label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
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: We're encouraging more and more people to earn college degrees, only to compete for a fixed number of "good" jobs. Because there aren't enough high-paying, stable jobs to go around, college graduates are now filling jobs that high school graduates used to do. High school graduates get pushed out entirely. Recessions accelerate this. Don't get me wrong, education is great! I wish everyone could get all of the education they want (without incurring ruinous debt), and I also wish people could enjoy humane working conditions, financial stability, and reliable access to health care whether they have a four-year degree or not. Turning the degree into table stakes for the job market is not how we get there.
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 |
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: Racism
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 |
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: Leaky Pipeline
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 |
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: Racism
RESPONSE B: Controversial opinion: How about the lack of retirements so that new positions for new generations of PhDs can open. The age of retirement in academia is much older than in most careers. Couple this with a long refusal of retirements during and after the recession and you end up with a large portion of tenured faculty members nearing or over retirement age and a slew of PhDs who want their jobs. I don't mean this as an ageist attack but rather as something that many refuse to address.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Social scientists and philosophers, what have you learned professionally about human nature that you still have trouble applying to your own life? For me, while I've learned plenty of useful, empirically validated things about how people process information, I still incorrectly think I can write perfect communications everyone will understand.
RESPONSE A: Two things for me: Assumptions about what you know and what your readers know. As in, the importance of explaining and justifying everything you write. Assumptions about values and learning not to think for your respondents - I guess this might apply more to qualitative work. I always need to remind myself to remain neutral and avoid putting words into peoples’ mouths.
RESPONSE B: Biases are everywhere and your reasoning is never independent of emotion or potential manipulation. Yet, I think my decisions are sound and logical.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Social scientists and philosophers, what have you learned professionally about human nature that you still have trouble applying to your own life? For me, while I've learned plenty of useful, empirically validated things about how people process information, I still incorrectly think I can write perfect communications everyone will understand.
RESPONSE A: Biases are everywhere and your reasoning is never independent of emotion or potential manipulation. Yet, I think my decisions are sound and logical.
RESPONSE B: I read this unorthodox book on how academic psychology didn't really work out in real life by Harvard psychologist Prof Jeff Kagle (Krishna Das) - Be Here Now. It was a nice read.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Social scientists and philosophers, what have you learned professionally about human nature that you still have trouble applying to your own life? For me, while I've learned plenty of useful, empirically validated things about how people process information, I still incorrectly think I can write perfect communications everyone will understand.
RESPONSE A: The idea of "epistemic humility", which boils down to recognising that there are things that you don't know that you don't know, and that taking a step back before imposing my understanding on something is essential. And yet, my work is pretty much imposing my understanding of an issue on something and investigating it with research: which ironically could further entrench me in an epistemology that's not adequate for that issue.
RESPONSE B: I read this unorthodox book on how academic psychology didn't really work out in real life by Harvard psychologist Prof Jeff Kagle (Krishna Das) - Be Here Now. It was a nice read.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: For Ph.D. students that used to work out consistently during college. Is it possible to do it during a Ph.D.? I'll be starting my Ph.D. this Fall. I've been lifting all of college, would such a lifestyle still be possible during my Ph.D.? I'd spend about 1 hour and 30 minutes at the gym 4-5 times a week (still do). Do any of you guys lift on the regular while still finishing your responsabilities? ​ I love fitness and its a big part of my life. ​ Thank you.
RESPONSE A: So long as it's a priority for you, you'll find the time. I didn't get into regular lifting until I got my first faculty job. But I'm much busier as faculty than I was as a grad student, and I'm still in the gym most mornings.
RESPONSE B: Yes, of course it is possible. I worked hard during my PhD, but I still had to to take musical instrument lessons, go dancing, throw pottery, enjoy parties and happy hours. I know it seems like there are a lot of unknowns, but grad school can be a great time with a great sense of community. For reference I am in a STEM field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: For Ph.D. students that used to work out consistently during college. Is it possible to do it during a Ph.D.? I'll be starting my Ph.D. this Fall. I've been lifting all of college, would such a lifestyle still be possible during my Ph.D.? I'd spend about 1 hour and 30 minutes at the gym 4-5 times a week (still do). Do any of you guys lift on the regular while still finishing your responsabilities? ​ I love fitness and its a big part of my life. ​ Thank you.
RESPONSE A: I don't lift, but I do work out for a minimum of 30 minutes every day and I spend a minimum of 1 hour on a hobby of mine. My PhD is my job, so I'm done with it by 6 every day. Don't buy into the hype that you have to work 12 hours days on your PhD.
RESPONSE B: I'd say it's an important part of PhD to have a completely alternative activity that you take very seriously so that you don't be overwhelmed by the PhD. I did actively go to the gym on a daily basis, about 1 to 1.5 hours each time, and it helps mentally to recharge.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: For Ph.D. students that used to work out consistently during college. Is it possible to do it during a Ph.D.? I'll be starting my Ph.D. this Fall. I've been lifting all of college, would such a lifestyle still be possible during my Ph.D.? I'd spend about 1 hour and 30 minutes at the gym 4-5 times a week (still do). Do any of you guys lift on the regular while still finishing your responsabilities? ​ I love fitness and its a big part of my life. ​ Thank you.
RESPONSE A: There was a guy I knew in my PhD cohort who became ripped over the years. He told me he would use the gym as an outlet and that is really important to have when you are doing your PhD. So yes, 100%, don't worry about your life changing too much. If you let your life change where you ditch everything that you like and want to do, you will become miserable and it will have an impact on your studies.
RESPONSE B: I don't lift, but I do work out for a minimum of 30 minutes every day and I spend a minimum of 1 hour on a hobby of mine. My PhD is my job, so I'm done with it by 6 every day. Don't buy into the hype that you have to work 12 hours days on your PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: For Ph.D. students that used to work out consistently during college. Is it possible to do it during a Ph.D.? I'll be starting my Ph.D. this Fall. I've been lifting all of college, would such a lifestyle still be possible during my Ph.D.? I'd spend about 1 hour and 30 minutes at the gym 4-5 times a week (still do). Do any of you guys lift on the regular while still finishing your responsabilities? ​ I love fitness and its a big part of my life. ​ Thank you.
RESPONSE A: I don't lift, but I do work out for a minimum of 30 minutes every day and I spend a minimum of 1 hour on a hobby of mine. My PhD is my job, so I'm done with it by 6 every day. Don't buy into the hype that you have to work 12 hours days on your PhD.
RESPONSE B: Having a progression hobby can greatly help your mental state especially when research is in a lull where there isn't a great deal of visible progress. Working out is an obvious one with additional benefits.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: For Ph.D. students that used to work out consistently during college. Is it possible to do it during a Ph.D.? I'll be starting my Ph.D. this Fall. I've been lifting all of college, would such a lifestyle still be possible during my Ph.D.? I'd spend about 1 hour and 30 minutes at the gym 4-5 times a week (still do). Do any of you guys lift on the regular while still finishing your responsabilities? ​ I love fitness and its a big part of my life. ​ Thank you.
RESPONSE A: I don't lift, but I do work out for a minimum of 30 minutes every day and I spend a minimum of 1 hour on a hobby of mine. My PhD is my job, so I'm done with it by 6 every day. Don't buy into the hype that you have to work 12 hours days on your PhD.
RESPONSE B: Working out will be important for your focus and energy. Self care is critical for getting through.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My undergraduate students suck at writing essays. How do I even grade them fairly? Long story short, my undergraduate students are terrible at writing essays. So bad, that I can't understand a single idea being communicated by many of them. I know that I most likely wrote like this in undergrad, but I'm having a hard time grading their papers consistently. What strategy do you use, and how have you been able to help improve your students' writing?
RESPONSE A: As an undergrad that sucks at writing the best thing was if I was given the opportunity to submit a regrade. This way I understood my mistakes and was able to fix them to not fail. I also learned a lot from doing evaluations on other student essays.
RESPONSE B: Clear instructions, easy to understand rubrics, and exemplars. Also - if you have particular expectations on writing you should be giving some amount of instruction on it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My undergraduate students suck at writing essays. How do I even grade them fairly? Long story short, my undergraduate students are terrible at writing essays. So bad, that I can't understand a single idea being communicated by many of them. I know that I most likely wrote like this in undergrad, but I'm having a hard time grading their papers consistently. What strategy do you use, and how have you been able to help improve your students' writing?
RESPONSE A: As all other said, rubrics... Also, I’ve used going to the campus writing center for a point of extra credit as a good incentive. Their writing improves, their grades improve, your sanity improves.
RESPONSE B: As an undergrad that sucks at writing the best thing was if I was given the opportunity to submit a regrade. This way I understood my mistakes and was able to fix them to not fail. I also learned a lot from doing evaluations on other student essays.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a single idea being communicated by many of them. I know that I most likely wrote like this in undergrad, but I'm having a hard time grading their papers consistently. What strategy do you use, and how have you been able to help improve your students' writing?
RESPONSE A: Clear instructions, easy to understand rubrics, and exemplars. Also - if you have particular expectations on writing you should be giving some amount of instruction on it.
RESPONSE B: Clear rubrics are a good start, but let's be honest, if they haven't been taught how to write a clear sentence/paragraph, a rubric isn't going to open that door for them. You need to set real (reasonable and high) expectations and help them reach them. Here are some other ideas to throw in the mix: * Specific, narrowly-focused writing prompts/assignments * Unlimited re-writes. Your students are all turning in their first drafts and just getting them to re-write a second draft will be extremely useful for most of them. No one will do that many draft, the "unlimited" part kind of just speaks to the spirit of the process. * Give low grades (Cs, Ds, Fs) to bad first drafts, and give them liberally, but give them clear feedback and allow re-writes. Refer them to the writing center on campus. * The #1 thing that will really help them is **one-on-one feedback sessions** outside of class where you go through what they turned in, discuss what's working and what isn't and make sure they understand what they should do. This is a lot more work for you and for them, so it really depends on how invested you are in this mission. * The absolute best tip you can give them is to start the second draft in a completely blank new document. If any of them take this advice I guarantee that (1) you will be able to tell and (2) that draft will be 2+ letter grades higher than the first one. Most students will not take this tip because they think they are lazy, when in fact starting from a blank new document for draft #2 is the laziest way to improve dramatically without breaking a sweat.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I most likely wrote like this in undergrad, but I'm having a hard time grading their papers consistently. What strategy do you use, and how have you been able to help improve your students' writing?
RESPONSE A: Clear rubrics are a good start, but let's be honest, if they haven't been taught how to write a clear sentence/paragraph, a rubric isn't going to open that door for them. You need to set real (reasonable and high) expectations and help them reach them. Here are some other ideas to throw in the mix: * Specific, narrowly-focused writing prompts/assignments * Unlimited re-writes. Your students are all turning in their first drafts and just getting them to re-write a second draft will be extremely useful for most of them. No one will do that many draft, the "unlimited" part kind of just speaks to the spirit of the process. * Give low grades (Cs, Ds, Fs) to bad first drafts, and give them liberally, but give them clear feedback and allow re-writes. Refer them to the writing center on campus. * The #1 thing that will really help them is **one-on-one feedback sessions** outside of class where you go through what they turned in, discuss what's working and what isn't and make sure they understand what they should do. This is a lot more work for you and for them, so it really depends on how invested you are in this mission. * The absolute best tip you can give them is to start the second draft in a completely blank new document. If any of them take this advice I guarantee that (1) you will be able to tell and (2) that draft will be 2+ letter grades higher than the first one. Most students will not take this tip because they think they are lazy, when in fact starting from a blank new document for draft #2 is the laziest way to improve dramatically without breaking a sweat.
RESPONSE B: As all other said, rubrics... Also, I’ve used going to the campus writing center for a point of extra credit as a good incentive. Their writing improves, their grades improve, your sanity improves.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: first-author publications a year multiple times in the first 5 years of their career (highest I've seen is 7 in one year), usually alongside many more co-authored papers. These authors are publishing in reputable journals with solid citations so they aren't just targeting easier journals. I've noticed that this usually occurs when the authors sticks closely to the same topic, sometimes even the same dataset (cohort studies in public health/psychology/psychiatry), or studies of different cohorts testing the same/similar research question. I'm curious about some less obvious differences that might be present. Writing on the same topic/data over and over of course is going to make writing faster and reduce time spent collecting data, but I don't think it's the whole story. I assume there must be other contextual factors at play, as well some differences in how these authors work. If you are someone with a lot of first-author publications (in a field where that matters) compared to your peers, or you know someone like this, what do you think allows them to publish twice as much as their peers?
RESPONSE A: No kids and a spouse who also has a career. It allowed me to spend as much time as I wanted publishing papers that I really enjoyed writing. I’m not crazy prolific, but I do tend to fall above the mean. The prolific folks I know in my field (social sciences) seem to be in that boat (at least in the earlier stages of their career). The most prolific person in my field publishes 20 or so a year first author. In chatting with him, it’s because he has a formula he uses to “tell the story” for each article. It works really well and his articles are always some of the best I ever read.
RESPONSE B: Countless writers have some variation of this, but I like David McCullough’s story. He saw an older author at a party who published nearly 100 books. When McCullough asked him how he was so prolific, he replied: “Simple. I write four pages every day.” There really is no trick to it, no shortcut. Just write—consistently! Now, obviously questions of quality quickly emerge, but in the short term, just write.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: studies of different cohorts testing the same/similar research question. I'm curious about some less obvious differences that might be present. Writing on the same topic/data over and over of course is going to make writing faster and reduce time spent collecting data, but I don't think it's the whole story. I assume there must be other contextual factors at play, as well some differences in how these authors work. If you are someone with a lot of first-author publications (in a field where that matters) compared to your peers, or you know someone like this, what do you think allows them to publish twice as much as their peers?
RESPONSE A: I publish significantly more than my peers (12-14 papers a year compared to a peer average of 4-5/yr). I don’t think there’s really any one secret, though. Here are a few things I try to keep in mind: 1. Pick projects that are important enough that even middling results yield papers. 2. Know when to wrap up a project into a paper (I.e. don’t do too many experiments). Once each of the important figures are in place, start writing immediately and finish writing in 3-4 days. 3. Say “no” to extraneous, non-productive tasks within the university. 4. Work HARD for the 9 hours you’re at work (no internet, no coffee breaks, no colleague gossip, short lunch), and try not to think about work the rest of the time (nights and weekends). 5. WRITE. Just write. Stop talking about writing. Stop thinking about writing. Just write. And love it. 6. Don’t vomit words onto paper. Think as you write, so that what you’re writing can be the first of three drafts (the third ready for publication).
