Datasets:

stanfordnlp

/

SHP

like 268

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr99jha

gr8iw46

I know some PhD students more experienced than any other postdoc since they still do a PhD in their 8th or 9th years at the same lab and this is in Europe, where you don't have classes, exams, seminars etc. It's full time research. They aim to publish every chapter of their dissertation in famous and high impact journals, it clogs the lab for upcoming students and we invest too much money and time on limited number of projects. The sad part is to see that all about the journal names. Nobody cares about the continuity, robust data or reproducibility, they keep looking for fancy experiments to fit fancy journals. Our lab discussions don't involve around the scientific ideas, they involve around journal names (e.g. this would be a Nature paper etc.) I mean after all our PI is "ambitious" enough to keep pushing us by telling "I want that each one to have a Nature paper" and yes, this is a toxic lab environment. I think this is why many people want to quit academia. PS: This also creates a huge inequality in terms of fellowships etc. Many of us don't have luxury to do a 8 year PhD project and wait for a publication for that long.

There are very few TT positions, and many of these have research as a moderate to major component of their appointment. Why *wouldn’t* you expect those pressures to drive up output? What would selection for a TT job look like research productivity was removed? Impact? Novelty of research program? That is very much like what midcareer and senior searches look like. How would you do that at the junior stage, without just simply replicating prestige networks?

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr8p0ne

gr99jha

I'm a physisist, and I feel all of this as a scam... Academia became into a legal piramidal bussines: you need a degre in order to be able to teach to those who pretend to get a degree so they can teach others who pretend... All of us are guilty for accepting this unsenseless academia rules.

I know some PhD students more experienced than any other postdoc since they still do a PhD in their 8th or 9th years at the same lab and this is in Europe, where you don't have classes, exams, seminars etc. It's full time research. They aim to publish every chapter of their dissertation in famous and high impact journals, it clogs the lab for upcoming students and we invest too much money and time on limited number of projects. The sad part is to see that all about the journal names. Nobody cares about the continuity, robust data or reproducibility, they keep looking for fancy experiments to fit fancy journals. Our lab discussions don't involve around the scientific ideas, they involve around journal names (e.g. this would be a Nature paper etc.) I mean after all our PI is "ambitious" enough to keep pushing us by telling "I want that each one to have a Nature paper" and yes, this is a toxic lab environment. I think this is why many people want to quit academia. PS: This also creates a huge inequality in terms of fellowships etc. Many of us don't have luxury to do a 8 year PhD project and wait for a publication for that long.

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr8nn8w

gr8iw46

Publishing a negative result requires some work, but it's definitely doable and I recommend it. Towards the beginning of my career I published two papers that are mostly "*if you think this is a good idea, don't; here's why*" and "*why XYZ looks like it should work, but doesn't*". Neither exceeded a dozen citations or so, but at least I contributed towards fighting the bias. I deplore papers that are only slightly different spins on the same thing and I pity people who publish them (because otherwise they would perish). Like "*Novel method applied to material 1*". "*Novel method applied to material 2, which is very much like material 1*". Ugh.

There are very few TT positions, and many of these have research as a moderate to major component of their appointment. Why *wouldn’t* you expect those pressures to drive up output? What would selection for a TT job look like research productivity was removed? Impact? Novelty of research program? That is very much like what midcareer and senior searches look like. How would you do that at the junior stage, without just simply replicating prestige networks?

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr9u4py

gr9h880

Academic system is all fucked up. I regret sincerely that I chose this career. I hate it and it keeps getting worse. People said that all the effort of having a Phd would be fruitful with patience and perseverance. It hasn't been fruitful. I know it's a global crisis that is part of a huge generational and structural crisis, but knowing that doesn't make it better.

Yes indeed. This is what I think various metaresearch studies, starting with John Ioannidis' much-cited work, have been documenting that has especially affected science and social science--that the pressure to publish and the growth of various metrics for measuring not just quantity but impact factors, combined with a standard that says negative results are non-publishable, has become an incentive system that is pushing scientific knowledge towards false or misleading claims. Not because people are deliberately falsifying data but instead they are conducting studies in ways that are increasingly and perhaps often unconsciously designed to churn out publishable outcomes in a reliable way even if those outcomes turn out to be marginally significant or largely an artifact of the research design and thus not reproducible or applicable in a broader way. We are doing this to ourselves. Academics still in theory have control over the evaluation of their peers and still in many research institutions control many aspects of faculty practice. We could seriously de-escalate the standards we use to hire, tenure, promote and reward researchers and stop this race to the bottom. We could do that at the same time as taking back control over scholarly publication from predatory for-profit publishers who contribute to the overproduction of scholarship, because it's the voluntary labor of faculty that adds the important value of such scholarship (both in peer review and in doing the research in the first place). We need scholarship that has the room to breath. We need researchers to publish negative results. We need scholars to have time and space to think, to noodle around idly with ideas that aren't easily turned into an experimental design. That is how the knowledge that has mattered in the past has come into being. Many of the most important findings and arguments and ideas that we still use and value today came from long-term, slow-accumulating research of a kind that would never be fundable or publishable today, and would never survive the scrutiny of neoliberal styles of institutional management.

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr8o0jf

gr9u4py

h-index is by no means perfect but it's far more relevant than paper count, i.e. how many times has your work contributed to the literature.

Academic system is all fucked up. I regret sincerely that I chose this career. I hate it and it keeps getting worse. People said that all the effort of having a Phd would be fruitful with patience and perseverance. It hasn't been fruitful. I know it's a global crisis that is part of a huge generational and structural crisis, but knowing that doesn't make it better.

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr8varw

gr9u4py

Let me give a slightly different take on this. I completely agree with the notion that there are too many papers and definitely way too many “incremental” papers. But it is worth thinking g about the causes of this. In my mind the main driver of all of this is that the job market is ultra-competitive. Most fields produce an order of magnitude (or more!) PhDs than they have TT openings. As such there is a massive culling at the postdoctoral level and then at the Assistant Professor level. Now of course some fields are not training PhDs to necessarily go into academia but many are and in those cases this pressure applies. For example in my department we regularly get 500+ applications for every TT opening. This is very typical for my field and many others. So you need some criteria to separate people and at that scale it will obviously not be a subtle or thoughtful process. Counting pubs is obviously not an optimal algorithm but if we didn’t do that, we would need some other metric. Letters? We get 500x3 letters, how to separate those? Etc. And that’s not to mention grants and in particular final grant reports. If you are writing the final report for a $400,000 grant, you better have something listed there. Pubs is usually the thing Another issue is something that has occurred more recently, but it’s that now many places that aren’t really research schools at all now require a solid publication record for tenure. In my opinion this is unwise but faculty doing research is good for a small school’s prestige. Obviously this trend is an outgrowth of the factors mentioned above.

Academic system is all fucked up. I regret sincerely that I chose this career. I hate it and it keeps getting worse. People said that all the effort of having a Phd would be fruitful with patience and perseverance. It hasn't been fruitful. I know it's a global crisis that is part of a huge generational and structural crisis, but knowing that doesn't make it better.

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr9u4py

gr8iw46

Academic system is all fucked up. I regret sincerely that I chose this career. I hate it and it keeps getting worse. People said that all the effort of having a Phd would be fruitful with patience and perseverance. It hasn't been fruitful. I know it's a global crisis that is part of a huge generational and structural crisis, but knowing that doesn't make it better.

There are very few TT positions, and many of these have research as a moderate to major component of their appointment. Why *wouldn’t* you expect those pressures to drive up output? What would selection for a TT job look like research productivity was removed? Impact? Novelty of research program? That is very much like what midcareer and senior searches look like. How would you do that at the junior stage, without just simply replicating prestige networks?

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr9u4py

gr8p0ne

Academic system is all fucked up. I regret sincerely that I chose this career. I hate it and it keeps getting worse. People said that all the effort of having a Phd would be fruitful with patience and perseverance. It hasn't been fruitful. I know it's a global crisis that is part of a huge generational and structural crisis, but knowing that doesn't make it better.

I'm a physisist, and I feel all of this as a scam... Academia became into a legal piramidal bussines: you need a degre in order to be able to teach to those who pretend to get a degree so they can teach others who pretend... All of us are guilty for accepting this unsenseless academia rules.

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr8iw46

gr9h880

There are very few TT positions, and many of these have research as a moderate to major component of their appointment. Why *wouldn’t* you expect those pressures to drive up output? What would selection for a TT job look like research productivity was removed? Impact? Novelty of research program? That is very much like what midcareer and senior searches look like. How would you do that at the junior stage, without just simply replicating prestige networks?

Yes indeed. This is what I think various metaresearch studies, starting with John Ioannidis' much-cited work, have been documenting that has especially affected science and social science--that the pressure to publish and the growth of various metrics for measuring not just quantity but impact factors, combined with a standard that says negative results are non-publishable, has become an incentive system that is pushing scientific knowledge towards false or misleading claims. Not because people are deliberately falsifying data but instead they are conducting studies in ways that are increasingly and perhaps often unconsciously designed to churn out publishable outcomes in a reliable way even if those outcomes turn out to be marginally significant or largely an artifact of the research design and thus not reproducible or applicable in a broader way. We are doing this to ourselves. Academics still in theory have control over the evaluation of their peers and still in many research institutions control many aspects of faculty practice. We could seriously de-escalate the standards we use to hire, tenure, promote and reward researchers and stop this race to the bottom. We could do that at the same time as taking back control over scholarly publication from predatory for-profit publishers who contribute to the overproduction of scholarship, because it's the voluntary labor of faculty that adds the important value of such scholarship (both in peer review and in doing the research in the first place). We need scholarship that has the room to breath. We need researchers to publish negative results. We need scholars to have time and space to think, to noodle around idly with ideas that aren't easily turned into an experimental design. That is how the knowledge that has mattered in the past has come into being. Many of the most important findings and arguments and ideas that we still use and value today came from long-term, slow-accumulating research of a kind that would never be fundable or publishable today, and would never survive the scrutiny of neoliberal styles of institutional management.

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr8p0ne

gr9h880

I'm a physisist, and I feel all of this as a scam... Academia became into a legal piramidal bussines: you need a degre in order to be able to teach to those who pretend to get a degree so they can teach others who pretend... All of us are guilty for accepting this unsenseless academia rules.

Yes indeed. This is what I think various metaresearch studies, starting with John Ioannidis' much-cited work, have been documenting that has especially affected science and social science--that the pressure to publish and the growth of various metrics for measuring not just quantity but impact factors, combined with a standard that says negative results are non-publishable, has become an incentive system that is pushing scientific knowledge towards false or misleading claims. Not because people are deliberately falsifying data but instead they are conducting studies in ways that are increasingly and perhaps often unconsciously designed to churn out publishable outcomes in a reliable way even if those outcomes turn out to be marginally significant or largely an artifact of the research design and thus not reproducible or applicable in a broader way. We are doing this to ourselves. Academics still in theory have control over the evaluation of their peers and still in many research institutions control many aspects of faculty practice. We could seriously de-escalate the standards we use to hire, tenure, promote and reward researchers and stop this race to the bottom. We could do that at the same time as taking back control over scholarly publication from predatory for-profit publishers who contribute to the overproduction of scholarship, because it's the voluntary labor of faculty that adds the important value of such scholarship (both in peer review and in doing the research in the first place). We need scholarship that has the room to breath. We need researchers to publish negative results. We need scholars to have time and space to think, to noodle around idly with ideas that aren't easily turned into an experimental design. That is how the knowledge that has mattered in the past has come into being. Many of the most important findings and arguments and ideas that we still use and value today came from long-term, slow-accumulating research of a kind that would never be fundable or publishable today, and would never survive the scrutiny of neoliberal styles of institutional management.

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr8varw

gr8o0jf

Let me give a slightly different take on this. I completely agree with the notion that there are too many papers and definitely way too many “incremental” papers. But it is worth thinking g about the causes of this. In my mind the main driver of all of this is that the job market is ultra-competitive. Most fields produce an order of magnitude (or more!) PhDs than they have TT openings. As such there is a massive culling at the postdoctoral level and then at the Assistant Professor level. Now of course some fields are not training PhDs to necessarily go into academia but many are and in those cases this pressure applies. For example in my department we regularly get 500+ applications for every TT opening. This is very typical for my field and many others. So you need some criteria to separate people and at that scale it will obviously not be a subtle or thoughtful process. Counting pubs is obviously not an optimal algorithm but if we didn’t do that, we would need some other metric. Letters? We get 500x3 letters, how to separate those? Etc. And that’s not to mention grants and in particular final grant reports. If you are writing the final report for a $400,000 grant, you better have something listed there. Pubs is usually the thing Another issue is something that has occurred more recently, but it’s that now many places that aren’t really research schools at all now require a solid publication record for tenure. In my opinion this is unwise but faculty doing research is good for a small school’s prestige. Obviously this trend is an outgrowth of the factors mentioned above.

h-index is by no means perfect but it's far more relevant than paper count, i.e. how many times has your work contributed to the literature.

