catch myself and I’m like “damn I’m a doctor!” And then I feel fancy and validated as I uselessly lump around. RESPONSE B: No, but there's a lot more Pre-PhD nostalgia, though. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: What’s life like Post-PhD? Does one feels less dumb? Only interested in unpopular opinions. RESPONSE A: No it’s great. On days when I’m lounging around being a useless lump, I catch myself and I’m like “damn I’m a doctor!” And then I feel fancy and validated as I uselessly lump around. RESPONSE B: Nope. Embrace it Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: What’s life like Post-PhD? Does one feels less dumb? Only interested in unpopular opinions. RESPONSE A: No, but there's a lot more Pre-PhD nostalgia, though. RESPONSE B: I’ve been relentlessly asking myself this too since I just defended two weeks ago. I remember when I first got accepted I imagined myself in the future, graduating. My head would be massive, not from my ego but from the bulk of knowledge I had stored, memorized, formatted, eternally remembered, able to recall in the fraction of a second. Now that I’ve finished (besides revisions), I feel dumber than when I started. I know nothing. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Why are scientists always portrayed as bad guys/cowardly villains/arrogant/etc in movies/media? ​ God damnit, I'm tired of screenwriters/entertainment industry's weird vilification of us. Every time there's a guy with a lab coat in a movie, you know he/she is going to die in a horrible way or they're going to be complete weird dickheads.* Have they even ever talked to or befriended your real average scientist? *Most* nobody acts like that in real life. (at least here in Canada) *unless they're some rugged ex-soldier outsider main character who don't get along with the rest /rant RESPONSE A: Because America doesn’t respect science as much as you think. Especially when rational and scientific behavior would solve most problems removing any excitement from the film. RESPONSE B: Gordon Freeman though Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: arrogant/etc in movies/media? ​ God damnit, I'm tired of screenwriters/entertainment industry's weird vilification of us. Every time there's a guy with a lab coat in a movie, you know he/she is going to die in a horrible way or they're going to be complete weird dickheads.* Have they even ever talked to or befriended your real average scientist? *Most* nobody acts like that in real life. (at least here in Canada) *unless they're some rugged ex-soldier outsider main character who don't get along with the rest /rant RESPONSE A: It's the old blasphemy trope. The non god-fearing scientists have no morals kind of things. RESPONSE B: Anti-intellectualism, glorification of ignorance, and a desire of discrediting knowledge for the sake of dogma. What you are referring to is a modern continuation of witch burnings of the old. This is a looong discussion. But I will attempt to summarize. Simple people want simple answers in life. But the truth is often different from what you see and understand through intuition. Throw a healthy dose of religiosity on top and you will put together a sample group of people representative of our society. These people will pick and absorb information based on subjective bias. The bias may be due to what they can understand with intuition or religious beliefs. These people are your target market for media. Furthermore, these people are the ones producing the media. This causes scientists to be not only be in odds with society but also look detached from it. You have to understand that average person has no clue what we do. Some of them think we don't do anything and just tinker around. They are that detached from us. There is a us-them separation almost. It is like, there is this group of people doing their own thing. Masses enjoy their products without needing to think about what goes into make these marvels of science and tech possible. All the while praising lack of education and brute force approach to solve problems. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: ification of us. Every time there's a guy with a lab coat in a movie, you know he/she is going to die in a horrible way or they're going to be complete weird dickheads.* Have they even ever talked to or befriended your real average scientist? *Most* nobody acts like that in real life. (at least here in Canada) *unless they're some rugged ex-soldier outsider main character who don't get along with the rest /rant RESPONSE A: This trope is so common in media it even crosses into video games. Scientists are either the evil villains/totally complicit with it & have fancy all white, bright & snazzy labs or they’re the one that no one listens to and everything could have been better if they had 😐 RESPONSE B: Anti-intellectualism, glorification of ignorance, and a desire of discrediting knowledge for the sake of dogma. What you are referring to is a modern continuation of witch burnings of the old. This is a looong discussion. But I will attempt to summarize. Simple people want simple answers in life. But the truth is often different from what you see and understand through intuition. Throw a healthy dose of religiosity on top and you will put together a sample group of people representative of our society. These people will pick and absorb information based on subjective bias. The bias may be due to what they can understand with intuition or religious beliefs. These people are your target market for media. Furthermore, these people are the ones producing the media. This causes scientists to be not only be in odds with society but also look detached from it. You have to understand that average person has no clue what we do. Some of them think we don't do anything and just tinker around. They are that detached from us. There is a us-them separation almost. It is like, there is this group of people doing their own thing. Masses enjoy their products without needing to think about what goes into make these marvels of science and tech possible. All the while praising lack of education and brute force approach to solve problems. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Why are scientists always portrayed as bad guys/cowardly villains/arrogant/etc in movies/media? ​ God damnit, I'm tired of screenwriters/entertainment industry's weird vilification of us. Every time there's a guy with a lab coat in a movie, you know he/she is going to die in a horrible way or they're going to be complete weird dickheads.* Have they even ever talked to or befriended your real average scientist? *Most* nobody acts like that in real life. (at least here in Canada) *unless they're some rugged ex-soldier outsider main character who don't get along with the rest /rant RESPONSE A: Anti-intellectualism, glorification of ignorance, and a desire of discrediting knowledge for the sake of dogma. What you are referring to is a modern continuation of witch burnings of the old. This is a looong discussion. But I will attempt to summarize. Simple people want simple answers in life. But the truth is often different from what you see and understand through intuition. Throw a healthy dose of religiosity on top and you will put together a sample group of people representative of our society. These people will pick and absorb information based on subjective bias. The bias may be due to what they can understand with intuition or religious beliefs. These people are your target market for media. Furthermore, these people are the ones producing the media. This causes scientists to be not only be in odds with society but also look detached from it. You have to understand that average person has no clue what we do. Some of them think we don't do anything and just tinker around. They are that detached from us. There is a us-them separation almost. It is like, there is this group of people doing their own thing. Masses enjoy their products without needing to think about what goes into make these marvels of science and tech possible. All the while praising lack of education and brute force approach to solve problems. RESPONSE B: Because STEM is scary shit for moviegoers. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: always portrayed as bad guys/cowardly villains/arrogant/etc in movies/media? ​ God damnit, I'm tired of screenwriters/entertainment industry's weird vilification of us. Every time there's a guy with a lab coat in a movie, you know he/she is going to die in a horrible way or they're going to be complete weird dickheads.