RESPONSE B: Countless writers have some variation of this, but I like David McCullough’s story. He saw an older author at a party who published nearly 100 books. When McCullough asked him how he was so prolific, he replied: “Simple. I write four pages every day.” There really is no trick to it, no shortcut. Just write—consistently! Now, obviously questions of quality quickly emerge, but in the short term, just write.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: studies of different cohorts testing the same/similar research question. I'm curious about some less obvious differences that might be present. Writing on the same topic/data over and over of course is going to make writing faster and reduce time spent collecting data, but I don't think it's the whole story. I assume there must be other contextual factors at play, as well some differences in how these authors work. If you are someone with a lot of first-author publications (in a field where that matters) compared to your peers, or you know someone like this, what do you think allows them to publish twice as much as their peers?
RESPONSE A: A few anecdotal observations as a PhD student - a lot of people who publish prolifically appear to do so because they are successful at grant writing - grant money means research assistants, research assistants means a lot of the groundwork gets done for you. Also, a lot of prolific writers I’ve worked with have a big network. They collaborate a lot but also get exposed to a lot of ideas that appears to spark inspiration or debate. Lastly, some scholars seem to lack basic organizational skills and that can create a gap in output between scholars. Research is amenable to project management, just like other work tasks. Keeping track of a lot of moving pieces (ideas, funding, new research, data, etc.) seems to help save time and improve efficiency.
RESPONSE B: My old PI was prolific. Her secret was: -have a lot of graduate students (5-8) -be mostly absent so you aren't bothered by interruptions. -write a book and fly around speaking, gaining collaborators. -introduce the graduate students and collaborators, think of a study. -don't spend any time doing research, have grad students do it all and train each other. -have your grad students run the study, analyze the data, write the first draft of everything. -don't waste time with datasets, organizing them or analyzing. Don't waste time on research assistants. -have grad students co-apply to grants, where they write the first draft and you edit, to keep the funding flowing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: they aren't just targeting easier journals. I've noticed that this usually occurs when the authors sticks closely to the same topic, sometimes even the same dataset (cohort studies in public health/psychology/psychiatry), or studies of different cohorts testing the same/similar research question. I'm curious about some less obvious differences that might be present. Writing on the same topic/data over and over of course is going to make writing faster and reduce time spent collecting data, but I don't think it's the whole story. I assume there must be other contextual factors at play, as well some differences in how these authors work. If you are someone with a lot of first-author publications (in a field where that matters) compared to your peers, or you know someone like this, what do you think allows them to publish twice as much as their peers?
RESPONSE A: I dialed way back in recent years but my approach used to be to treat it like a job with set hours. I would write MWF from 8-noon. I worked in a space where I did not have access to the Internet to avoid the temptation to browse and kept my phone in my backpack across the room. I would outline what I was going to write and gathered printed copies of any research I needed the night before and only used that four hour block to write. It was easy to write when you had absolutely nothing else you could do for four hours at a time.
RESPONSE B: My old PI was prolific. Her secret was: -have a lot of graduate students (5-8) -be mostly absent so you aren't bothered by interruptions. -write a book and fly around speaking, gaining collaborators. -introduce the graduate students and collaborators, think of a study. -don't spend any time doing research, have grad students do it all and train each other. -have your grad students run the study, analyze the data, write the first draft of everything. -don't waste time with datasets, organizing them or analyzing. Don't waste time on research assistants. -have grad students co-apply to grants, where they write the first draft and you edit, to keep the funding flowing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I think that I could do more, but at the moment I feel like it is impossible to get out of Academia (and at the same time staying in it). I have been looking for various job opportunities, but I have the feeling that I am useless out of my field or sometimes overqualified to certain positions. To make some context I am trying to consider jobs that are reasonably close to what I have done until now. What I feel i could try to do is: * going back to MD path and get a residency in Neurology/psychiatry or public health (I have some experience in handling data and it seems reasonable) * move out from my country and try other research paths * try to get into industry business. I am not so convinced about pharmaceutical companies because I fear that I will end up doing exactly the same stuff I do now and feel miserable again. Therefore, I have looked into emerging companies that are specialized in brain machine interfaces etc. My problem is that whatever I think to approach gives me the feeling that I could not do it. I have about one year of contract and I am trying to improve my programming skills and keep myself updated on medicine (this works fine because among my duties I have to teach physiology to MD students and that helps me being up to date). But the truth is that I feel I am lost and have no idea how to proceed. I am afraid of making wrong life choices and feel unable to really commit and hold into something. I don't know if any of you have a similar feeling or have been in a similar situation, but all kinds of feedback are welcome. Whoever read this, thank you for your time in reading my story.
RESPONSE A: Upvoting so more people see and maybe someone has good advice. Brain machine interface stuff is going to go big though. Your MD would really help some tech companies here in the US
RESPONSE B: I just want to advise, you need to stop thinking there is a wrong choice. All of your choices can be good choices, you also have a lot of skills to fall back on. Whatever you do you’ll be fine. I don’t think the human brain is really set up to have so many good choices and it has a tendency to stall people when it happens. I bet you’ll know more about this than me!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: i could try to do is: * going back to MD path and get a residency in Neurology/psychiatry or public health (I have some experience in handling data and it seems reasonable) * move out from my country and try other research paths * try to get into industry business. I am not so convinced about pharmaceutical companies because I fear that I will end up doing exactly the same stuff I do now and feel miserable again. Therefore, I have looked into emerging companies that are specialized in brain machine interfaces etc. My problem is that whatever I think to approach gives me the feeling that I could not do it. I have about one year of contract and I am trying to improve my programming skills and keep myself updated on medicine (this works fine because among my duties I have to teach physiology to MD students and that helps me being up to date). But the truth is that I feel I am lost and have no idea how to proceed. I am afraid of making wrong life choices and feel unable to really commit and hold into something. I don't know if any of you have a similar feeling or have been in a similar situation, but all kinds of feedback are welcome. Whoever read this, thank you for your time in reading my story.
RESPONSE A: I made the same choice recently - I was around a year through my first postdoc, and had a good relationship with faculty, etc - there was the possibility of a lectureship further down the line. But... I'm now 29 and living in London, and I just needed more financial certainty in my life. So I took an exit to industry (engineering), which has happened in the last couple of months. There are definitely regrets - I'll miss the academic environment, freedom and travel. But, I'm enjoying a new role, and at this stage I just coudn't turn down a ~80% salary increase. Unfortunately the reality of getting a house/kids/life has taken precedence, and it's a trade-off I don't think a lot of the more senior staff understand.
RESPONSE B: Upvoting so more people see and maybe someone has good advice. Brain machine interface stuff is going to go big though. Your MD would really help some tech companies here in the US
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Academia (and at the same time staying in it). I have been looking for various job opportunities, but I have the feeling that I am useless out of my field or sometimes overqualified to certain positions. To make some context I am trying to consider jobs that are reasonably close to what I have done until now. What I feel i could try to do is: * going back to MD path and get a residency in Neurology/psychiatry or public health (I have some experience in handling data and it seems reasonable) * move out from my country and try other research paths * try to get into industry business. I am not so convinced about pharmaceutical companies because I fear that I will end up doing exactly the same stuff I do now and feel miserable again. Therefore, I have looked into emerging companies that are specialized in brain machine interfaces etc. My problem is that whatever I think to approach gives me the feeling that I could not do it. I have about one year of contract and I am trying to improve my programming skills and keep myself updated on medicine (this works fine because among my duties I have to teach physiology to MD students and that helps me being up to date). But the truth is that I feel I am lost and have no idea how to proceed. I am afraid of making wrong life choices and feel unable to really commit and hold into something. I don't know if any of you have a similar feeling or have been in a similar situation, but all kinds of feedback are welcome. Whoever read this, thank you for your time in reading my story.
RESPONSE A: Upvoting so more people see and maybe someone has good advice. Brain machine interface stuff is going to go big though. Your MD would really help some tech companies here in the US
RESPONSE B: I don't have some specific advice, but I am very familiar with the feeling that I am useless outside of my particular field of expertise (I am a postdoc too). One thing I try to remind myself of is that *it is not your responsibility to be the judge of that:* it is the responsibility of the person hiring you. So don't overthink things, and don't hesitate to aim for things that look interesting, even if you don't feel particularly suited for the job. Self-censorship is your worse enemy!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: could try to do is: * going back to MD path and get a residency in Neurology/psychiatry or public health (I have some experience in handling data and it seems reasonable) * move out from my country and try other research paths * try to get into industry business. I am not so convinced about pharmaceutical companies because I fear that I will end up doing exactly the same stuff I do now and feel miserable again. Therefore, I have looked into emerging companies that are specialized in brain machine interfaces etc. My problem is that whatever I think to approach gives me the feeling that I could not do it. I have about one year of contract and I am trying to improve my programming skills and keep myself updated on medicine (this works fine because among my duties I have to teach physiology to MD students and that helps me being up to date). But the truth is that I feel I am lost and have no idea how to proceed. I am afraid of making wrong life choices and feel unable to really commit and hold into something. I don't know if any of you have a similar feeling or have been in a similar situation, but all kinds of feedback are welcome. Whoever read this, thank you for your time in reading my story.
RESPONSE A: I’m not in the STEM field but I’m also doing my postdoc. I personally feel the world outside of us is changing very quickly and nobody really knows how or in what direction it’s going to change. It’s an exciting time to be doing research but also very uncomfortable because you are inevitably part of the change you want to study. I’m wondering if losing interest in research comes from the instability you feel in the world? If that’s the case then I don’t think much will change by changing your career. It sounds like you have a wonderful family and a partner so perhaps it’s time to look within and do some soul searching? Meditate? Go hiking? Go diving? Write a diary? I think you are already on your path by simply posting this question. I believe you will find your way one step at a time! Good luck!
RESPONSE B: Upvoting so more people see and maybe someone has good advice. Brain machine interface stuff is going to go big though. Your MD would really help some tech companies here in the US
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: overqualified to certain positions. To make some context I am trying to consider jobs that are reasonably close to what I have done until now. What I feel i could try to do is: * going back to MD path and get a residency in Neurology/psychiatry or public health (I have some experience in handling data and it seems reasonable) * move out from my country and try other research paths * try to get into industry business. I am not so convinced about pharmaceutical companies because I fear that I will end up doing exactly the same stuff I do now and feel miserable again. Therefore, I have looked into emerging companies that are specialized in brain machine interfaces etc. My problem is that whatever I think to approach gives me the feeling that I could not do it. I have about one year of contract and I am trying to improve my programming skills and keep myself updated on medicine (this works fine because among my duties I have to teach physiology to MD students and that helps me being up to date). But the truth is that I feel I am lost and have no idea how to proceed. I am afraid of making wrong life choices and feel unable to really commit and hold into something. I don't know if any of you have a similar feeling or have been in a similar situation, but all kinds of feedback are welcome. Whoever read this, thank you for your time in reading my story.
RESPONSE A: Therapy. I was stuck in the post-doc from hell, and needed clarity. A few sessions with a therapist helped me clarify my life goals and career goals and chart a path forward. I ended up sort of where I had set my goal, although as per my usual, my timing was poor and I did not manage relationships well, but that’s a me thing. Also, job markets and economic factors affecting them are part of the the timing issue, but not much to be done about it. It is helpful to get counseling to push through to what you value. Good luck! You have a lot to offer, either path. For me, I value the academy over industry, even though it too is a business.
RESPONSE B: Upvoting so more people see and maybe someone has good advice. Brain machine interface stuff is going to go big though. Your MD would really help some tech companies here in the US
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I was offered a PhD position. Would it be weird if I asked to talk to a PhD student I would work with before deciding to accept? The interviews involved only people who would supervise my work and while I got the impression the atmosphere in the team is good I would like to talk to someone whose perspective would be closer to mine. This is going to be the next 3 years of my life so I want to be as sure as possible I'm not being lured into an unhealthy environment. I already know there are 2 other PhD students working on the project so they would become my colleagues and I would get to know them anyway.
RESPONSE A: I don't think it would be weird. It's important to know what the culture is from a student perspective.
RESPONSE B: Nope! Not at all. I think that's expected. It's a big commitment. I've done it myself and I've spoke to incoming PhD students.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I was offered a PhD position. Would it be weird if I asked to talk to a PhD student I would work with before deciding to accept? The interviews involved only people who would supervise my work and while I got the impression the atmosphere in the team is good I would like to talk to someone whose perspective would be closer to mine. This is going to be the next 3 years of my life so I want to be as sure as possible I'm not being lured into an unhealthy environment. I already know there are 2 other PhD students working on the project so they would become my colleagues and I would get to know them anyway.
RESPONSE A: I don't think it would be weird. It's important to know what the culture is from a student perspective.
RESPONSE B: Perfectly normal. It would be a red flag if such a request were denied.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I was offered a PhD position. Would it be weird if I asked to talk to a PhD student I would work with before deciding to accept? The interviews involved only people who would supervise my work and while I got the impression the atmosphere in the team is good I would like to talk to someone whose perspective would be closer to mine. This is going to be the next 3 years of my life so I want to be as sure as possible I'm not being lured into an unhealthy environment. I already know there are 2 other PhD students working on the project so they would become my colleagues and I would get to know them anyway.
RESPONSE A: Not weird. Contact them.
RESPONSE B: Perfectly normal. It would be a red flag if such a request were denied.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I was offered a PhD position. Would it be weird if I asked to talk to a PhD student I would work with before deciding to accept? The interviews involved only people who would supervise my work and while I got the impression the atmosphere in the team is good I would like to talk to someone whose perspective would be closer to mine. This is going to be the next 3 years of my life so I want to be as sure as possible I'm not being lured into an unhealthy environment. I already know there are 2 other PhD students working on the project so they would become my colleagues and I would get to know them anyway.
RESPONSE A: I don't think it would be weird. It's important to know what the culture is from a student perspective.
RESPONSE B: Definitely do it! I suggest making sure you talk to people at all stages too- new student, middle, near dissertation, even an alumni. As a PI, I give prospective students the contact info. A lab can be great and have a great culture, but not be the right fit for someone.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I was offered a PhD position. Would it be weird if I asked to talk to a PhD student I would work with before deciding to accept? The interviews involved only people who would supervise my work and while I got the impression the atmosphere in the team is good I would like to talk to someone whose perspective would be closer to mine. This is going to be the next 3 years of my life so I want to be as sure as possible I'm not being lured into an unhealthy environment. I already know there are 2 other PhD students working on the project so they would become my colleagues and I would get to know them anyway.