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr8o0jf

gr8iw46

h-index is by no means perfect but it's far more relevant than paper count, i.e. how many times has your work contributed to the literature.

There are very few TT positions, and many of these have research as a moderate to major component of their appointment. Why *wouldn’t* you expect those pressures to drive up output? What would selection for a TT job look like research productivity was removed? Impact? Novelty of research program? That is very much like what midcareer and senior searches look like. How would you do that at the junior stage, without just simply replicating prestige networks?

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr8iw46

gr8varw

There are very few TT positions, and many of these have research as a moderate to major component of their appointment. Why *wouldn’t* you expect those pressures to drive up output? What would selection for a TT job look like research productivity was removed? Impact? Novelty of research program? That is very much like what midcareer and senior searches look like. How would you do that at the junior stage, without just simply replicating prestige networks?

Let me give a slightly different take on this. I completely agree with the notion that there are too many papers and definitely way too many “incremental” papers. But it is worth thinking g about the causes of this. In my mind the main driver of all of this is that the job market is ultra-competitive. Most fields produce an order of magnitude (or more!) PhDs than they have TT openings. As such there is a massive culling at the postdoctoral level and then at the Assistant Professor level. Now of course some fields are not training PhDs to necessarily go into academia but many are and in those cases this pressure applies. For example in my department we regularly get 500+ applications for every TT opening. This is very typical for my field and many others. So you need some criteria to separate people and at that scale it will obviously not be a subtle or thoughtful process. Counting pubs is obviously not an optimal algorithm but if we didn’t do that, we would need some other metric. Letters? We get 500x3 letters, how to separate those? Etc. And that’s not to mention grants and in particular final grant reports. If you are writing the final report for a $400,000 grant, you better have something listed there. Pubs is usually the thing Another issue is something that has occurred more recently, but it’s that now many places that aren’t really research schools at all now require a solid publication record for tenure. In my opinion this is unwise but faculty doing research is good for a small school’s prestige. Obviously this trend is an outgrowth of the factors mentioned above.

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr8varw

gr8p0ne

Let me give a slightly different take on this. I completely agree with the notion that there are too many papers and definitely way too many “incremental” papers. But it is worth thinking g about the causes of this. In my mind the main driver of all of this is that the job market is ultra-competitive. Most fields produce an order of magnitude (or more!) PhDs than they have TT openings. As such there is a massive culling at the postdoctoral level and then at the Assistant Professor level. Now of course some fields are not training PhDs to necessarily go into academia but many are and in those cases this pressure applies. For example in my department we regularly get 500+ applications for every TT opening. This is very typical for my field and many others. So you need some criteria to separate people and at that scale it will obviously not be a subtle or thoughtful process. Counting pubs is obviously not an optimal algorithm but if we didn’t do that, we would need some other metric. Letters? We get 500x3 letters, how to separate those? Etc. And that’s not to mention grants and in particular final grant reports. If you are writing the final report for a $400,000 grant, you better have something listed there. Pubs is usually the thing Another issue is something that has occurred more recently, but it’s that now many places that aren’t really research schools at all now require a solid publication record for tenure. In my opinion this is unwise but faculty doing research is good for a small school’s prestige. Obviously this trend is an outgrowth of the factors mentioned above.

I'm a physisist, and I feel all of this as a scam... Academia became into a legal piramidal bussines: you need a degre in order to be able to teach to those who pretend to get a degree so they can teach others who pretend... All of us are guilty for accepting this unsenseless academia rules.

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gra9mle

gr9usz3

Part of the problem is R2s requiring their faculty to publish like they are at R1s. Many faculty at R2s don’t have their own dedicated graduate students, teach 3-5 classes per semester, and some even have advising duties, yet are being asked to publish 4+ articles a year with little to no support. The result? A bunch of new journals and a flood of half-assed articles. If R2s would be happy with one quality article every 12-24 months it would benefit everyone. Editors and reviewers wouldn’t have to deal with so many hastily prepared articles, many faculty at R1s would have a quicker review and publication time, and faculty at R2s could take their time and publish work reflective of their abilities. I’m not saying that every article published by an R2 is not good science - I’m not saying that at all - I’m simply saying the rising expectations for R2s is throwing the whole publication process off balance and it’s not fair to anyone.

Just one more data point here. I am non-tenure-track full-time with a 4/4 teaching load. To maintain my qualifications to teach under our college's accreditation requirements, I have to have the same minimum output of papers and conference presentations as a tenured professor teaching a 3/3 or less. Getting tenure, of course, requires more, but since that isn't my track, it's not relevant to me. Further, it's entirely numbers-based. I could--in theory--publish one world-changing article in a top journal in 5 years or 5 mediocre papers in an barely-non-predatory journal, and as far as the accreditation body is concerned, the 5 papers make me more qualified to teach.

m6z9m4

askacademia_train

Does anybody feel like academic publication pressure is becoming unsustainable? I am becoming very frustrated with the publication culture in my field. Becoming an expert takes a long time and so is making a valuable contribution to the literature. However, publication pressure is turning many contributions into spin-offs that are slightly different from the publication before, and they are often redundant. Further, a failed experiment would never get published but it would actually provide insight to peers as to what route not to explore. I think that publication pressure is overwhelming for academics and in detriment of scientific literature. I feel like we seriously need to rethink the publication reward system. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

gr9usz3

gragd2v

Just one more data point here. I am non-tenure-track full-time with a 4/4 teaching load. To maintain my qualifications to teach under our college's accreditation requirements, I have to have the same minimum output of papers and conference presentations as a tenured professor teaching a 3/3 or less. Getting tenure, of course, requires more, but since that isn't my track, it's not relevant to me. Further, it's entirely numbers-based. I could--in theory--publish one world-changing article in a top journal in 5 years or 5 mediocre papers in an barely-non-predatory journal, and as far as the accreditation body is concerned, the 5 papers make me more qualified to teach.

Mainly why I quit. I have something to say, but I don't need that sorta pressure.

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqohpsx

fqolkg2

Thankfully we're only getting everything above hard truths at my institution. But we've formed committees to look at all the options

>As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their \[paid\] hours will be reduced to a minimum. LOL. Sincerely, A staff member whose mandatory \[unpaid\] furlough days will result in $3,000 less this year

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqp1539

fqontgo

Don’t forget to forget mentioning athletics! No need to cut them!

Ours are taking a 10% paycut and one extremely noble individual is going up to 20%.

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqowe30

fqp1539

I was surprised to get a newsletter announcing some pay increases for staff https://www.ukrant.nl/a-bonus-and-a-3-percent-pay-increase/?lang=en

Don’t forget to forget mentioning athletics! No need to cut them!

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqohpsx

fqp1539

Thankfully we're only getting everything above hard truths at my institution. But we've formed committees to look at all the options

Don’t forget to forget mentioning athletics! No need to cut them!

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqomm3t

fqp1539

uncanny

Don’t forget to forget mentioning athletics! No need to cut them!

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqontgo

fqohpsx

Ours are taking a 10% paycut and one extremely noble individual is going up to 20%.

Thankfully we're only getting everything above hard truths at my institution. But we've formed committees to look at all the options

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqontgo

fqomm3t

Ours are taking a 10% paycut and one extremely noble individual is going up to 20%.

uncanny

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqohpsx

fqp703e

Thankfully we're only getting everything above hard truths at my institution. But we've formed committees to look at all the options

I'm happy to be a French civil servant working in a university, so I'm safe. I feel bad for all the PhD students that are waiting on more info about whether their PhD funding will be extended and by how much.

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqp6xy0

fqp703e

When you have wolves managing your lambs, you're gotta have a bad time.

I'm happy to be a French civil servant working in a university, so I'm safe. I feel bad for all the PhD students that are waiting on more info about whether their PhD funding will be extended and by how much.

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqomm3t

fqp703e

uncanny

I'm happy to be a French civil servant working in a university, so I'm safe. I feel bad for all the PhD students that are waiting on more info about whether their PhD funding will be extended and by how much.

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqohpsx

fqowe30

Thankfully we're only getting everything above hard truths at my institution. But we've formed committees to look at all the options

I was surprised to get a newsletter announcing some pay increases for staff https://www.ukrant.nl/a-bonus-and-a-3-percent-pay-increase/?lang=en

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqowe30

fqomm3t

I was surprised to get a newsletter announcing some pay increases for staff https://www.ukrant.nl/a-bonus-and-a-3-percent-pay-increase/?lang=en

uncanny

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqpecw4

fqohpsx

My university gave a 10% paycut to staff/professors and then a "reduction in pay" (no specified amount) to senior administration. The lack of specificity was glaring to say the least.

Thankfully we're only getting everything above hard truths at my institution. But we've formed committees to look at all the options

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqp6xy0

fqpecw4

When you have wolves managing your lambs, you're gotta have a bad time.

My university gave a 10% paycut to staff/professors and then a "reduction in pay" (no specified amount) to senior administration. The lack of specificity was glaring to say the least.

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqomm3t

fqpecw4

uncanny

My university gave a 10% paycut to staff/professors and then a "reduction in pay" (no specified amount) to senior administration. The lack of specificity was glaring to say the least.

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqpecw4

fqpafgl

My university gave a 10% paycut to staff/professors and then a "reduction in pay" (no specified amount) to senior administration. The lack of specificity was glaring to say the least.

This was so spot on it was scary

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqp6xy0

fqomm3t

When you have wolves managing your lambs, you're gotta have a bad time.

uncanny

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqq0whz

fqpkkvf

Serious question, why are US universities running out of money now? Did they have to pay back tuition? Is enrollment down for the next semester? From what I've heard, both seems to be... unlikely?

Mods - I'd like to report a hack into my e-mail account.

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqq0whz

fqpafgl

Serious question, why are US universities running out of money now? Did they have to pay back tuition? Is enrollment down for the next semester? From what I've heard, both seems to be... unlikely?

This was so spot on it was scary

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqpkkvf

fqqbnpz

Mods - I'd like to report a hack into my e-mail account.

Below are innumerable links to resources regarding best practices in pedagogy, technology, and social-emotional wellness. In the end, please understand that personal safety is not the college's responsibility, it is your own individual responsibility. To bond students more fully to the college, I am placing a set of funny stickers in your mailbox. Please apply these to your face shields before lecture. See you at work on Monday.

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqpkkvf

fqpafgl

Mods - I'd like to report a hack into my e-mail account.

This was so spot on it was scary

gk10as

askacademia_train

Have you been getting these emails from your ever-supportive senior administrators? Dear loyal workers of Flailing University, First off, let me start by making a distracting comment about how odd the situation feels and sharing what I think are some uncanny observations about “these times.” Next, I want to write something that sounds very empathic here. I want to put a lot of emphasis on saying how much I understand all your stresses now, ALL of them, every single one. I understand. Of course, I need to place some blanket praise here about how much we appreciate all that hard work and perseverance everyone has shown. Because this email is going to every single person employed at the school, these statements will feel as personal and uplifting as a sign stating: "Thank You for Not Smoking." Now, I will start to discuss the *hard truths*. I will discuss how enormous our budget shortfall is and how all the previous efforts, which I enumerate in detail, have not been enough to come even close to closing the gap. As a result, surely now you will see that we have no other option than to do the following: (1) Terminate all contract workers, non-tenure track faculty, and 65% of lower-level administrative staff. Fortunately, you will all qualify now for a special Coronavirus inspired extra unemployment bonus that, surely, will make this feel more like a glorious paid vacation if not winning the lottery. You can thank us later. (2) As for fortunate few staff allowed to remain (I bet you'd like to know if you're in this category, but let's keep the mystery), their [paid] hours will be reduced to a minimum. However, we all know their actually working hours will remain the same, maybe increase because now that they are working at home every waking hour is a potential working hour - and someone has to do the work of the 65% we’re letting go. (3) Thanks to all the tenure track faculty who are part of the Flailing University family. That’s why I know they will be more than glad to take on all the extra teaching needed (since we have purged all the teaching faculty, adjuncts, university-funded postdocs, researchers, assistants, and technicians) all while revising their curriculums to be entirely online, including lab sciences. A 25% pay cut will no doubt serve as a terrific incentive to work harder and maybe be able to get back to the barely living wage we were paying before. We all know it really doesn’t work like that, but you’ll try, won’t you! (4) All senior administration will be taking a 4.387% pay-cut. I want to close here but talking about how incredibly stressful, painful, even traumatizing it was for us - the senior administration - to make these decisions. We have screamed, we have cried, we rent our garments, we have gone up to as much as three times a week with our $300/hour shrinks. You see us being on a high perch here, but we're the ones suffering the most - always ready to take one on the chin for FU. I wish you all the best in this difficult time for everybody! We are all in this together! Sincerely, Senior Administrator

fqpafgl

fqqbnpz

This was so spot on it was scary

Below are innumerable links to resources regarding best practices in pedagogy, technology, and social-emotional wellness. In the end, please understand that personal safety is not the college's responsibility, it is your own individual responsibility. To bond students more fully to the college, I am placing a set of funny stickers in your mailbox. Please apply these to your face shields before lecture. See you at work on Monday.