* Have they even ever talked to or befriended your real average scientist? *Most* nobody acts like that in real life. (at least here in Canada) *unless they're some rugged ex-soldier outsider main character who don't get along with the rest /rant RESPONSE A: Because that is what 98% of society thinks about smart and very smart people. RESPONSE B: Anti-intellectualism, glorification of ignorance, and a desire of discrediting knowledge for the sake of dogma. What you are referring to is a modern continuation of witch burnings of the old. This is a looong discussion. But I will attempt to summarize. Simple people want simple answers in life. But the truth is often different from what you see and understand through intuition. Throw a healthy dose of religiosity on top and you will put together a sample group of people representative of our society. These people will pick and absorb information based on subjective bias. The bias may be due to what they can understand with intuition or religious beliefs. These people are your target market for media. Furthermore, these people are the ones producing the media. This causes scientists to be not only be in odds with society but also look detached from it. You have to understand that average person has no clue what we do. Some of them think we don't do anything and just tinker around. They are that detached from us. There is a us-them separation almost. It is like, there is this group of people doing their own thing. Masses enjoy their products without needing to think about what goes into make these marvels of science and tech possible. All the while praising lack of education and brute force approach to solve problems. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: m posting this here instead of r/Academia because 10 times the audience haha Context first, I am a student researcher. I’ve been making a lot of mistakes with my work recently despite having a couple years of lab experience, for a multitude of reasons including Covid. Instead of getting mad at me or engaging in any of the negative behaviour we hear often on this sub, my PIs (I’ve got 3 advisors) have been wonderfully understanding about my poor performance. They’ve repeatedly reassured me that I am not a dumbass, that I am adding value to the lab and projects, and that it is ok to screw up sometimes. At this point, they probably believe in me more than I believe in myself. Also, my PIs seem to make it a point to thank me whenever I’ve done extra work or taken initiative, and are lavish with praise for anything they think I’ve done well. They make me feel like I am valued in the lab and their actions assure me that they will be here to support me no matter what. I feel like I would do anything for this lab. It may not mean much to them, but for a young student like myself, being praised and supported by my PIs means the world to me. It motivates me to keep at it, and it pushes me to want to grow and work harder and be a better version of myself. TLDR: be nice to the students and the students probably might sell their soul to your lab willingly RESPONSE A: So much this. I ride the offhanded "good job"s for days. First time doing research (undergrad) and my advisor is SO nice. I was actually worried because Reddit (whether it be this sub or other academic subs) makes it seem like 99% of advisors are toxic micromanagers, but I've seen nothing of the sort irl. RESPONSE B: Glad to hear! My advisor is the same way. Very generous with the praise, pushes me to do my best but in a kind and supportive way, always takes interest and helps greatly with my work, available to meet whenever I need it. Also encourages me to have a life! Having a supportive Supervisor is the best. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: (I’ve got 3 advisors) have been wonderfully understanding about my poor performance. They’ve repeatedly reassured me that I am not a dumbass, that I am adding value to the lab and projects, and that it is ok to screw up sometimes. At this point, they probably believe in me more than I believe in myself. Also, my PIs seem to make it a point to thank me whenever I’ve done extra work or taken initiative, and are lavish with praise for anything they think I’ve done well. They make me feel like I am valued in the lab and their actions assure me that they will be here to support me no matter what. I feel like I would do anything for this lab. It may not mean much to them, but for a young student like myself, being praised and supported by my PIs means the world to me. It motivates me to keep at it, and it pushes me to want to grow and work harder and be a better version of myself. TLDR: be nice to the students and the students probably might sell their soul to your lab willingly RESPONSE A: > I ~~love~~ like my supervisor because As a person she is amazing, she brought food to me during quarantine. (I was not sick, but had 1.order contact). She is generally awesomely nice... ... too nice. I think I took too much advantage of her. Regardless, I think she will be disappointed to know I am leaving the field because I just cannot bear the job insecurity any longer. RESPONSE B: I found my PI by asking what groups had the happiest grad students. My PI makes everyone feel respected, pushes you because he wants you to achieve your best, and manages to mentor women without ever coming off as creepy. He's just a really good guy. And he's ridiculously brilliant. My master's PI was also awesome. She asked questions like you were an equal, even when you were an undergrad, made the group feel like a team even if we were working on separate projects, and kept a sense of humor when things went sideways. And she rooted for me to reach higher for my PhD, even though I could have stayed there. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: "How to work in academia and look after yourself" A talk I gave last week about well-being and work-life balance in academia Last week I gave a talk called "How to work in higher education and look after yourself" which was also called "How to be a future research leader and look after yourself".... The talk was recorded and you can watch it here It's the second time I've given it, lots of people have told me it was useful for them. It's super hard for me to give the talk (it brings up a lot of personal issues with anxiety) so this time I recorded it so I won't have to give it again! It's got some practical time management, work-life balance stuff but focuses on thinking about the relationship you have with your work. I'm in the UK so it's obviously focused on that context. RESPONSE A: As a PhD students I think one of the biggest things as academics is we need to be kind and not be dicks. We had an issue with blackboard a few weeks ago where coursework would randomly not upload and I remember seeing a first year crying in the corridor outside a lecture officer as blackboard failed and she was going to fail the module and year (100% coursework). She emailed him within 5 minutes of the deadline with the file. Still rejected. Further that, I was talking to some student volunteer a few weeks back and one professor came up to them, asked them an obscure question and lost it with the SV for not knowing. We need to try to be kind more and challenge poor behaviour more often. We affect our students lives more often than we realise. Edit - fixed some grammar RESPONSE B: As someone who has just finished their PhD and is a relatively fresh Postdoc, thank you for this, friend. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: "How to work in academia and look after yourself" A talk I gave last week about well-being and work-life balance in academia Last week I gave a talk called "How to work in higher education and look after yourself" which was also called "How to be a future research leader and look after yourself".... The talk was recorded and you can watch it here It's the second time I've given it, lots of people have told me it was useful for them. It's super hard for me to give the talk (it brings up a lot of personal issues with anxiety) so this time I recorded it so I won't have to give it again! It's got some practical time management, work-life balance stuff but focuses on thinking about the relationship you have with your work. I'm in the UK so it's obviously focused on that context. RESPONSE A: As a PhD students I think one of the biggest things as academics is we need to be kind and not be dicks. We had an issue with blackboard a few weeks ago where coursework would randomly not upload and I remember seeing a first year crying in the corridor outside a lecture officer as blackboard failed and she was going to fail the module and year (100% coursework). She emailed him within 5 minutes of the deadline with the file. Still rejected. Further that, I was talking to some student volunteer a few weeks back and one professor came up to them, asked them an obscure question and lost it with the SV for not knowing. We need to try to be kind more and challenge poor behaviour more often. We affect our students lives more often