RESPONSE A: Definitely do it! I suggest making sure you talk to people at all stages too- new student, middle, near dissertation, even an alumni. As a PI, I give prospective students the contact info. A lab can be great and have a great culture, but not be the right fit for someone.
RESPONSE B: Not weird. Contact them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: they never thought anything of me. I’ve recently started grad school, at a quite elite institution with lots of very wealthy international students (that’s far from my socio-economic background). I’ve been showing up to class with my trusty notebook and pen, stowing my notes in nicely divided folders... my usual thing. But for the first time ever I’ve been getting comments about it from my peers - ‘oh that’s so old school’ - ‘how do you work like that?’ - ‘we’re going to need you to type up your notes for our google drive!’ Etc. It’s suddenly made me very self-conscious about my approach to learning, and I have noticed that when I show up to the seminars I’m the only person in the room without a laptop in front of me, when I get out my paper and pen I almost feel naked in the classroom. I wonder what my professors think, because clearly the other students with their shiny MacBook Pro’s have noticed it... it’s not that I don’t have a laptop, it’s just my entire life I’ve never been encouraged to use one in a classroom environment - in school electronics were banned! So I wanted to get the perspective from ideally academics and other post-grad students about this, am I doing something wrong? What’s your perception of the student with just a notepad?? reminds me of this meme (which I feel on a spiritual level!)
RESPONSE A: None of your professors cares what you take notes with. If it’s what you prefer, go hog wild.
RESPONSE B: When I was taking class I did it the same way you've described and never had an issue. Focusing on the lecture and writing things down as I hear them works for me for remembering and I credit it for not needing to study as much as my peers for exams. FWIW my classmates I sat behind who brought laptops and browsed reddit or chatted on imessage all class consistently performed worse than those who didn't on exams but ultimately none failed so was it worth it? I'm not sure. Don't feel insecure and keep taking notes however you want. Screw the haters!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I’m learning better, not having a computer in front of me forces me to engage in the lecture or seminar - there’s no distractions, there’s no laptop to hide behind - I’m not just attending I’m present. This has never been something I’ve questioned much, in my undergrad sure most other students had laptops but I never thought anything of it and they never thought anything of me. I’ve recently started grad school, at a quite elite institution with lots of very wealthy international students (that’s far from my socio-economic background). I’ve been showing up to class with my trusty notebook and pen, stowing my notes in nicely divided folders... my usual thing. But for the first time ever I’ve been getting comments about it from my peers - ‘oh that’s so old school’ - ‘how do you work like that?’ - ‘we’re going to need you to type up your notes for our google drive!’ Etc. It’s suddenly made me very self-conscious about my approach to learning, and I have noticed that when I show up to the seminars I’m the only person in the room without a laptop in front of me, when I get out my paper and pen I almost feel naked in the classroom. I wonder what my professors think, because clearly the other students with their shiny MacBook Pro’s have noticed it... it’s not that I don’t have a laptop, it’s just my entire life I’ve never been encouraged to use one in a classroom environment - in school electronics were banned! So I wanted to get the perspective from ideally academics and other post-grad students about this, am I doing something wrong? What’s your perception of the student with just a notepad?? reminds me of this meme (which I feel on a spiritual level!)
RESPONSE A: Everyone learns differently and I think it's important to know your learning style and do what works for you
RESPONSE B: The other comments are spot on. I would add that your professors are most likely from a generation where notebooks were the norm. Also, in a sea of laptops the only face that stands out is yours. I think that's an advantage.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: distractions, there’s no laptop to hide behind - I’m not just attending I’m present. This has never been something I’ve questioned much, in my undergrad sure most other students had laptops but I never thought anything of it and they never thought anything of me. I’ve recently started grad school, at a quite elite institution with lots of very wealthy international students (that’s far from my socio-economic background). I’ve been showing up to class with my trusty notebook and pen, stowing my notes in nicely divided folders... my usual thing. But for the first time ever I’ve been getting comments about it from my peers - ‘oh that’s so old school’ - ‘how do you work like that?’ - ‘we’re going to need you to type up your notes for our google drive!’ Etc. It’s suddenly made me very self-conscious about my approach to learning, and I have noticed that when I show up to the seminars I’m the only person in the room without a laptop in front of me, when I get out my paper and pen I almost feel naked in the classroom. I wonder what my professors think, because clearly the other students with their shiny MacBook Pro’s have noticed it... it’s not that I don’t have a laptop, it’s just my entire life I’ve never been encouraged to use one in a classroom environment - in school electronics were banned! So I wanted to get the perspective from ideally academics and other post-grad students about this, am I doing something wrong? What’s your perception of the student with just a notepad?? reminds me of this meme (which I feel on a spiritual level!)
RESPONSE A: I like taking notes by cursive instead of by typing - this kinetic approach helps me remember better. If I type notes then I don’t remember as well. I was taking PhD classes recently and half the class had laptops and the other half had notebooks and pens. Do what works for YOU. And no, when we teach we don’t care what laptops our students bring to class.
RESPONSE B: Everyone learns differently and I think it's important to know your learning style and do what works for you
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: things I’m learning better, not having a computer in front of me forces me to engage in the lecture or seminar - there’s no distractions, there’s no laptop to hide behind - I’m not just attending I’m present. This has never been something I’ve questioned much, in my undergrad sure most other students had laptops but I never thought anything of it and they never thought anything of me. I’ve recently started grad school, at a quite elite institution with lots of very wealthy international students (that’s far from my socio-economic background). I’ve been showing up to class with my trusty notebook and pen, stowing my notes in nicely divided folders... my usual thing. But for the first time ever I’ve been getting comments about it from my peers - ‘oh that’s so old school’ - ‘how do you work like that?’ - ‘we’re going to need you to type up your notes for our google drive!’ Etc. It’s suddenly made me very self-conscious about my approach to learning, and I have noticed that when I show up to the seminars I’m the only person in the room without a laptop in front of me, when I get out my paper and pen I almost feel naked in the classroom. I wonder what my professors think, because clearly the other students with their shiny MacBook Pro’s have noticed it... it’s not that I don’t have a laptop, it’s just my entire life I’ve never been encouraged to use one in a classroom environment - in school electronics were banned! So I wanted to get the perspective from ideally academics and other post-grad students about this, am I doing something wrong? What’s your perception of the student with just a notepad?? reminds me of this meme (which I feel on a spiritual level!)
RESPONSE A: Everyone learns differently and I think it's important to know your learning style and do what works for you
RESPONSE B: I always take handwritten notes and keep them all in a divided binder! Sometimes I feel “less efficient” than the people with their computers open the whole time- until I sit behind them and watch them look at furry art all class (literally)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: about my approach to learning, and I have noticed that when I show up to the seminars I’m the only person in the room without a laptop in front of me, when I get out my paper and pen I almost feel naked in the classroom. I wonder what my professors think, because clearly the other students with their shiny MacBook Pro’s have noticed it... it’s not that I don’t have a laptop, it’s just my entire life I’ve never been encouraged to use one in a classroom environment - in school electronics were banned! So I wanted to get the perspective from ideally academics and other post-grad students about this, am I doing something wrong? What’s your perception of the student with just a notepad?? reminds me of this meme (which I feel on a spiritual level!)
RESPONSE A: I believe that most real academics will not care how you register information, as long as you achieve the goalposts of your academic curriculum. A professor will always prefer a student who is articulated and well organised regardless of how organises his learning. Each one has a different approach to learning, so if you feel that pen and paper do the trick for you that's absolutely fine. Many academics I know (including me) will jot down first the important piece of information because that will help register them in their mind. Don't cave in to the peer pressure of the other students, especially if that will screw up your learning process. Many academics do not understand that we develop our knowledge through processes of learning, which are different for each one of us; many people in academia, especially students, think that collecting the information counts as learning, but that is completely wrong. What I would suggest you to do is to look into how you could enhance your learning process, so you could manage the curriculum of a grad school (that is much heavier than an undergrad program). This may include use of special paper notebooks, mind-maps etc or the use of software that will help you improve your learning process (e.g citation managers, academic apps, electronic lab records etc) but that does not mean you'll have to quit pen and paper.
RESPONSE B: Everyone learns differently and I think it's important to know your learning style and do what works for you
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Should I contact my previous advisor to see how they are doing? I graduated with my masters degree two years ago. I have two academic and research advisor that I guided me throughout the program and I managed to land a very good job and get on my feet after graduation. I want to send an email to two of my advisors to check in. Do you think this is a good idea? Do professors like to hear back from their previous students? ​ I don't know if it matters but im an engineer and they are in school of engineering
RESPONSE A: Lecturer here! I love to hear back from my old students. Not only because I care about most of them, but I love to hear that their education has helped them achieve their goals.
RESPONSE B: Yes, do it!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Should I contact my previous advisor to see how they are doing? I graduated with my masters degree two years ago. I have two academic and research advisor that I guided me throughout the program and I managed to land a very good job and get on my feet after graduation. I want to send an email to two of my advisors to check in. Do you think this is a good idea? Do professors like to hear back from their previous students? ​ I don't know if it matters but im an engineer and they are in school of engineering
RESPONSE A: Yes, do it!
RESPONSE B: Yes yes yes! We LOVE hearing from our kiddos (no matter how old our “kids” actually were when they were our students). ESPECIALLY right now when everything is upside down.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Should I contact my previous advisor to see how they are doing? I graduated with my masters degree two years ago. I have two academic and research advisor that I guided me throughout the program and I managed to land a very good job and get on my feet after graduation. I want to send an email to two of my advisors to check in. Do you think this is a good idea? Do professors like to hear back from their previous students? ​ I don't know if it matters but im an engineer and they are in school of engineering
RESPONSE A: Yes definitely - especially if you left on a good note. Furthermore,do not be alarmed if they do not reply anytime soon. They are probably getting hundreds of emails daily and if they are not actively looking for an email from you specifically, it could be the case that they skip it.
RESPONSE B: Yes, do it!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Should I contact my previous advisor to see how they are doing? I graduated with my masters degree two years ago. I have two academic and research advisor that I guided me throughout the program and I managed to land a very good job and get on my feet after graduation. I want to send an email to two of my advisors to check in. Do you think this is a good idea? Do professors like to hear back from their previous students? ​ I don't know if it matters but im an engineer and they are in school of engineering
RESPONSE A: Yes! Give them an update! Professors love hearing back from former students!
RESPONSE B: Definitely contact. We love to hear that our students are doing well and appreciated our work Plus, you never know when one of your advisers might be up for a promotion or an award,, and having recent contact information from a former student who thought very highly of them could get you on a list to do something to advance their career or give them an honor. Similarly, faculty are sometimes asked to nominate former students for alumni awards and so forth, and you stand a better chance of getting nominated for one of those if you have been in contact. Always nice to hear when students have a good experience.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Should I contact my previous advisor to see how they are doing? I graduated with my masters degree two years ago. I have two academic and research advisor that I guided me throughout the program and I managed to land a very good job and get on my feet after graduation. I want to send an email to two of my advisors to check in. Do you think this is a good idea? Do professors like to hear back from their previous students? ​ I don't know if it matters but im an engineer and they are in school of engineering
RESPONSE A: My advisor LOVES to receive news from formers students!
RESPONSE B: Definitely contact. We love to hear that our students are doing well and appreciated our work Plus, you never know when one of your advisers might be up for a promotion or an award,, and having recent contact information from a former student who thought very highly of them could get you on a list to do something to advance their career or give them an honor. Similarly, faculty are sometimes asked to nominate former students for alumni awards and so forth, and you stand a better chance of getting nominated for one of those if you have been in contact. Always nice to hear when students have a good experience.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Anyone feel like they are left out of research work because you are not in the clique? I work in an academic research institute where everyone has some type of STEM PhD. I am typically the "get shit done person" (engineering), but left out of the initial decision making process when grants are written because Im not mathy / physicsy enough. Normally not a concern for me, but projects end up being a cluster because the grants are based in theory and implementation is somewhat of an after thought. Additionally, coworkers speak a lot of jargin and/or highly specific language which I am not versed in and eyes get rolled whenever I try to offer constructive criticism. Best analogy I can give is a restaurant owner giving a chef a bunch of tv dinners and telling him to make Michelin star quality food. Just venting I suppose...Anyone else have similar experiences?
RESPONSE A: Im a chemist working with biologists. So i kinda know how you feel. My advice is to learn their jargon. Afterall.. you are in research. In research because it is in the cutting edge, it would be a disservice to yourself if you keep yourself to a bottle "engineer". You are a scientist. Period. To be relevant, you need to understand their theories and provide them that link if they cant provide that link to you. Build the bridge. Explain to them the limitations of certain theories in application science. Then brainstorm. :) you can do it. And believe me.. when you show you are useful to them..youd be flooded with meetings of people wanting to hear your opinion on things.
RESPONSE B: Jargon is big in USA, I’ve heard, where talk is valued very highly and people overstate what they’ve done or what they’re doing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Anyone feel like they are left out of research work because you are not in the clique? I work in an academic research institute where everyone has some type of STEM PhD. I am typically the "get shit done person" (engineering), but left out of the initial decision making process when grants are written because Im not mathy / physicsy enough. Normally not a concern for me, but projects end up being a cluster because the grants are based in theory and implementation is somewhat of an after thought. Additionally, coworkers speak a lot of jargin and/or highly specific language which I am not versed in and eyes get rolled whenever I try to offer constructive criticism. Best analogy I can give is a restaurant owner giving a chef a bunch of tv dinners and telling him to make Michelin star quality food. Just venting I suppose...Anyone else have similar experiences?
RESPONSE A: Im a chemist working with biologists. So i kinda know how you feel. My advice is to learn their jargon. Afterall.. you are in research. In research because it is in the cutting edge, it would be a disservice to yourself if you keep yourself to a bottle "engineer". You are a scientist. Period. To be relevant, you need to understand their theories and provide them that link if they cant provide that link to you. Build the bridge. Explain to them the limitations of certain theories in application science. Then brainstorm. :) you can do it. And believe me.. when you show you are useful to them..youd be flooded with meetings of people wanting to hear your opinion on things.