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go3m2ge

go400hz

The academic job market is not the only market for scientists. We have challenges in the near and distant future: global climate change, human disease, energy, and too many more to list. If we're going to have a chance of solving any of these, we'll need scientists in academia, industry... and yes, policy and think tanks and government. I would hope for most science PhD programs aren't focused on one technique or one specific problem, but rather trains you on how to approach and tackle a problem given constraints and the resources you have available to you.

I think you will find that a lot of industry is really resting on a academic foundation. The erosion of that academic foundation is a huge problem. Every paper and technique we used in the drug company and in many biotech companies were academic. Maybe you took those 100 papers and that federally funded training and those first pilots and paper and ran with it and started your own company, but you weren’t going to get that in the company. All the drug companies, including the ones that made the vaccines , are relying on years of federally funded basic and clinical research. So as more people flee the system and funding to basic science is eroded you will lose that also.

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go3op1f

go400hz

>Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science? Yeah we complain about this all the time. The funding agencies (primarily NSF, NIH, but also DOE, DOD, etc) are basically the ones that determine it, and that's based on how much money they're given by the federal government... But the academic job market can't grow indefinitely and faculty turnover is greatly outpaced by the rate at which students graduate. If there is one graduate student per professor, they won't find jobs unless professors retire after six years. And they don't. But science wouldn't get done without graduate students, so we're stuck under the current model. Thankfully there are plenty of non-academic science jobs as u/drsomewhatevil points out and that's the saving grace for the academic job market.

I think you will find that a lot of industry is really resting on a academic foundation. The erosion of that academic foundation is a huge problem. Every paper and technique we used in the drug company and in many biotech companies were academic. Maybe you took those 100 papers and that federally funded training and those first pilots and paper and ran with it and started your own company, but you weren’t going to get that in the company. All the drug companies, including the ones that made the vaccines , are relying on years of federally funded basic and clinical research. So as more people flee the system and funding to basic science is eroded you will lose that also.

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go487xt

go3m2ge

I don't think that pushing people to become scientists is the same as pushing people to become professors. That said, I do think the way that we promote science to our society is problematic. From a careers perspective, there's this myth that getting a STEM degree means that you're guaranteed a good job, when most S and M jobs are really competitive and actually don't pay very well, at least until you get a higher degree. This really fucks over, say, vanilla biology undergrads.

The academic job market is not the only market for scientists. We have challenges in the near and distant future: global climate change, human disease, energy, and too many more to list. If we're going to have a chance of solving any of these, we'll need scientists in academia, industry... and yes, policy and think tanks and government. I would hope for most science PhD programs aren't focused on one technique or one specific problem, but rather trains you on how to approach and tackle a problem given constraints and the resources you have available to you.

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go487xt

go41sn3

I don't think that pushing people to become scientists is the same as pushing people to become professors. That said, I do think the way that we promote science to our society is problematic. From a careers perspective, there's this myth that getting a STEM degree means that you're guaranteed a good job, when most S and M jobs are really competitive and actually don't pay very well, at least until you get a higher degree. This really fucks over, say, vanilla biology undergrads.

Can people please stop spreading the idea that academia is the only path for scientists? It's utterly ridiculous and also why education is one of the slowest when it comes to innovating as we're stucl in an almost century old method of cultivating scientists.

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go3op1f

go487xt

>Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science? Yeah we complain about this all the time. The funding agencies (primarily NSF, NIH, but also DOE, DOD, etc) are basically the ones that determine it, and that's based on how much money they're given by the federal government... But the academic job market can't grow indefinitely and faculty turnover is greatly outpaced by the rate at which students graduate. If there is one graduate student per professor, they won't find jobs unless professors retire after six years. And they don't. But science wouldn't get done without graduate students, so we're stuck under the current model. Thankfully there are plenty of non-academic science jobs as u/drsomewhatevil points out and that's the saving grace for the academic job market.

I don't think that pushing people to become scientists is the same as pushing people to become professors. That said, I do think the way that we promote science to our society is problematic. From a careers perspective, there's this myth that getting a STEM degree means that you're guaranteed a good job, when most S and M jobs are really competitive and actually don't pay very well, at least until you get a higher degree. This really fucks over, say, vanilla biology undergrads.

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go41sn3

go3op1f

Can people please stop spreading the idea that academia is the only path for scientists? It's utterly ridiculous and also why education is one of the slowest when it comes to innovating as we're stucl in an almost century old method of cultivating scientists.

>Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science? Yeah we complain about this all the time. The funding agencies (primarily NSF, NIH, but also DOE, DOD, etc) are basically the ones that determine it, and that's based on how much money they're given by the federal government... But the academic job market can't grow indefinitely and faculty turnover is greatly outpaced by the rate at which students graduate. If there is one graduate student per professor, they won't find jobs unless professors retire after six years. And they don't. But science wouldn't get done without graduate students, so we're stuck under the current model. Thankfully there are plenty of non-academic science jobs as u/drsomewhatevil points out and that's the saving grace for the academic job market.

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go493iv

go3op1f

But there's been a culture shift in incoming PhD students as well. In my STEM area it used to be that almost everyone came in with the goal to be a professor. Now half of all incoming PhD students already come in with the intention of going into industry after their doctorate.

>Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science? Yeah we complain about this all the time. The funding agencies (primarily NSF, NIH, but also DOE, DOD, etc) are basically the ones that determine it, and that's based on how much money they're given by the federal government... But the academic job market can't grow indefinitely and faculty turnover is greatly outpaced by the rate at which students graduate. If there is one graduate student per professor, they won't find jobs unless professors retire after six years. And they don't. But science wouldn't get done without graduate students, so we're stuck under the current model. Thankfully there are plenty of non-academic science jobs as u/drsomewhatevil points out and that's the saving grace for the academic job market.

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go4h433

go4jtl7

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/stem-crisis-or-stem-surplus-yes-and-yes.htm This is a great article that discusses whether US has a STEM deficit or a STEM surplus

All I can say is that I studied biology instead of English in college because of the « study stem! You’ll have a job! » push, and when I graduated it was nearly impossible to get a job as a biologist. People that have a BA in STEM and don’t want to be a computer scientist can get a job as a teacher pretty easily. But who wants to be a science teacher? In addition to trying to do all of the things most teachers have to do (that could easily be multiple people’s jobs), they have to set up labs, get materials, organize materials, clean up labs... All of this to say I wish I had studied English, so I had at least struggled to get a job in a field I loved most...

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go4cbtl

go4jtl7

We have to be careful as this is a slippery slope. Industry R&D positions are also saturated similar to academia, and this is beginning to spill into other career paths. Soon even biotech sales or PM positions will also require PhD at the entry level. But agreed, academia should do more to retain and employ students. Postdocs can become staff scientists or something.

All I can say is that I studied biology instead of English in college because of the « study stem! You’ll have a job! » push, and when I graduated it was nearly impossible to get a job as a biologist. People that have a BA in STEM and don’t want to be a computer scientist can get a job as a teacher pretty easily. But who wants to be a science teacher? In addition to trying to do all of the things most teachers have to do (that could easily be multiple people’s jobs), they have to set up labs, get materials, organize materials, clean up labs... All of this to say I wish I had studied English, so I had at least struggled to get a job in a field I loved most...

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go4ft8t

go4jtl7

The US government notice a deficit in supply of STEM graduates that will work in industry, not a deficit in supply of STEM PhDs

All I can say is that I studied biology instead of English in college because of the « study stem! You’ll have a job! » push, and when I graduated it was nearly impossible to get a job as a biologist. People that have a BA in STEM and don’t want to be a computer scientist can get a job as a teacher pretty easily. But who wants to be a science teacher? In addition to trying to do all of the things most teachers have to do (that could easily be multiple people’s jobs), they have to set up labs, get materials, organize materials, clean up labs... All of this to say I wish I had studied English, so I had at least struggled to get a job in a field I loved most...

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go4i3sr

go4jtl7

If your question is, do faculty promote increasing the size of the faculty, absolutely yes. However, this is a local issue of funding and faculty do not have decision powers at a university. We can advocate, but ultimately, some Dean, VP/Provost, or President/Chancellor makes those calls whether to hire an assistant VP of donor outreach or an assistant professor of chemistry. All academic research societies I am aware of that have sufficient membership/funds attempt to lobby the federal government for increased funding for research grants. If universities see an opportunity to make more grant dollars they will invest more in STEM faculty and labs (eg. if a professor gets a $1 million grant, the university gets a check for over $1.5 and gets to keep the difference). But, as others have said, being a professor is not the only pathway for PhDs in STEM. Many other posts have mentioned industry R&D. In addition, there are government lab (DoE national labs, NASA, NIH intramural, DOD, CDC, VA, etc.). There are also non-profit research institutions (Woods Hole, Allen Institute, SRI, etc.). There is also need for science adjacent positions, working in policy and oversight at both the local level (ie, at universities), state, and national level. You also have industry jobs that are not directly R&D. One of my former students sells research equipment. When I was a post-doc, I was recruited for a job that would have me traveling to meet with faculty to get them excited about and help facilitate them writing research grants to a company (plus do expert testimony for government and regulatory agencies). My point being, there are lots of opportunities for scientists outside of academia so it is not dishonest for faculty to promote others going into STEM. Unemployment for PhDs is something like 1-2%. They find jobs. All that being said, outside of a few disciplines, we do not have near the shortage of STEM majors some policy makers (and industry that wants to drive down labor costs) would have you believe.

All I can say is that I studied biology instead of English in college because of the « study stem! You’ll have a job! » push, and when I graduated it was nearly impossible to get a job as a biologist. People that have a BA in STEM and don’t want to be a computer scientist can get a job as a teacher pretty easily. But who wants to be a science teacher? In addition to trying to do all of the things most teachers have to do (that could easily be multiple people’s jobs), they have to set up labs, get materials, organize materials, clean up labs... All of this to say I wish I had studied English, so I had at least struggled to get a job in a field I loved most...

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go4cbtl

go4h433

We have to be careful as this is a slippery slope. Industry R&D positions are also saturated similar to academia, and this is beginning to spill into other career paths. Soon even biotech sales or PM positions will also require PhD at the entry level. But agreed, academia should do more to retain and employ students. Postdocs can become staff scientists or something.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/stem-crisis-or-stem-surplus-yes-and-yes.htm This is a great article that discusses whether US has a STEM deficit or a STEM surplus

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go4ft8t

go4h433

The US government notice a deficit in supply of STEM graduates that will work in industry, not a deficit in supply of STEM PhDs

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/stem-crisis-or-stem-surplus-yes-and-yes.htm This is a great article that discusses whether US has a STEM deficit or a STEM surplus

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go4q4yu

go4cbtl

Of course there are efforts to do this. For example, the National Council for Science and the Environment has been lobbying for 20+ years for increases in NSF funding, support for things like NREL, applied research, and investments in energy/climate related work. There are many, many other organizations doing similar work. The problem is that 1) half or more of the Congress are now actively anti-science and opposed to government investment in almost anything that isn't defense-related, 2) that same half is also mostly opposed to higher education, and 3) overall public support for research and teaching reflects (or drives) those divisions. So we aren't going to see any sort of moonshot style investments in science, research, or higher ed probably ever again. There's also a major problem in academia, often labeled as the "neoliberal business models of university administration." Whatever you call it, the basic premise is to run higher ed like a business, to wring profit from all operations and cut costs just like they would at GE or WalMart. This is one of the drivers for admin inflation-- the ranks of VPs and directors and other managers which have proliferated over the last 20 years while faculty lines have been cut. Since labor is the largest cost in running most universities, that's where the cuts have been made--- contingent labor has replaced tenure-track faculty virtually everywhere and those who remain are of course "doing more with less" each year. Exceptions for a few elite institutions of course, but for most of us that's the drill. None of this is going to change without a major political/cultural shift in the US. 25 years ago I thought climate change might drive that, but instead we've actually gone in the opposite direction due to our toxic politics.