than we realise. Edit - fixed some grammar RESPONSE B: Thanks Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: "How to work in academia and look after yourself" A talk I gave last week about well-being and work-life balance in academia Last week I gave a talk called "How to work in higher education and look after yourself" which was also called "How to be a future research leader and look after yourself".... The talk was recorded and you can watch it here It's the second time I've given it, lots of people have told me it was useful for them. It's super hard for me to give the talk (it brings up a lot of personal issues with anxiety) so this time I recorded it so I won't have to give it again! It's got some practical time management, work-life balance stuff but focuses on thinking about the relationship you have with your work. I'm in the UK so it's obviously focused on that context. RESPONSE A: As a PhD students I think one of the biggest things as academics is we need to be kind and not be dicks. We had an issue with blackboard a few weeks ago where coursework would randomly not upload and I remember seeing a first year crying in the corridor outside a lecture officer as blackboard failed and she was going to fail the module and year (100% coursework). She emailed him within 5 minutes of the deadline with the file. Still rejected. Further that, I was talking to some student volunteer a few weeks back and one professor came up to them, asked them an obscure question and lost it with the SV for not knowing. We need to try to be kind more and challenge poor behaviour more often. We affect our students lives more often than we realise. Edit - fixed some grammar RESPONSE B: Thank you! Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: "How to work in academia and look after yourself" A talk I gave last week about well-being and work-life balance in academia Last week I gave a talk called "How to work in higher education and look after yourself" which was also called "How to be a future research leader and look after yourself".... The talk was recorded and you can watch it here It's the second time I've given it, lots of people have told me it was useful for them. It's super hard for me to give the talk (it brings up a lot of personal issues with anxiety) so this time I recorded it so I won't have to give it again! It's got some practical time management, work-life balance stuff but focuses on thinking about the relationship you have with your work. I'm in the UK so it's obviously focused on that context. RESPONSE A: As a PhD students I think one of the biggest things as academics is we need to be kind and not be dicks. We had an issue with blackboard a few weeks ago where coursework would randomly not upload and I remember seeing a first year crying in the corridor outside a lecture officer as blackboard failed and she was going to fail the module and year (100% coursework). She emailed him within 5 minutes of the deadline with the file. Still rejected. Further that, I was talking to some student volunteer a few weeks back and one professor came up to them, asked them an obscure question and lost it with the SV for not knowing. We need to try to be kind more and challenge poor behaviour more often. We affect our students lives more often than we realise. Edit - fixed some grammar RESPONSE B: Great talk. Thank you so much for sharing - I really needed to hear this right now. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: "How to work in academia and look after yourself" A talk I gave last week about well-being and work-life balance in academia Last week I gave a talk called "How to work in higher education and look after yourself" which was also called "How to be a future research leader and look after yourself".... The talk was recorded and you can watch it here It's the second time I've given it, lots of people have told me it was useful for them. It's super hard for me to give the talk (it brings up a lot of personal issues with anxiety) so this time I recorded it so I won't have to give it again! It's got some practical time management, work-life balance stuff but focuses on thinking about the relationship you have with your work. I'm in the UK so it's obviously focused on that context. RESPONSE A: As someone who has just finished their PhD and is a relatively fresh Postdoc, thank you for this, friend. RESPONSE B: Thanks Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Measures among Individuals with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," by M. Blanaru, B. Bloch, L. Vadas, et al., Mental Illness, 4(2) (2012): e13 From *Stress Management for Life: A Research-Based Experiential Approach 5th Edition* by Olpin and Hesson Cengage Publishing 2021 I looked into that and the study of 13 people with PTSD tests them with music relaxation and muscle relaxation. The study finds that there are positive effects with music relaxation. But the description in the book claims that the PMR is the effective part. Here's a third one. >Instead, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" (MBTI.,) instrument is a personality assessment tool developed in the 1940s by Isabel Briggs Myers and Katharine Cook Briggs. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® assessment is an inventory test that identifies sixteen personality types. From *Essential Study Skills* 5th Edition by Wong Cengage Publishing 2013 Except no. Who should be responsible for these things? Should it be the student, who should not accept what is being taught at face value? Should the professor, who should have reviewed the textbook to make sure that what is being taught is accurate? Should it be the publisher, who is selling these as learning instruments without fact-checking? Should it be the author, who is not doing their due diligence prior to releasing these turds? Should we as students challenge these things? RESPONSE A: I absolutely think this should be challenged and talked about. Especially with how expensive textbooks can be. I would think it would have good information in it if I was made to pay 60 bucks for one textbook. RESPONSE B: Who is responsible? All of the above. I explicitly tell my students to question what they are taught, and challenge when they think something doesn’t add up. I point out when I disagree with something in a textbook. You should have been taught to critically think in high school, and you should absolutely be doing that in college. The publisher should be fact checking their authors before they publish. As faculty, I try to read all of any book I require or recommend, but I skim some and could miss something even when I read thoroughly. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: ! I started listening to the "How to ADHD" podcast on youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvq9Tp5JZ8oDV3SIpSJX25Twp9FHKqi_l ) and honestly, it has brought me to tears... I'm not sure if I'm just exhausted or realize that I've been struggling with this for such a long time. I'm now a PhD student and have been having great grades in school most of my life, even if I didn't study a lot (excepts for math... where I have to study a lot and have meh grades...) Anyways, I'm interested in how you discovered that you had it, what caused you to get diagnosed and what you are doing now with it. RESPONSE A: I'm in a similar situation and there's good news. Now that you know, you can harness your adhd to your benefit. Usually for me there are a couple/a few hours a day when my brain chemistry is balanced, I have the optimum caffeine and food energy levels without jitters. I use that time to do my "A" tasks, like writing. Then when the full adhd kicks in, it's time for emails, ie. "C" tasks. By the end of the day, when I'm tired enough that the adhd isn't overwhelming, I settle in a little bit for reading, "B" tasks. This is what works for me, ymmv RESPONSE B: I got diagnosed with adhd after my masters, prior to my PhD. I had suspected for a long time (I’m a psychologist) but the impetus for me was the way I nearly fell apart at the end of my degree. I was always able to keep on top of things at uni even though I had terrible study habits, would do everything last minute, and was super disorganised. It all came to a head when I had to spend extra weeks at the clinic because I got so behind on notes. It was a huge relief to get diagnosed, it’s made a huge difference. Happy to answer any questions you might have! Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Those who discovered they had ADHD during their PhD, what is your story? Hi! I started listening to the "How to ADHD" podcast on youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvq9Tp5JZ8oDV3SIpSJX25Twp9FHKqi_l ) and honestly, it has brought me to tears... I'm not sure if I'm just exhausted or realize that I've been struggling with this for such a long time. I'm now a PhD student and have been having great grades in school most of my life, even if I didn't study a lot (excepts for math... where I have to study a lot and have meh grades...) Anyways, I'm interested in how you discovered that you had it, what caused you to get diagnosed and what you are doing now with it. RESPONSE A: I'm in a similar situation and there's good news. Now that you know, you can harness your adhd to your benefit. Usually for me there are a couple/a few hours a day when my brain chemistry is balanced, I have the optimum caffeine and food energy levels without jitters. I use that time to do my "A" tasks, like writing. Then when the full adhd kicks in, it's time for emails, ie. "C" tasks. By the end of the day, when I'm tired enough that the adhd isn't overwhelming, I settle in a little bit for reading, "B" tasks. This is what works for me, ymmv RESPONSE B: I was diagnosed right after my ph.d. (Psychiatrist). I started really struggling in multiple areas—reason I sought out help. It’s been helpful in the sense that it explains a lot of my life. Ironically, I work in special education. I know a lot of strategies for ADHD, but difficult to put them into play myself. I found that cognitive behavior therapy was really helpful. I still use a therapist to provide external motivation, accountability, and problem solving. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Those who discovered they had ADHD during their PhD, what is your story? Hi! I started listening to the "How to ADHD" podcast on youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvq9Tp5JZ8oDV3SIpSJX25Twp9FHKqi_l ) and honestly, it has brought me to tears... I'm not sure if I'm just exhausted or realize that I've been struggling with this for such a long time. I'm now a PhD student and have been having great grades in school most of my life, even if I didn't study a lot (excepts for math... where I have to study a lot and have meh grades...) Anyways, I'm interested in how you discovered that you had it, what caused you to get diagnosed and what you are doing now with it. RESPONSE A: Uhh...... I’m now typing like super angry and sad at the same time after watching this video 🤣 that could explain so much haha RESPONSE B: I'm in a similar situation and there's good news. Now that you know, you can harness your adhd to your benefit. Usually for me there are a couple/a few hours a day when my brain chemistry is balanced, I have the optimum caffeine and food energy levels without jitters. I use that time to do my "A" tasks, like writing. Then when the full adhd kicks in, it's time for emails, ie. "C" tasks. By the end of the day, when I'm tired enough that the adhd isn't overwhelming, I settle in a little bit for reading, "B" tasks. This is what works for me, ymmv Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Those who discovered they had ADHD during their PhD, what is your story? Hi! I started listening to the "How to ADHD" podcast on youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvq9Tp5JZ8oDV3SIpSJX25Twp9FHKqi_l ) and honestly, it has brought me to tears... I'm not sure if I'm just exhausted or realize that I've been struggling with this for such a long time. I'm now a PhD student and have been having great grades in school most of my life, even if I didn't study a lot (excepts for math... where I have to study a lot and have meh grades...) Anyways, I'm interested in how you discovered that you had it, what caused you to get diagnosed and what you are doing now with it. RESPONSE A: Uhh...... I’m now typing like super angry and sad at the same time after watching this video 🤣 that could explain so much haha RESPONSE B: I got diagnosed with adhd after my masters, prior to my PhD. I had suspected for a long time (I’m a psychologist) but the impetus for me was the way I nearly fell apart at the end of my degree. I was always able to keep on top of things at uni even though I had terrible study habits, would do everything last minute, and was super disorganised. It all came to a head when I had to spend extra weeks at the clinic because I got so behind on notes. It was a huge relief to get diagnosed, it’s made a huge difference. Happy to answer any questions you might have! Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Those who discovered they had ADHD during their PhD, what is your story? Hi! I started listening to the "How to ADHD" podcast on youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvq9Tp5JZ8oDV3SIpSJX25Twp9FHKqi_l ) and honestly, it has brought me to tears... I'm not sure if I'm just exhausted or realize that I've been struggling with this for such a long time. I'm now a PhD student and have been having great grades in school most of my life, even if I didn't study a lot (excepts for math... where I have to study a lot and have meh grades...) Anyways, I'm interested in how you discovered that you had it, what caused you to get diagnosed and what you are doing now with it. RESPONSE A: Uhh...... I’m now typing like super angry and sad at the same time after watching this video 🤣 that could explain so much haha RESPONSE B: I was diagnosed right after my ph.d. (Psychiatrist). I started really struggling in multiple areas—reason I sought out help. It’s been helpful in the sense that it explains a lot of my life. Ironically, I work in special education. I know a lot of strategies for ADHD, but difficult to put them into play myself. I found that cognitive behavior therapy was really helpful. I still use a therapist to provide external motivation, accountability, and problem solving. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Is it wrong that I feel resentful towards my PI making me work on a weekends/university holiday (MLK day) and that he was unappreciative of it? It was for revisions to my first first author manuscript and we still have 11 days left to the deadline to resubmit and he told me “I was taking too long” when I asked him if I could read through it one more time for grammar before submitting it. I just feel really hurt because I worked for 40 hours on this paper Saturday to Tuesday of this week on top of all of my other normal life and student responsibilities. Being told I was taking too long when I put in so much effort to get it done way in advance of the deadline just makes me feel so bad right now. RESPONSE A: Not at all. No idea why 60-hour weeks are the minimum and in many cases they expect you to work on holidays and weekends in academia. I think that's just poor project management, not from you but from your PI. Sometimes, when you have experiments running, it can be understandable. It also means that you should be able to take time off once the experiment is done. I just think the whole "we do it because we love it" often gets confused with "I don't have to pay you and you don't have any rights". My advice, work a schedule with your PI as soon as possible and discuss what are his expectations. In any case, take action. Feeling resentful will only make you feel worse and a PhD is tough enough without all the extra drama happening. Good luck! RESPONSE B: I absolutely do not think it is wrong to feel that way. However, based on my personal experience, you may feel a lot better about life in general and continuing with what you are doing if you are able to let that resentment go and not hang on to it. It's hard and I was not always able to get past that type of thing. Right or wrong, feeling that way only made finishing my degree harder. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: in so much effort to get it done way in advance of the deadline just makes me feel so bad right now. RESPONSE A: It’s not wrong at all. But at the same time, your first first author manuscript is a big deal. The sooner you finish it, the better. You never want to wait till the last minute for these things because the things that can go wrong will go wrong and then you end up losing more time. RESPONSE B: One of the perks of science/academia is having some flexibility in your schedule. The downside of that is that you'll occasionally have very busy weeks where you work much more than the standard work week, and there will be times that an experiment or looming deadline will dictate that you have to work on a holiday. I recently had to come in over the winter holidays to keep some lab critters alive, and I took a few other days off to make up for it. I'm a huge advocate for work/life balance and not working ridiculous hours as a scientist, but I sort of feel like you need a little reality check here. Your PI didn't "make" you work over a holiday; you had an external deadline (from the journal) that needed to be met, and that happened to coincide with a holiday weekend. He's your mentor, and if he said you were taking too long, I would probably interpret that as him suggesting it doesn't need another read-through; thus, you're spending too much time on this particular task. I think you're creating a story around a simple piece of feedback (ie: telling yourself that your PI doesn't appreciate you and thinks your time isn't valuable, when in reality, he probably just meant that it's ready to go so there's no need to read over it again. In fairness to your PI, that might mean that he IS recognizing how valuable your time is, and doesn't want you to spend more than necessary on a given task). Done is better than perfect, and there's no such thing as perfect anyway! I suggest you take a few days off in the next week or so in lieu of the long weekend that you missed, and just let your PI know when and why. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: STOR has 100 free articles even without institution access, and Research Gate does as well. The parameters for choosing a book/journal article were: in he student's field of study and in english. That's it. I don't know what to do or how to respond to what seems just persistent disrespect for me and the class itself. Half the class seems to be doing okay, they're engaged and they do the work and they talk. I have one student, a professor on sabbatical taking a second masters, who seems to really enjoy the class. She tells me I'm doing great and that she wants to use my methodology with the group work to help keep classes engaged. But it feels like whiplash when she says that, because I feel like I'm fighting non-stop to keep the rest of the group engaged. I don't know the best way to reach out to these students, and also...how to respond to the blatant lack of care for the course. Apparently this is a weighted class system, so even if they fail my class it will barely affect their overall average. But that doesn't mean they should just be so outright *rude.* They don't even *try* to lie. They just tell me that they're not going to do their work. What do I do with that? I could really use some advice. RESPONSE A: I can speak from a students perspective here. The problem with classes like "English for Scientists" is, that they are often the first thing you stop caring about when other classes get too stressful. They feel like they are not directly related to your degree, they often take up a lot of time and it's just more work you have to do. I'm very sorry that i can't offer a solution here and it's sad that you spend all that time and energy and students can't appreciate that. RESPONSE B: Whenever an individual behaves outside the norm, it can be something on his/her part. If a larger population misbehaves, more likely than not there is a systemic problem. I might address this with the students. "Hi. You seem to have been mislead somehow. To pass this course you need to be more engaged." Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: a journal article, JSTOR and Research Gate has a paywall, can I just give it to him? I explained he could get institution access through the school library to find a journal article, that JSTOR has 100 free articles even without institution access, and Research Gate does as well. The parameters for choosing a book/journal article were: in he student's field of study and in english. That's it. I don't know what to do or how to respond to what seems just persistent disrespect for me and the class itself. Half the class seems to be doing okay, they're engaged and they do the work and they talk. I have one student, a professor on sabbatical taking a second masters, who seems to really enjoy the class. She tells me I'm doing great and that she wants to use my methodology with the group work to help keep classes engaged. But it feels like whiplash when she says that, because I feel like I'm fighting non-stop to keep the rest of the group engaged. I don't know the best way to reach out to these students, and also...how to respond to the blatant lack of care for the course. Apparently this is a weighted class system, so even if they fail my class it will barely affect their overall average. But that doesn't mean they should just be so outright *rude.* They don't even *try* to lie. They just tell me that they're not going to do their work. What do I do with that? I could really use some advice. RESPONSE A: I can speak from a students perspective here. The problem with classes like "English for Scientists" is, that they are often the first thing you stop caring about when other classes get too stressful. They feel like they are not directly related to your degree, they often take up a lot of time and it's just more work you have to do. I'm very sorry that i can't offer a solution here and it's sad that you spend all that time and energy and students can't appreciate that. RESPONSE B: I would ask them to leave. It's a master's. You can't have it if you don't earn it. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: , JSTOR and Research Gate has a paywall, can I just give it to him? I explained he could get institution access through the school library to find a journal article, that JSTOR has 100 free articles even without institution access, and Research Gate does as well. The parameters for choosing a book/journal article were: in he student's field of study and in english. That's it. I don't know what to do or how to respond to what seems just persistent disrespect for me and the class itself. Half the class seems to be doing okay, they're engaged and they do the work and they talk. I have one student, a professor on sabbatical taking a second masters, who seems to really enjoy the class. She tells me I'm doing great and that she wants to use my methodology with the group work to help keep classes engaged. But it feels like whiplash when she says that, because I feel like I'm fighting non-stop to keep the rest of the group engaged. I don't know the best way to reach out to these students, and also...how to respond to the blatant lack of care for the course. Apparently this is a weighted class system, so even if they fail my class it will barely affect their overall average. But that doesn't mean they should just be so outright *rude.* They don't even *try* to lie. They just tell me that they're not going to do their work. What do I do with that? I could really use some advice. RESPONSE A: Why don’t you ask them? Set up a survey and ask what they like/don’t like/what they want to see more of and adapt. RESPONSE B: I can speak from a students perspective here. The problem with classes like "English for Scientists" is, that they are often the first thing you stop caring about when other classes get too stressful. They feel like they are not directly related to your degree, they often take up a lot of time and it's just more work you have to do. I'm very sorry that i can't offer a solution here and it's sad that you spend all that time and energy and students can't appreciate that. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: classes engaged. But it feels like whiplash when she says that, because I feel like I'm fighting non-stop to keep the rest of the group engaged. I don't know the best way to reach out to these students, and also...how to respond to the blatant lack of care for the course. Apparently this is a weighted class system, so even if they fail my class it will barely affect their overall average. But that doesn't mean they should just be so outright *rude.* They don't even *try* to lie. They just tell me that they're not going to do their work. What do I do with that? I could really use some advice. RESPONSE A: I can speak from a students perspective here. The problem with classes like "English for Scientists" is, that they are often the first thing you stop caring about when other classes get too stressful. They feel like they are not directly related to your degree, they often take up a lot of time and it's just more work you have to do. I'm very sorry that i can't offer a solution here and it's sad that you spend all that time and energy and students can't appreciate that. RESPONSE B: Is it perhaps a field-related thing? I noticed when taking and TAing some classes outside of my field (Humanities) that people from some other fields had much, much less experience finding assigned readings in the library or getting involved in conversations interpreting them. This was at an bachelors level rather than a masters, but I had a classmate (biology) at the time tell me that she had barely ever had the sort of interpretation discussions we had in a media analysis course, so when she was called upon she would just answer with "I don't know" because in her courses, an answer was either right or wrong, with much less room for discussion. Also, all of her readings had always been shared by the lecturer directly so, in 3 years of doing her Bachelors, she'd barelt ever used the library system and needed help with downloading something from JSTOR. Granted this might be an outlier or not apply to your students, but your description of the situation brought back some vivid memories. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Can we explicitly state that some statement is about American academia when it is exclusively about American academia? Instead of just assuming that the reader is associated to and familiar with American academia? Thanks. RESPONSE A: I feel like all posts should explain the location and region just because each area is very different. RESPONSE B: Yes please. There is also the issue of assuming that the person asking the question is in American academia and give advice that may be harmful career wise to follow. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Can we explicitly state that some statement is about American academia when it is exclusively about American academia? Instead of just assuming that the reader is associated to and familiar with American academia? Thanks. RESPONSE A: Wouldn't that equally be true of academics from other locations? RESPONSE B: Ha, can we do the same for STEM? So many posts assume everyone is in a lab, has a PI, gets funded through soft money, publishes several multi-author articles per year, worries about author order…. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Can we explicitly state that some statement is about American academia when it is exclusively about American academia? Instead of just assuming that the reader is associated to and familiar with American academia? Thanks. RESPONSE A: If it makes you feel better - terminology isn't even consistent within american academia, and universities can be such echo chamber. RESPONSE B: Ha, can we do the same for STEM? So many posts assume everyone is in a lab, has a PI, gets funded through soft money, publishes several multi-author articles per year, worries about author order…. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Can we explicitly state that some statement is about American academia when it is exclusively about American academia? Instead of just assuming that the reader is associated to and familiar with American academia? Thanks. RESPONSE A: Ha, can we do the same for STEM? So many posts assume everyone is in a lab, has a PI, gets funded through soft money, publishes several multi-author articles per year, worries about author order…. RESPONSE B: I'd be happy to tag my location, but never having been in academia in any other area of the world, how the hell would I know that my statement only applies the US? Put differently, if you can't tell from reading it that my statement only applies to the US and you need a label or tag to tell you so, why would you assume that person making that statement, being in the US, would know that their statement only applies to the states? Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Can we explicitly state that some statement is about American academia when it is exclusively about American academia? Instead of just assuming that the reader is associated to and familiar with American academia? Thanks. RESPONSE A: Can we explicitly state that some statement is about American academia within a specific State when it is exclusively about a specific State. RESPONSE B: Totally needed. Especially when it comes to posts regrding working hours (or even days for weekends), having burn outs all the time etc. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: and just accept I might not be published? Should I suck it up and go into lab even if he's going to be there? It's only 3 more weeks. I really just want to drop the whole thing and take the next two months to prepare for clinicals. Honestly I'm at a point where I went from super excited and proud of my data in December to the realization that doing a PhD is the biggest regret of my life. That is probably clinical depression talking, but still. I feel no honor or pride in my work and cringe at the idea of being forever linked to this person professionally. TIA and sorry about the rambly nature of this post. FWIW I'm working on getting into therapy. RESPONSE A: I’m so sorry you’re having to deal with this. The Title IX process is vastly inadequate and does not protect victims of sexual harassment. It works the same way in my school as in yours - the perpetrator continues to work as usual while the school investigates. Sanctions (if any) are only placed at the end of the investigation, which can drag out for years. Is there a grad student union in your university? If so, please reach out to them for legal support and support in negotiating lab time without interference. RESPONSE B: I'm sorry this has happened to you. The others here also have good advice, but I've only seen one other to say the following: >Should I settle for lower quality data and just accept I might not be published? Should I suck it up and go into lab even if he's going to be there? It's only 3 more weeks. IMHO, this is the way you should go. You're already "set" on your next path (med school). If you're going to be a medical researcher, you'll get more opportunities for that in med school, right? can you add samples to your project at a later date? if not publishing isn't going to "doom" your career, then you should do what you can to finish the Ph.D. on time and put this experience behind you. As long as your committee will pass you, then you're all set for them. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: do I do? I need to increase n for two experiments, but our lab techs are busy with clinical lab work and even if they weren't I've been doing all the research stuff alone due to COVID for 2 years anyway. I'm the only one who can do my protocols. Should I settle for lower quality data and just accept I might not be published? Should I suck it up and go into lab even if he's going to be there? It's only 3 more weeks. I really just want to drop the whole thing and take the next two months to prepare for clinicals. Honestly I'm at a point where I went from super excited and proud of my data in December to the realization that doing a PhD is the biggest regret of my life. That is probably clinical depression talking, but still. I feel no honor or pride in my work and cringe at the idea of being forever linked to this person professionally. TIA and sorry about the rambly nature of this post. FWIW I'm working on getting into therapy. RESPONSE A: I think in addition to the suggestion already made about talking to new supervisor and explicitly finding a schedule, you should consider the possibility that you could defend in 3 weeks with the lower n and add data later before submitting. RESPONSE B: I'm sorry this has happened to you. The others here also have good advice, but I've only seen one other to say the following: >Should I settle for lower quality data and just accept I might not be published? Should I suck it up and go into lab even if he's going to be there? It's only 3 more weeks. IMHO, this is the way you should go. You're already "set" on your next path (med school). If you're going to be a medical researcher, you'll get more opportunities for that in med school, right? can you add samples to your project at a later date? if not publishing isn't going to "doom" your career, then you should do what you can to finish the Ph.D. on time and put this experience behind you. As long as your committee will pass you, then you're all set for them. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: to prepare for clinicals. Honestly I'm at a point where I went from super excited and proud of my data in December to the realization that doing a PhD is the biggest regret of my life. That is probably clinical depression talking, but still. I feel no honor or pride in my work and cringe at the idea of being forever linked to this person professionally. TIA and sorry about the rambly nature of this post. FWIW I'm working on getting into therapy. RESPONSE A: I'm sorry this has happened to you. The others here also have good advice, but I've only seen one other to say the following: >Should I settle for lower quality data and just accept I might not be published? Should I suck it up and go into lab even if he's going to be there? It's only 3 more weeks. IMHO, this is the way you should go. You're already "set" on your next path (med school). If you're going to be a medical researcher, you'll get more opportunities for that in med school, right? can you add samples to your project at a later date? if not publishing isn't going to "doom" your career, then you should do what you can to finish the Ph.D. on time and put this experience behind you. As long as your committee will pass you, then you're all set for them. RESPONSE B: You did not deserve the unwanted solicitation nor do you deserve this bullshit. First and foremost - document EVERYTHING about this investigation if you are not already. Second, check school policy about how your work should be protected. It may be that they are violating their own policies by these conditions. If they are, call them on it. May need to lawyer up as well. Does your school (could be Title IX or Women’s Center) or a nearby nonprofit have a confidential advocate? If yes, see if you can chat with the person to determine whether or not you’d like to work with them. Such a person can be a great asset if you trust them. Dean of students might also be able to assist with leveraging for accommodations better suited for your success. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? RESPONSE A: This could be very wrong: I think it is because these disciplines are the most distanced from being "glorious". If you are a top cancer researcher or physicist, people get a sense that you are some sort of super genius. Scientists who do care about that glory, even a little, will end up drawn to those fields. However if you are an expert at rocks, nobody is going to look at you like some sort of powerful einstein-like figure. People who are into geology are aware of this but it does not bother them. I believe they are motivated by the sheer joy of rocks. They are not tainted by the evil energy of the other sciences so they can remain completely good. RESPONSE B: Because they... rock. I'll see myself out. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? RESPONSE A: I have always thought this with Geography as well (for the most part). That may just be due to me being in a niche community for my research interests though. RESPONSE B: This could be very wrong: I think it is because these disciplines are the most distanced from being "glorious". If you are a top cancer researcher or physicist, people get a sense that you are some sort of super genius. Scientists who do care about that glory, even a little, will end up drawn to those fields. However if you are an expert at rocks, nobody is going to look at you like some sort of powerful einstein-like figure. People who are into geology are aware of this but it does not bother them. I believe they are motivated by the sheer joy of rocks. They are not tainted by the evil energy of the other sciences so they can remain completely good. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? RESPONSE A: I have always thought this with Geography as well (for the most part). That may just be due to me being in a niche community for my research interests though. RESPONSE B: hahah I've experienced this phenomenon, I was a geo major. My theory is based on how very aware geologists are of our laughably short presence on the geologic timescale. Maybe once you contemplate your insignificance you have more fucks to give in the "be a decent person" department and fewer in the "People must know my intellectual might! No time for kindness". Just a working theory on the matter. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? RESPONSE A: I have always thought this with Geography as well (for the most part). That may just be due to me being in a niche community for my research interests though. RESPONSE B: Because they... rock. I'll see myself out. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Why are all geology professors so nice? Between undergraduate electives and studying energy in graduate school, I've taken 4 different lower/upper level geology courses. Every professor I've had in that subject area has been incredibly nice, cool, and genuine. What's up with this? Is "being a nice person" part of the requirements on Geology PhD applications? RESPONSE A: The assholes go work for oil and mining companies. RESPONSE B: I have always thought this with Geography as well (for the most part). That may just be due to me being in a niche community for my research interests though. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? RESPONSE A: Do you submit any papers? If so, you should review as many as you need reviewers in an average year. At least in my field, 3 reviewers per paper is typical, so I try to review at least 3x the number of manuscripts I submit / plan to submit in a year. You say you get this, but it doesn't seem like you do? >I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. RESPONSE B: Speaking from an entirely 'selfish' point of view, you review papers for two reasons: 1. Forces you to keep up with the literature in the field and will give you new ideas. 2. Reviewing journal articles is seen as an 'essential' part of your job as an academic. You have to show that you regularly review papers for applying to fellowships, grants, tenure, etc. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? RESPONSE A: If you’re asking if it’s exploitative, the answer is yes. However, academia has very strong feelings about this from a position that frames that exploitation as service to some ethical ideal. It seems like Stockholm Syndrome to me, but you’ll no doubt be inundated with responses that draw from the perspective that questioning this system is tantamount to trying to get away with something. They absolutely should, and can afford to, pay you for your time. RESPONSE B: And who reviews your papers? Magical Christmas elves? If you're submitting papers you should be willing to review others. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? RESPONSE A: I know we live in a capitalist society, but sheesh, sometimes you do things even if it doesn’t directly benefit you. RESPONSE B: If you want to submit articles to journals and have other people review your work for publication then you should feel an obligation to review other scholars work for publication. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? RESPONSE A: I think it really depends on the journal. Is it a journal that you want to publish in? Have you ever read an article published there? Do your colleagues or mentors publish there? If you have no imaginable connection to it and no desire to form that connection, I can see why being added to their reviewer database would be pesky. However, if you have even a weak connection, you should do the review. RESPONSE B: I know we live in a capitalist society, but sheesh, sometimes you do things even if it doesn’t directly benefit you. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: Why should I peer-review a paper? (Honest question) Today I received two emails from a journal I never published in. In the first email, they communicated to me that I was added to their database. In the second email, I have been asked to I) review the paper before the 1st of Jan, or II) suggest another expert in the field. My question is: why would I ever work for them, for free? And why is it even acceptable that I get registered on a database of a journal that I have never had anything to do without my consent? I completely understand the idea that I should do it for science, and that someone else did the same for my manuscripts. But isn’t that crazy? I mean, they are asking me to work on a tight schedule entirely for free, on a paper that they will most likely ask money to access. And I don’t even see one way how this will benefit my career. Am I missing something here? Should I accept this review for some reason obscure to me? RESPONSE A: Yes it's a shitty, exploitative system when it's done by for-profit publishers. But if you want to/ have/ plan to submit to those journals, you should review for them or you're a hypocrite. The only way to change this system is for all of us to go "on strike" from reviewing simutaneously. If you do it alone, you accomplish nothing. RESPONSE B: I think it really depends on the journal. Is it a journal that you want to publish in? Have you ever read an article published there? Do your colleagues or mentors publish there? If you have no imaginable connection to it and no desire to form that connection, I can see why being added to their reviewer database would be pesky. However, if you have even a weak connection, you should do the review. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? RESPONSE A: It certainly *used* to be common. Back in the 90s when I was in grad school there was no limit on time to degree, so we had a bunch of people in residence that were 10+ years into the program. Most of them never finished. In fact, the completion rate in my program was about 10% in the late 90s, despite it being highly ranked; a lot of that was due to people dropping out and taking tech jobs, but another big chunk were those ABDs who just stayed around on the books forever and never managed to schedule a defense. Around 2000 or so they instituted a policy that limited people to seven years in candidacy; the clock would start when they passed comps and after seven years their coursework credits would start to drop off. That pretty much put an end to the 15+ year grad students, but I'd imagine it also led to more "failures" in that it would be pretty remarkable for someone to hit that 7 year deadline and then actually start taking classes again. More likely they would just finally pack up and move on to something else. Sometimes these long time-to-degree delays are related to money...many of my friends, for example, had to do field research abroad. But there's seldom much funding available for humanities dissertations, so they'd have to work for 1-2 years to save up enough to spend six months in European archives or whatever. In other cases there were relationships involved, so leaving the university town wasn't an option. Still others realized the job market was terrible so intentionally put off their defense so their student loans would remain in deferral. RESPONSE B: Extremely common to use a PHD as your excuse to keep your visa for as long as possible. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: s it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? RESPONSE A: It certainly *used* to be common. Back in the 90s when I was in grad school there was no limit on time to degree, so we had a bunch of people in residence that were 10+ years into the program. Most of them never finished. In fact, the completion rate in my program was about 10% in the late 90s, despite it being highly ranked; a lot of that was due to people dropping out and taking tech jobs, but another big chunk were those ABDs who just stayed around on the books forever and never managed to schedule a defense. Around 2000 or so they instituted a policy that limited people to seven years in candidacy; the clock would start when they passed comps and after seven years their coursework credits would start to drop off. That pretty much put an end to the 15+ year grad students, but I'd imagine it also led to more "failures" in that it would be pretty remarkable for someone to hit that 7 year deadline and then actually start taking classes again. More likely they would just finally pack up and move on to something else. Sometimes these long time-to-degree delays are related to money...many of my friends, for example, had to do field research abroad. But there's seldom much funding available for humanities dissertations, so they'd have to work for 1-2 years to save up enough to spend six months in European archives or whatever. In other cases there were relationships involved, so leaving the university town wasn't an option. Still others realized the job market was terrible so intentionally put off their defense so their student loans would remain in deferral. RESPONSE B: People do fail to get across the line. It’s a tough journey. Things can get in the way. Research labs can take advantage of you. There are a lot of barriers. I hope your friend is okay! Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: ing late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? RESPONSE A: It certainly *used* to be common. Back in the 90s when I was in grad school there was no limit on time to degree, so we had a bunch of people in residence that were 10+ years into the program. Most of them never finished. In fact, the completion rate in my program was about 10% in the late 90s, despite it being highly ranked; a lot of that was due to people dropping out and taking tech jobs, but another big chunk were those ABDs who just stayed around on the books forever and never managed to schedule a defense. Around 2000 or so they instituted a policy that limited people to seven years in candidacy; the clock would start when they passed comps and after seven years their coursework credits would start to drop off. That pretty much put an end to the 15+ year grad students, but I'd imagine it also led to more "failures" in that it would be pretty remarkable for someone to hit that 7 year deadline and then actually start taking classes again. More likely they would just finally pack up and move on to something else. Sometimes these long time-to-degree delays are related to money...many of my friends, for example, had to do field research abroad. But there's seldom much funding available for humanities dissertations, so they'd have to work for 1-2 years to save up enough to spend six months in European archives or whatever. In other cases there were relationships involved, so leaving the university town wasn't an option. Still others realized the job market was terrible so intentionally put off their defense so their student loans would remain in deferral. RESPONSE B: If you're there for a full decade, you're probably being abused for labour by your supervisor. That or you honestly just aren't cut out for research work. It's not unheard of, and there are a few legitimate cases that just unfortunately take *very* long, but most PhD programs last 4-7 years in the USA. And in most other countries are even shorter, since it's often common practice to do a Master's first before PhD outside of the states. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? RESPONSE A: Extremely common to use a PHD as your excuse to keep your visa for as long as possible. RESPONSE B: If you're there for a full decade, you're probably being abused for labour by your supervisor. That or you honestly just aren't cut out for research work. It's not unheard of, and there are a few legitimate cases that just unfortunately take *very* long, but most PhD programs last 4-7 years in the USA. And in most other countries are even shorter, since it's often common practice to do a Master's first before PhD outside of the states. Which response is better? RESPONSE

A

POST: Is it common to fail to get a PhD after 10 years of being in the program? Someone I know is returning to our (mutual) home country without finishing her dissertation after 10 years in the PhD program. She said she can't stay in the states longer I thought she was graduating late because she was in humanities. I never imagined someone can fail to graduate after whopping 10 years Is this a common story? RESPONSE A: My anthropology department average was 10 years when I entered. One person managed it in 4 by coming in with a project and being on the bio side of things, but I count myself lucky to have made it out in 8 years. You need at least three years of course work, to pass quals, then prelim. The slowest amount of time you could take to do that would be 5 years, (and the fastest 2 but you had to come in with a masters), then you have however long to do your research and write the dissertation. What seemed to delay most people in my department if they made it to that point was making enough money to live while still finding time to write, but there's also the usual delays of getting funding, permission to go places, and traveling for research. And at least one person I knew had health issues delaying them. Oddly, I do know someone who was on a 5 year visa and rushed through (by switching to the most lenient of the professors in the department) so they could get it done before their visa ran out, but most other foreign students I know had no time limits on their visa and stuck to the usual 7-10 years. RESPONSE B: I've seen it. I honestly view something like that as just as much a failure of the program/advisors, etc. as the student, if not more--they probably should have had more/different support, been helped in realizing it wasn't going to work out far earlier, etc. Which response is better? RESPONSE

B

POST: What are some obvious issues in academia, nobody wants to talk about? Like inter-departmental politics, everybody knows but people rarely talk about it to resolve it. RESPONSE A: A number of issues. The replication crisis, aided and abetted by the publish or perish conundrum caused by the increasingly lack of academic jobs. There continues to be an ivory tower problem. The knowledge created is simply not being transmitted to the general public. This has not helped the growing anti-intellectualism movement in the USA, where we can’t even agree to put on a fucking mask to reduce transmission. Racism and sexism is as pervasive as ever, it’s only transformed from blatant (in some cases, although blatant bigotry still exists) to latent. As academics we are not immune to this, and it boggles my mind how “woke” people can agree affirmative action is necessary on the undergrad level but scoff at “diversity hires taking away my spots”. Maddening. RESPONSE B: Expectations that a single academic will do everything - teach, do cutting edge research, manage people, do admin work, write papers, communicate science to general public, service equipment and so on. No support staff, no division of work between people, you need to do everything and be excellent in every aspect. Which response is better? RESPONSE