RESPONSE B: 10000000%. there’s an old guard that’s all about gatekeeping, and they act like assholes because they can. The good news is you have a lot more control over your career than you think. Dont worry about these kinds of people and just keep doing you. Eventually you’ll find people like yourself with similar interests. I’ve worked with a lot more people internationally than I have within the states. Fuck em.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: semester with over 100 students in them. I do the grant applications (not going great but there are small steady funding amounts) and the publishing thing (very productive despite not having many resources or time).... I had to remodel my two courses to work remotely because of Covid whilst homeschooling. Well: just got my evals back and students loved the first module but absolutely hated the second! That one is a difficult, technical subject which is mandatory and half of them usually really loathe it even during non covid times. Others who are more interested love it—- smh. The spread of these evaluations goes from “best course i ever had” to “i’m gonna change my degree now”... I think I might be having an oncoming burnout or something but I just... want to quit..... right.... NOW! I’m normally calm and rational but i feel like I am trapped in a nightmare. I got scared of myself and have just taken leave over the holidays to let all of this settle - i normally never take any time off since i started in academia about 20 years ago- but i think i want to try getting into a different job. I’ve applied to a museum job on a whim the other day and they want to interview me. The more i think of it the more i like the idea of doing something practical that isn’t such a terrible 80 hour/week slog all the fucking time. I’m so tired and nothing is ever good enough. On the other hand it’s a secure job with benefits and they allow me to do my “research” at night times and weekends.... I’m so confused.
RESPONSE A: What you describe is a classic stress/ poor MH response to the work conditions you are in right now. Revisit this after your leave, talk with your family and see how you feel.
RESPONSE B: I think the middle of an extremely stressful pandemic is a)not the time to get down on yourself for bad student evals b) not a great time to make snap major life decisions. I would take a long vacation over winter break and then do next semester and see how you feel next summer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: whilst homeschooling. Well: just got my evals back and students loved the first module but absolutely hated the second! That one is a difficult, technical subject which is mandatory and half of them usually really loathe it even during non covid times. Others who are more interested love it—- smh. The spread of these evaluations goes from “best course i ever had” to “i’m gonna change my degree now”... I think I might be having an oncoming burnout or something but I just... want to quit..... right.... NOW! I’m normally calm and rational but i feel like I am trapped in a nightmare. I got scared of myself and have just taken leave over the holidays to let all of this settle - i normally never take any time off since i started in academia about 20 years ago- but i think i want to try getting into a different job. I’ve applied to a museum job on a whim the other day and they want to interview me. The more i think of it the more i like the idea of doing something practical that isn’t such a terrible 80 hour/week slog all the fucking time. I’m so tired and nothing is ever good enough. On the other hand it’s a secure job with benefits and they allow me to do my “research” at night times and weekends.... I’m so confused.
RESPONSE A: As soon as I read the statement about your spouse and children not liking US, I was convinced that you should leave. Academia will eat up your whole life if you let it! Also there is a r/leavingacademia that might be helpful to you and a recently published book called leaving academia. I’m reading it now and it speaks to my soul. I’m planning my exit and will do it soon!
RESPONSE B: I think the middle of an extremely stressful pandemic is a)not the time to get down on yourself for bad student evals b) not a great time to make snap major life decisions. I would take a long vacation over winter break and then do next semester and see how you feel next summer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: and the publishing thing (very productive despite not having many resources or time).... I had to remodel my two courses to work remotely because of Covid whilst homeschooling. Well: just got my evals back and students loved the first module but absolutely hated the second! That one is a difficult, technical subject which is mandatory and half of them usually really loathe it even during non covid times. Others who are more interested love it—- smh. The spread of these evaluations goes from “best course i ever had” to “i’m gonna change my degree now”... I think I might be having an oncoming burnout or something but I just... want to quit..... right.... NOW! I’m normally calm and rational but i feel like I am trapped in a nightmare. I got scared of myself and have just taken leave over the holidays to let all of this settle - i normally never take any time off since i started in academia about 20 years ago- but i think i want to try getting into a different job. I’ve applied to a museum job on a whim the other day and they want to interview me. The more i think of it the more i like the idea of doing something practical that isn’t such a terrible 80 hour/week slog all the fucking time. I’m so tired and nothing is ever good enough. On the other hand it’s a secure job with benefits and they allow me to do my “research” at night times and weekends.... I’m so confused.
RESPONSE A: Feel your pain brother. Same here - but senior lecturer. I would ignore all evaluation during this period. Stop wasting time on grants and cut down the publishing to the minimum to meet ref. Also, renegotiate a lower teacher workload with your Dean. Frame it as a "don't abuse me or risk losing me" conversation.
RESPONSE B: A crisis either clarifies or confuses. You have to decide which one this is for you. You have already been working eight years then you know what it was like before the crisis. Honestly, none of us know what it’s going to be like years down the road.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: loathe it even during non covid times. Others who are more interested love it—- smh. The spread of these evaluations goes from “best course i ever had” to “i’m gonna change my degree now”... I think I might be having an oncoming burnout or something but I just... want to quit..... right.... NOW! I’m normally calm and rational but i feel like I am trapped in a nightmare. I got scared of myself and have just taken leave over the holidays to let all of this settle - i normally never take any time off since i started in academia about 20 years ago- but i think i want to try getting into a different job. I’ve applied to a museum job on a whim the other day and they want to interview me. The more i think of it the more i like the idea of doing something practical that isn’t such a terrible 80 hour/week slog all the fucking time. I’m so tired and nothing is ever good enough. On the other hand it’s a secure job with benefits and they allow me to do my “research” at night times and weekends.... I’m so confused.
RESPONSE A: I've been there. I tried applying to museum jobs and talked to museum employees about it and my sense was that it was basically impossible to get a job, and there was no money once you did. I couldn't even convince my local science museum to let me volunteer. Plus museums aren't even open right now... I think there's nothing wrong with wanting a different job. A lot of the people I've met from the US who went to England for academic positions really regret it. The main thing is to figure out what you want to do. Maybe there are data-related industry jobs that will be interesting for you and high paying?
RESPONSE B: Feel your pain brother. Same here - but senior lecturer. I would ignore all evaluation during this period. Stop wasting time on grants and cut down the publishing to the minimum to meet ref. Also, renegotiate a lower teacher workload with your Dean. Frame it as a "don't abuse me or risk losing me" conversation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My PI is asking me to falsify data. What is my recourse? I am a postdoc at an Italian research university. In a meeting yesterday, my PI and a senior professor instructed me to rush necessary foundational research and greatly overstate the reliability of certain data in order to produce results that would generate a great deal of press. This is data falsification. I will not be a part of it, but I have never dealt with a similar situation. What next?
RESPONSE A: The morally correct thing to do would be to report it to a student ombudsman, higher-ups the university, the IRB, etc. I’m not familiar with Italian universities to know if all of those exist but I’d guess they do. You’ll definitely risk retaliation and even if you don’t you may just want to leave the institution at that point.
RESPONSE B: There's a difference between interpretation of existing real data and outright fabrication of new data points that never existed. Based on what you wrote (I don't and can't know what the situation actually is like), this can be - or can at least sold as - a difference in opinion on how to interpret existing real data. In this case, it should be caught up in peer review and if it isn't, you can issue an Errata. That's my "Devil's advocate" take on this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My PI is asking me to falsify data. What is my recourse? I am a postdoc at an Italian research university. In a meeting yesterday, my PI and a senior professor instructed me to rush necessary foundational research and greatly overstate the reliability of certain data in order to produce results that would generate a great deal of press. This is data falsification. I will not be a part of it, but I have never dealt with a similar situation. What next?
RESPONSE A: The morally correct thing to do would be to report it to a student ombudsman, higher-ups the university, the IRB, etc. I’m not familiar with Italian universities to know if all of those exist but I’d guess they do. You’ll definitely risk retaliation and even if you don’t you may just want to leave the institution at that point.
RESPONSE B: Send an email to them and ask them if they can clarify & verify what was said so you can create the “paper trail” if there is not one already. If you have no evidence and it’s your word against theirs you will lose. If you proceed and anything happens they will throw you under the bus. There is a reason they’re asking you to do this and not doing it themselves.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you guys cope with non-academic family members over-celebrating accomplishments? I receive what I would consider to be a participation award, and they go on and on about how I am somehow one of the most accomplished graduate students at my university. I mention that I am having a discussion with an advisor about the possibility of pursuing a patent, and they go around pretty much telling people that I have a patent. Etc. Obviously I really appreciate my family’s support, but when their excitement and celebrations feel disproportionate to the actual achievement, it makes me feel strange. I can’t quite pin down what the emotion is. It can be offsetting because even though I am actually excited about something, I then feel the need to repeatedly explain to them why it’s not actually as exciting as they think. And when I do try to explain, no one listens to or believes me/they say I’m just being modest, which can be pretty frustrating. How do you manage these sorts of situations?
RESPONSE A: When I read the title I thought this was about family celebrating/making a bigger deal about the accomplishments of nonacademics so they don't feel inadequate. Like down playing the accomplishments of their kid getting a PhD, while telling everyone/anyone who will listen about their high school drop out/quits everything other kid buying a camper van to sell cupcakes from (who didn't research and has no permits for this idea). This way sucks. It's great that your family is supportive. It's innocent and sweet. Maybe they don't understand 100% of what you do/study, let them cheer you on. If it makes them happy, why not.
RESPONSE B: Got my first decent sized grant and my Dad told me it was a waste of tax money so just enjoy their enthusiasm 😂
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you guys cope with non-academic family members over-celebrating accomplishments? I receive what I would consider to be a participation award, and they go on and on about how I am somehow one of the most accomplished graduate students at my university. I mention that I am having a discussion with an advisor about the possibility of pursuing a patent, and they go around pretty much telling people that I have a patent. Etc. Obviously I really appreciate my family’s support, but when their excitement and celebrations feel disproportionate to the actual achievement, it makes me feel strange. I can’t quite pin down what the emotion is. It can be offsetting because even though I am actually excited about something, I then feel the need to repeatedly explain to them why it’s not actually as exciting as they think. And when I do try to explain, no one listens to or believes me/they say I’m just being modest, which can be pretty frustrating. How do you manage these sorts of situations?
RESPONSE A: Got my first decent sized grant and my Dad told me it was a waste of tax money so just enjoy their enthusiasm 😂
RESPONSE B: Honestly, count your blessings--plenty of grad students (myself included) have the opposite problem, with family members who think we don't do anything all day and don't understand our accomplishments at all.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you guys cope with non-academic family members over-celebrating accomplishments? I receive what I would consider to be a participation award, and they go on and on about how I am somehow one of the most accomplished graduate students at my university. I mention that I am having a discussion with an advisor about the possibility of pursuing a patent, and they go around pretty much telling people that I have a patent. Etc. Obviously I really appreciate my family’s support, but when their excitement and celebrations feel disproportionate to the actual achievement, it makes me feel strange. I can’t quite pin down what the emotion is. It can be offsetting because even though I am actually excited about something, I then feel the need to repeatedly explain to them why it’s not actually as exciting as they think. And when I do try to explain, no one listens to or believes me/they say I’m just being modest, which can be pretty frustrating. How do you manage these sorts of situations?
RESPONSE A: They’re proud of you, and they love you. That’s what people do when they’re proud of someone. It sounds like you’re pretty humble about it, but it’s okay for you to be proud of yourself too.
RESPONSE B: Got my first decent sized grant and my Dad told me it was a waste of tax money so just enjoy their enthusiasm 😂
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you guys cope with non-academic family members over-celebrating accomplishments? I receive what I would consider to be a participation award, and they go on and on about how I am somehow one of the most accomplished graduate students at my university. I mention that I am having a discussion with an advisor about the possibility of pursuing a patent, and they go around pretty much telling people that I have a patent. Etc. Obviously I really appreciate my family’s support, but when their excitement and celebrations feel disproportionate to the actual achievement, it makes me feel strange. I can’t quite pin down what the emotion is. It can be offsetting because even though I am actually excited about something, I then feel the need to repeatedly explain to them why it’s not actually as exciting as they think. And when I do try to explain, no one listens to or believes me/they say I’m just being modest, which can be pretty frustrating. How do you manage these sorts of situations?
RESPONSE A: I would cut ties, they seem to have some hidden motives. Like love or appreciation for you, both of which I detest and would recommend you do the same.
RESPONSE B: Got my first decent sized grant and my Dad told me it was a waste of tax money so just enjoy their enthusiasm 😂
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you guys cope with non-academic family members over-celebrating accomplishments? I receive what I would consider to be a participation award, and they go on and on about how I am somehow one of the most accomplished graduate students at my university. I mention that I am having a discussion with an advisor about the possibility of pursuing a patent, and they go around pretty much telling people that I have a patent. Etc. Obviously I really appreciate my family’s support, but when their excitement and celebrations feel disproportionate to the actual achievement, it makes me feel strange. I can’t quite pin down what the emotion is. It can be offsetting because even though I am actually excited about something, I then feel the need to repeatedly explain to them why it’s not actually as exciting as they think. And when I do try to explain, no one listens to or believes me/they say I’m just being modest, which can be pretty frustrating. How do you manage these sorts of situations?
RESPONSE A: Honestly, count your blessings--plenty of grad students (myself included) have the opposite problem, with family members who think we don't do anything all day and don't understand our accomplishments at all.
RESPONSE B: I was embarrassed too at first. Then for a while I let them have their excitement. Now as I pass the midpoint of my career (just turned 44) I'm coming to agree with them. The things we do - making inventions and discoveries, filing patents, publishing in scientific journals, giving talks at international conferences, winning 6- or 7-figure research grants - are all achievements to be proud of. I'm very priveleged to have a job where this is what I do for a living. We do incredible things 9 to 5.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: When did the publishing model become so effed up? I don’t think there is a business model where an entity gets paid for acquiring the product and selling it! I understand if authors pay to publish in not-for-profit journals. But how come we have to pay to publish in for profit journals and endure all the biases of selection and even unqualified reviewers (Even in big name journals)? When did that become acceptable? And shouldn’t we do something about it?
RESPONSE A: Well maybe if we allowed scholarly activities that aren’t published articles to count for tenure then this problem would disappear.
RESPONSE B: I pay tax for science. Science gets published. I have to pay to read what I payed for. Please start from here! How should anti-vaxers read science if they don’t have access to it? Ex: The 2 page justifications for brain-death made by the Ad-Hoc Brain Dead committee is behind a 35€ paywall. It’s not like brain death is a big part of modern medicine. I think there is a lot of disregard for the ones that work a 9-5 to pay taxes. And there is also the Elseviers that bribed scientists to think that selling their rights to a company is a good ideea. And now, the cherry on top, the “you will not get taken seriously if you don’t publish to us” argument. Hypernormalisation…
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: how come we have to pay to publish in for profit journals and endure all the biases of selection and even unqualified reviewers (Even in big name journals)? When did that become acceptable? And shouldn’t we do something about it?
RESPONSE A: Well maybe if we allowed scholarly activities that aren’t published articles to count for tenure then this problem would disappear.