We have to be careful as this is a slippery slope. Industry R&D positions are also saturated similar to academia, and this is beginning to spill into other career paths. Soon even biotech sales or PM positions will also require PhD at the entry level. But agreed, academia should do more to retain and employ students. Postdocs can become staff scientists or something.

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go4q4yu

go4ft8t

Of course there are efforts to do this. For example, the National Council for Science and the Environment has been lobbying for 20+ years for increases in NSF funding, support for things like NREL, applied research, and investments in energy/climate related work. There are many, many other organizations doing similar work. The problem is that 1) half or more of the Congress are now actively anti-science and opposed to government investment in almost anything that isn't defense-related, 2) that same half is also mostly opposed to higher education, and 3) overall public support for research and teaching reflects (or drives) those divisions. So we aren't going to see any sort of moonshot style investments in science, research, or higher ed probably ever again. There's also a major problem in academia, often labeled as the "neoliberal business models of university administration." Whatever you call it, the basic premise is to run higher ed like a business, to wring profit from all operations and cut costs just like they would at GE or WalMart. This is one of the drivers for admin inflation-- the ranks of VPs and directors and other managers which have proliferated over the last 20 years while faculty lines have been cut. Since labor is the largest cost in running most universities, that's where the cuts have been made--- contingent labor has replaced tenure-track faculty virtually everywhere and those who remain are of course "doing more with less" each year. Exceptions for a few elite institutions of course, but for most of us that's the drill. None of this is going to change without a major political/cultural shift in the US. 25 years ago I thought climate change might drive that, but instead we've actually gone in the opposite direction due to our toxic politics.

The US government notice a deficit in supply of STEM graduates that will work in industry, not a deficit in supply of STEM PhDs

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go4i3sr

go4q4yu

If your question is, do faculty promote increasing the size of the faculty, absolutely yes. However, this is a local issue of funding and faculty do not have decision powers at a university. We can advocate, but ultimately, some Dean, VP/Provost, or President/Chancellor makes those calls whether to hire an assistant VP of donor outreach or an assistant professor of chemistry. All academic research societies I am aware of that have sufficient membership/funds attempt to lobby the federal government for increased funding for research grants. If universities see an opportunity to make more grant dollars they will invest more in STEM faculty and labs (eg. if a professor gets a $1 million grant, the university gets a check for over $1.5 and gets to keep the difference). But, as others have said, being a professor is not the only pathway for PhDs in STEM. Many other posts have mentioned industry R&D. In addition, there are government lab (DoE national labs, NASA, NIH intramural, DOD, CDC, VA, etc.). There are also non-profit research institutions (Woods Hole, Allen Institute, SRI, etc.). There is also need for science adjacent positions, working in policy and oversight at both the local level (ie, at universities), state, and national level. You also have industry jobs that are not directly R&D. One of my former students sells research equipment. When I was a post-doc, I was recruited for a job that would have me traveling to meet with faculty to get them excited about and help facilitate them writing research grants to a company (plus do expert testimony for government and regulatory agencies). My point being, there are lots of opportunities for scientists outside of academia so it is not dishonest for faculty to promote others going into STEM. Unemployment for PhDs is something like 1-2%. They find jobs. All that being said, outside of a few disciplines, we do not have near the shortage of STEM majors some policy makers (and industry that wants to drive down labor costs) would have you believe.

Of course there are efforts to do this. For example, the National Council for Science and the Environment has been lobbying for 20+ years for increases in NSF funding, support for things like NREL, applied research, and investments in energy/climate related work. There are many, many other organizations doing similar work. The problem is that 1) half or more of the Congress are now actively anti-science and opposed to government investment in almost anything that isn't defense-related, 2) that same half is also mostly opposed to higher education, and 3) overall public support for research and teaching reflects (or drives) those divisions. So we aren't going to see any sort of moonshot style investments in science, research, or higher ed probably ever again. There's also a major problem in academia, often labeled as the "neoliberal business models of university administration." Whatever you call it, the basic premise is to run higher ed like a business, to wring profit from all operations and cut costs just like they would at GE or WalMart. This is one of the drivers for admin inflation-- the ranks of VPs and directors and other managers which have proliferated over the last 20 years while faculty lines have been cut. Since labor is the largest cost in running most universities, that's where the cuts have been made--- contingent labor has replaced tenure-track faculty virtually everywhere and those who remain are of course "doing more with less" each year. Exceptions for a few elite institutions of course, but for most of us that's the drill. None of this is going to change without a major political/cultural shift in the US. 25 years ago I thought climate change might drive that, but instead we've actually gone in the opposite direction due to our toxic politics.

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go4kuhp

go4q4yu

People here have pointed out that industry jobs exist. That's nice. But we have a ways to go before we can really claim that our skills are being reasonably assessed by non-academic employers.

Of course there are efforts to do this. For example, the National Council for Science and the Environment has been lobbying for 20+ years for increases in NSF funding, support for things like NREL, applied research, and investments in energy/climate related work. There are many, many other organizations doing similar work. The problem is that 1) half or more of the Congress are now actively anti-science and opposed to government investment in almost anything that isn't defense-related, 2) that same half is also mostly opposed to higher education, and 3) overall public support for research and teaching reflects (or drives) those divisions. So we aren't going to see any sort of moonshot style investments in science, research, or higher ed probably ever again. There's also a major problem in academia, often labeled as the "neoliberal business models of university administration." Whatever you call it, the basic premise is to run higher ed like a business, to wring profit from all operations and cut costs just like they would at GE or WalMart. This is one of the drivers for admin inflation-- the ranks of VPs and directors and other managers which have proliferated over the last 20 years while faculty lines have been cut. Since labor is the largest cost in running most universities, that's where the cuts have been made--- contingent labor has replaced tenure-track faculty virtually everywhere and those who remain are of course "doing more with less" each year. Exceptions for a few elite institutions of course, but for most of us that's the drill. None of this is going to change without a major political/cultural shift in the US. 25 years ago I thought climate change might drive that, but instead we've actually gone in the opposite direction due to our toxic politics.

lo1vtp

askacademia_train

So much effort about encouraging young people to do science, what about creating more jobs in academia? I am watching this increasing trend of scientists encouraging youngsters to become scientists for the last couple of years. However, whenever I visit the r/AskAcademia subreddit, I find some posts about the poor condition of the academic job market. Now, what's the point of telling young people to become scientists, when there's not much scope to really do so. Now, my question do academics reach out to the authorities to fund/ create more academic jobs or not? If yes, do you know about the details of this effort? If no, why don't academics do more to really promote science?

go4ft8t

go4i3sr

The US government notice a deficit in supply of STEM graduates that will work in industry, not a deficit in supply of STEM PhDs

If your question is, do faculty promote increasing the size of the faculty, absolutely yes. However, this is a local issue of funding and faculty do not have decision powers at a university. We can advocate, but ultimately, some Dean, VP/Provost, or President/Chancellor makes those calls whether to hire an assistant VP of donor outreach or an assistant professor of chemistry. All academic research societies I am aware of that have sufficient membership/funds attempt to lobby the federal government for increased funding for research grants. If universities see an opportunity to make more grant dollars they will invest more in STEM faculty and labs (eg. if a professor gets a $1 million grant, the university gets a check for over $1.5 and gets to keep the difference). But, as others have said, being a professor is not the only pathway for PhDs in STEM. Many other posts have mentioned industry R&D. In addition, there are government lab (DoE national labs, NASA, NIH intramural, DOD, CDC, VA, etc.). There are also non-profit research institutions (Woods Hole, Allen Institute, SRI, etc.). There is also need for science adjacent positions, working in policy and oversight at both the local level (ie, at universities), state, and national level. You also have industry jobs that are not directly R&D. One of my former students sells research equipment. When I was a post-doc, I was recruited for a job that would have me traveling to meet with faculty to get them excited about and help facilitate them writing research grants to a company (plus do expert testimony for government and regulatory agencies). My point being, there are lots of opportunities for scientists outside of academia so it is not dishonest for faculty to promote others going into STEM. Unemployment for PhDs is something like 1-2%. They find jobs. All that being said, outside of a few disciplines, we do not have near the shortage of STEM majors some policy makers (and industry that wants to drive down labor costs) would have you believe.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftlvlx

gftt0ou

As I was told and now tell people “I didn’t spend 11 years in college to be called *Mister*”

Beyond the misogyny and everything else commented here, the op-ed belittles her dissertation, "Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students' Needs", calling it "unpromising" based on its title. (1) Fuck you. Community college is an incredibly important dimension of US Higher Education, serving over 40% of all college students, and studying retention at CC is very valuable. (2) Being given a platform to judge a dissertation by its title, as opposed to its content, is the epitome of "sound\[ing\] and feel\[ing\] fraudulent, not to say a touch comic".

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftt0ou

gftov17

Beyond the misogyny and everything else commented here, the op-ed belittles her dissertation, "Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students' Needs", calling it "unpromising" based on its title. (1) Fuck you. Community college is an incredibly important dimension of US Higher Education, serving over 40% of all college students, and studying retention at CC is very valuable. (2) Being given a platform to judge a dissertation by its title, as opposed to its content, is the epitome of "sound\[ing\] and feel\[ing\] fraudulent, not to say a touch comic".

There are obviously two problems with article. The biggest, by far, is the blatant and disgusting misogyny. The second is the denigration of the use of the honorific “Doctor” by PhDs. The word is actually in the name of the degree, exactly the same as in those obtained by MDs. There is zero pretense in using it, and I believe that argument was included only to allow the author to (implausibly) deny the misogyny. BTW, “doctor” comes from the Latin docēre, which means to teach or to lead. It was originally used to describe theologians and later other scholars. The use by medical doctors came later.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftt0ou

gftqyut

Beyond the misogyny and everything else commented here, the op-ed belittles her dissertation, "Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students' Needs", calling it "unpromising" based on its title. (1) Fuck you. Community college is an incredibly important dimension of US Higher Education, serving over 40% of all college students, and studying retention at CC is very valuable. (2) Being given a platform to judge a dissertation by its title, as opposed to its content, is the epitome of "sound\[ing\] and feel\[ing\] fraudulent, not to say a touch comic".

> I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. I mean, why not both? Real people are complicated and this guy is a piece of work. The reason it is condemned for misogyny is because people only feel clever asking this kind of question when it's a woman who has the doctorate. That's the misogyny — along with the "kiddo" and other sorts of things that imply that he thinks he is superior to her despite his being a total piece of shit. The fact that it is also deeply ignorant and anti-intellectual is part of that, too.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftt0ou

gftowwu

Beyond the misogyny and everything else commented here, the op-ed belittles her dissertation, "Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students' Needs", calling it "unpromising" based on its title. (1) Fuck you. Community college is an incredibly important dimension of US Higher Education, serving over 40% of all college students, and studying retention at CC is very valuable. (2) Being given a platform to judge a dissertation by its title, as opposed to its content, is the epitome of "sound\[ing\] and feel\[ing\] fraudulent, not to say a touch comic".