RESPONSE B: The problem, my friend, is that you think of academic publishing as a business. It isn't. Research and academia, by and large, are activities funded by the State and academics are similar to government employees. Publishing companies are also looking to suck some of that sweet, sweet government money from research grants. As a rule, anytime you have government money floating around and people want to grab it, tomfoolery happens. Public spending, pork barrelled projects, the list of Milton Friedman's and neoliberals' complaints about government inefficiency, defence spending, Military-Industrial-Congress-Complex, Yes, Minister/Prime Minister, etc ... Consider the publishing fee the cost of keeping the moderation and quality up. Editors from cracked.com once pointed out that any unmoderated forum turns into a white supremacist and conspiracy theorist cesspit. Yes, journals charge us through the nose, but they hire editors. Our conspiracy theorist uncles that "did his research" are free, but don't cut it. If you think of the solution to be along the neoliberal and libertarian "get government out", "small government", "free market", "deregulation", then well, look at the eroding trusts in science, research, scientists, academia, governments, institutions, and what not. We have been doing this for decades and look at where it got us. The only thing I can say is to be conscious of the role of academia and research vis-à-vis society and the role of State power and money vis-à-vis academia and research. My nemesis is of course Milton Friedman and his adherents, for he, too, sucked on that sweet government money for decades before jumping on the soapbox and launching the movement against it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: When did the publishing model become so effed up? I don’t think there is a business model where an entity gets paid for acquiring the product and selling it! I understand if authors pay to publish in not-for-profit journals. But how come we have to pay to publish in for profit journals and endure all the biases of selection and even unqualified reviewers (Even in big name journals)? When did that become acceptable? And shouldn’t we do something about it?
RESPONSE A: I pay tax for science. Science gets published. I have to pay to read what I payed for. Please start from here! How should anti-vaxers read science if they don’t have access to it? Ex: The 2 page justifications for brain-death made by the Ad-Hoc Brain Dead committee is behind a 35€ paywall. It’s not like brain death is a big part of modern medicine. I think there is a lot of disregard for the ones that work a 9-5 to pay taxes. And there is also the Elseviers that bribed scientists to think that selling their rights to a company is a good ideea. And now, the cherry on top, the “you will not get taken seriously if you don’t publish to us” argument. Hypernormalisation…
RESPONSE B: The solution should come from the top. Ban publicly funded research from being published in privately owned journals and at the same time fund university owned journals. There are very slow and shy moves in this direction, but nothing big.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: s of selection and even unqualified reviewers (Even in big name journals)? When did that become acceptable? And shouldn’t we do something about it?
RESPONSE A: The solution should come from the top. Ban publicly funded research from being published in privately owned journals and at the same time fund university owned journals. There are very slow and shy moves in this direction, but nothing big.
RESPONSE B: The problem, my friend, is that you think of academic publishing as a business. It isn't. Research and academia, by and large, are activities funded by the State and academics are similar to government employees. Publishing companies are also looking to suck some of that sweet, sweet government money from research grants. As a rule, anytime you have government money floating around and people want to grab it, tomfoolery happens. Public spending, pork barrelled projects, the list of Milton Friedman's and neoliberals' complaints about government inefficiency, defence spending, Military-Industrial-Congress-Complex, Yes, Minister/Prime Minister, etc ... Consider the publishing fee the cost of keeping the moderation and quality up. Editors from cracked.com once pointed out that any unmoderated forum turns into a white supremacist and conspiracy theorist cesspit. Yes, journals charge us through the nose, but they hire editors. Our conspiracy theorist uncles that "did his research" are free, but don't cut it. If you think of the solution to be along the neoliberal and libertarian "get government out", "small government", "free market", "deregulation", then well, look at the eroding trusts in science, research, scientists, academia, governments, institutions, and what not. We have been doing this for decades and look at where it got us. The only thing I can say is to be conscious of the role of academia and research vis-à-vis society and the role of State power and money vis-à-vis academia and research. My nemesis is of course Milton Friedman and his adherents, for he, too, sucked on that sweet government money for decades before jumping on the soapbox and launching the movement against it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: realized how long it takes to prepare for them, and of course that's something I need to work on. I'm just curious if people have more or less administrative stuff to do and whether it also feels like an added mental drain or whether it feels like something that is more integrated with your research as a whole.
RESPONSE A: Filling out forms should not take up that much time in a yearly perspective. Email is an important communication, asking for advice, responding to queries . If you’re spending alot of time composing emails then i would worry. Admin tasks are part of life, completing online trainings , updating profiles, organizing info. My research group had weekly meetings plus presentations every couple of weeks so at some point i stopped prepping for the subgroup meetings with the proper format unless i had plots and data. Many times it was just a discussion, however going back it was helpful to see what experiments were done which week and easy to search. As an organizational nut, i spent alot of time on planning out my week making schedules and calendars each week for which lab if be working in, admin tasks, home adult tasks, TA duties , other job duties Ill end with my long windy response to your question with not really, and it only increases with industry in my experience. Now, Its a 3 step process to download and run software to use for work lol
RESPONSE B: Maybe this is just me, but I would not consider preparing for meetings and email correspondence with advisors to be administrative. Preparing for meetings allows you to think about all your updates and distill them, communicate them clearly and solicit feedback. Advisors, committee members and even collaborators are busy people, if you do not invest sufficient time in communicating well with them, you fail to use them properly. This is very valuable skill, learned over time. The rest of the stuff you describe (barring teaching) generally does not occupy much of my time, maybe \~5% at most? It's true that when we teach, it can feel unproductive, but I encourage you to consider a different perspective: when I do research I'm often stuck and real progress comes sporadically, so teaching can actually make me feel productive: I've actually helped someone learn!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: if people have more or less administrative stuff to do and whether it also feels like an added mental drain or whether it feels like something that is more integrated with your research as a whole.
RESPONSE A: Filling out forms should not take up that much time in a yearly perspective. Email is an important communication, asking for advice, responding to queries . If you’re spending alot of time composing emails then i would worry. Admin tasks are part of life, completing online trainings , updating profiles, organizing info. My research group had weekly meetings plus presentations every couple of weeks so at some point i stopped prepping for the subgroup meetings with the proper format unless i had plots and data. Many times it was just a discussion, however going back it was helpful to see what experiments were done which week and easy to search. As an organizational nut, i spent alot of time on planning out my week making schedules and calendars each week for which lab if be working in, admin tasks, home adult tasks, TA duties , other job duties Ill end with my long windy response to your question with not really, and it only increases with industry in my experience. Now, Its a 3 step process to download and run software to use for work lol
RESPONSE B: It seems like you think that if you aren’t being in the lab, working at a bench, you aren’t dosing science. Presenting data to your lab group (and preparing for it), meeting with your advisor, emailing with people about projects, filling out forms (you say you only do 4-5 hours a year which isn’t worth worrying about, but generally there are tasks like obtaining and maintaining approval for experiments, doing budgets, keeping current with safety protocols etc)— all of that is also science. It’s just part of the real job of a scientist not the fantasy of a job as a scientist. Grad school is in part for you to do a dissertation but also for you to gain the skills you need to know to go to your next position- all of these things will take more time as you move up. I would reframe what you’re thinking of as ‘administrative’, these are all important skills too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: filling out university and committee forms, and reading and writing emails. Is this normal? This is not including the time I spend preparing for classes and teaching either, so there are some weeks where I feel like I haven't actually worked on anything. That's not to say that meetings are not productive - they're often necessary. I've just realized how long it takes to prepare for them, and of course that's something I need to work on. I'm just curious if people have more or less administrative stuff to do and whether it also feels like an added mental drain or whether it feels like something that is more integrated with your research as a whole.
RESPONSE A: It seems like you think that if you aren’t being in the lab, working at a bench, you aren’t dosing science. Presenting data to your lab group (and preparing for it), meeting with your advisor, emailing with people about projects, filling out forms (you say you only do 4-5 hours a year which isn’t worth worrying about, but generally there are tasks like obtaining and maintaining approval for experiments, doing budgets, keeping current with safety protocols etc)— all of that is also science. It’s just part of the real job of a scientist not the fantasy of a job as a scientist. Grad school is in part for you to do a dissertation but also for you to gain the skills you need to know to go to your next position- all of these things will take more time as you move up. I would reframe what you’re thinking of as ‘administrative’, these are all important skills too.
RESPONSE B: I have 3 RA jobs and one teaching assistant job. Sometimes, 60%of my time in a week is just meetings, with 25% being time taken up by emails. I would say I work fulltime and do my PhD work on the side. Meetings are exhausting and draining but my jobs pay well enough. If you don't have any RAs or TAs, I'm not sure what forms you're filling out. I only have to complete one annual form related to my PhD work. Edit: just noticed your STEM flare. We probably havent different experiences, I'm in humanities
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD students, how much of your time is spent on administrative tasks? It's mentally exhausting. I keep track of my time, and I can see that over the past year and a half, 26% of my time was spent between meetings, preparing for meetings, filling out university and committee forms, and reading and writing emails. Is this normal? This is not including the time I spend preparing for classes and teaching either, so there are some weeks where I feel like I haven't actually worked on anything. That's not to say that meetings are not productive - they're often necessary. I've just realized how long it takes to prepare for them, and of course that's something I need to work on. I'm just curious if people have more or less administrative stuff to do and whether it also feels like an added mental drain or whether it feels like something that is more integrated with your research as a whole.
RESPONSE A: Learn to say “no”.
RESPONSE B: It seems like you think that if you aren’t being in the lab, working at a bench, you aren’t dosing science. Presenting data to your lab group (and preparing for it), meeting with your advisor, emailing with people about projects, filling out forms (you say you only do 4-5 hours a year which isn’t worth worrying about, but generally there are tasks like obtaining and maintaining approval for experiments, doing budgets, keeping current with safety protocols etc)— all of that is also science. It’s just part of the real job of a scientist not the fantasy of a job as a scientist. Grad school is in part for you to do a dissertation but also for you to gain the skills you need to know to go to your next position- all of these things will take more time as you move up. I would reframe what you’re thinking of as ‘administrative’, these are all important skills too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD students, how much of your time is spent on administrative tasks? It's mentally exhausting. I keep track of my time, and I can see that over the past year and a half, 26% of my time was spent between meetings, preparing for meetings, filling out university and committee forms, and reading and writing emails. Is this normal? This is not including the time I spend preparing for classes and teaching either, so there are some weeks where I feel like I haven't actually worked on anything. That's not to say that meetings are not productive - they're often necessary. I've just realized how long it takes to prepare for them, and of course that's something I need to work on. I'm just curious if people have more or less administrative stuff to do and whether it also feels like an added mental drain or whether it feels like something that is more integrated with your research as a whole.
RESPONSE A: Welcome to academia. This is what all of your faculty are doing, in a larger scale.
RESPONSE B: Not one of those is even close to being an "administrative task"
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What drama is happening in your department right now? After hearing some interesting tales of pettiness, I'm looking to hear yours. What drama is happening among your department or school now? How do you plan to cope with it?
RESPONSE A: There are rumors that the head of my program is leaving. The starter of those rumors? The head of my program.
RESPONSE B: Department chair who wants to remove all MA, MFA people from full-time NTT (not adjuncts to clarify) positions who teach lower division courses and replace them with newly minted PhDs for the same low wages, therefore diluting the actual value and work of a PhD. Oh, and the PhDs who take such positions will never have the opportunity to advance to a TT position. Ethics at it’s finest. 😒
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What drama is happening in your department right now? After hearing some interesting tales of pettiness, I'm looking to hear yours. What drama is happening among your department or school now? How do you plan to cope with it?
RESPONSE A: Our Department was officially shut down! Reduced to a MA only Program and faculty dispersed throughout other departments. Embarrassing. Largely a product of an ultra conservative "run the University like a business" President, but also certainly due to a Department that was mired in political divisions and poor job placement after graduation.
RESPONSE B: There are rumors that the head of my program is leaving. The starter of those rumors? The head of my program.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What drama is happening in your department right now? After hearing some interesting tales of pettiness, I'm looking to hear yours. What drama is happening among your department or school now? How do you plan to cope with it?
RESPONSE A: There are rumors that the head of my program is leaving. The starter of those rumors? The head of my program.
RESPONSE B: PI has a chronic illness that incapacitates them for 4-6 weeks every 6-12 months. Totally at random, no warning at all. Same PI insists on supervising all their grad students in the lab, and forbids them from even going in when PI is off sick, unless they are in constant text based contact while in there. Slows everyone's research to a grinding halt, then it takes another couple of weeks to get caught up when PI comes back. PI is not open to suggestions that there may be a better way to manage this, ie let students have a bit more autonomy, maybe stop committing to every single project that crops up, have some trusted people in the lab who can take over temporarily...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What drama is happening in your department right now? After hearing some interesting tales of pettiness, I'm looking to hear yours. What drama is happening among your department or school now? How do you plan to cope with it?
RESPONSE A: Bigger drama, Consolidation of multi campus university. We've had a long period of massive expansion of the number of students thanks to baby boomers, plus an expansion in public sector financing. Now, enrollments are low and state is pushing for consolidation.
RESPONSE B: There are rumors that the head of my program is leaving. The starter of those rumors? The head of my program.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What drama is happening in your department right now? After hearing some interesting tales of pettiness, I'm looking to hear yours. What drama is happening among your department or school now? How do you plan to cope with it?
RESPONSE A: They're doing Lend Me a Tenor but I think that's technically a comedy.
RESPONSE B: There are rumors that the head of my program is leaving. The starter of those rumors? The head of my program.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . I just fucking loved it. I loved taking classes, I loved going to guest lectures and panels and doc screenings, and I really loved being a research assistant. And, in a weird way, I felt a sense of kinship with my discipline (in the social sciences) and my professors. It's hard to not feel gushy about it all, but I felt it then (even when it wasn't easy) and I feel it now. My intention was to apply this year but all things 2020 really took a toll on me mentally, to the point where it really started to impact my physical health. So, sadly, I am not ready to apply for programs this cycle (and a lot of programs closed their admissions anyway). At this point, the insecurities have started flooding in. Partially because I feel like I'll be starting my PhD very old and that it will make me incredibly unattractive in an already unstable and volatile higher ed market. There is also the good ol' imposter syndrome drilling away at me HARD. I'm honestly just looking for any personal advice/thoughts. No one else in my life has any real grasp on the academic or higher ed space. So I'd just love to talk to someone about this.
RESPONSE A: I hate the term "imposter syndrome". Sometimes you really do suck and just should not be getting a PhD or at least a PhD in a particular field. Let people sort it out for themselves which situation they're in.