There are several issues and honestly the whole topic is a mess that can't possibly be unraveled in a reddit comment. First, the Dr. she is using is valid and is in no way fraudulent. As you rightly point out, the article is a politically motivated and frankly quite vile piece of crap. So I don't think trying to approach this from his ramblings can lead to anything productive. I will say that she has an EdD, which is not a PhD. It is still a doctorate which confers the right to be called Dr. but I believe it's not ONLY misogyny, as if that would not be enough, but also a deep seated disrespect for non-STEM or medicine-related fields. So yes the problems in that article are...well, it's a shitshow in many different ways. But maybe let's start over and ask ourselves about degrees, their meaning, their value and the use of 'doctor'. Not only is there a complicated history of who is called 'doctor', there is furthermore a complicated history of class and degrees as a whole. First of all, doctor was originally used for learned academics - people who lecture at academies and universities. The use of doctor for medical doctors is significantly more recent, so historically speaking it is the medical doctors who began to use this nomenclature. But does this matter? Language is flexible and as long as everybody understands what is being said in what context, ambiguity can be fine. It is not particularly common outside of jokes that medical doctors and doctors in the original sense of what is nowadays called PhDs are confused, so language wise it's mostly fine. In many western countries there has recently been a mostly men/male-driven push to not focusing on degrees so much. This is often because they feel uncomfortable with being treated differently simply because of their level of education or job, it can feel awkward to be called Mr. for many people in their young adulthood, let alone Dr. That along with their internalization of themselves as belonging to what is perceived as a privileged group with somewhat easier access or at least less pressures not to do so, makes them want to be chill about it, play it down, and in general you will find most young men in academia like first name basis, casual talk. This may on the surface seem like a good thing, and as a young adult man in mathematics I feel these sentiments too. However, this now puts the people who are first generation academics or people who have so far been minorities in academia into an awkward position: Because a large majority of young men are attempting to play down their degrees and status after attaining their doctorate, now all of a sudden it makes people think of women or first gens or ethnical minorities who wish to carry their title as a sign of their achievement as arrogant or stuck up. You will find these sorts of things a lot on Twitter. Someone adds Dr to their handle, then a bunch of people comment why they feel the need to point it out - usually in reference with a lot of their colleagues or acquaintances not doing that. But the circumstance is different for these people, they feel like they belong to a group which has historically been denied this privilege and now after finally also attaining it, they are once again being denied to carry it because most men are, for in my opinion good reasons and with good intention, trying to dismantle the whole degree structure. In a way, and in a vacuum, I think most people agree that we would be better off if degrees had no such role in our lives, if Dr. did not modify the way you are generically addressed, just as I think we all agree that Mrs. and Miss in a historical vacuum is ludicrous. But we don't live in a historical vacuum. We have to deal with the past and the implications that have grown out of our use of language. So while I and many others in my position, based on modern values, feel a need to downplay our education and to remove this "Dr." calling stuff, for many people this is a social status that they feel they've been denied despite, of course, rightfully now having earned it. So as I said, this is a complicated mess. It seems recently because of absolute jackasses like Epstein who are literally trying to deny people their degrees, younger men have started to, somewhat reluctantly, also wear their doctorates again, e.g. on Twitter and other social media, to make it clear that it is perfectly correct that someone who has earned that degree has indeed earned it. It's all a mess, you see. Nobody in their right mind would invent such a system nowadays but we have to deal with what is not what we want. And what is, is that any woman, minority and of course every single PERSON, who completes a doctorate at a well regarded university (by which I mean not a degree mill), deserves to be called by the degree which they signed up for and completed if they so desire. As a small side note, in some countries like Germany and Austria, the doctorate literally confers a name change of adding Dr. to your name, and the masters degree until recently used to literally change your name to include Mag. (magister, which means teacher). When the Mag. title was removed and became the MSc and MA during the Bologna process in the EU, there were massive shitstorms about people being denied their right to be Herr / Frau Mag. Many people rushed their degrees so they could complete it with the old Mag instead of the new post-name optional international masters degrees. So it is not impossible to get rid of such structure but it IS difficult and people hate it. Both for valid and for invalid reasons. We also can't generalize over all countries and cultures, it's unfortunately all a complicated mess. Apologies for the long post, hope some of my pointers made sense and lead you down useful thoughts.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftrwu3

gftt0ou

I think the thesis here is that the WSJ is a trash publication that exists for risky clicks. I don't get why it's "fraudulent" for a person who has a PhD to call themselves Dr, so I feel like his whole argument is moot.

Beyond the misogyny and everything else commented here, the op-ed belittles her dissertation, "Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students' Needs", calling it "unpromising" based on its title. (1) Fuck you. Community college is an incredibly important dimension of US Higher Education, serving over 40% of all college students, and studying retention at CC is very valuable. (2) Being given a platform to judge a dissertation by its title, as opposed to its content, is the epitome of "sound\[ing\] and feel\[ing\] fraudulent, not to say a touch comic".

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftrzvm

gftt0ou

I am always hesitant and sometimes feel odd about using “Dr” because of the confusion. I don’t work in academia ( but it is a setting with a good deal of MD’s) and everyone uses first names except in the most formal of meetings with those outside our organization.

Beyond the misogyny and everything else commented here, the op-ed belittles her dissertation, "Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students' Needs", calling it "unpromising" based on its title. (1) Fuck you. Community college is an incredibly important dimension of US Higher Education, serving over 40% of all college students, and studying retention at CC is very valuable. (2) Being given a platform to judge a dissertation by its title, as opposed to its content, is the epitome of "sound\[ing\] and feel\[ing\] fraudulent, not to say a touch comic".

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftw4z0

gftqyut

I stopped reading the article after “kiddo”

> I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. I mean, why not both? Real people are complicated and this guy is a piece of work. The reason it is condemned for misogyny is because people only feel clever asking this kind of question when it's a woman who has the doctorate. That's the misogyny — along with the "kiddo" and other sorts of things that imply that he thinks he is superior to her despite his being a total piece of shit. The fact that it is also deeply ignorant and anti-intellectual is part of that, too.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftw4z0

gftowwu

I stopped reading the article after “kiddo”

There are several issues and honestly the whole topic is a mess that can't possibly be unraveled in a reddit comment. First, the Dr. she is using is valid and is in no way fraudulent. As you rightly point out, the article is a politically motivated and frankly quite vile piece of crap. So I don't think trying to approach this from his ramblings can lead to anything productive. I will say that she has an EdD, which is not a PhD. It is still a doctorate which confers the right to be called Dr. but I believe it's not ONLY misogyny, as if that would not be enough, but also a deep seated disrespect for non-STEM or medicine-related fields. So yes the problems in that article are...well, it's a shitshow in many different ways. But maybe let's start over and ask ourselves about degrees, their meaning, their value and the use of 'doctor'. Not only is there a complicated history of who is called 'doctor', there is furthermore a complicated history of class and degrees as a whole. First of all, doctor was originally used for learned academics - people who lecture at academies and universities. The use of doctor for medical doctors is significantly more recent, so historically speaking it is the medical doctors who began to use this nomenclature. But does this matter? Language is flexible and as long as everybody understands what is being said in what context, ambiguity can be fine. It is not particularly common outside of jokes that medical doctors and doctors in the original sense of what is nowadays called PhDs are confused, so language wise it's mostly fine. In many western countries there has recently been a mostly men/male-driven push to not focusing on degrees so much. This is often because they feel uncomfortable with being treated differently simply because of their level of education or job, it can feel awkward to be called Mr. for many people in their young adulthood, let alone Dr. That along with their internalization of themselves as belonging to what is perceived as a privileged group with somewhat easier access or at least less pressures not to do so, makes them want to be chill about it, play it down, and in general you will find most young men in academia like first name basis, casual talk. This may on the surface seem like a good thing, and as a young adult man in mathematics I feel these sentiments too. However, this now puts the people who are first generation academics or people who have so far been minorities in academia into an awkward position: Because a large majority of young men are attempting to play down their degrees and status after attaining their doctorate, now all of a sudden it makes people think of women or first gens or ethnical minorities who wish to carry their title as a sign of their achievement as arrogant or stuck up. You will find these sorts of things a lot on Twitter. Someone adds Dr to their handle, then a bunch of people comment why they feel the need to point it out - usually in reference with a lot of their colleagues or acquaintances not doing that. But the circumstance is different for these people, they feel like they belong to a group which has historically been denied this privilege and now after finally also attaining it, they are once again being denied to carry it because most men are, for in my opinion good reasons and with good intention, trying to dismantle the whole degree structure. In a way, and in a vacuum, I think most people agree that we would be better off if degrees had no such role in our lives, if Dr. did not modify the way you are generically addressed, just as I think we all agree that Mrs. and Miss in a historical vacuum is ludicrous. But we don't live in a historical vacuum. We have to deal with the past and the implications that have grown out of our use of language. So while I and many others in my position, based on modern values, feel a need to downplay our education and to remove this "Dr." calling stuff, for many people this is a social status that they feel they've been denied despite, of course, rightfully now having earned it. So as I said, this is a complicated mess. It seems recently because of absolute jackasses like Epstein who are literally trying to deny people their degrees, younger men have started to, somewhat reluctantly, also wear their doctorates again, e.g. on Twitter and other social media, to make it clear that it is perfectly correct that someone who has earned that degree has indeed earned it. It's all a mess, you see. Nobody in their right mind would invent such a system nowadays but we have to deal with what is not what we want. And what is, is that any woman, minority and of course every single PERSON, who completes a doctorate at a well regarded university (by which I mean not a degree mill), deserves to be called by the degree which they signed up for and completed if they so desire. As a small side note, in some countries like Germany and Austria, the doctorate literally confers a name change of adding Dr. to your name, and the masters degree until recently used to literally change your name to include Mag. (magister, which means teacher). When the Mag. title was removed and became the MSc and MA during the Bologna process in the EU, there were massive shitstorms about people being denied their right to be Herr / Frau Mag. Many people rushed their degrees so they could complete it with the old Mag instead of the new post-name optional international masters degrees. So it is not impossible to get rid of such structure but it IS difficult and people hate it. Both for valid and for invalid reasons. We also can't generalize over all countries and cultures, it's unfortunately all a complicated mess. Apologies for the long post, hope some of my pointers made sense and lead you down useful thoughts.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftrwu3

gftw4z0

I think the thesis here is that the WSJ is a trash publication that exists for risky clicks. I don't get why it's "fraudulent" for a person who has a PhD to call themselves Dr, so I feel like his whole argument is moot.

I stopped reading the article after “kiddo”

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftw4z0

gftuvu6

I stopped reading the article after “kiddo”

Doctor meant teacher and well-educated a lot longer than it meant medical professional. You've earned the title, you use it when you want.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftw4z0

gftrzvm

I stopped reading the article after “kiddo”

I am always hesitant and sometimes feel odd about using “Dr” because of the confusion. I don’t work in academia ( but it is a setting with a good deal of MD’s) and everyone uses first names except in the most formal of meetings with those outside our organization.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftqyut

gftx32t

> I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. I mean, why not both? Real people are complicated and this guy is a piece of work. The reason it is condemned for misogyny is because people only feel clever asking this kind of question when it's a woman who has the doctorate. That's the misogyny — along with the "kiddo" and other sorts of things that imply that he thinks he is superior to her despite his being a total piece of shit. The fact that it is also deeply ignorant and anti-intellectual is part of that, too.

And where the hell did he hear the phrase about only being able to call yourself a doctor if you’ve delivered a baby? Correct me if I’m wrong, but historically (globally) haven’t midwives traditionally delivered most babies while doctors were called in under special circumstances? (Or have I watched too much “Call the Midwife?”)

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftx32t

gftowwu

And where the hell did he hear the phrase about only being able to call yourself a doctor if you’ve delivered a baby? Correct me if I’m wrong, but historically (globally) haven’t midwives traditionally delivered most babies while doctors were called in under special circumstances? (Or have I watched too much “Call the Midwife?”)

There are several issues and honestly the whole topic is a mess that can't possibly be unraveled in a reddit comment. First, the Dr. she is using is valid and is in no way fraudulent. As you rightly point out, the article is a politically motivated and frankly quite vile piece of crap. So I don't think trying to approach this from his ramblings can lead to anything productive. I will say that she has an EdD, which is not a PhD. It is still a doctorate which confers the right to be called Dr. but I believe it's not ONLY misogyny, as if that would not be enough, but also a deep seated disrespect for non-STEM or medicine-related fields. So yes the problems in that article are...well, it's a shitshow in many different ways. But maybe let's start over and ask ourselves about degrees, their meaning, their value and the use of 'doctor'. Not only is there a complicated history of who is called 'doctor', there is furthermore a complicated history of class and degrees as a whole. First of all, doctor was originally used for learned academics - people who lecture at academies and universities. The use of doctor for medical doctors is significantly more recent, so historically speaking it is the medical doctors who began to use this nomenclature. But does this matter? Language is flexible and as long as everybody understands what is being said in what context, ambiguity can be fine. It is not particularly common outside of jokes that medical doctors and doctors in the original sense of what is nowadays called PhDs are confused, so language wise it's mostly fine. In many western countries there has recently been a mostly men/male-driven push to not focusing on degrees so much. This is often because they feel uncomfortable with being treated differently simply because of their level of education or job, it can feel awkward to be called Mr. for many people in their young adulthood, let alone Dr. That along with their internalization of themselves as belonging to what is perceived as a privileged group with somewhat easier access or at least less pressures not to do so, makes them want to be chill about it, play it down, and in general you will find most young men in academia like first name basis, casual talk. This may on the surface seem like a good thing, and as a young adult man in mathematics I feel these sentiments too. However, this now puts the people who are first generation academics or people who have so far been minorities in academia into an awkward position: Because a large majority of young men are attempting to play down their degrees and status after attaining their doctorate, now all of a sudden it makes people think of women or first gens or ethnical minorities who wish to carry their title as a sign of their achievement as arrogant or stuck up. You will find these sorts of things a lot on Twitter. Someone adds Dr to their handle, then a bunch of people comment why they feel the need to point it out - usually in reference with a lot of their colleagues or acquaintances not doing that. But the circumstance is different for these people, they feel like they belong to a group which has historically been denied this privilege and now after finally also attaining it, they are once again being denied to carry it because most men are, for in my opinion good reasons and with good intention, trying to dismantle the whole degree structure. In a way, and in a vacuum, I think most people agree that we would be better off if degrees had no such role in our lives, if Dr. did not modify the way you are generically addressed, just as I think we all agree that Mrs. and Miss in a historical vacuum is ludicrous. But we don't live in a historical vacuum. We have to deal with the past and the implications that have grown out of our use of language. So while I and many others in my position, based on modern values, feel a need to downplay our education and to remove this "Dr." calling stuff, for many people this is a social status that they feel they've been denied despite, of course, rightfully now having earned it. So as I said, this is a complicated mess. It seems recently because of absolute jackasses like Epstein who are literally trying to deny people their degrees, younger men have started to, somewhat reluctantly, also wear their doctorates again, e.g. on Twitter and other social media, to make it clear that it is perfectly correct that someone who has earned that degree has indeed earned it. It's all a mess, you see. Nobody in their right mind would invent such a system nowadays but we have to deal with what is not what we want. And what is, is that any woman, minority and of course every single PERSON, who completes a doctorate at a well regarded university (by which I mean not a degree mill), deserves to be called by the degree which they signed up for and completed if they so desire. As a small side note, in some countries like Germany and Austria, the doctorate literally confers a name change of adding Dr. to your name, and the masters degree until recently used to literally change your name to include Mag. (magister, which means teacher). When the Mag. title was removed and became the MSc and MA during the Bologna process in the EU, there were massive shitstorms about people being denied their right to be Herr / Frau Mag. Many people rushed their degrees so they could complete it with the old Mag instead of the new post-name optional international masters degrees. So it is not impossible to get rid of such structure but it IS difficult and people hate it. Both for valid and for invalid reasons. We also can't generalize over all countries and cultures, it's unfortunately all a complicated mess. Apologies for the long post, hope some of my pointers made sense and lead you down useful thoughts.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftx32t

gftrwu3

And where the hell did he hear the phrase about only being able to call yourself a doctor if you’ve delivered a baby? Correct me if I’m wrong, but historically (globally) haven’t midwives traditionally delivered most babies while doctors were called in under special circumstances? (Or have I watched too much “Call the Midwife?”)

I think the thesis here is that the WSJ is a trash publication that exists for risky clicks. I don't get why it's "fraudulent" for a person who has a PhD to call themselves Dr, so I feel like his whole argument is moot.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftx32t

gftuvu6

And where the hell did he hear the phrase about only being able to call yourself a doctor if you’ve delivered a baby? Correct me if I’m wrong, but historically (globally) haven’t midwives traditionally delivered most babies while doctors were called in under special circumstances? (Or have I watched too much “Call the Midwife?”)

Doctor meant teacher and well-educated a lot longer than it meant medical professional. You've earned the title, you use it when you want.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftx32t

gftrzvm

And where the hell did he hear the phrase about only being able to call yourself a doctor if you’ve delivered a baby? Correct me if I’m wrong, but historically (globally) haven’t midwives traditionally delivered most babies while doctors were called in under special circumstances? (Or have I watched too much “Call the Midwife?”)

I am always hesitant and sometimes feel odd about using “Dr” because of the confusion. I don’t work in academia ( but it is a setting with a good deal of MD’s) and everyone uses first names except in the most formal of meetings with those outside our organization.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftqyut

gftowwu

> I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. I mean, why not both? Real people are complicated and this guy is a piece of work. The reason it is condemned for misogyny is because people only feel clever asking this kind of question when it's a woman who has the doctorate. That's the misogyny — along with the "kiddo" and other sorts of things that imply that he thinks he is superior to her despite his being a total piece of shit. The fact that it is also deeply ignorant and anti-intellectual is part of that, too.

There are several issues and honestly the whole topic is a mess that can't possibly be unraveled in a reddit comment. First, the Dr. she is using is valid and is in no way fraudulent. As you rightly point out, the article is a politically motivated and frankly quite vile piece of crap. So I don't think trying to approach this from his ramblings can lead to anything productive. I will say that she has an EdD, which is not a PhD. It is still a doctorate which confers the right to be called Dr. but I believe it's not ONLY misogyny, as if that would not be enough, but also a deep seated disrespect for non-STEM or medicine-related fields. So yes the problems in that article are...well, it's a shitshow in many different ways. But maybe let's start over and ask ourselves about degrees, their meaning, their value and the use of 'doctor'. Not only is there a complicated history of who is called 'doctor', there is furthermore a complicated history of class and degrees as a whole. First of all, doctor was originally used for learned academics - people who lecture at academies and universities. The use of doctor for medical doctors is significantly more recent, so historically speaking it is the medical doctors who began to use this nomenclature. But does this matter? Language is flexible and as long as everybody understands what is being said in what context, ambiguity can be fine. It is not particularly common outside of jokes that medical doctors and doctors in the original sense of what is nowadays called PhDs are confused, so language wise it's mostly fine. In many western countries there has recently been a mostly men/male-driven push to not focusing on degrees so much. This is often because they feel uncomfortable with being treated differently simply because of their level of education or job, it can feel awkward to be called Mr. for many people in their young adulthood, let alone Dr. That along with their internalization of themselves as belonging to what is perceived as a privileged group with somewhat easier access or at least less pressures not to do so, makes them want to be chill about it, play it down, and in general you will find most young men in academia like first name basis, casual talk. This may on the surface seem like a good thing, and as a young adult man in mathematics I feel these sentiments too. However, this now puts the people who are first generation academics or people who have so far been minorities in academia into an awkward position: Because a large majority of young men are attempting to play down their degrees and status after attaining their doctorate, now all of a sudden it makes people think of women or first gens or ethnical minorities who wish to carry their title as a sign of their achievement as arrogant or stuck up. You will find these sorts of things a lot on Twitter. Someone adds Dr to their handle, then a bunch of people comment why they feel the need to point it out - usually in reference with a lot of their colleagues or acquaintances not doing that. But the circumstance is different for these people, they feel like they belong to a group which has historically been denied this privilege and now after finally also attaining it, they are once again being denied to carry it because most men are, for in my opinion good reasons and with good intention, trying to dismantle the whole degree structure. In a way, and in a vacuum, I think most people agree that we would be better off if degrees had no such role in our lives, if Dr. did not modify the way you are generically addressed, just as I think we all agree that Mrs. and Miss in a historical vacuum is ludicrous. But we don't live in a historical vacuum. We have to deal with the past and the implications that have grown out of our use of language. So while I and many others in my position, based on modern values, feel a need to downplay our education and to remove this "Dr." calling stuff, for many people this is a social status that they feel they've been denied despite, of course, rightfully now having earned it. So as I said, this is a complicated mess. It seems recently because of absolute jackasses like Epstein who are literally trying to deny people their degrees, younger men have started to, somewhat reluctantly, also wear their doctorates again, e.g. on Twitter and other social media, to make it clear that it is perfectly correct that someone who has earned that degree has indeed earned it. It's all a mess, you see. Nobody in their right mind would invent such a system nowadays but we have to deal with what is not what we want. And what is, is that any woman, minority and of course every single PERSON, who completes a doctorate at a well regarded university (by which I mean not a degree mill), deserves to be called by the degree which they signed up for and completed if they so desire. As a small side note, in some countries like Germany and Austria, the doctorate literally confers a name change of adding Dr. to your name, and the masters degree until recently used to literally change your name to include Mag. (magister, which means teacher). When the Mag. title was removed and became the MSc and MA during the Bologna process in the EU, there were massive shitstorms about people being denied their right to be Herr / Frau Mag. Many people rushed their degrees so they could complete it with the old Mag instead of the new post-name optional international masters degrees. So it is not impossible to get rid of such structure but it IS difficult and people hate it. Both for valid and for invalid reasons. We also can't generalize over all countries and cultures, it's unfortunately all a complicated mess. Apologies for the long post, hope some of my pointers made sense and lead you down useful thoughts.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftowwu

gfu5g2q

There are several issues and honestly the whole topic is a mess that can't possibly be unraveled in a reddit comment. First, the Dr. she is using is valid and is in no way fraudulent. As you rightly point out, the article is a politically motivated and frankly quite vile piece of crap. So I don't think trying to approach this from his ramblings can lead to anything productive. I will say that she has an EdD, which is not a PhD. It is still a doctorate which confers the right to be called Dr. but I believe it's not ONLY misogyny, as if that would not be enough, but also a deep seated disrespect for non-STEM or medicine-related fields. So yes the problems in that article are...well, it's a shitshow in many different ways. But maybe let's start over and ask ourselves about degrees, their meaning, their value and the use of 'doctor'. Not only is there a complicated history of who is called 'doctor', there is furthermore a complicated history of class and degrees as a whole. First of all, doctor was originally used for learned academics - people who lecture at academies and universities. The use of doctor for medical doctors is significantly more recent, so historically speaking it is the medical doctors who began to use this nomenclature. But does this matter? Language is flexible and as long as everybody understands what is being said in what context, ambiguity can be fine. It is not particularly common outside of jokes that medical doctors and doctors in the original sense of what is nowadays called PhDs are confused, so language wise it's mostly fine. In many western countries there has recently been a mostly men/male-driven push to not focusing on degrees so much. This is often because they feel uncomfortable with being treated differently simply because of their level of education or job, it can feel awkward to be called Mr. for many people in their young adulthood, let alone Dr. That along with their internalization of themselves as belonging to what is perceived as a privileged group with somewhat easier access or at least less pressures not to do so, makes them want to be chill about it, play it down, and in general you will find most young men in academia like first name basis, casual talk. This may on the surface seem like a good thing, and as a young adult man in mathematics I feel these sentiments too. However, this now puts the people who are first generation academics or people who have so far been minorities in academia into an awkward position: Because a large majority of young men are attempting to play down their degrees and status after attaining their doctorate, now all of a sudden it makes people think of women or first gens or ethnical minorities who wish to carry their title as a sign of their achievement as arrogant or stuck up. You will find these sorts of things a lot on Twitter. Someone adds Dr to their handle, then a bunch of people comment why they feel the need to point it out - usually in reference with a lot of their colleagues or acquaintances not doing that. But the circumstance is different for these people, they feel like they belong to a group which has historically been denied this privilege and now after finally also attaining it, they are once again being denied to carry it because most men are, for in my opinion good reasons and with good intention, trying to dismantle the whole degree structure. In a way, and in a vacuum, I think most people agree that we would be better off if degrees had no such role in our lives, if Dr. did not modify the way you are generically addressed, just as I think we all agree that Mrs. and Miss in a historical vacuum is ludicrous. But we don't live in a historical vacuum. We have to deal with the past and the implications that have grown out of our use of language. So while I and many others in my position, based on modern values, feel a need to downplay our education and to remove this "Dr." calling stuff, for many people this is a social status that they feel they've been denied despite, of course, rightfully now having earned it. So as I said, this is a complicated mess. It seems recently because of absolute jackasses like Epstein who are literally trying to deny people their degrees, younger men have started to, somewhat reluctantly, also wear their doctorates again, e.g. on Twitter and other social media, to make it clear that it is perfectly correct that someone who has earned that degree has indeed earned it. It's all a mess, you see. Nobody in their right mind would invent such a system nowadays but we have to deal with what is not what we want. And what is, is that any woman, minority and of course every single PERSON, who completes a doctorate at a well regarded university (by which I mean not a degree mill), deserves to be called by the degree which they signed up for and completed if they so desire. As a small side note, in some countries like Germany and Austria, the doctorate literally confers a name change of adding Dr. to your name, and the masters degree until recently used to literally change your name to include Mag. (magister, which means teacher). When the Mag. title was removed and became the MSc and MA during the Bologna process in the EU, there were massive shitstorms about people being denied their right to be Herr / Frau Mag. Many people rushed their degrees so they could complete it with the old Mag instead of the new post-name optional international masters degrees. So it is not impossible to get rid of such structure but it IS difficult and people hate it. Both for valid and for invalid reasons. We also can't generalize over all countries and cultures, it's unfortunately all a complicated mess. Apologies for the long post, hope some of my pointers made sense and lead you down useful thoughts.

I would add there’s a third layer here that isn’t being addressed: The author’s clear mocking of community colleges and their role in higher education. He insults her dissertation, which focused on community college retention - a critical issue facing higher education. He overlooks her decades of teaching experience in community colleges - a vital part of the picture. And he broadly considers the analytical and service work of Ed.D. holders to be meaningless enough to mock. What a prick.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftrwu3

gfu5g2q

I think the thesis here is that the WSJ is a trash publication that exists for risky clicks. I don't get why it's "fraudulent" for a person who has a PhD to call themselves Dr, so I feel like his whole argument is moot.