RESPONSE B: I wouldn't say your age is a factor that would impact how you are viewed, but could impact you just due to life stage- do you have/want children? Will you be able to move freely for field work or future employment? Or are you more tied down? Also consider you won't be saving money and kinda sucks to start retirement savings in your late 30s. The bigger thing is to realize how few people land an academic job. Make sure you are going in informed on how unlikely that is, how much adjuncting can suck, and what other careers you could do with your degree. If all that sounds ok, go for it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . It's hard to not feel gushy about it all, but I felt it then (even when it wasn't easy) and I feel it now. My intention was to apply this year but all things 2020 really took a toll on me mentally, to the point where it really started to impact my physical health. So, sadly, I am not ready to apply for programs this cycle (and a lot of programs closed their admissions anyway). At this point, the insecurities have started flooding in. Partially because I feel like I'll be starting my PhD very old and that it will make me incredibly unattractive in an already unstable and volatile higher ed market. There is also the good ol' imposter syndrome drilling away at me HARD. I'm honestly just looking for any personal advice/thoughts. No one else in my life has any real grasp on the academic or higher ed space. So I'd just love to talk to someone about this.
RESPONSE A: I went back in my 30s with a husband and kid. Age wasn’t a big problem for me. I think it was an advantage because I was focused and knew what I wanted. The family made it harder since about 1% of grad students at my R1 had one, and it meant I couldn’t stay up all night working on research. There is an opportunity cost to not earning a real salary and retirement during those (six for me) prime earning years, especially if you don’t end up with a job.
RESPONSE B: My opinion probably will get downvoted, but it needs to be shared. Think long and hard before entering a purely academic-oriented discipline. It's so easy to get lulled into the idea of "pursuing your passion against all odds," but that on its own won't pay the bills. Ask yourself this: What do you currently do for employment? Are there ways you can leverage your interest in research, data, and analysis within your current line of work? I'm not in academia (I'm admin in higher ed), but I can honestly say from hearing what others go through that it's not worth pigeon holing yourself to a life of adjuncting.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: d. I just fucking loved it. I loved taking classes, I loved going to guest lectures and panels and doc screenings, and I really loved being a research assistant. And, in a weird way, I felt a sense of kinship with my discipline (in the social sciences) and my professors. It's hard to not feel gushy about it all, but I felt it then (even when it wasn't easy) and I feel it now. My intention was to apply this year but all things 2020 really took a toll on me mentally, to the point where it really started to impact my physical health. So, sadly, I am not ready to apply for programs this cycle (and a lot of programs closed their admissions anyway). At this point, the insecurities have started flooding in. Partially because I feel like I'll be starting my PhD very old and that it will make me incredibly unattractive in an already unstable and volatile higher ed market. There is also the good ol' imposter syndrome drilling away at me HARD. I'm honestly just looking for any personal advice/thoughts. No one else in my life has any real grasp on the academic or higher ed space. So I'd just love to talk to someone about this.
RESPONSE A: I didn't even start my *bachelor's* until your age and I'm doing a STEM PhD. You're letting your insecurities get the better of you, my friend.
RESPONSE B: My opinion probably will get downvoted, but it needs to be shared. Think long and hard before entering a purely academic-oriented discipline. It's so easy to get lulled into the idea of "pursuing your passion against all odds," but that on its own won't pay the bills. Ask yourself this: What do you currently do for employment? Are there ways you can leverage your interest in research, data, and analysis within your current line of work? I'm not in academia (I'm admin in higher ed), but I can honestly say from hearing what others go through that it's not worth pigeon holing yourself to a life of adjuncting.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ucking loved it. I loved taking classes, I loved going to guest lectures and panels and doc screenings, and I really loved being a research assistant. And, in a weird way, I felt a sense of kinship with my discipline (in the social sciences) and my professors. It's hard to not feel gushy about it all, but I felt it then (even when it wasn't easy) and I feel it now. My intention was to apply this year but all things 2020 really took a toll on me mentally, to the point where it really started to impact my physical health. So, sadly, I am not ready to apply for programs this cycle (and a lot of programs closed their admissions anyway). At this point, the insecurities have started flooding in. Partially because I feel like I'll be starting my PhD very old and that it will make me incredibly unattractive in an already unstable and volatile higher ed market. There is also the good ol' imposter syndrome drilling away at me HARD. I'm honestly just looking for any personal advice/thoughts. No one else in my life has any real grasp on the academic or higher ed space. So I'd just love to talk to someone about this.
RESPONSE A: My opinion probably will get downvoted, but it needs to be shared. Think long and hard before entering a purely academic-oriented discipline. It's so easy to get lulled into the idea of "pursuing your passion against all odds," but that on its own won't pay the bills. Ask yourself this: What do you currently do for employment? Are there ways you can leverage your interest in research, data, and analysis within your current line of work? I'm not in academia (I'm admin in higher ed), but I can honestly say from hearing what others go through that it's not worth pigeon holing yourself to a life of adjuncting.
RESPONSE B: Definitely not too old. My department typically hires between 30 and 45 year olds for TT positions. Also, age brings maturity. In retrospect, I was a clueless baby when I started my TT position in my 20s.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: the insecurities have started flooding in. Partially because I feel like I'll be starting my PhD very old and that it will make me incredibly unattractive in an already unstable and volatile higher ed market. There is also the good ol' imposter syndrome drilling away at me HARD. I'm honestly just looking for any personal advice/thoughts. No one else in my life has any real grasp on the academic or higher ed space. So I'd just love to talk to someone about this.
RESPONSE A: My opinion probably will get downvoted, but it needs to be shared. Think long and hard before entering a purely academic-oriented discipline. It's so easy to get lulled into the idea of "pursuing your passion against all odds," but that on its own won't pay the bills. Ask yourself this: What do you currently do for employment? Are there ways you can leverage your interest in research, data, and analysis within your current line of work? I'm not in academia (I'm admin in higher ed), but I can honestly say from hearing what others go through that it's not worth pigeon holing yourself to a life of adjuncting.
RESPONSE B: I’m 35 and pregnant with my second kid-I started mine this summer and have taken breaks due to health issues and childcare issues. I am aware this will take me a long time but because Im passionate about the work I do I think that will probably work out better for me. No need to rush. I’ve been told by numerous people that no one ever asks about how long it took you to complete the program-in terms of employers or higher ed institutions. I think it’s great you are following your passion and 28 is definitely not too old IMO Also in terms of the imposter syndrome I have also felt this and I found it really helpful to just take it one small chunk at a time and gradually gain mastery that way. You will slowly start to feel better about what you are capable of and your ability to learn. It’s ok to not know everything-it’s ok to notice gaps in your expertise and this is a great time to push yourself without shame or judgement. You got this!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: : Visiting scientist is flagrantly making up data, but I'm afraid my PI will just choose to ignore the problem instead of getting involved.
RESPONSE A: This is a PI level issue. Contact your PI. If they do not do anything about it, it is on your PI as in they would be complicit with fraud if that work was published. You are helping your PI prevent a bigger problem. When you present this, do it as dispassionately as possible. Do not say anything about your personal feelings about the visiting scientist, that you don't trust them, that they are rude, etc. Simply say you found some equipment issue (show the pictures) and then when double checking some data, you found discrepancies. Do not say you think the scientist faked the data, just present it as a problem that you want to alert the PI to for them to follow up. This is not academic honesty, rather research misconduct. A big difference is that you are not dealing with a student. You can't flunk a visiting a scientist or put them on academic probation. This is an employee. So you are going to have to let the PI deal with this person through HR. Finally, if your PI does ignore you and still publishes the questionable data, then you can file an issue with your research integrity office on campus. I have been on one of these investigations (a post-doc leaving the university claimed a research professor had fabricated data), and we had to go in and inspect all of the lab records to verify the data was collected (turned out that lab kept impeccable records).
RESPONSE B: > are not feeling very generous towards them because they have a history of being very rude to us and asking us to do things they just don't want to do. > Visiting scientist is flagrantly making up data, but I'm afraid my PI will just choose to ignore the problem instead of getting involved. You are predicting that you PI will not nothing about scientific fraud before speaking to them becasue you think your PI is both a moron and dishonest? > My fellow grad students have already been warned to not take a co-authorship of any paper that Visiting scientist decides to publish Who warned you
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: s to publish later. If you were in my shoes, what would you do? Have you ever encountered something like this before? What kind of punishment does this conduct incur? I'm going to tell my PI, of course. TL/DR: Visiting scientist is flagrantly making up data, but I'm afraid my PI will just choose to ignore the problem instead of getting involved.
RESPONSE A: This is a PI level issue. Contact your PI. If they do not do anything about it, it is on your PI as in they would be complicit with fraud if that work was published. You are helping your PI prevent a bigger problem. When you present this, do it as dispassionately as possible. Do not say anything about your personal feelings about the visiting scientist, that you don't trust them, that they are rude, etc. Simply say you found some equipment issue (show the pictures) and then when double checking some data, you found discrepancies. Do not say you think the scientist faked the data, just present it as a problem that you want to alert the PI to for them to follow up. This is not academic honesty, rather research misconduct. A big difference is that you are not dealing with a student. You can't flunk a visiting a scientist or put them on academic probation. This is an employee. So you are going to have to let the PI deal with this person through HR. Finally, if your PI does ignore you and still publishes the questionable data, then you can file an issue with your research integrity office on campus. I have been on one of these investigations (a post-doc leaving the university claimed a research professor had fabricated data), and we had to go in and inspect all of the lab records to verify the data was collected (turned out that lab kept impeccable records).
RESPONSE B: Tell your PI ASAP. Give him/her the benefit of the doubt that he/she will take your concerns/observations seriously. If your PI chooses to ignore you, then go above... Ombudsman, department chair, or possibly even a Dean or someone in your education office. It's important you don't ignore it, even if your PI wants to ignore!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: your best academic writing tips? I'm a first year UK PhD student in meteorology. Currently, I'm trying to write my first formal progress report which (if you don't know) is just a summary of my project, my progress up to yet, my methods and my future plans. I'm having a bit of writer's block - maybe it's the impostor syndrome but I feel less able to write a good piece of work. I'm doubting everything I write and struggling to come up with a good way to start and finish my writing. **So what are your best academic writing tips?** One thing I picked up from a Nature workshop is to make your reader understand why something is important, rather than saying "this is important because..." For example: * "Identifying flaws in weather models is important because it enables meteorologists to make direct improvements." vs * "Identifying flaws in weather models equips meteorologists with the knowledge to make direct improvements to the forecasts, which could increase the lead time on evacuation decisions."
RESPONSE A: The main thing I've learned is that trying to sound smart usually backfires. Smart people communicate as simply and efficiently as possible. Sometimes that requires 'big words', but usually it doesn't. When somebody starts using fancy words in an effort to seem smart it usually had the opposite effect, and the reader will have the feeling that the complicated writing is hiding a lack of important information. Overcomplicated scientific writing is a relic of an elitist, bygone era. As a small example, when using a word like 'utilize', stop and ask whether 'use' would have worked. In most cases, 'use' is the better word. When people say they're stuck trying to communicate something in writing, I ask what it is they're trying to say and they can usually say it to me simply, eloquently and clearly off the top of their head. Just do that, but in writing. It's that simple.
RESPONSE B: Identify your key results, insert the figures that show those results, write sections around the results, see where that leaves you in terms of needing to explain the background and future work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: your best academic writing tips? I'm a first year UK PhD student in meteorology. Currently, I'm trying to write my first formal progress report which (if you don't know) is just a summary of my project, my progress up to yet, my methods and my future plans. I'm having a bit of writer's block - maybe it's the impostor syndrome but I feel less able to write a good piece of work. I'm doubting everything I write and struggling to come up with a good way to start and finish my writing. **So what are your best academic writing tips?** One thing I picked up from a Nature workshop is to make your reader understand why something is important, rather than saying "this is important because..." For example: * "Identifying flaws in weather models is important because it enables meteorologists to make direct improvements." vs * "Identifying flaws in weather models equips meteorologists with the knowledge to make direct improvements to the forecasts, which could increase the lead time on evacuation decisions."
RESPONSE A: A handy article with some suggestions: https://www.cell.com/matter/fulltext/S2590-2385(19)30394-730394-7)
RESPONSE B: The main thing I've learned is that trying to sound smart usually backfires. Smart people communicate as simply and efficiently as possible. Sometimes that requires 'big words', but usually it doesn't. When somebody starts using fancy words in an effort to seem smart it usually had the opposite effect, and the reader will have the feeling that the complicated writing is hiding a lack of important information. Overcomplicated scientific writing is a relic of an elitist, bygone era. As a small example, when using a word like 'utilize', stop and ask whether 'use' would have worked. In most cases, 'use' is the better word. When people say they're stuck trying to communicate something in writing, I ask what it is they're trying to say and they can usually say it to me simply, eloquently and clearly off the top of their head. Just do that, but in writing. It's that simple.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are your best academic writing tips? I'm a first year UK PhD student in meteorology. Currently, I'm trying to write my first formal progress report which (if you don't know) is just a summary of my project, my progress up to yet, my methods and my future plans. I'm having a bit of writer's block - maybe it's the impostor syndrome but I feel less able to write a good piece of work. I'm doubting everything I write and struggling to come up with a good way to start and finish my writing. **So what are your best academic writing tips?** One thing I picked up from a Nature workshop is to make your reader understand why something is important, rather than saying "this is important because..." For example: * "Identifying flaws in weather models is important because it enables meteorologists to make direct improvements." vs * "Identifying flaws in weather models equips meteorologists with the knowledge to make direct improvements to the forecasts, which could increase the lead time on evacuation decisions."
RESPONSE A: Identify your key results, insert the figures that show those results, write sections around the results, see where that leaves you in terms of needing to explain the background and future work.
RESPONSE B: This tip changed my life: Aim for active voice as much as possible. In the case of your example: “When scientists are able to identify flaws in weather models they can improve their forecasts, which can increase the lead time for making evacuation decisions.” Edited to add: Also, don’t be afraid of short sentences: “When scientists identify flaws in weather models, their forecasts can improve. With better forecasts, officials can make critical evacuation decisions earlier in the course of an adverse weather event.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are your best academic writing tips? I'm a first year UK PhD student in meteorology. Currently, I'm trying to write my first formal progress report which (if you don't know) is just a summary of my project, my progress up to yet, my methods and my future plans. I'm having a bit of writer's block - maybe it's the impostor syndrome but I feel less able to write a good piece of work. I'm doubting everything I write and struggling to come up with a good way to start and finish my writing. **So what are your best academic writing tips?** One thing I picked up from a Nature workshop is to make your reader understand why something is important, rather than saying "this is important because..." For example: * "Identifying flaws in weather models is important because it enables meteorologists to make direct improvements." vs * "Identifying flaws in weather models equips meteorologists with the knowledge to make direct improvements to the forecasts, which could increase the lead time on evacuation decisions."