I would add there’s a third layer here that isn’t being addressed: The author’s clear mocking of community colleges and their role in higher education. He insults her dissertation, which focused on community college retention - a critical issue facing higher education. He overlooks her decades of teaching experience in community colleges - a vital part of the picture. And he broadly considers the analytical and service work of Ed.D. holders to be meaningless enough to mock. What a prick.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftuvu6

gfu5g2q

Doctor meant teacher and well-educated a lot longer than it meant medical professional. You've earned the title, you use it when you want.

I would add there’s a third layer here that isn’t being addressed: The author’s clear mocking of community colleges and their role in higher education. He insults her dissertation, which focused on community college retention - a critical issue facing higher education. He overlooks her decades of teaching experience in community colleges - a vital part of the picture. And he broadly considers the analytical and service work of Ed.D. holders to be meaningless enough to mock. What a prick.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftrzvm

gfu5g2q

I am always hesitant and sometimes feel odd about using “Dr” because of the confusion. I don’t work in academia ( but it is a setting with a good deal of MD’s) and everyone uses first names except in the most formal of meetings with those outside our organization.

I would add there’s a third layer here that isn’t being addressed: The author’s clear mocking of community colleges and their role in higher education. He insults her dissertation, which focused on community college retention - a critical issue facing higher education. He overlooks her decades of teaching experience in community colleges - a vital part of the picture. And he broadly considers the analytical and service work of Ed.D. holders to be meaningless enough to mock. What a prick.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gfu9evt

gftuvu6

There are so many issues with that article. It's honestly barely about titles. (1) Dismissing her legit use of the title itself and the blatant misogynistic in insisting a woman use a title that refers to her relationship to a man (2) Diminished the work of every single PhD ever by saying ~ it used to be harder ~ even though the author has no higher degree at all (3) Specifically diminished research of community college education, which is really damn important, and there's elitism in dismissing the real issues of community college students (4) Implied black women are unfairly being given honorary doctorates for diversity points, which is both racist and sexist (5) Mocking older students because she went back later in life to get her PhD

Doctor meant teacher and well-educated a lot longer than it meant medical professional. You've earned the title, you use it when you want.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftrzvm

gftuvu6

I am always hesitant and sometimes feel odd about using “Dr” because of the confusion. I don’t work in academia ( but it is a setting with a good deal of MD’s) and everyone uses first names except in the most formal of meetings with those outside our organization.

Doctor meant teacher and well-educated a lot longer than it meant medical professional. You've earned the title, you use it when you want.

kd0cc1

askacademia_train

Is misogyny the only problem with the WSJ op-ed on asking Jill Biden to not use 'Dr.'? Edit: I do not often post. And looking at the options for flairs, I have a feeling this might not be the right subreddit for this. I apologize if that's the case. So recently there has been a furore over the op-ed by Joseph Epstein asking Jill Biden to not use the title of 'Dr.' and even calling it fraudulent. The article is absolutely misogynistic and should be condemned. However, I was also offended by the denigration of PhDs in general. I have listened to people talk about 'real doctors' and it gets annoying. As a PhD in computer science, I do not go about touting my title in a hospital. In fact, I rarely use my title, unless required on a form. However, I feel that people who choose to do so are completely in the right. If a PhD goes about using the title with their name, the only flaw that can even be alleged is vanity, not fraudulence. I do not know whether the author chose to disparage PhDs only to help his misogynistic agenda with regards to the next first lady, or that he felt envious of people with higher degrees while he worked in academia. However, I think that the article can be condemned from an angle other than misogyny. The reason is that both WSJ and the author will double down on saying that they are not misogynistic, but in my opinion find it harder to objectively defend why a PhD should not call themselves a doctor. This is just the thought that occurred to me. I would love to hear what other people's approach is towards this and learn from that. Thanks.

gftrzvm

gfu9evt

I am always hesitant and sometimes feel odd about using “Dr” because of the confusion. I don’t work in academia ( but it is a setting with a good deal of MD’s) and everyone uses first names except in the most formal of meetings with those outside our organization.

There are so many issues with that article. It's honestly barely about titles. (1) Dismissing her legit use of the title itself and the blatant misogynistic in insisting a woman use a title that refers to her relationship to a man (2) Diminished the work of every single PhD ever by saying ~ it used to be harder ~ even though the author has no higher degree at all (3) Specifically diminished research of community college education, which is really damn important, and there's elitism in dismissing the real issues of community college students (4) Implied black women are unfairly being given honorary doctorates for diversity points, which is both racist and sexist (5) Mocking older students because she went back later in life to get her PhD

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1awco

fn1anp9

Take your time and grieve your loss. You've done the right thing and reached out to your undergrad and grad programs and gotten extensions and deferment. This is why these options are there, when the unexpected happens. Don't listen to your parents and take your time to get to a point you are okay. Mental health is already tough in grad school and going in when you are already vulnerable is not a wise decision. Having a gap year shouldn't be a problem. Plus, grant, fellowship and job applications all have a personal statement where you can explain gaps like this. And you have a very good reason if questioned. But also having a gap year at this stage isn't usually an issue. This won't ruin your chance to be a professor. Focus on grieving and dealing with your loss. And think about would she want you to put your life on hold. Taking the deferment to grieve is okay. But also moving on to grad school (be it this one or applying again this fall for another school) is okay as well.

I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. There's no shame at all in taking time off to process your emotions. Trying to push on may only hurt you in the end if you don't take the time to deal with this.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1ouyi

fn1b6oh

Sorry for your loss OP. This is unimaginable. I would absolutely defer if you have any means of supporting yourself over the next year. Fall 2020 is going to be a real mess on campuses everywhere, and I can't imagine starting a Ph.D. program in the midst of that. You'd be better off almost anywhere else IMO, for both personal and professional reasons. Give yourself a break and do what you need to in order to reset...grieving during a pandemic is hard as hell (as I and many others now know). Being a grad student ain't no picnic either. If you can take some time to focus on yourself and to heal you'd probably be in a better place in fall 2021, and it's all but certain that's true for higher ed in general as well.

I'm so sorry for your loss. I have also asked for a deferment, but it's due to a loss in my family. No one will look down on you for making this choice. I had felt guilty about asking for a deferment, but was then told it was a mature decision from the PI I applied to. Take this time to be with your family and just grieve. Again, I am so sorry this happened. Take care.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1anp9

fn1ouyi

I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. There's no shame at all in taking time off to process your emotions. Trying to push on may only hurt you in the end if you don't take the time to deal with this.

Sorry for your loss OP. This is unimaginable. I would absolutely defer if you have any means of supporting yourself over the next year. Fall 2020 is going to be a real mess on campuses everywhere, and I can't imagine starting a Ph.D. program in the midst of that. You'd be better off almost anywhere else IMO, for both personal and professional reasons. Give yourself a break and do what you need to in order to reset...grieving during a pandemic is hard as hell (as I and many others now know). Being a grad student ain't no picnic either. If you can take some time to focus on yourself and to heal you'd probably be in a better place in fall 2021, and it's all but certain that's true for higher ed in general as well.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1ouyi

fn1grr5

Sorry for your loss OP. This is unimaginable. I would absolutely defer if you have any means of supporting yourself over the next year. Fall 2020 is going to be a real mess on campuses everywhere, and I can't imagine starting a Ph.D. program in the midst of that. You'd be better off almost anywhere else IMO, for both personal and professional reasons. Give yourself a break and do what you need to in order to reset...grieving during a pandemic is hard as hell (as I and many others now know). Being a grad student ain't no picnic either. If you can take some time to focus on yourself and to heal you'd probably be in a better place in fall 2021, and it's all but certain that's true for higher ed in general as well.

I am so, so sorry. Grief is a heavy thing and it can’t be gotten over. You will learn to live with it, but you need support. I think you should defer, take some time, and care for your own health first. I am so, so sorry. I can’t even imagine. I do know that when you’re experiencing grief you should avoid making huge decisions for several months. If funding and admission is the same, don’t jump in just yet. You may feel like you’re in a fog during the first year of grieving, and I’m not sure doctoral work will help. Also think about your studies as an investment in yourself. Are you ready to invest all that’s required right now, or would you be better suited for the work after taking some time?

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1bz6n

fn1ouyi

I’m sorry for your loss. I know it’s not the same, but my roommate took his life while we were living together. My biggest regret wasn’t taking time away from to school to process the event.

Sorry for your loss OP. This is unimaginable. I would absolutely defer if you have any means of supporting yourself over the next year. Fall 2020 is going to be a real mess on campuses everywhere, and I can't imagine starting a Ph.D. program in the midst of that. You'd be better off almost anywhere else IMO, for both personal and professional reasons. Give yourself a break and do what you need to in order to reset...grieving during a pandemic is hard as hell (as I and many others now know). Being a grad student ain't no picnic either. If you can take some time to focus on yourself and to heal you'd probably be in a better place in fall 2021, and it's all but certain that's true for higher ed in general as well.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1vw7s

fn1b6oh

OK - first, my wife died over a decade ago. I understand your pain. It is immense. It's not going away soon. In some ways you will actually do things that others will see as "crazy." There will be times that you cannot function. That's all normal. It took me about 6 months to feel at all consistently functional. But there will also be times when you can do all right and be wanting to move forward. Like when you wrote this message to all of us. Take whatever time off you have been given. This is not giving up or giving in. Your entire psyche has been shocked badly and you cannot function at your best. You need the time to recover, even if all you want to do is bury yourself in work to distract you from the pain of it all. It sounds like both institutions are doing you a solid and giving you the time. Take it. You need it. I was trying to finish my dissertation when my wife died. My first draft was completely finished. It actually took me another 2 years until I got to my defense. OK, that's what it took. I simply could not have gone any faster. Try to remember that your parents are trying to help even when they're not. You can also say, "no, I don't want that." They might actually hear you after 45 tries. No one you want to work with will look badly at deferment for this reason. When you're ready, you'll know.

I'm so sorry for your loss. I have also asked for a deferment, but it's due to a loss in my family. No one will look down on you for making this choice. I had felt guilty about asking for a deferment, but was then told it was a mature decision from the PI I applied to. Take this time to be with your family and just grieve. Again, I am so sorry this happened. Take care.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1vw7s

fn1tin8

OK - first, my wife died over a decade ago. I understand your pain. It is immense. It's not going away soon. In some ways you will actually do things that others will see as "crazy." There will be times that you cannot function. That's all normal. It took me about 6 months to feel at all consistently functional. But there will also be times when you can do all right and be wanting to move forward. Like when you wrote this message to all of us. Take whatever time off you have been given. This is not giving up or giving in. Your entire psyche has been shocked badly and you cannot function at your best. You need the time to recover, even if all you want to do is bury yourself in work to distract you from the pain of it all. It sounds like both institutions are doing you a solid and giving you the time. Take it. You need it. I was trying to finish my dissertation when my wife died. My first draft was completely finished. It actually took me another 2 years until I got to my defense. OK, that's what it took. I simply could not have gone any faster. Try to remember that your parents are trying to help even when they're not. You can also say, "no, I don't want that." They might actually hear you after 45 tries. No one you want to work with will look badly at deferment for this reason. When you're ready, you'll know.

Deferment is not a bad idea, in fact, I'd say it's a GREAT option. The only people that would possibly care about this deferment (or a gap year) is a PhD program. If you show up to the PhD program and are still a mess it is hard (not impossible) to recover from. My dad died unexpectedly two months before my PhD program started and I wish I would have deferred for a year. I was a mess and I can only imagine you're worse off.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1anp9

fn1vw7s

I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. There's no shame at all in taking time off to process your emotions. Trying to push on may only hurt you in the end if you don't take the time to deal with this.

OK - first, my wife died over a decade ago. I understand your pain. It is immense. It's not going away soon. In some ways you will actually do things that others will see as "crazy." There will be times that you cannot function. That's all normal. It took me about 6 months to feel at all consistently functional. But there will also be times when you can do all right and be wanting to move forward. Like when you wrote this message to all of us. Take whatever time off you have been given. This is not giving up or giving in. Your entire psyche has been shocked badly and you cannot function at your best. You need the time to recover, even if all you want to do is bury yourself in work to distract you from the pain of it all. It sounds like both institutions are doing you a solid and giving you the time. Take it. You need it. I was trying to finish my dissertation when my wife died. My first draft was completely finished. It actually took me another 2 years until I got to my defense. OK, that's what it took. I simply could not have gone any faster. Try to remember that your parents are trying to help even when they're not. You can also say, "no, I don't want that." They might actually hear you after 45 tries. No one you want to work with will look badly at deferment for this reason. When you're ready, you'll know.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1vw7s

fn1grr5

OK - first, my wife died over a decade ago. I understand your pain. It is immense. It's not going away soon. In some ways you will actually do things that others will see as "crazy." There will be times that you cannot function. That's all normal. It took me about 6 months to feel at all consistently functional. But there will also be times when you can do all right and be wanting to move forward. Like when you wrote this message to all of us. Take whatever time off you have been given. This is not giving up or giving in. Your entire psyche has been shocked badly and you cannot function at your best. You need the time to recover, even if all you want to do is bury yourself in work to distract you from the pain of it all. It sounds like both institutions are doing you a solid and giving you the time. Take it. You need it. I was trying to finish my dissertation when my wife died. My first draft was completely finished. It actually took me another 2 years until I got to my defense. OK, that's what it took. I simply could not have gone any faster. Try to remember that your parents are trying to help even when they're not. You can also say, "no, I don't want that." They might actually hear you after 45 tries. No one you want to work with will look badly at deferment for this reason. When you're ready, you'll know.

I am so, so sorry. Grief is a heavy thing and it can’t be gotten over. You will learn to live with it, but you need support. I think you should defer, take some time, and care for your own health first. I am so, so sorry. I can’t even imagine. I do know that when you’re experiencing grief you should avoid making huge decisions for several months. If funding and admission is the same, don’t jump in just yet. You may feel like you’re in a fog during the first year of grieving, and I’m not sure doctoral work will help. Also think about your studies as an investment in yourself. Are you ready to invest all that’s required right now, or would you be better suited for the work after taking some time?

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1vw7s

fn1bz6n

OK - first, my wife died over a decade ago. I understand your pain. It is immense. It's not going away soon. In some ways you will actually do things that others will see as "crazy." There will be times that you cannot function. That's all normal. It took me about 6 months to feel at all consistently functional. But there will also be times when you can do all right and be wanting to move forward. Like when you wrote this message to all of us. Take whatever time off you have been given. This is not giving up or giving in. Your entire psyche has been shocked badly and you cannot function at your best. You need the time to recover, even if all you want to do is bury yourself in work to distract you from the pain of it all. It sounds like both institutions are doing you a solid and giving you the time. Take it. You need it. I was trying to finish my dissertation when my wife died. My first draft was completely finished. It actually took me another 2 years until I got to my defense. OK, that's what it took. I simply could not have gone any faster. Try to remember that your parents are trying to help even when they're not. You can also say, "no, I don't want that." They might actually hear you after 45 tries. No one you want to work with will look badly at deferment for this reason. When you're ready, you'll know.

I’m sorry for your loss. I know it’s not the same, but my roommate took his life while we were living together. My biggest regret wasn’t taking time away from to school to process the event.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1scjr

fn1vw7s

Your pain and how you're processing it is completely normal, both in the fact that many, many other people react this way to loss and that ultimately whatever you're feeling, however you feel you need to get through this, is fine, even if it's not the "typical." A therapist or grief counselor can help you move through this in a healthy way, which I highly recommend, but know that there are very few "wrong" ways to grieve or "wrong" reactions and there is no timeline. This sort of thing is also *exactly* what deferments are for. Take time to take care of yourself. You will of course never "get over" this, but moving through normal life again does become less painful. If you dive headlong into your grad program, you're just going to feel off kilter -- deferments and gap years are normal and acceptable if anyone even notices it in the first place, but nearly failing your first year is going to be much harder to move past. I also want to caution you about this: the world of academics and research can be cutthroat in the sort of stress it makes us put on ourselves. Especially now and always in the future, take care of yourself, too.

OK - first, my wife died over a decade ago. I understand your pain. It is immense. It's not going away soon. In some ways you will actually do things that others will see as "crazy." There will be times that you cannot function. That's all normal. It took me about 6 months to feel at all consistently functional. But there will also be times when you can do all right and be wanting to move forward. Like when you wrote this message to all of us. Take whatever time off you have been given. This is not giving up or giving in. Your entire psyche has been shocked badly and you cannot function at your best. You need the time to recover, even if all you want to do is bury yourself in work to distract you from the pain of it all. It sounds like both institutions are doing you a solid and giving you the time. Take it. You need it. I was trying to finish my dissertation when my wife died. My first draft was completely finished. It actually took me another 2 years until I got to my defense. OK, that's what it took. I simply could not have gone any faster. Try to remember that your parents are trying to help even when they're not. You can also say, "no, I don't want that." They might actually hear you after 45 tries. No one you want to work with will look badly at deferment for this reason. When you're ready, you'll know.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1b6oh

fn1anp9

I'm so sorry for your loss. I have also asked for a deferment, but it's due to a loss in my family. No one will look down on you for making this choice. I had felt guilty about asking for a deferment, but was then told it was a mature decision from the PI I applied to. Take this time to be with your family and just grieve. Again, I am so sorry this happened. Take care.

I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. There's no shame at all in taking time off to process your emotions. Trying to push on may only hurt you in the end if you don't take the time to deal with this.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1anp9

fn1tin8

I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. There's no shame at all in taking time off to process your emotions. Trying to push on may only hurt you in the end if you don't take the time to deal with this.

Deferment is not a bad idea, in fact, I'd say it's a GREAT option. The only people that would possibly care about this deferment (or a gap year) is a PhD program. If you show up to the PhD program and are still a mess it is hard (not impossible) to recover from. My dad died unexpectedly two months before my PhD program started and I wish I would have deferred for a year. I was a mess and I can only imagine you're worse off.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1grr5

fn1tin8

I am so, so sorry. Grief is a heavy thing and it can’t be gotten over. You will learn to live with it, but you need support. I think you should defer, take some time, and care for your own health first. I am so, so sorry. I can’t even imagine. I do know that when you’re experiencing grief you should avoid making huge decisions for several months. If funding and admission is the same, don’t jump in just yet. You may feel like you’re in a fog during the first year of grieving, and I’m not sure doctoral work will help. Also think about your studies as an investment in yourself. Are you ready to invest all that’s required right now, or would you be better suited for the work after taking some time?

Deferment is not a bad idea, in fact, I'd say it's a GREAT option. The only people that would possibly care about this deferment (or a gap year) is a PhD program. If you show up to the PhD program and are still a mess it is hard (not impossible) to recover from. My dad died unexpectedly two months before my PhD program started and I wish I would have deferred for a year. I was a mess and I can only imagine you're worse off.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1bz6n

fn1tin8

I’m sorry for your loss. I know it’s not the same, but my roommate took his life while we were living together. My biggest regret wasn’t taking time away from to school to process the event.

Deferment is not a bad idea, in fact, I'd say it's a GREAT option. The only people that would possibly care about this deferment (or a gap year) is a PhD program. If you show up to the PhD program and are still a mess it is hard (not impossible) to recover from. My dad died unexpectedly two months before my PhD program started and I wish I would have deferred for a year. I was a mess and I can only imagine you're worse off.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1scjr

fn1tin8

Your pain and how you're processing it is completely normal, both in the fact that many, many other people react this way to loss and that ultimately whatever you're feeling, however you feel you need to get through this, is fine, even if it's not the "typical." A therapist or grief counselor can help you move through this in a healthy way, which I highly recommend, but know that there are very few "wrong" ways to grieve or "wrong" reactions and there is no timeline. This sort of thing is also *exactly* what deferments are for. Take time to take care of yourself. You will of course never "get over" this, but moving through normal life again does become less painful. If you dive headlong into your grad program, you're just going to feel off kilter -- deferments and gap years are normal and acceptable if anyone even notices it in the first place, but nearly failing your first year is going to be much harder to move past. I also want to caution you about this: the world of academics and research can be cutthroat in the sort of stress it makes us put on ourselves. Especially now and always in the future, take care of yourself, too.

Deferment is not a bad idea, in fact, I'd say it's a GREAT option. The only people that would possibly care about this deferment (or a gap year) is a PhD program. If you show up to the PhD program and are still a mess it is hard (not impossible) to recover from. My dad died unexpectedly two months before my PhD program started and I wish I would have deferred for a year. I was a mess and I can only imagine you're worse off.

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1anp9

fn1xh7b

I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. There's no shame at all in taking time off to process your emotions. Trying to push on may only hurt you in the end if you don't take the time to deal with this.

I’ll tell you what one of the most badass amazing scientists (tenured professor and leader in her field) I know told me, about taking a leave after my mother died last summer: it is seen as strength to know your limits and much better to concede to self care, rather than push forward and 1-not be all in, or worse 2-crash and burn. Truly, immense grief is very hard, and grad school is very hard, face one at a time. And last but certainly not least, I am so deeply sorry for your loss. I don’t know how your undergrad institution is, but I hope they could meet you where you’re at and help you during this unimaginatively difficult time <3

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1xh7b

fn1grr5

I’ll tell you what one of the most badass amazing scientists (tenured professor and leader in her field) I know told me, about taking a leave after my mother died last summer: it is seen as strength to know your limits and much better to concede to self care, rather than push forward and 1-not be all in, or worse 2-crash and burn. Truly, immense grief is very hard, and grad school is very hard, face one at a time. And last but certainly not least, I am so deeply sorry for your loss. I don’t know how your undergrad institution is, but I hope they could meet you where you’re at and help you during this unimaginatively difficult time <3

I am so, so sorry. Grief is a heavy thing and it can’t be gotten over. You will learn to live with it, but you need support. I think you should defer, take some time, and care for your own health first. I am so, so sorry. I can’t even imagine. I do know that when you’re experiencing grief you should avoid making huge decisions for several months. If funding and admission is the same, don’t jump in just yet. You may feel like you’re in a fog during the first year of grieving, and I’m not sure doctoral work will help. Also think about your studies as an investment in yourself. Are you ready to invest all that’s required right now, or would you be better suited for the work after taking some time?

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1bz6n

fn1xh7b

I’m sorry for your loss. I know it’s not the same, but my roommate took his life while we were living together. My biggest regret wasn’t taking time away from to school to process the event.

I’ll tell you what one of the most badass amazing scientists (tenured professor and leader in her field) I know told me, about taking a leave after my mother died last summer: it is seen as strength to know your limits and much better to concede to self care, rather than push forward and 1-not be all in, or worse 2-crash and burn. Truly, immense grief is very hard, and grad school is very hard, face one at a time. And last but certainly not least, I am so deeply sorry for your loss. I don’t know how your undergrad institution is, but I hope they could meet you where you’re at and help you during this unimaginatively difficult time <3

fypuv6

askacademia_train

My fiancée passed away on the 1st and she was going to come to my PhD program with me. Is deferment bad? I'm at a loss and I don't know what I should do anymore. I got into my dream PhD program in January and my fiancée and I were making our plans to move there soon. However, my fiancée passed away unexpectedly on the 1st of this month and I've been a total wreck. I can't concentrate on my last semester of undergrad and a huge reason I chose this school was because she would love the area/things to do there. I want to still get my PhD but now I'm feeling lost and scared about moving forward. I contacted the school and they said I can defer up to a year and keep my RA-ship offer and everything and my current university is offering me incompletes to finish over the summer, but I don't know what I should do. My parents have taken me back to my childhood home and they are trying to "get me over" the death of the love of my life. They want me to finish my undergrad on time (by May 1st) and start grad school on time (June 1st), but I'm having trouble just typing this let alone thinking about math. My end goal is to become a professor at a PUI. Would deferment be looked at negatively? Does anyone know how I can transition back into my life/school? Is it okay to not be able to do any work right now? I'm also feeling guilty to move on with my life without her. Does anyone have any advice? I'm only 22 and my lover has already passed away. Thank you for any advice.

fn1xh7b

fn1scjr

I’ll tell you what one of the most badass amazing scientists (tenured professor and leader in her field) I know told me, about taking a leave after my mother died last summer: it is seen as strength to know your limits and much better to concede to self care, rather than push forward and 1-not be all in, or worse 2-crash and burn. Truly, immense grief is very hard, and grad school is very hard, face one at a time. And last but certainly not least, I am so deeply sorry for your loss. I don’t know how your undergrad institution is, but I hope they could meet you where you’re at and help you during this unimaginatively difficult time <3

Your pain and how you're processing it is completely normal, both in the fact that many, many other people react this way to loss and that ultimately whatever you're feeling, however you feel you need to get through this, is fine, even if it's not the "typical." A therapist or grief counselor can help you move through this in a healthy way, which I highly recommend, but know that there are very few "wrong" ways to grieve or "wrong" reactions and there is no timeline. This sort of thing is also *exactly* what deferments are for. Take time to take care of yourself. You will of course never "get over" this, but moving through normal life again does become less painful. If you dive headlong into your grad program, you're just going to feel off kilter -- deferments and gap years are normal and acceptable if anyone even notices it in the first place, but nearly failing your first year is going to be much harder to move past. I also want to caution you about this: the world of academics and research can be cutthroat in the sort of stress it makes us put on ourselves. Especially now and always in the future, take care of yourself, too.