RESPONSE A: This tip changed my life: Aim for active voice as much as possible. In the case of your example: “When scientists are able to identify flaws in weather models they can improve their forecasts, which can increase the lead time for making evacuation decisions.” Edited to add: Also, don’t be afraid of short sentences: “When scientists identify flaws in weather models, their forecasts can improve. With better forecasts, officials can make critical evacuation decisions earlier in the course of an adverse weather event.”
RESPONSE B: A handy article with some suggestions: https://www.cell.com/matter/fulltext/S2590-2385(19)30394-730394-7)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are your best academic writing tips? I'm a first year UK PhD student in meteorology. Currently, I'm trying to write my first formal progress report which (if you don't know) is just a summary of my project, my progress up to yet, my methods and my future plans. I'm having a bit of writer's block - maybe it's the impostor syndrome but I feel less able to write a good piece of work. I'm doubting everything I write and struggling to come up with a good way to start and finish my writing. **So what are your best academic writing tips?** One thing I picked up from a Nature workshop is to make your reader understand why something is important, rather than saying "this is important because..." For example: * "Identifying flaws in weather models is important because it enables meteorologists to make direct improvements." vs * "Identifying flaws in weather models equips meteorologists with the knowledge to make direct improvements to the forecasts, which could increase the lead time on evacuation decisions."
RESPONSE A: I really like to use quillbot when something doesn't sound quite right. It's not always working but it does give me an idea on where I can improve
RESPONSE B: > Identifying flaws in weather models is important Generally I avoid saying something important unless it's something that I REALLY wanna highlight. To quote my adviser, everything in your paper is important otherwise it shouldn't be in there. Anyway, my writing approach is: 1. Outline the paper 2. Insert figures and tables or whatever results that I wanna talk about 3. List what I wanna talk about for each figure and table. Be as detailed as possible. For example, use 'Parameter A increases parabolically with respect to Parameter B because blah blah blah' and don't be like 'Talk about trend of A vs B'. 4. Do the intro, methodology, etc 5. Turn the points that I listed in Step 3 into complete sentences and paragraphs Imo Step 3 is the most important because it gives me the opportunity to really think about what I wanna present without having to worry about other things such as the language, sentence structure, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What's on your most recommended reading/activity list for early career academics? Are there any books (or other references) you find yourself reaching for over and over again or recommending to your mentees? Alternatively, is there an activity that you personally find very useful (journal clubs, independent reviews, ect.) for newcomers to your field? I definitely fall into early career myself, but there's a few books I've collected that I can't help but recommend to anyone I think may benefit from them. * "Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded" by Joshua Schimel * "The 2-Hour Job Search: Using Technology to Get the Right Job Faster" by Steve Dalton * "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" by Rebecca Skloot * "The Emperor of All Maladies" by Siddhartha Mukherjee (I'm in cancer research) I'm hoping to expand this list, especially as I work with my postdoctoral and graduate student office to establish a lending library of sorts for our institution.
RESPONSE A: Found a lot of helpful tips in "The Professor Is In" by Karen Kelsky related to looking for academic positions. Also thanks so much for initiating this topic! Always looking for more academia/writing/reading/communicating science books.
RESPONSE B: I'm in organic geochemistry, and most often recommend: * *Echoes of Life* by Susan Gaines, Geoffrey Eglinton, and Jurgen Rullkotter * *The Story of More* by Hope Jahren (as much as I love her writing, I try to *avoid* recommending *Lab Girl* to new students, because I feel like it promotes an unhealthy work/life balance - or actually, no work/life balance)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's on your most recommended reading/activity list for early career academics? Are there any books (or other references) you find yourself reaching for over and over again or recommending to your mentees? Alternatively, is there an activity that you personally find very useful (journal clubs, independent reviews, ect.) for newcomers to your field? I definitely fall into early career myself, but there's a few books I've collected that I can't help but recommend to anyone I think may benefit from them. * "Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded" by Joshua Schimel * "The 2-Hour Job Search: Using Technology to Get the Right Job Faster" by Steve Dalton * "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" by Rebecca Skloot * "The Emperor of All Maladies" by Siddhartha Mukherjee (I'm in cancer research) I'm hoping to expand this list, especially as I work with my postdoctoral and graduate student office to establish a lending library of sorts for our institution.
RESPONSE A: Robert Boice's "Advice for New Faculty Members" is a goodie. Lots of advice on how to mindfully engage with writing and teaching, while trying not to burn out.
RESPONSE B: Houston, We Have A Narrative: Why Science Needs Story (by Randy Olson). It's about how to tell an engaging story about your data/project instead of giving the audience a boring timeline of "we did this and these are the results." It's featured in at least one student seminar and one class for our grad students, but is beneficial for all ages/levels.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's on your most recommended reading/activity list for early career academics? Are there any books (or other references) you find yourself reaching for over and over again or recommending to your mentees? Alternatively, is there an activity that you personally find very useful (journal clubs, independent reviews, ect.) for newcomers to your field? I definitely fall into early career myself, but there's a few books I've collected that I can't help but recommend to anyone I think may benefit from them. * "Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded" by Joshua Schimel * "The 2-Hour Job Search: Using Technology to Get the Right Job Faster" by Steve Dalton * "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" by Rebecca Skloot * "The Emperor of All Maladies" by Siddhartha Mukherjee (I'm in cancer research) I'm hoping to expand this list, especially as I work with my postdoctoral and graduate student office to establish a lending library of sorts for our institution.
RESPONSE A: Robert Boice's "Advice for New Faculty Members" is a goodie. Lots of advice on how to mindfully engage with writing and teaching, while trying not to burn out.
RESPONSE B: The magic of review articles. Want to get up to speed on a topic without hunting down 200 papers? Somebody else has already done that for you!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: some friends in person, purchasing things that I always wanted, etc. But these did not work. Do you have any practical recommendations? Would be good to hear from people who went through this.
RESPONSE A: >I am a postdoc and confronting a serious burnout situation. You and I are kindred spirits. I started my postdoc last September and was seriously struggling with burnout on top of mental health issues and a litany of things happening in my personal life. I had a very frank conversation with my post doc adviser, who was thankfully very understanding. I told him that for a few months my productivity was going to be low, but I laid out a specific plan to deliver completed projects at the end of one year. So, I took 3 weeks straight completely off and since then I have spent some weeks working only 30 hours or less. The important thing is to adjust your own expectations and take the time not working to very seriously recharge **guilt free**. This will take some practice because as a postdoc you are naturally very high achieving. Then the next step is to see a mental health professional. Medication might be helpful, as it was for me. But it won't be helpful longterm without making serious life changes - it will give the motivation to make those changes and hopefully the mental clarity to address your mental distress as it arises. Then, seek out measures that improve your productivity during the hours where you are working. For example, I frequently co-work with friends and I use a website called in.flow.club . It is magical. As I started being more productive in the fewer hours I was working I actually started wanting to work more because I was explicitly reminded that I do this job because I love it and I got concrete evidence that I was competent. Please reach out if you want to chat. I empathize greatly.
RESPONSE B: When burnt out, trying to continue to push through can make it worse and make it take longer to get out of. Can you take some time completely off, even if it's only a long weekend? The longer the better, usually, but any time where you are completely disconnected and away from what is burning you out is better than none. Also, therapy, if you haven't already.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you deal with burnout as a researcher? I am a postdoc and confronting a serious burnout situation. I cannot focus and become very depressed so frequently. I feel I am not so great researcher, colleagues do not respect me as a researcher, and I do not see hopeful future. The actual situation might not be actually that bad, but I am thinking that way very often probably by the burnout. I think I am worrying too much about bad things that are not happen yet. When I do a Zoom meeting, my energy goes down real quick so that after the meeting, I cannot do anything for the rest of the day. I tried multiple things to fix this situation, like working out regularly, waking up earlier in the morning, going to bed early, meeting some friends in person, purchasing things that I always wanted, etc. But these did not work. Do you have any practical recommendations? Would be good to hear from people who went through this.
RESPONSE A: 1) Get help: therapy sessions. 2) Take a break. A long break. Like a month. Go hiking, do some manual labor, go surfing, rent a shed in the mountain and learn snowboarding. Anything that prevents you from thinking about science. Talk to your boss about it. If they’re a human being they’ll understand.
RESPONSE B: When burnt out, trying to continue to push through can make it worse and make it take longer to get out of. Can you take some time completely off, even if it's only a long weekend? The longer the better, usually, but any time where you are completely disconnected and away from what is burning you out is better than none. Also, therapy, if you haven't already.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: often probably by the burnout. I think I am worrying too much about bad things that are not happen yet. When I do a Zoom meeting, my energy goes down real quick so that after the meeting, I cannot do anything for the rest of the day. I tried multiple things to fix this situation, like working out regularly, waking up earlier in the morning, going to bed early, meeting some friends in person, purchasing things that I always wanted, etc. But these did not work. Do you have any practical recommendations? Would be good to hear from people who went through this.
RESPONSE A: When burnt out, trying to continue to push through can make it worse and make it take longer to get out of. Can you take some time completely off, even if it's only a long weekend? The longer the better, usually, but any time where you are completely disconnected and away from what is burning you out is better than none. Also, therapy, if you haven't already.
RESPONSE B: Burnout is basically depression (see here). It is a serious issue and spontaneous recovery is not likely, so I urge you to get help (therapy). The earlier you get help, the better it can be treated and the better/faster you can recover from it. It sucks, but if you have burnout/depression, you cannot power through it because normal coping mechanisms will not be enough. In light of recent events, I would recommend to contact a therapist outside of your work place (if possible). There are employers (HR included) who will hold any sign of weakness against you. I hope you do not have such an employer, but it does not hurt to be careful and test the waters a bit before revealing too much. A practical tip on therapists is that you should switch if it does not fit. This does not mean that you should be discouraged if therapy is hard (because it often is a lot of work), but that you should work with a therapist who you are comfortable with. For this, you have to feel that you are taken seriously and the therapists understands you. It might also be useful to look into the different therapy types. Cognitive behavioral therapy and psychodynamic theory have both been found effective for depression treatment (source). Hope you get through this!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I do not see hopeful future. The actual situation might not be actually that bad, but I am thinking that way very often probably by the burnout. I think I am worrying too much about bad things that are not happen yet. When I do a Zoom meeting, my energy goes down real quick so that after the meeting, I cannot do anything for the rest of the day. I tried multiple things to fix this situation, like working out regularly, waking up earlier in the morning, going to bed early, meeting some friends in person, purchasing things that I always wanted, etc. But these did not work. Do you have any practical recommendations? Would be good to hear from people who went through this.
RESPONSE A: Taking "a break" or "down time" isn't sufficient. You need to do something really fun, like take a vacation or go to a music festival (if you love that kind of music). Don't even feel a little guilty, I promise it really works.
RESPONSE B: Burnout is basically depression (see here). It is a serious issue and spontaneous recovery is not likely, so I urge you to get help (therapy). The earlier you get help, the better it can be treated and the better/faster you can recover from it. It sucks, but if you have burnout/depression, you cannot power through it because normal coping mechanisms will not be enough. In light of recent events, I would recommend to contact a therapist outside of your work place (if possible). There are employers (HR included) who will hold any sign of weakness against you. I hope you do not have such an employer, but it does not hurt to be careful and test the waters a bit before revealing too much. A practical tip on therapists is that you should switch if it does not fit. This does not mean that you should be discouraged if therapy is hard (because it often is a lot of work), but that you should work with a therapist who you are comfortable with. For this, you have to feel that you are taken seriously and the therapists understands you. It might also be useful to look into the different therapy types. Cognitive behavioral therapy and psychodynamic theory have both been found effective for depression treatment (source). Hope you get through this!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: so frequently. I feel I am not so great researcher, colleagues do not respect me as a researcher, and I do not see hopeful future. The actual situation might not be actually that bad, but I am thinking that way very often probably by the burnout. I think I am worrying too much about bad things that are not happen yet. When I do a Zoom meeting, my energy goes down real quick so that after the meeting, I cannot do anything for the rest of the day. I tried multiple things to fix this situation, like working out regularly, waking up earlier in the morning, going to bed early, meeting some friends in person, purchasing things that I always wanted, etc. But these did not work. Do you have any practical recommendations? Would be good to hear from people who went through this.
RESPONSE A: Burnout is basically depression (see here). It is a serious issue and spontaneous recovery is not likely, so I urge you to get help (therapy). The earlier you get help, the better it can be treated and the better/faster you can recover from it. It sucks, but if you have burnout/depression, you cannot power through it because normal coping mechanisms will not be enough. In light of recent events, I would recommend to contact a therapist outside of your work place (if possible). There are employers (HR included) who will hold any sign of weakness against you. I hope you do not have such an employer, but it does not hurt to be careful and test the waters a bit before revealing too much. A practical tip on therapists is that you should switch if it does not fit. This does not mean that you should be discouraged if therapy is hard (because it often is a lot of work), but that you should work with a therapist who you are comfortable with. For this, you have to feel that you are taken seriously and the therapists understands you. It might also be useful to look into the different therapy types. Cognitive behavioral therapy and psychodynamic theory have both been found effective for depression treatment (source). Hope you get through this!
RESPONSE B: Get evaluated for anxiety and/or depression by your primary care physician. I did, got put on a medicine that now allows me to function. I am tired but I feel much better!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Humanities PhDs that have left academia, what do you do now? The market has been terrible since I was in undergrad. I am getting towards the end of my PhD and I know that I need plan B's and C's (really these will more than likely be A and B with academia being a Hail Mary). But I am struggling with thinking about alternatives. I have some friends in the private sector that say consulting could be a good fit. Others say to go into teaching, but I'm certain that this requires even more school.
RESPONSE A: The fact that people have to resort to Reddit to find out answers to these questions tells you everything you need to know about just how much academic depts care about what happens to their PhD graduates after they’ve pushed them out of the door.
RESPONSE B: Policy analyst for a Govt department. Was sad to leave academia but now I get to do interesting work with intelligent people, clock off at 5pm, I'm paid a decent wage and get to live in the city I want to live in :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Humanities PhDs that have left academia, what do you do now? The market has been terrible since I was in undergrad. I am getting towards the end of my PhD and I know that I need plan B's and C's (really these will more than likely be A and B with academia being a Hail Mary). But I am struggling with thinking about alternatives. I have some friends in the private sector that say consulting could be a good fit. Others say to go into teaching, but I'm certain that this requires even more school.
RESPONSE A: I manage the tutors at an online tutoring company. I wish I had had the foresight to pursue management consulting at McKinsey and the like, if only to pay off the debts of grad school before heading elsewhere.
RESPONSE B: The fact that people have to resort to Reddit to find out answers to these questions tells you everything you need to know about just how much academic depts care about what happens to their PhD graduates after they’ve pushed them out of the door.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Humanities PhDs that have left academia, what do you do now? The market has been terrible since I was in undergrad. I am getting towards the end of my PhD and I know that I need plan B's and C's (really these will more than likely be A and B with academia being a Hail Mary). But I am struggling with thinking about alternatives. I have some friends in the private sector that say consulting could be a good fit. Others say to go into teaching, but I'm certain that this requires even more school.
RESPONSE A: I will soon graduate with a PhD in Spanish and I plan on exploring the field of localization. You obviously need to pay for these courses, but it's something to consider if you know a foreign language (especially Spanish), have experience translating, and would like to gain more marketable technical skills. Not sure if it's your cup of tea, but I'm considering giving it a try.
RESPONSE B: The fact that people have to resort to Reddit to find out answers to these questions tells you everything you need to know about just how much academic depts care about what happens to their PhD graduates after they’ve pushed them out of the door.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Humanities PhDs that have left academia, what do you do now? The market has been terrible since I was in undergrad. I am getting towards the end of my PhD and I know that I need plan B's and C's (really these will more than likely be A and B with academia being a Hail Mary). But I am struggling with thinking about alternatives. I have some friends in the private sector that say consulting could be a good fit. Others say to go into teaching, but I'm certain that this requires even more school.
RESPONSE A: I will soon graduate with a PhD in Spanish and I plan on exploring the field of localization. You obviously need to pay for these courses, but it's something to consider if you know a foreign language (especially Spanish), have experience translating, and would like to gain more marketable technical skills. Not sure if it's your cup of tea, but I'm considering giving it a try.
RESPONSE B: Policy analyst for a Govt department. Was sad to leave academia but now I get to do interesting work with intelligent people, clock off at 5pm, I'm paid a decent wage and get to live in the city I want to live in :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: do today. A couple colleagues even offered to help me improve my application materials so that when they re-run the search next year I would be better prepared. I tried to be polite and not burn bridges, but all of this was insulting and hurtful. I'd already made it to the campus visit stage. I felt that they had their opportunity for me to be a part of their department long term and they didn't take it. So why would I bother putting myself through another year of that hell? As I saw it, my only pathway forward was to leave. But the NTT position I was in wasn't terrible so I couldn't just take anything. I knew it was a long shot but I applied to a few jobs that were posted in April. I got 2 on site interviews. One of them was an amazing good fit at an R1 near where I did my PhD. It's a great city that I love and I have friends in the area. The interview was like a great blind date. I loved it there and I could tell that their department was really excited about me. The day after I got back from my interview, I had an informal offer from the chair and after a bit of negotiation, I signed the offer letter and am now on my way to a TT position in a place I am very excited about. I really can't get over my good fortune here, especially after such a hellish year. So, after 4 years on the job market and a terrible experience an internal candidate, I finally got the job. It felt great to email my current colleagues brief polite emails about my imminent departure. If you made it to the end of this, thank you for reading. I am mostly posting this for my own catharsis, but also for grad students with academic aspirations and others still on the market. Good luck to all, the market is brutal and demoralizing. The End
RESPONSE A: CONGRATS! Persistence and hard work pays off! Enjoy some R&R with the comfort of knowing they want you!
RESPONSE B: GEOGRAPHERS UNITE! Congratulations! The job hunt is scary and disheartening and humbling, but you made it! I have only one question: Physical geography or Human geography? ;)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: but all of this was insulting and hurtful. I'd already made it to the campus visit stage. I felt that they had their opportunity for me to be a part of their department long term and they didn't take it. So why would I bother putting myself through another year of that hell? As I saw it, my only pathway forward was to leave. But the NTT position I was in wasn't terrible so I couldn't just take anything. I knew it was a long shot but I applied to a few jobs that were posted in April. I got 2 on site interviews. One of them was an amazing good fit at an R1 near where I did my PhD. It's a great city that I love and I have friends in the area. The interview was like a great blind date. I loved it there and I could tell that their department was really excited about me. The day after I got back from my interview, I had an informal offer from the chair and after a bit of negotiation, I signed the offer letter and am now on my way to a TT position in a place I am very excited about. I really can't get over my good fortune here, especially after such a hellish year. So, after 4 years on the job market and a terrible experience an internal candidate, I finally got the job. It felt great to email my current colleagues brief polite emails about my imminent departure. If you made it to the end of this, thank you for reading. I am mostly posting this for my own catharsis, but also for grad students with academic aspirations and others still on the market. Good luck to all, the market is brutal and demoralizing. The End
RESPONSE A: GEOGRAPHERS UNITE! Congratulations! The job hunt is scary and disheartening and humbling, but you made it! I have only one question: Physical geography or Human geography? ;)
RESPONSE B: Congrats! Do you have any idea for why your current department had a failed search? I sometimes wonder if accepting an NTT in hopes of getting TT isn't a bad idea because it's unlikely, but because working in the department gives the opportunity for politics/personal vendettas to arise when they wouldnt otherwise.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: straight out of grad school) none of them had to go through what early career people do today. A couple colleagues even offered to help me improve my application materials so that when they re-run the search next year I would be better prepared. I tried to be polite and not burn bridges, but all of this was insulting and hurtful. I'd already made it to the campus visit stage. I felt that they had their opportunity for me to be a part of their department long term and they didn't take it. So why would I bother putting myself through another year of that hell? As I saw it, my only pathway forward was to leave. But the NTT position I was in wasn't terrible so I couldn't just take anything. I knew it was a long shot but I applied to a few jobs that were posted in April. I got 2 on site interviews. One of them was an amazing good fit at an R1 near where I did my PhD. It's a great city that I love and I have friends in the area. The interview was like a great blind date. I loved it there and I could tell that their department was really excited about me. The day after I got back from my interview, I had an informal offer from the chair and after a bit of negotiation, I signed the offer letter and am now on my way to a TT position in a place I am very excited about. I really can't get over my good fortune here, especially after such a hellish year. So, after 4 years on the job market and a terrible experience an internal candidate, I finally got the job. It felt great to email my current colleagues brief polite emails about my imminent departure. If you made it to the end of this, thank you for reading. I am mostly posting this for my own catharsis, but also for grad students with academic aspirations and others still on the market. Good luck to all, the market is brutal and demoralizing. The End
RESPONSE A: Congrats! The job search is hell.
RESPONSE B: GEOGRAPHERS UNITE! Congratulations! The job hunt is scary and disheartening and humbling, but you made it! I have only one question: Physical geography or Human geography? ;)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: in the area. The interview was like a great blind date. I loved it there and I could tell that their department was really excited about me. The day after I got back from my interview, I had an informal offer from the chair and after a bit of negotiation, I signed the offer letter and am now on my way to a TT position in a place I am very excited about. I really can't get over my good fortune here, especially after such a hellish year. So, after 4 years on the job market and a terrible experience an internal candidate, I finally got the job. It felt great to email my current colleagues brief polite emails about my imminent departure. If you made it to the end of this, thank you for reading. I am mostly posting this for my own catharsis, but also for grad students with academic aspirations and others still on the market. Good luck to all, the market is brutal and demoralizing. The End
RESPONSE A: GEOGRAPHERS UNITE! Congratulations! The job hunt is scary and disheartening and humbling, but you made it! I have only one question: Physical geography or Human geography? ;)
RESPONSE B: Thank you so much for sharing your story here. I'd like to contribute a structural POV to the conversation: I was once in an interview with a program (as a potential PhD admit) and I asked how they saw their faculty hiring practices over the next several years as a component of their larger research agenda. The committee responded in depth, describing how departments plan out, years in advance, what "sort" of department they want to be, what sort of research they want to produce, and what sort of position they ultimately desire in their field. Hiring and admission practices are bricks in this type of long-term agenda-building. It could be that your research simply wasn't a match with the sort of department they want to be ten years down the line. This has, I'm sure, very little to do with the quality of work (which, from the quality of your writing, I can assume to be high), and everything to do with the direction they want to take the program in. Again, thank you for your story, and congrats on the new job!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: my interview, I had an informal offer from the chair and after a bit of negotiation, I signed the offer letter and am now on my way to a TT position in a place I am very excited about. I really can't get over my good fortune here, especially after such a hellish year. So, after 4 years on the job market and a terrible experience an internal candidate, I finally got the job. It felt great to email my current colleagues brief polite emails about my imminent departure. If you made it to the end of this, thank you for reading. I am mostly posting this for my own catharsis, but also for grad students with academic aspirations and others still on the market. Good luck to all, the market is brutal and demoralizing. The End
RESPONSE A: Thank you so much for sharing your story here. I'd like to contribute a structural POV to the conversation: I was once in an interview with a program (as a potential PhD admit) and I asked how they saw their faculty hiring practices over the next several years as a component of their larger research agenda. The committee responded in depth, describing how departments plan out, years in advance, what "sort" of department they want to be, what sort of research they want to produce, and what sort of position they ultimately desire in their field. Hiring and admission practices are bricks in this type of long-term agenda-building. It could be that your research simply wasn't a match with the sort of department they want to be ten years down the line. This has, I'm sure, very little to do with the quality of work (which, from the quality of your writing, I can assume to be high), and everything to do with the direction they want to take the program in. Again, thank you for your story, and congrats on the new job!
RESPONSE B: Congrats OP! This sounds like the best possible outcome given your circumstances, and better than staying at your first school. It also underscores the risks of being an internal candidate...it's a tough position to be in, and often hard on departmental colleagues as well. Glad you were able to negotiate it while building your c.v. on the way to a better TT job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is "bullshit" a legitimate research area and is it supposed to be tongue-in-cheek or am I just immature? I met a linguistics faculty recently whose primary research interests included "bullshit". I laughed when I read that because I thought it was a joke, or at least supposed to be a humorous description of what he studied. Then I looked it up and found legitimate papers published in big journals about bullshit, discussing it like it's a scientific term. Is the linguistic research area "bullshit" supposed to be humorous like papers on "Trajectory of a Falling Batman" (https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/pst/article/view/2036/1939)? Or is this a research area people discuss with a totally straight face and no hint of humor, and I'm just immature for thinking it's a joke?
RESPONSE A: UC Berkeley has a whole class on bullshit! It's both serious and there's some levity.
RESPONSE B: Yes, it's a legitimate area of study. Bullshitting is trying to pass off vacuous or epistemically fuzzy content as truth. It involves an intentional state of an actor and a presupposed state of receptivity by an other. The recipient of the claim likely has to engage in some type of reasoning process to accept or reject the bullshit. For these reasons bullshitting is a complex process that may yield insights into how specific operations or processes (such as reasoning or evaluation of a claim) may operate. Edit: here's an example of a bullshit study in a decent journal http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is "bullshit" a legitimate research area and is it supposed to be tongue-in-cheek or am I just immature? I met a linguistics faculty recently whose primary research interests included "bullshit". I laughed when I read that because I thought it was a joke, or at least supposed to be a humorous description of what he studied. Then I looked it up and found legitimate papers published in big journals about bullshit, discussing it like it's a scientific term. Is the linguistic research area "bullshit" supposed to be humorous like papers on "Trajectory of a Falling Batman" (https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/pst/article/view/2036/1939)? Or is this a research area people discuss with a totally straight face and no hint of humor, and I'm just immature for thinking it's a joke?
RESPONSE A: Yes, it's a legitimate area of study. Bullshitting is trying to pass off vacuous or epistemically fuzzy content as truth. It involves an intentional state of an actor and a presupposed state of receptivity by an other. The recipient of the claim likely has to engage in some type of reasoning process to accept or reject the bullshit. For these reasons bullshitting is a complex process that may yield insights into how specific operations or processes (such as reasoning or evaluation of a claim) may operate. Edit: here's an example of a bullshit study in a decent journal http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html
RESPONSE B: Linguistics is the science of language, so yes, bullshit is a scientific term to someone studying language. He probably says it in that way to elicit your reaction.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is "bullshit" a legitimate research area and is it supposed to be tongue-in-cheek or am I just immature? I met a linguistics faculty recently whose primary research interests included "bullshit". I laughed when I read that because I thought it was a joke, or at least supposed to be a humorous description of what he studied. Then I looked it up and found legitimate papers published in big journals about bullshit, discussing it like it's a scientific term. Is the linguistic research area "bullshit" supposed to be humorous like papers on "Trajectory of a Falling Batman" (https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/pst/article/view/2036/1939)? Or is this a research area people discuss with a totally straight face and no hint of humor, and I'm just immature for thinking it's a joke?
RESPONSE A: Yes, it's a legitimate area of study. Bullshitting is trying to pass off vacuous or epistemically fuzzy content as truth. It involves an intentional state of an actor and a presupposed state of receptivity by an other. The recipient of the claim likely has to engage in some type of reasoning process to accept or reject the bullshit. For these reasons bullshitting is a complex process that may yield insights into how specific operations or processes (such as reasoning or evaluation of a claim) may operate. Edit: here's an example of a bullshit study in a decent journal http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html
RESPONSE B: Sounds like there's a better academic term for it (e.g. misinformation), but the word "bullshit" is more edgy and makes for better clickbait.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is "bullshit" a legitimate research area and is it supposed to be tongue-in-cheek or am I just immature? I met a linguistics faculty recently whose primary research interests included "bullshit". I laughed when I read that because I thought it was a joke, or at least supposed to be a humorous description of what he studied. Then I looked it up and found legitimate papers published in big journals about bullshit, discussing it like it's a scientific term. Is the linguistic research area "bullshit" supposed to be humorous like papers on "Trajectory of a Falling Batman" (https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/pst/article/view/2036/1939)? Or is this a research area people discuss with a totally straight face and no hint of humor, and I'm just immature for thinking it's a joke?
RESPONSE A: This is a philosophical take on it from Harry Frankfurt. There's also a tribute collection of philosophical essays on the topic. https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946
RESPONSE B: Sounds like there's a better academic term for it (e.g. misinformation), but the word "bullshit" is more edgy and makes for better clickbait.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |