Datasets:

Dahoas

/

filtered-SHP

like 2

cku2el

askacademia_train

Human: I became intimate with my advisor last night Not much more to add. The tension has been building between us as I work on my dissertation and last night things happened. I go back and forth. On one hand, it was absolutely thrilling. On the other, I’m afraid I’ve just torpedoed my academic career. Does anyone have advice on how to navigate this moving forward? Assistant:

evr4mdx

evqzljt

So both of you were sober and wanted it? Then congratulations, as for any other consensual, pleasant sex and relationship. Everything else depends on many things, such as any other relationships of both of you, and on where you are - what are the regulations and cultural (un)acceptance about it in your country, school and department. Probably best keep it secret from anyone who can harm you or your advisor with such knowledge, such as his/her other advisees. If relevant, best try to not make babies which would show before you can graduate. Or, if you are early in your degree and want to freely pursue a serious relationship with your advisor without so much waiting, you two may look into a possibility to have you switch to another advisor, if your school requires that to prevent conflict of interest or harassment.

At the very, very, very least I would create an anonymous email account and send a message to your ombuds asking for information about policies and procedures at your institution.

cku2el

askacademia_train

Human: I became intimate with my advisor last night Not much more to add. The tension has been building between us as I work on my dissertation and last night things happened. I go back and forth. On one hand, it was absolutely thrilling. On the other, I’m afraid I’ve just torpedoed my academic career. Does anyone have advice on how to navigate this moving forward? Assistant:

evr4mdx

evr2c6c

So both of you were sober and wanted it? Then congratulations, as for any other consensual, pleasant sex and relationship. Everything else depends on many things, such as any other relationships of both of you, and on where you are - what are the regulations and cultural (un)acceptance about it in your country, school and department. Probably best keep it secret from anyone who can harm you or your advisor with such knowledge, such as his/her other advisees. If relevant, best try to not make babies which would show before you can graduate. Or, if you are early in your degree and want to freely pursue a serious relationship with your advisor without so much waiting, you two may look into a possibility to have you switch to another advisor, if your school requires that to prevent conflict of interest or harassment.

Pls stop giving advice until we get more details on what exactly happened.

cku2el

askacademia_train

Human: I became intimate with my advisor last night Not much more to add. The tension has been building between us as I work on my dissertation and last night things happened. I go back and forth. On one hand, it was absolutely thrilling. On the other, I’m afraid I’ve just torpedoed my academic career. Does anyone have advice on how to navigate this moving forward? Assistant:

evr27ai

evqzljt

Honestly this is a story as old as time. Check your hr policy. I don’t think it will ruin your academic career

At the very, very, very least I would create an anonymous email account and send a message to your ombuds asking for information about policies and procedures at your institution.

mgrsso

askacademia_train

Human: Is it a career killer to attend the same school as undergrad for a PhD? I've been in my current physics research group at an R1 state school for a year. The problem we're working on is a long-term problem that I find inspiring and important. I've also received really strong mentorship here. I got into another school where they'd like me to work on the same problem, if I choose to go there. They said they'd like to collaborate even if I don't go there. I'm not married to the idea of an academic career, but I would consider it if I felt I was competitive. Logistically, staying at my current school would be easier, and I have momentum. Would staying at my current institution be a bad decision? Or is the important thing that I work with other groups of people and broaden my horizons? Assistant:

gsuvmy5

gsurz2p

many people are saying schools love to hire their own. so, if you do undergrad at one school, grad at another, post doc at a third, that's three schools that would love to hire you because you are one of their own. nice.

I can’t answer this generally but my I will give a little of my own experience. I work in both the Microbiology and Food Science departments in a R1 university in the southeast US. Over the past 4 years or so that I have been a grad student I get an email every time a new faculty (teaching and research) is hired by the departments. In these emails they give background for the new hires including where they went to school for undergrad/grad/postdoc. I would say roughly 60% of the hires went to our school for a degree or postdoc and maybe 30% have a degree and postdoc from our school. Maybe it’s a southern thing but my school loves to hire their own. Why wouldn’t they? They know how good you are, they know if you get along with students/faculty, you likely have recommendations from their own faculty, the hiring committee members might know you personally, and they know if you will fit into the school culture better than they ever could from a few interviews.

mgrsso

askacademia_train

Human: Is it a career killer to attend the same school as undergrad for a PhD? I've been in my current physics research group at an R1 state school for a year. The problem we're working on is a long-term problem that I find inspiring and important. I've also received really strong mentorship here. I got into another school where they'd like me to work on the same problem, if I choose to go there. They said they'd like to collaborate even if I don't go there. I'm not married to the idea of an academic career, but I would consider it if I felt I was competitive. Logistically, staying at my current school would be easier, and I have momentum. Would staying at my current institution be a bad decision? Or is the important thing that I work with other groups of people and broaden my horizons? Assistant:

gsurz2p

gsusv16

I can’t answer this generally but my I will give a little of my own experience. I work in both the Microbiology and Food Science departments in a R1 university in the southeast US. Over the past 4 years or so that I have been a grad student I get an email every time a new faculty (teaching and research) is hired by the departments. In these emails they give background for the new hires including where they went to school for undergrad/grad/postdoc. I would say roughly 60% of the hires went to our school for a degree or postdoc and maybe 30% have a degree and postdoc from our school. Maybe it’s a southern thing but my school loves to hire their own. Why wouldn’t they? They know how good you are, they know if you get along with students/faculty, you likely have recommendations from their own faculty, the hiring committee members might know you personally, and they know if you will fit into the school culture better than they ever could from a few interviews.

Definitely not a killer! I know folks who have done their undergrad and grad degrees at the same institution and done fine. I personally have switched university for each of my degrees (currently doing my master's at a different university than I did my undergrad at and will be starting my PhD in September at yet another university). In my experience, there are few plus sides I've found to changing universities: * more connections with researchers at the new university * while you mentioned they would still want to collaborate, you likely wouldn't get to know other people in their department * opportunity to pick up new skills * while the project sounds as though it would be the same, research groups within the same discipline do things differently * important because you never know what skills you'll need in your career * more "life" experience * experiencing a new city is great, you might find a new hobby or extracurricular

mgrsso

askacademia_train

Human: Is it a career killer to attend the same school as undergrad for a PhD? I've been in my current physics research group at an R1 state school for a year. The problem we're working on is a long-term problem that I find inspiring and important. I've also received really strong mentorship here. I got into another school where they'd like me to work on the same problem, if I choose to go there. They said they'd like to collaborate even if I don't go there. I'm not married to the idea of an academic career, but I would consider it if I felt I was competitive. Logistically, staying at my current school would be easier, and I have momentum. Would staying at my current institution be a bad decision? Or is the important thing that I work with other groups of people and broaden my horizons? Assistant:

gsv1dh3

gsurz2p

Go with whoever is funding you

I can’t answer this generally but my I will give a little of my own experience. I work in both the Microbiology and Food Science departments in a R1 university in the southeast US. Over the past 4 years or so that I have been a grad student I get an email every time a new faculty (teaching and research) is hired by the departments. In these emails they give background for the new hires including where they went to school for undergrad/grad/postdoc. I would say roughly 60% of the hires went to our school for a degree or postdoc and maybe 30% have a degree and postdoc from our school. Maybe it’s a southern thing but my school loves to hire their own. Why wouldn’t they? They know how good you are, they know if you get along with students/faculty, you likely have recommendations from their own faculty, the hiring committee members might know you personally, and they know if you will fit into the school culture better than they ever could from a few interviews.

mgrsso

askacademia_train

Human: Is it a career killer to attend the same school as undergrad for a PhD? I've been in my current physics research group at an R1 state school for a year. The problem we're working on is a long-term problem that I find inspiring and important. I've also received really strong mentorship here. I got into another school where they'd like me to work on the same problem, if I choose to go there. They said they'd like to collaborate even if I don't go there. I'm not married to the idea of an academic career, but I would consider it if I felt I was competitive. Logistically, staying at my current school would be easier, and I have momentum. Would staying at my current institution be a bad decision? Or is the important thing that I work with other groups of people and broaden my horizons? Assistant:

gsv1c65

gsv1dh3

Not if it’s a good school for your PhD area.

Go with whoever is funding you

mgrsso

askacademia_train

Human: Is it a career killer to attend the same school as undergrad for a PhD? I've been in my current physics research group at an R1 state school for a year. The problem we're working on is a long-term problem that I find inspiring and important. I've also received really strong mentorship here. I got into another school where they'd like me to work on the same problem, if I choose to go there. They said they'd like to collaborate even if I don't go there. I'm not married to the idea of an academic career, but I would consider it if I felt I was competitive. Logistically, staying at my current school would be easier, and I have momentum. Would staying at my current institution be a bad decision? Or is the important thing that I work with other groups of people and broaden my horizons? Assistant:

gsuxjg4

gsv1dh3

Emphasizing it really depends on the expertise. In my area of archaeology, there’s pretty much one person in the States who has published extensively. I got lucky to have met her in undergrad and continue working with her.

Go with whoever is funding you

lvdutt

askacademia_train

Human: When was/is it time to cash out? For those of you who left for the industry, how did you know it was time? I’ve been on the market for like 5 years now. A dozen journal articles (about half first/sole authored), 50 or so conference papers, and a few book chapters. I was an instructor for 3 years, so I’ve got a ton of teaching experience. I get a fair number of interviews. I used to get a fair number of visits. I’ve literally never gotten an offer. (I think I’m a decent enough person, but maybe I have horrific flaw nobody’s ever told me about.) This year was more of the same. 6 interviews, no visits, obviously no offers, and the candidates getting the jobs generally have much weaker CVs than mine. I just can’t keep doing this. It’s killing me. So for those of you who got out (assuming you wanted in in the first place), how did you know it was time to give up on this stuff? Assistant:

gpbi55e

gpbl3n4

Have you interviewed for any industry positions? Seems like that would help clarify your desires.

Over 100 pubs, a couple books, former tenured full prof. We had not gotten merit-based raises in 8 years, I was advising 3 PhD students with no course release, and was graduate director. Those that do, just keep getting asked to do more. I had gotten a decent (but not great) raise only by getting an outside offer. I love my new position in industry; irony is I still get to do research & teach.

lvdutt

askacademia_train

Human: When was/is it time to cash out? For those of you who left for the industry, how did you know it was time? I’ve been on the market for like 5 years now. A dozen journal articles (about half first/sole authored), 50 or so conference papers, and a few book chapters. I was an instructor for 3 years, so I’ve got a ton of teaching experience. I get a fair number of interviews. I used to get a fair number of visits. I’ve literally never gotten an offer. (I think I’m a decent enough person, but maybe I have horrific flaw nobody’s ever told me about.) This year was more of the same. 6 interviews, no visits, obviously no offers, and the candidates getting the jobs generally have much weaker CVs than mine. I just can’t keep doing this. It’s killing me. So for those of you who got out (assuming you wanted in in the first place), how did you know it was time to give up on this stuff? Assistant:

gpbl3n4

gpbkttu

Over 100 pubs, a couple books, former tenured full prof. We had not gotten merit-based raises in 8 years, I was advising 3 PhD students with no course release, and was graduate director. Those that do, just keep getting asked to do more. I had gotten a decent (but not great) raise only by getting an outside offer. I love my new position in industry; irony is I still get to do research & teach.

Very clear that administration's vision was in a direction that was not going to be conducive to the department long-term. Spouse worked in the administration office and was brought on with X title, but generally expected to do lesser Y job, with little growth opportunity and a very toxic work environment. This was a 3rd toxic environment they'd had at the university in a small town, so we pulled the plug to go elsewhere. A consequence was me leaving academia. While I do miss teaching a bit, I don't regret the change. I miss out on the handful of motivated students, but I get to skip out on the much larger percent of students who don't give a damn and put in minimal effort but still want an "A" because otherwise they'll "lose their assistanceship."

lvdutt

askacademia_train

Human: When was/is it time to cash out? For those of you who left for the industry, how did you know it was time? I’ve been on the market for like 5 years now. A dozen journal articles (about half first/sole authored), 50 or so conference papers, and a few book chapters. I was an instructor for 3 years, so I’ve got a ton of teaching experience. I get a fair number of interviews. I used to get a fair number of visits. I’ve literally never gotten an offer. (I think I’m a decent enough person, but maybe I have horrific flaw nobody’s ever told me about.) This year was more of the same. 6 interviews, no visits, obviously no offers, and the candidates getting the jobs generally have much weaker CVs than mine. I just can’t keep doing this. It’s killing me. So for those of you who got out (assuming you wanted in in the first place), how did you know it was time to give up on this stuff? Assistant:

gpbjgie

gpbi55e

Are you *enjoying* what you're doing *right now*? Once you find yourself just doing everything "for the CV" or "for the interview", stop. This is your life, and you have to live it on your own terms. There's so much more out there for you. Btw depending on your field you can still apply for faculty jobs when you're in industry, especially if you're in R&D areas, so you're not exactly "giving up". And if you can/want, reach out to some people who have interviewed you for more details. Everything is kind of a gamble since there's only one slot, but they may have specific advice.

Have you interviewed for any industry positions? Seems like that would help clarify your desires.

lvdutt

askacademia_train

Human: When was/is it time to cash out? For those of you who left for the industry, how did you know it was time? I’ve been on the market for like 5 years now. A dozen journal articles (about half first/sole authored), 50 or so conference papers, and a few book chapters. I was an instructor for 3 years, so I’ve got a ton of teaching experience. I get a fair number of interviews. I used to get a fair number of visits. I’ve literally never gotten an offer. (I think I’m a decent enough person, but maybe I have horrific flaw nobody’s ever told me about.) This year was more of the same. 6 interviews, no visits, obviously no offers, and the candidates getting the jobs generally have much weaker CVs than mine. I just can’t keep doing this. It’s killing me. So for those of you who got out (assuming you wanted in in the first place), how did you know it was time to give up on this stuff? Assistant:

gpbkttu

gpbrrnk

Very clear that administration's vision was in a direction that was not going to be conducive to the department long-term. Spouse worked in the administration office and was brought on with X title, but generally expected to do lesser Y job, with little growth opportunity and a very toxic work environment. This was a 3rd toxic environment they'd had at the university in a small town, so we pulled the plug to go elsewhere. A consequence was me leaving academia. While I do miss teaching a bit, I don't regret the change. I miss out on the handful of motivated students, but I get to skip out on the much larger percent of students who don't give a damn and put in minimal effort but still want an "A" because otherwise they'll "lose their assistanceship."

I haven't gotten out yet, but I am at the end of the my PhD and I am leaving. My PhD wasn't excellent, and I am aware that the odds are bad even for someone with a wonderful track record of publications. The uncertainty, temporary contracts, bad pay, the constant moving houses and countries... love for science is not enough to tip the balance towards staying in academia. Also, there is still science outside the university walls.

lvdutt

askacademia_train

Human: When was/is it time to cash out? For those of you who left for the industry, how did you know it was time? I’ve been on the market for like 5 years now. A dozen journal articles (about half first/sole authored), 50 or so conference papers, and a few book chapters. I was an instructor for 3 years, so I’ve got a ton of teaching experience. I get a fair number of interviews. I used to get a fair number of visits. I’ve literally never gotten an offer. (I think I’m a decent enough person, but maybe I have horrific flaw nobody’s ever told me about.) This year was more of the same. 6 interviews, no visits, obviously no offers, and the candidates getting the jobs generally have much weaker CVs than mine. I just can’t keep doing this. It’s killing me. So for those of you who got out (assuming you wanted in in the first place), how did you know it was time to give up on this stuff? Assistant:

gpbnpu0

gpbrrnk

Whew— nowhere near that far into all of it (defended just before everything went to hell a year ago, graduated last May...) but already debating if I should try to do something else. I know I should give it more time, but seems to me you have given it enough time and tried to make it happen. I think the question about whether you're enjoying the work you're doing now, even if you're not getting the "reward" you feel you deserve, might be worth considering. I'm also wondering if you're surviving right now— like do you have a gig economy teaching job right now or...?

I haven't gotten out yet, but I am at the end of the my PhD and I am leaving. My PhD wasn't excellent, and I am aware that the odds are bad even for someone with a wonderful track record of publications. The uncertainty, temporary contracts, bad pay, the constant moving houses and countries... love for science is not enough to tip the balance towards staying in academia. Also, there is still science outside the university walls.

jhd6ji

askacademia_train

Human: Totally bombed my first TT job interview; advice from those who’ve been there? I didn’t expect to get this interview and it was super last minute. Usually I interview pretty well but it was like the link between my brain and mouth was severed, and also all my neurotransmitters were replaced with molasses. Any tips for moving on? I do have another interview in a couple weeks and I’m feeling a lot more prepared for that one at least... Assistant:

g9xrk43

g9xtmzd

Reflect on the experience and use it to improve. I bombed my first TT interview - so I figured out what went wrong and how to make it better. There were some additional weird things that happened there that haven't happened since so I'm thankful for the experience even if it wasn't the best. I would probably think about it more if I ever ran into those people, but it's on the other side of the country and I haven't seen any of the names/faces again in my professional life thus far!

Echoing everything said here. My first Skype interview was for a TT position at a dream school with a long prolific history in my field. Literal MacArthur Genius recipient among the faculty interviewing me. I fucking BOMBED. Rambling, incoherent, trying too hard, intimidated, etc. I wanted to cry the moment I ended the call because I knew I fucked up. AND it was my birthday. I’m serious. However, I’ve since had a few more Skype interviews and on campus interviews. In fact, the dream school invited me back two years later for an on campus interview for another TT position. I didn’t get it, but I was able to land a TT offer during that same cycle and I’m now an Assistant Prof at an R1. First, as others have said, congratulations on getting interviews. You’ve done, and are doing, something right. Second, everybody seems to go through this because we get very little training here. Virtual meetings are harder and will take some getting used to. They will get easier. Just keeping going — you will learn from this and get better. I would recommend that you try to anticipate what the search committee checklist includes. They need to know you’re sane and that you can express yourself clearly. They’re probably always going to ask about your research, what courses you would teach, how your teaching is inclusive, what projects or grants are upcoming, etc. They are just vetting you to see if you’re legit. And you are because you got the interview. Have canned (or semi-canned) responses with an eye toward what’s in it for them. For example, they usually ask about what courses you can teach and how you can incorporate undergrads into research because they are trying to increase course enrollment and majors. Greater enrollment and major numbers is financially (and otherwise) beneficial for them from a college and university perspective. They don’t actually personally care about your courses or research (some might)! Just remember that it’s really about THEM and what you bring to their department. That will take a little digging on your part to learn about their history, what they’ve done, and maybe what they’d like to do, sort of in a bigger picture departmental or college “mission” kind of way. That seems like a big task at face value but it’s really not. Did somebody just retire and they’re looking to fill that teaching void? Can they do that and also get a badass new faculty member? Bingo! Just try to find ways that you naturally check off as many boxes as possible. Anyway, I know this sucks and feels bad. Many of us have been there. But you can and will learn from this. It’s so awesome that you’re getting interviews. My mantra lately has been “just keep going.” Manuscript or grant proposal rejections, bad teaching days, etc. Tenacity seems to be a bigger predictor of success than entirely avoiding failure by giving up. I hope this helps somehow. Good luck! You got this 👍

jhd6ji

askacademia_train

Human: Totally bombed my first TT job interview; advice from those who’ve been there? I didn’t expect to get this interview and it was super last minute. Usually I interview pretty well but it was like the link between my brain and mouth was severed, and also all my neurotransmitters were replaced with molasses. Any tips for moving on? I do have another interview in a couple weeks and I’m feeling a lot more prepared for that one at least... Assistant:

g9y1t8i

g9y91e8

I also didn't do as well as I'd hoped on my first TT interview. I actually began getting a migraine with aura with about 4 hours (including my teaching demo) remaining. I did my best to power though, but I suspect I came across as impatient and perhaps a little drunk? My second and third interviews were better. My fourth interview likely the best. Take a bit of time to write down what you can remember about what they asked you, its all likely to come up again. You can practice answers versions of those questions for yourself, either in writing, or aloud to yourself/pet/partner/friend. I found that once I had confidence in what I saw saying I could think on my feet a bit better. I also spent sometime wearing my interview outfits around so I didn't feel totally non-myself while wearing them. I know that sounds odd. But, I think that made me feel more comfortable with the version of myself I needed to present, and it really helped with my confidence.

I’m a tenured faculty member. Been doing this a long time. I’m really good at my job. In the past three years, I’ve bombed two interviews that I was head hunted for. Whoops. Good candidates have bad days. Don’t let it get you down.

jhd6ji

askacademia_train

Human: Totally bombed my first TT job interview; advice from those who’ve been there? I didn’t expect to get this interview and it was super last minute. Usually I interview pretty well but it was like the link between my brain and mouth was severed, and also all my neurotransmitters were replaced with molasses. Any tips for moving on? I do have another interview in a couple weeks and I’m feeling a lot more prepared for that one at least... Assistant:

g9y91e8

g9y2dum

I’m a tenured faculty member. Been doing this a long time. I’m really good at my job. In the past three years, I’ve bombed two interviews that I was head hunted for. Whoops. Good candidates have bad days. Don’t let it get you down.

Look up the tenure requirements so you can talk about them. Be able to lay out your research agenda in short sound bites- both what you are working on now and how that will build over the 1st six years. Also sound bites on teaching. Of course you’ll take on the huge intro classes, and this is how I plan to make them interesting. But I also see that no one is teaching such and such, and I would like to build a class or classes in that area. Students need to see how your subject area connects to the real world. Will you bring people in, include UGs in research, help them get internships... or whatever works best in your field. If you do a demo class, PRACTICE! Lastly, have the idea in your head that you are interviewing them. Make sure it’s a good fit for you.

jhd6ji

askacademia_train

Human: Totally bombed my first TT job interview; advice from those who’ve been there? I didn’t expect to get this interview and it was super last minute. Usually I interview pretty well but it was like the link between my brain and mouth was severed, and also all my neurotransmitters were replaced with molasses. Any tips for moving on? I do have another interview in a couple weeks and I’m feeling a lot more prepared for that one at least... Assistant:

g9y0j9y

g9y91e8

I've never been invited for a TT interview

I’m a tenured faculty member. Been doing this a long time. I’m really good at my job. In the past three years, I’ve bombed two interviews that I was head hunted for. Whoops. Good candidates have bad days. Don’t let it get you down.

jhd6ji

askacademia_train

Human: Totally bombed my first TT job interview; advice from those who’ve been there? I didn’t expect to get this interview and it was super last minute. Usually I interview pretty well but it was like the link between my brain and mouth was severed, and also all my neurotransmitters were replaced with molasses. Any tips for moving on? I do have another interview in a couple weeks and I’m feeling a lot more prepared for that one at least... Assistant:

g9y91e8

g9y404g

I’m a tenured faculty member. Been doing this a long time. I’m really good at my job. In the past three years, I’ve bombed two interviews that I was head hunted for. Whoops. Good candidates have bad days. Don’t let it get you down.

Agree with others here. I said some stupid shit during my first TT interview.

dsi4qh

askacademia_train

Human: Colons in article titles: Yes or no? It seems that people have strong opinions about this. Please share yours. Assistant:

f6pictl

f6pkebw

Seems like something I should have a strong opinion on but I don't.

Boring Article Topics: Liven it up with a Pun

dsi4qh

askacademia_train

Human: Colons in article titles: Yes or no? It seems that people have strong opinions about this. Please share yours. Assistant:

f6pictl

f6pn4u4

Seems like something I should have a strong opinion on but I don't.

Is it possible to have a title of an academic article *without* a colon?: A question for the community

dsi4qh

askacademia_train

Human: Colons in article titles: Yes or no? It seems that people have strong opinions about this. Please share yours. Assistant:

f6q3eru

f6pqdnu

I love colons. Just so long as you don't reach Victorian level title length, e.g.: *"The Travels Of Hildebrand Bowman, Esquire, Into Carnovirria, Taupiniera, Olfactaria, And Audinante, In New-Zealand; And In The Powerful Kingdom Of Luxo-Voluptot. Written By Himself; Who Went On Shore In The Adventure’s Large Cutter; And Escaped Being Cut Off, And Devoured, With The Rest Of The Boat’s Crew, By Happening To Be A-Shooting In The Woods; Where He Was Afterwards, Unfortunately Left Behind By The Adventure."* https://the-toast.net/2014/08/06/100-actual-titles-real-eighteenth-century-novels/

It's an overused trope, but there's a reason why it's a popular trope.

dsi4qh

askacademia_train

Human: Colons in article titles: Yes or no? It seems that people have strong opinions about this. Please share yours. Assistant:

f6q3eru

f6q0kck

I love colons. Just so long as you don't reach Victorian level title length, e.g.: *"The Travels Of Hildebrand Bowman, Esquire, Into Carnovirria, Taupiniera, Olfactaria, And Audinante, In New-Zealand; And In The Powerful Kingdom Of Luxo-Voluptot. Written By Himself; Who Went On Shore In The Adventure’s Large Cutter; And Escaped Being Cut Off, And Devoured, With The Rest Of The Boat’s Crew, By Happening To Be A-Shooting In The Woods; Where He Was Afterwards, Unfortunately Left Behind By The Adventure."* https://the-toast.net/2014/08/06/100-actual-titles-real-eighteenth-century-novels/

Next year these are all going to be vision puns :2020

z54zej

askacademia_train

Human: Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? I’m currently 21 (22 early next year) and a Biomed graduate, further planning to continue my studies so I can spend more time researching prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular disease. So I was considering between taking a PhD or masters; while I would have more creative freedom regarding my research with a PhD, its a long commitment, around 3-4 years, so I’ll have spent nearly all of my early 20s in school without the typical vacations that someone taking a masters would get. Now that wouldn’t be a huge problem since this is something I really enjoy, except that I have a personal philosophy that my early 20s are supposed to be for doing as many adventurous things (e.g. travelling) as I can, so I won’t come to regret not doing those things sooner by the time I have greater responsibilities like a full time job and a family. Now I don’t plan on getting into academia, but I do want to get into an R&D role in industry, where PhD holders are highly sought after, although masters holders are also considered. Looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts! Assistant:

ixucb32

ixu80dc

> Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? No idea, you tell us. Your priorities are yours. I did my PhD in my 20's and the university paid me to travel and present shit to large audiences of experts - to me that's adventurous enough.

If you feel like doing a PhD is a "sacrifice," you shouldn't get one.

z54zej

askacademia_train

Human: Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? I’m currently 21 (22 early next year) and a Biomed graduate, further planning to continue my studies so I can spend more time researching prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular disease. So I was considering between taking a PhD or masters; while I would have more creative freedom regarding my research with a PhD, its a long commitment, around 3-4 years, so I’ll have spent nearly all of my early 20s in school without the typical vacations that someone taking a masters would get. Now that wouldn’t be a huge problem since this is something I really enjoy, except that I have a personal philosophy that my early 20s are supposed to be for doing as many adventurous things (e.g. travelling) as I can, so I won’t come to regret not doing those things sooner by the time I have greater responsibilities like a full time job and a family. Now I don’t plan on getting into academia, but I do want to get into an R&D role in industry, where PhD holders are highly sought after, although masters holders are also considered. Looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts! Assistant:

ixu600z

ixucb32

In Europe you have to have a Master's degree to apply to PhDs, so I assume you are American? I mean you can still travel in your 30s

> Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? No idea, you tell us. Your priorities are yours. I did my PhD in my 20's and the university paid me to travel and present shit to large audiences of experts - to me that's adventurous enough.

z54zej

askacademia_train

Human: Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? I’m currently 21 (22 early next year) and a Biomed graduate, further planning to continue my studies so I can spend more time researching prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular disease. So I was considering between taking a PhD or masters; while I would have more creative freedom regarding my research with a PhD, its a long commitment, around 3-4 years, so I’ll have spent nearly all of my early 20s in school without the typical vacations that someone taking a masters would get. Now that wouldn’t be a huge problem since this is something I really enjoy, except that I have a personal philosophy that my early 20s are supposed to be for doing as many adventurous things (e.g. travelling) as I can, so I won’t come to regret not doing those things sooner by the time I have greater responsibilities like a full time job and a family. Now I don’t plan on getting into academia, but I do want to get into an R&D role in industry, where PhD holders are highly sought after, although masters holders are also considered. Looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts! Assistant:

ixu9rh4

ixucb32

As somebody who’s getting their bachelor’s degree at the age of 29 (will be finished by 30), I’d say go for it if you truly believe that the pursuit, unto itself, aligns with your long-term interests overall. I, by all objective measures, lived it up in my early twenties with nothing more than a CS certification as a means to independently support myself financially but now that I’m older and have gotten much of that out of my system, I can’t help but wish I had taken the time to wholly dedicate myself to the academic ventures which I, admittedly, knew that I’d eventually get to. Get it out of the way now so as to legitimately enjoy yourself when not only your ideals are more significantly developed, but also your comprehension of “need” and all the potential ramifications therein. EDIT: syntax

> Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? No idea, you tell us. Your priorities are yours. I did my PhD in my 20's and the university paid me to travel and present shit to large audiences of experts - to me that's adventurous enough.

z54zej

askacademia_train

Human: Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? I’m currently 21 (22 early next year) and a Biomed graduate, further planning to continue my studies so I can spend more time researching prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular disease. So I was considering between taking a PhD or masters; while I would have more creative freedom regarding my research with a PhD, its a long commitment, around 3-4 years, so I’ll have spent nearly all of my early 20s in school without the typical vacations that someone taking a masters would get. Now that wouldn’t be a huge problem since this is something I really enjoy, except that I have a personal philosophy that my early 20s are supposed to be for doing as many adventurous things (e.g. travelling) as I can, so I won’t come to regret not doing those things sooner by the time I have greater responsibilities like a full time job and a family. Now I don’t plan on getting into academia, but I do want to get into an R&D role in industry, where PhD holders are highly sought after, although masters holders are also considered. Looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts! Assistant:

ixu7n5p

ixucb32

A phd is an adventure

> Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? No idea, you tell us. Your priorities are yours. I did my PhD in my 20's and the university paid me to travel and present shit to large audiences of experts - to me that's adventurous enough.

z54zej

askacademia_train

Human: Is it worth sacrificing your early 20s for a PhD when you can get a Masters? I’m currently 21 (22 early next year) and a Biomed graduate, further planning to continue my studies so I can spend more time researching prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular disease. So I was considering between taking a PhD or masters; while I would have more creative freedom regarding my research with a PhD, its a long commitment, around 3-4 years, so I’ll have spent nearly all of my early 20s in school without the typical vacations that someone taking a masters would get. Now that wouldn’t be a huge problem since this is something I really enjoy, except that I have a personal philosophy that my early 20s are supposed to be for doing as many adventurous things (e.g. travelling) as I can, so I won’t come to regret not doing those things sooner by the time I have greater responsibilities like a full time job and a family. Now I don’t plan on getting into academia, but I do want to get into an R&D role in industry, where PhD holders are highly sought after, although masters holders are also considered. Looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts! Assistant:

ixu80dc

ixu9bt7

If you feel like doing a PhD is a "sacrifice," you shouldn't get one.

You're asking us about your priorities. They're your priorities. Do the one you feel is the bigger priority. You can get a PhD a few years later. You can also travel a few years later. There's nothing special about your early 20s that means "it's better to travel now than any other time." And taking a break won't lock you out of PhD programs; plenty of people in my PhD program were in their 30s.

vstrhf

askacademia_train

Human: Final oral exam (phd) in a few weeks and still making revisions *laughs maniacally* Just wanted to share my slow descent into madness because why not. I wrote so much of this flamin' dorito turd of a manuscript before I got diagnosed with adhd and for a month I have been trying to make sense of the disjointed musings of my premedicated rabid raccoon brain. Whenever I think I am done, I re-read a section and I just start laughing at the monitor. It's scaring my dog. Weeell, I may or may not have earned my PhD at the end of this month. Find out on the next Dragon Ball Z. PS: Any tips for the defense will be greatly appreciated. It will be on Zoom which I still don't know how I feel about but at least I can ghost my committee forever if I feel things are going downhill midway through. Assistant:

if3yipk

if3qa75

Don't use any slide transitions or animations other than 'appear' Starwipes, etc. look awful on a good day, and a laggy stilted mess on zoom.

Will the committee you’re presenting to read your updated work before the presentation or have you already submitted it? If your talk is based on what you’ve already submitted don’t focus so much time on revising the manuscript right now, focus on getting the talk perfected. Be aware that they may ask you questions based on the submitted work but just accept that it is what it is, be aware of and prepare explanations about key problems in the submitted work and just focus on getting your talk to show the true scientist you are. Getting hung up on problems with your submitted work and beating yourself up about them will only hurt you. It is what it is. It happened and now we move on to bigger and better.

kpsojk

askacademia_train

Human: How to tell my PhD advisor that I don't want to be a professor anymore? In the beginning of my PhD program (Materials Science, R1) I told my PI of my ambition to be a faculty. I'm the first PhD student of my PI, so I know that they put lots of effort and resources for my research training. As a young PI, having a mentee who goes on becoming a faculty seems like a big achievement and a legacy to be proud of for the rest of their career. Now I'm nearing the end of my PhD and, after contemplating, I want to have a comfortable and stable life after PhD. I don't see doing postdoc(s) and looking for non-existent tenure-track faculty jobs as a comfortable/stable life. Although this may not be true if I decide to move elsewhere out of state. With all the sacrifice my PI has given to me (resulting in my super productive outputs, a number of first-authored papers, as well as several fellowships in my belt), how should I respectfully tell my PI that I changed my mind about my future career? What is the best way to explain that I may no longer want to be a professor? I'm not really good at speaking and choosing the right words to say, so your suggestions are highly appreciated. Assistant:

ghzsrqu

gi047cq

you think they put all that effort into you because you want to be faculty, NO they did it cuz it was their job and they want publications.

“Dear prof I’ve been thinking about my future and I’m not as excited about an academic path as before. Instead I want to XYZ. How can I pivot my work to be more competitive in that career trajectory?”

g4ifwl

askacademia_train

Human: I just received tenure track offer and start up package - do I need to negotiate? Is it gauche to discuss with a new prof in the dept? I received a tenure track asst prof offer on Fri in chemical engineering at a mid level R1 institute in the US. I am happy! I do not have other offers and 100% plan to take this because my husband is here and there’s no other option within two hour commute. (1) I can see salaries online as they are public. I am very happy with the salary offer. Should I still negotiate? Always? (2) The start up funding is quite low ($25,000) unexpectedly low, for someone who does wet chemistry. I genuinely expected it to be an order of magnitude higher. I cannot buy any piece of equipment or support even one student with this money. Not sure what to even say. I thought about asking another professor who just began in the dept last year what he thought I could negotiate for in funding. Unsure what’s appropriate given the large chasm. Almost want to accept and not deal with it, after I waited 3 months for the offer. Assistant:

fnxti9z

fnxrcsr

Ask for the startup you need to succeed. That is important and it doesn’t matter what anyone else got. The department wants you to be successful, so they won’t mind you asking for this.

More money is always better (like if someone said "hey, want $5000", you'd say yes) so no harm in negotiating salary, but I'd start your talks with the priority, and that in this case is your start up. There is the balance of accepting what you can get because the market is taking a tumble right now, but there is also the issue of can you actually be successful with that. I went into my negotiations with the mindset of I had told them my research plans, they had hired me knowing that, so they should want me to be able to be successful. Did you make a list of what you needed/wanted and justified it? If so, time to reiterate with them why you need these things. There might be alternate ways to get things too- shared with other people, institutional grants, teaching release while you get grants to buy these things, students supported by dept/TAships, etc. But make sure you aren't walking into a situation that you cannot be successful in.

g4ifwl

askacademia_train

Human: I just received tenure track offer and start up package - do I need to negotiate? Is it gauche to discuss with a new prof in the dept? I received a tenure track asst prof offer on Fri in chemical engineering at a mid level R1 institute in the US. I am happy! I do not have other offers and 100% plan to take this because my husband is here and there’s no other option within two hour commute. (1) I can see salaries online as they are public. I am very happy with the salary offer. Should I still negotiate? Always? (2) The start up funding is quite low ($25,000) unexpectedly low, for someone who does wet chemistry. I genuinely expected it to be an order of magnitude higher. I cannot buy any piece of equipment or support even one student with this money. Not sure what to even say. I thought about asking another professor who just began in the dept last year what he thought I could negotiate for in funding. Unsure what’s appropriate given the large chasm. Almost want to accept and not deal with it, after I waited 3 months for the offer. Assistant:

fnxti9z

fnxs7je

Ask for the startup you need to succeed. That is important and it doesn’t matter what anyone else got. The department wants you to be successful, so they won’t mind you asking for this.

You know that movie trope where someone tumbles off a cliff, falling a frightening distance, but manages to grab on to a slight ledge momentarily stopping a plummet all the way to the bottom? Maybe they'll pull themselves back up or maybe they'll lose their grip and free fall to the bottom. That's where academia (and with it the academic job market) is right now, down and hanging on precariously. Schools are facing significant threats to enrollment, which costs them in both tuition and auxiliary revenue, while having to simultaneously adjust to a new model for their services. Endowments haven taken a hit from the stock market drop. Fear and uncertainty is causing normally very tradition-bound institutions to abandon certain norms, renege on contracts, and eat their own seed corn out of immediate need. And they have the cover of "generational catastrophe" to excuse and rationalize it. If you like the salary, it's in line with published values, and you'd be willing to work at the place, lock that down asap. Get your actual contract or appointment letter signed and hope the school doesn't renege.

g4ifwl

askacademia_train

Human: I just received tenure track offer and start up package - do I need to negotiate? Is it gauche to discuss with a new prof in the dept? I received a tenure track asst prof offer on Fri in chemical engineering at a mid level R1 institute in the US. I am happy! I do not have other offers and 100% plan to take this because my husband is here and there’s no other option within two hour commute. (1) I can see salaries online as they are public. I am very happy with the salary offer. Should I still negotiate? Always? (2) The start up funding is quite low ($25,000) unexpectedly low, for someone who does wet chemistry. I genuinely expected it to be an order of magnitude higher. I cannot buy any piece of equipment or support even one student with this money. Not sure what to even say. I thought about asking another professor who just began in the dept last year what he thought I could negotiate for in funding. Unsure what’s appropriate given the large chasm. Almost want to accept and not deal with it, after I waited 3 months for the offer. Assistant:

fnxmb7d

fnxti9z

I do think it is gauche to ask other people in the department what they got (unless you were friends with them before you interviewed there or something). Talk to your peers about what they were offered at other institutions or talk to your mentors about how to approach negotiations.

Ask for the startup you need to succeed. That is important and it doesn’t matter what anyone else got. The department wants you to be successful, so they won’t mind you asking for this.

g4ifwl

askacademia_train

Human: I just received tenure track offer and start up package - do I need to negotiate? Is it gauche to discuss with a new prof in the dept? I received a tenure track asst prof offer on Fri in chemical engineering at a mid level R1 institute in the US. I am happy! I do not have other offers and 100% plan to take this because my husband is here and there’s no other option within two hour commute. (1) I can see salaries online as they are public. I am very happy with the salary offer. Should I still negotiate? Always? (2) The start up funding is quite low ($25,000) unexpectedly low, for someone who does wet chemistry. I genuinely expected it to be an order of magnitude higher. I cannot buy any piece of equipment or support even one student with this money. Not sure what to even say. I thought about asking another professor who just began in the dept last year what he thought I could negotiate for in funding. Unsure what’s appropriate given the large chasm. Almost want to accept and not deal with it, after I waited 3 months for the offer. Assistant:

fnxrcsr

fnxysw6

More money is always better (like if someone said "hey, want $5000", you'd say yes) so no harm in negotiating salary, but I'd start your talks with the priority, and that in this case is your start up. There is the balance of accepting what you can get because the market is taking a tumble right now, but there is also the issue of can you actually be successful with that. I went into my negotiations with the mindset of I had told them my research plans, they had hired me knowing that, so they should want me to be able to be successful. Did you make a list of what you needed/wanted and justified it? If so, time to reiterate with them why you need these things. There might be alternate ways to get things too- shared with other people, institutional grants, teaching release while you get grants to buy these things, students supported by dept/TAships, etc. But make sure you aren't walking into a situation that you cannot be successful in.

First off, congrats!! Build yourself a spreadsheet of all the operating costs you anticipate having in the first couple years before you get grants - equipment you need that isn't already at the school, recurring wet lab materials, staff, lab furniture, etc. Get really specific with what everything costs and how much you need. Then color code it with what is *absolutely fundamental,* aka you cannot do the job you were hired for without it (do you need to supervise students in the first couple years to meet tenure requirements?), vs. what would suck to lose but technically could still do some work, and what would be nice to have. Then add up those costs. If it were January, I'd say try to negotiate for the cost of the first two categories, but nowadays it's probably best to only ask for the first and not risk losing the offer. Without the startup you absolutely need to function, you're technically a negative investment for the school, the department, and yourself, so that's what you should ask for and present it along with the spreadsheet justifying why you need that amount. Taking that approach makes it a conversation about "how can we together make this productive," instead of something adversarial where you're trying the get the most boon for yourself. I wouldn't try to negotiate the salary if you're decently happy with it, since you're already unhappy with the start up so that should be the focal point. Hopefully your new department head will be on your side and help advocate for you to the dean, because they want this position filled before the school might make it disappear. You could also talk to them with your spreadsheet first before going to the school, if you feel like you have a good relationship with them, about what creative solutions might exist already in the department that you aren't currently aware of. For instance, post-interview I found out there is a built in moving fund and conference travel fund for all new faculty at my institution so I didn't have to negotiate for those. This is the negotiation process I took to great success. Granted though, that was in January and my field is cognitive neuroscience. Good luck OP!

g4ifwl

askacademia_train

Human: I just received tenure track offer and start up package - do I need to negotiate? Is it gauche to discuss with a new prof in the dept? I received a tenure track asst prof offer on Fri in chemical engineering at a mid level R1 institute in the US. I am happy! I do not have other offers and 100% plan to take this because my husband is here and there’s no other option within two hour commute. (1) I can see salaries online as they are public. I am very happy with the salary offer. Should I still negotiate? Always? (2) The start up funding is quite low ($25,000) unexpectedly low, for someone who does wet chemistry. I genuinely expected it to be an order of magnitude higher. I cannot buy any piece of equipment or support even one student with this money. Not sure what to even say. I thought about asking another professor who just began in the dept last year what he thought I could negotiate for in funding. Unsure what’s appropriate given the large chasm. Almost want to accept and not deal with it, after I waited 3 months for the offer. Assistant:

fnxysw6

fnxs7je

First off, congrats!! Build yourself a spreadsheet of all the operating costs you anticipate having in the first couple years before you get grants - equipment you need that isn't already at the school, recurring wet lab materials, staff, lab furniture, etc. Get really specific with what everything costs and how much you need. Then color code it with what is *absolutely fundamental,* aka you cannot do the job you were hired for without it (do you need to supervise students in the first couple years to meet tenure requirements?), vs. what would suck to lose but technically could still do some work, and what would be nice to have. Then add up those costs. If it were January, I'd say try to negotiate for the cost of the first two categories, but nowadays it's probably best to only ask for the first and not risk losing the offer. Without the startup you absolutely need to function, you're technically a negative investment for the school, the department, and yourself, so that's what you should ask for and present it along with the spreadsheet justifying why you need that amount. Taking that approach makes it a conversation about "how can we together make this productive," instead of something adversarial where you're trying the get the most boon for yourself. I wouldn't try to negotiate the salary if you're decently happy with it, since you're already unhappy with the start up so that should be the focal point. Hopefully your new department head will be on your side and help advocate for you to the dean, because they want this position filled before the school might make it disappear. You could also talk to them with your spreadsheet first before going to the school, if you feel like you have a good relationship with them, about what creative solutions might exist already in the department that you aren't currently aware of. For instance, post-interview I found out there is a built in moving fund and conference travel fund for all new faculty at my institution so I didn't have to negotiate for those. This is the negotiation process I took to great success. Granted though, that was in January and my field is cognitive neuroscience. Good luck OP!

You know that movie trope where someone tumbles off a cliff, falling a frightening distance, but manages to grab on to a slight ledge momentarily stopping a plummet all the way to the bottom? Maybe they'll pull themselves back up or maybe they'll lose their grip and free fall to the bottom. That's where academia (and with it the academic job market) is right now, down and hanging on precariously. Schools are facing significant threats to enrollment, which costs them in both tuition and auxiliary revenue, while having to simultaneously adjust to a new model for their services. Endowments haven taken a hit from the stock market drop. Fear and uncertainty is causing normally very tradition-bound institutions to abandon certain norms, renege on contracts, and eat their own seed corn out of immediate need. And they have the cover of "generational catastrophe" to excuse and rationalize it. If you like the salary, it's in line with published values, and you'd be willing to work at the place, lock that down asap. Get your actual contract or appointment letter signed and hope the school doesn't renege.

c8cv7h

askacademia_train

Human: Male profs/students always referring to female scientists (profs & students) as “girls” or “ladies” I (F 25) am a doctoral student at a large American research university. Something that has been bugging me (and all of the other female students in my department) is that most of the male professors exhibit some sexist behaviors. What’s really disheartening and offensive, however, is that one of the younger PIs (early 30s) and his male students appear to go out of their way to always call attention to our gender. For example, they constantly refer to us as “girls” or “ladies,” express actual surprise that the female students are able complete work by deadlines and meet/exceed expectations, remark that it’s so unfair that a female TT “will get tenure only because she’s female”—I could go on but you get the idea. I don’t understand why our gender always has to be mentioned in every conversation. I voiced my reaction (“it makes me feel uncomfortable when male students and faculty members constantly remind me that I’m female. I don’t understand why every sentence has to end with “girls” or “ladies.”) to one of the students in a graduate student seminar when we were discussing inclusivity in the classroom, and he didn’t even try to understand where we were coming from (“But if you’re talking to a group of girls, what’s the problem with stating that?”) and it has only gotten worse since then. There isn’t a female professor that I can go talk to for advice, so I came to you, R/AskAcademia. These are good people with good intentions, but they don’t realize how the words they choose on a daily basis reinforce the “boys’ club” feeling of our department. What can we do to encourage them to think about it from our perspective? Assistant:

esm5klq

esn1sgx

You're right. I've seen this behaviour by a PhD student in my lab, he calls all women scientists no matter how accomplished or senior they are, girls. It's fucking stupid.

A few people here are missing the point. The fact that they say things like "women will get tenure just because they're women" is incredibly off. There's a blatant disregard for/dehumanisation of a person based on gender at play here. It rings starkingly similar to the way people denigrate race inclusivity programs. The "ladies" and "girls" remarks seem innocuous if taken as just that but if it's coming from people who partake in and condone that kind of discussion, there is a problem.

c8cv7h

askacademia_train

Human: Male profs/students always referring to female scientists (profs & students) as “girls” or “ladies” I (F 25) am a doctoral student at a large American research university. Something that has been bugging me (and all of the other female students in my department) is that most of the male professors exhibit some sexist behaviors. What’s really disheartening and offensive, however, is that one of the younger PIs (early 30s) and his male students appear to go out of their way to always call attention to our gender. For example, they constantly refer to us as “girls” or “ladies,” express actual surprise that the female students are able complete work by deadlines and meet/exceed expectations, remark that it’s so unfair that a female TT “will get tenure only because she’s female”—I could go on but you get the idea. I don’t understand why our gender always has to be mentioned in every conversation. I voiced my reaction (“it makes me feel uncomfortable when male students and faculty members constantly remind me that I’m female. I don’t understand why every sentence has to end with “girls” or “ladies.”) to one of the students in a graduate student seminar when we were discussing inclusivity in the classroom, and he didn’t even try to understand where we were coming from (“But if you’re talking to a group of girls, what’s the problem with stating that?”) and it has only gotten worse since then. There isn’t a female professor that I can go talk to for advice, so I came to you, R/AskAcademia. These are good people with good intentions, but they don’t realize how the words they choose on a daily basis reinforce the “boys’ club” feeling of our department. What can we do to encourage them to think about it from our perspective? Assistant:

esmapce

esn1sgx

This is unfortunately pretty common in all of the departments I've been in and it's hard to have a real conversation about it without immediately being discounted as a "snowflake" or oversensitive. IMO it comes off as borderline patronizing when men approach a group of female colleagues/students/whatever and start out with "ladies." I can't really put my finger on it but it just doesn't seem necessary to refer to people's gender in a professional context when there isn't a good reason for it. Even if you don't want to accept that it can be harmful, I think anyone would agree that it's at best not necessary. I think you put it best as reinforcing the "boys' club" feeling. Lots of people justify it by pointing out that it's okay to use gendered comments with groups of men, but I think that ignores the fact that women have historically (and still are) been excluded from science, had their ideas discounted, and faced unparalleled scrutiny in their work just because of their gender.

A few people here are missing the point. The fact that they say things like "women will get tenure just because they're women" is incredibly off. There's a blatant disregard for/dehumanisation of a person based on gender at play here. It rings starkingly similar to the way people denigrate race inclusivity programs. The "ladies" and "girls" remarks seem innocuous if taken as just that but if it's coming from people who partake in and condone that kind of discussion, there is a problem.

c8cv7h

askacademia_train

Human: Male profs/students always referring to female scientists (profs & students) as “girls” or “ladies” I (F 25) am a doctoral student at a large American research university. Something that has been bugging me (and all of the other female students in my department) is that most of the male professors exhibit some sexist behaviors. What’s really disheartening and offensive, however, is that one of the younger PIs (early 30s) and his male students appear to go out of their way to always call attention to our gender. For example, they constantly refer to us as “girls” or “ladies,” express actual surprise that the female students are able complete work by deadlines and meet/exceed expectations, remark that it’s so unfair that a female TT “will get tenure only because she’s female”—I could go on but you get the idea. I don’t understand why our gender always has to be mentioned in every conversation. I voiced my reaction (“it makes me feel uncomfortable when male students and faculty members constantly remind me that I’m female. I don’t understand why every sentence has to end with “girls” or “ladies.”) to one of the students in a graduate student seminar when we were discussing inclusivity in the classroom, and he didn’t even try to understand where we were coming from (“But if you’re talking to a group of girls, what’s the problem with stating that?”) and it has only gotten worse since then. There isn’t a female professor that I can go talk to for advice, so I came to you, R/AskAcademia. These are good people with good intentions, but they don’t realize how the words they choose on a daily basis reinforce the “boys’ club” feeling of our department. What can we do to encourage them to think about it from our perspective? Assistant:

esm4zfv

esn1sgx

This reminds me of my roommate's advisor. My roommate was telling me ( we are both guys) that his (male)advisor treats one of their female undergraduate students in a very sexist way. For example, the advisor would often not give her work and often says things like "It's a labor intensive work. You'll probably not be able to do it". After a few months of these remarks, the female undergraduate left his lab. My roommate felt very disappointed in his advisor. ​ Our graduate school has something called Graduate Women in Science (GWIS). It's basically an organization that promotes equal opportunities for all in science, that is for both men and women. Maybe you can start to implement this idea in your University ?

A few people here are missing the point. The fact that they say things like "women will get tenure just because they're women" is incredibly off. There's a blatant disregard for/dehumanisation of a person based on gender at play here. It rings starkingly similar to the way people denigrate race inclusivity programs. The "ladies" and "girls" remarks seem innocuous if taken as just that but if it's coming from people who partake in and condone that kind of discussion, there is a problem.

c8cv7h

askacademia_train

Human: t understand why our gender always has to be mentioned in every conversation. I voiced my reaction (“it makes me feel uncomfortable when male students and faculty members constantly remind me that I’m female. I don’t understand why every sentence has to end with “girls” or “ladies.”) to one of the students in a graduate student seminar when we were discussing inclusivity in the classroom, and he didn’t even try to understand where we were coming from (“But if you’re talking to a group of girls, what’s the problem with stating that?”) and it has only gotten worse since then. There isn’t a female professor that I can go talk to for advice, so I came to you, R/AskAcademia. These are good people with good intentions, but they don’t realize how the words they choose on a daily basis reinforce the “boys’ club” feeling of our department. What can we do to encourage them to think about it from our perspective? Assistant:

esmibg2

esn1sgx

Personally I think the things you mention are in wildly different categories and I don't think it's appropriate to group them together, even though I know the political climate says otherwise. Said another way: pick your battles. * "surprise that the female students are able complete work by deadlines and meet/exceed expectations" - This is unacceptable. It is blatant sexism of the truest form, is humiliating, counterfactual, and demoralizing. I would consider comments like this grounds for throwing someone out of my team if I had the power, or at the very least would result in a very serious firm discussion about what is acceptable and what isn't, with warning of possible future consequences, as well as some education on actual facts. If it were me, I would have prepared responses for these kinds of comments and confront them in a controlled firm way, and investigate what other options are available. Calm tone: "Listen, I know you think it's a good laugh, but that comment is unacceptable and so I'd appreciate it if you rather don't continue to make comments of that nature. Thank you." If persisting and while knowing your options: "Look, I'm pretty easy going, but if you're going to disrespect me in a manner that relates to my gender, I'm going to be forced to report it. Let's rather not." * "constantly refer to us as 'girls' or 'ladies' - this seems really context dependent and while you may know that they are being subtly sexist, I doubt you can report calling a group of women "ladies" and including it in any other report probably weakens your case. I'd let it go. "But if you’re talking to a group of girls, what’s the problem with stating that?" this actually isn't the worst point, unless someone is being deliberately obtuse. Yes, it's probably better to go gender neutral on everything, but an enormous number of people in the world aren't offended by this *at all*, so I think it's a bit of an arbitrary demand for rigor to wish for this not to happen. * "it’s so unfair that a female TT 'will get tenure only because she’s female'" - this one is sticky. I think they shouldn't say it, but you also have to understand that this is genuinely a situation that many men stand to lose very badly from and obviously they're going to talk about it grumpily. There are also many women who don't support these policies and are pissed off about it. Yes, it's wrong for them to imply that a particularly qualified female professor got ahead just because she was a woman, but on the other hand I know of several specific cases of faculty members at my university who genuinely were hired only because of their X political group status and are really not as good as their other colleagues, but it is the law in my country. This hurts the university and hurts students and I reiterate, there are plenty of men and women who are against these policies (just like there are men and women in favor!). Maybe you can try get them to talk constructively: "hey, I'm not sure I agree with you, but maybe you have some different policy ideas that you can suggest and perhaps you can convince me." This disarms the situation (yes it sucks that you have to be the bigger person, but that's *always* how life is) and if they have nothing intelligent to contribute, then you wreck them: laughing tone "oh so you guys just moan like babies about jobs but you don't actually have any ideas on the matter apart from complaining?" Otherwise, perhaps they do have something more than a catchphrase to say and maybe you have a less adversarial and more meaningful discussion and you may find that the sexism decreases. All the best.

A few people here are missing the point. The fact that they say things like "women will get tenure just because they're women" is incredibly off. There's a blatant disregard for/dehumanisation of a person based on gender at play here. It rings starkingly similar to the way people denigrate race inclusivity programs. The "ladies" and "girls" remarks seem innocuous if taken as just that but if it's coming from people who partake in and condone that kind of discussion, there is a problem.

c8cv7h

askacademia_train

Human: Male profs/students always referring to female scientists (profs & students) as “girls” or “ladies” I (F 25) am a doctoral student at a large American research university. Something that has been bugging me (and all of the other female students in my department) is that most of the male professors exhibit some sexist behaviors. What’s really disheartening and offensive, however, is that one of the younger PIs (early 30s) and his male students appear to go out of their way to always call attention to our gender. For example, they constantly refer to us as “girls” or “ladies,” express actual surprise that the female students are able complete work by deadlines and meet/exceed expectations, remark that it’s so unfair that a female TT “will get tenure only because she’s female”—I could go on but you get the idea. I don’t understand why our gender always has to be mentioned in every conversation. I voiced my reaction (“it makes me feel uncomfortable when male students and faculty members constantly remind me that I’m female. I don’t understand why every sentence has to end with “girls” or “ladies.”) to one of the students in a graduate student seminar when we were discussing inclusivity in the classroom, and he didn’t even try to understand where we were coming from (“But if you’re talking to a group of girls, what’s the problem with stating that?”) and it has only gotten worse since then. There isn’t a female professor that I can go talk to for advice, so I came to you, R/AskAcademia. These are good people with good intentions, but they don’t realize how the words they choose on a daily basis reinforce the “boys’ club” feeling of our department. What can we do to encourage them to think about it from our perspective? Assistant:

esn1sgx

esm56ct

A few people here are missing the point. The fact that they say things like "women will get tenure just because they're women" is incredibly off. There's a blatant disregard for/dehumanisation of a person based on gender at play here. It rings starkingly similar to the way people denigrate race inclusivity programs. The "ladies" and "girls" remarks seem innocuous if taken as just that but if it's coming from people who partake in and condone that kind of discussion, there is a problem.

Try adding 'boys' to the end of your sentences addressing them. When they finally ask why you're doing that, point out they've been doing the same to you. But yeah, they don't notice these things, even when pointed out, and don't see the problem. Make sure you use 'boys' and not 'men' or 'guys'; it needs to be fairly insulting for them to notice.

urphax

askacademia_train

Human: Is academia underpaid in the US? For most skilled jobs, the US have higher salaries than pretty much everywhere else in the world across the board. Sometimes the gap is massive at least for gross amounts, especially in tech. But academia seems to be a major exception. PhD stipends are ridiculous and barely allow students to scrape by. Postdoc salaries vary a lot but most of the positions I've come across were in the range of $45k-$60k. I guess you can live relatively comfortably in most of the US with that, but it's peanuts compared to what you'd get in the industry, and about the same as what you'd get in a country like Germany - not to mention Switzerland where postdocs usually start from $80k and can go up to $100k in the best institutions. You never get rich anywhere in academia - but in other countries academia seems to be less underpaid compared to non-academia. Given the amount of debt so many grad students in the US get themselves into, it really doesn't seem worth it. Granted, US academia can be the gateway for top paying non-academic jobs, and you can make good money in tenure track positions, but those are hard to come by. Is there something I'm missing here? Assistant:

i8yk20g

i8yjja8

Swiss is probably the only place (in its face value) that makes academia \_seems\_ adequately paid. In fact, most of the places in the world are underpaying postdocs and also APs. Right now in the US we are admitting even more Ph.D. students (in my case, 2x), and that means the job market will be more competitive after \~5 years...

A big issue is simple economics: the supply of graduate students in certain disciplines far outstrips the demand in academia AND industry, combined. That, in part, explains some of the low wages many face (or less than desirable positions).

urphax

askacademia_train

Human: Is academia underpaid in the US? For most skilled jobs, the US have higher salaries than pretty much everywhere else in the world across the board. Sometimes the gap is massive at least for gross amounts, especially in tech. But academia seems to be a major exception. PhD stipends are ridiculous and barely allow students to scrape by. Postdoc salaries vary a lot but most of the positions I've come across were in the range of $45k-$60k. I guess you can live relatively comfortably in most of the US with that, but it's peanuts compared to what you'd get in the industry, and about the same as what you'd get in a country like Germany - not to mention Switzerland where postdocs usually start from $80k and can go up to $100k in the best institutions. You never get rich anywhere in academia - but in other countries academia seems to be less underpaid compared to non-academia. Given the amount of debt so many grad students in the US get themselves into, it really doesn't seem worth it. Granted, US academia can be the gateway for top paying non-academic jobs, and you can make good money in tenure track positions, but those are hard to come by. Is there something I'm missing here? Assistant:

i8yktfc

i8znkp4

Well, the humanities, fine arts, and social sciences are very underpaid, yes, but as someone else mentioned there is a supply/demand issue. For business and STEM at some top-tier universities, you can do really well if you’re tenured. But this is also part of why many folks are leaving academia lately.

Academia is underpaid EVERYWHERE. Show me another profession where you are expected to become an internationally renowned expert in your field within 3-4 years by expanding the limits of human knowledge but still have to come up with your own funding.

urphax

askacademia_train

Human: Is academia underpaid in the US? For most skilled jobs, the US have higher salaries than pretty much everywhere else in the world across the board. Sometimes the gap is massive at least for gross amounts, especially in tech. But academia seems to be a major exception. PhD stipends are ridiculous and barely allow students to scrape by. Postdoc salaries vary a lot but most of the positions I've come across were in the range of $45k-$60k. I guess you can live relatively comfortably in most of the US with that, but it's peanuts compared to what you'd get in the industry, and about the same as what you'd get in a country like Germany - not to mention Switzerland where postdocs usually start from $80k and can go up to $100k in the best institutions. You never get rich anywhere in academia - but in other countries academia seems to be less underpaid compared to non-academia. Given the amount of debt so many grad students in the US get themselves into, it really doesn't seem worth it. Granted, US academia can be the gateway for top paying non-academic jobs, and you can make good money in tenure track positions, but those are hard to come by. Is there something I'm missing here? Assistant:

i8znkp4

i8zbi2b

Academia is underpaid EVERYWHERE. Show me another profession where you are expected to become an internationally renowned expert in your field within 3-4 years by expanding the limits of human knowledge but still have to come up with your own funding.

Looking at this from the biomedical sciences (probably applies to most STEM) perspective: the problem is that academic postdoc salary doesn't scale with cost-of-living. For some college towns, $55K is enough to buy a house and live comfortably. But $55K hardly covers rent in some cities. The pay scales with experience, but not the location, which is the issue. And for postdoc pay to scale with location, the budget for research grants (i.e. NIH R01s) needs to scale with location, but it obviously doesn't. In Europe, postdoc pay seems to scale by country's COL. At least in the biomedical sciences, once you become a PI, you can make good money - pretty close to industry. And PIs often spin off companies or consult for companies so you can do well financially as an academic.

urphax

askacademia_train

Human: Is academia underpaid in the US? For most skilled jobs, the US have higher salaries than pretty much everywhere else in the world across the board. Sometimes the gap is massive at least for gross amounts, especially in tech. But academia seems to be a major exception. PhD stipends are ridiculous and barely allow students to scrape by. Postdoc salaries vary a lot but most of the positions I've come across were in the range of $45k-$60k. I guess you can live relatively comfortably in most of the US with that, but it's peanuts compared to what you'd get in the industry, and about the same as what you'd get in a country like Germany - not to mention Switzerland where postdocs usually start from $80k and can go up to $100k in the best institutions. You never get rich anywhere in academia - but in other countries academia seems to be less underpaid compared to non-academia. Given the amount of debt so many grad students in the US get themselves into, it really doesn't seem worth it. Granted, US academia can be the gateway for top paying non-academic jobs, and you can make good money in tenure track positions, but those are hard to come by. Is there something I'm missing here? Assistant:

i8znkp4

i8yjja8

Academia is underpaid EVERYWHERE. Show me another profession where you are expected to become an internationally renowned expert in your field within 3-4 years by expanding the limits of human knowledge but still have to come up with your own funding.

A big issue is simple economics: the supply of graduate students in certain disciplines far outstrips the demand in academia AND industry, combined. That, in part, explains some of the low wages many face (or less than desirable positions).

urphax

askacademia_train

Human: Is academia underpaid in the US? For most skilled jobs, the US have higher salaries than pretty much everywhere else in the world across the board. Sometimes the gap is massive at least for gross amounts, especially in tech. But academia seems to be a major exception. PhD stipends are ridiculous and barely allow students to scrape by. Postdoc salaries vary a lot but most of the positions I've come across were in the range of $45k-$60k. I guess you can live relatively comfortably in most of the US with that, but it's peanuts compared to what you'd get in the industry, and about the same as what you'd get in a country like Germany - not to mention Switzerland where postdocs usually start from $80k and can go up to $100k in the best institutions. You never get rich anywhere in academia - but in other countries academia seems to be less underpaid compared to non-academia. Given the amount of debt so many grad students in the US get themselves into, it really doesn't seem worth it. Granted, US academia can be the gateway for top paying non-academic jobs, and you can make good money in tenure track positions, but those are hard to come by. Is there something I'm missing here? Assistant:

i8ynkx7

i8znkp4

Yes. Especially in any support roles.

Academia is underpaid EVERYWHERE. Show me another profession where you are expected to become an internationally renowned expert in your field within 3-4 years by expanding the limits of human knowledge but still have to come up with your own funding.

rg8uk4

askacademia_train

Human: Is it normal to be put down in your first year of a PhD? I won't lie, there's been a massive learning curve for me this year to get used to how things are done at this level. Even simple things like writing papers, reports and presentations demands a standard I'm not very used to. Maybe I'm just being self-conscious and potentially reading the situations wrong but I always leave supervisor meetings feeling exhausted and somewhat put down if that makes sense? Like yesterday, my supervisor seemed very cold and distant, only offering criticisms of my work. Maybe it's just me? Assistant:

hoizhvu

hoio3b6

You're right. Graduate school is a whole different set of expectations. You are shifting from being the consumer of knowledge (as an undergraduate) to the critic and producer of knowledge (as a graduate student). Here are three pieces of advice that really helped my mental health in graduate school: 1. Try to find a more senior graduate student in your program to serve as an informal mentor. This is particularly useful if they are in your same lab but any student who has been through a similar thing can help. It really helped me to talk to others who had been through what I was going through. Senior graduate students always seemed so put together and on top of their work, that hearing they had similar struggles eased my anxiety a lot. They also can become invaluable assets in getting information about random paperwork and milestones. Academia is filled with red tape and having a resource who has recently had to navigate it helps a lot! 2. Faculty will only invest the time in criticizing your work if they care. The worst thing an advisor, reviewer, instructor, etc. can do is to either ignore you or passively tell you that you're doing great when you're not. 3. You need to separate your self-worth from your work. I'm not saying that it is easy to do but it will help you survive in graduate school and in an academic career beyond graduate school. I found that once I was able to separate evaluations of me as a person from evaluations of the work I submitted, graduate school got a heck of a lot easier. Best of luck in your program!

It is normal to be critiqued, feel imposter syndrome kick in, or to be overwhelmed. Depending on personality and work experience those things may feel like put-downs and be something to grow through. Anytime people (especially students) get to the next level there are going to be growing pains, new standards, and a period of adjustment. Some supervisors are a bit more distant than others, especially in busy seasons or with newer students. However, it is not normal or okay to be personally attacked, devalued, or disrespected. Ever. I hope you are soon able to take some time to reflect and discern which situation you are in and make the next right choice for yourself whatever that is.

rg8uk4

askacademia_train

Human: Is it normal to be put down in your first year of a PhD? I won't lie, there's been a massive learning curve for me this year to get used to how things are done at this level. Even simple things like writing papers, reports and presentations demands a standard I'm not very used to. Maybe I'm just being self-conscious and potentially reading the situations wrong but I always leave supervisor meetings feeling exhausted and somewhat put down if that makes sense? Like yesterday, my supervisor seemed very cold and distant, only offering criticisms of my work. Maybe it's just me? Assistant:

hok6rav

hoj3ap5

To be blunt, having read your responses in this thread alone, you seem to already have a *very* defensive mindset, which indicates a fairly high likelihood that you are reading your supervisor's criticism as hostile when it is not meant to be. You also complained that your supervisor tells you where you've gone wrong, but doesn't tell you what to do to fix it. This is because you are a graduate student; you are expected to already have the skills you need to find out, and it is typically expected that you will go to your supervisor or more senior students only if you get stuck in the process. Grad school really is a whole different beast from undergrad. However, if you are diligent, by the end of your first year you should have the technical aspects (formatting, expectations) mastered to the point where they are very nearly automatic, and can then focus on content.

Your supervisor's job is to criticize your work, in order to help you make it better. That aspect of the PhD is a huge part of your training. Be mindful that this is work that your supervisor is putting into your training; it is meant to benefit you. One of the things about graduate school is that many of the aspects of training require you to leave your ego at the door when it comes to having your work criticized. It's not about *you, the person*; it is about training you to make your work better. That's it. I have found that accepting criticism with an attitude of gratitude for the work people have put into helping me is the most productive way to manage it. Being defensive about my work doesn't help me grow.

rg8uk4

askacademia_train

Human: Is it normal to be put down in your first year of a PhD? I won't lie, there's been a massive learning curve for me this year to get used to how things are done at this level. Even simple things like writing papers, reports and presentations demands a standard I'm not very used to. Maybe I'm just being self-conscious and potentially reading the situations wrong but I always leave supervisor meetings feeling exhausted and somewhat put down if that makes sense? Like yesterday, my supervisor seemed very cold and distant, only offering criticisms of my work. Maybe it's just me? Assistant:

hoj9lk7

hok6rav

Am I the only one who read this as "euthanized"?

To be blunt, having read your responses in this thread alone, you seem to already have a *very* defensive mindset, which indicates a fairly high likelihood that you are reading your supervisor's criticism as hostile when it is not meant to be. You also complained that your supervisor tells you where you've gone wrong, but doesn't tell you what to do to fix it. This is because you are a graduate student; you are expected to already have the skills you need to find out, and it is typically expected that you will go to your supervisor or more senior students only if you get stuck in the process. Grad school really is a whole different beast from undergrad. However, if you are diligent, by the end of your first year you should have the technical aspects (formatting, expectations) mastered to the point where they are very nearly automatic, and can then focus on content.

rg8uk4

askacademia_train

Human: Is it normal to be put down in your first year of a PhD? I won't lie, there's been a massive learning curve for me this year to get used to how things are done at this level. Even simple things like writing papers, reports and presentations demands a standard I'm not very used to. Maybe I'm just being self-conscious and potentially reading the situations wrong but I always leave supervisor meetings feeling exhausted and somewhat put down if that makes sense? Like yesterday, my supervisor seemed very cold and distant, only offering criticisms of my work. Maybe it's just me? Assistant:

hok0glg

hok6rav

This has been quite an interesting thread to read. I've just finished my PhD and I can definitely sympathise with not feeling comfortable with my supervisor to begin with: not really because of anything they did, but more because it is a very different working relationship than I was used to after undergrad. And obviously because they were just a new person and it takes time to get used to how different people interact with one another. Having read through everything here I do have to say I agree with the people saying that OP's view of their supervisor might come down to OP's own anxieties rather than the supervisor's actual actions. Or at least what OP has described downthread doesn't sound terribly bad. And again, I can sympathise with PhD related anxiety, and taking professional criticism personally, as it can be really hard to separate those feelings out when you're so personally invested in your work. I've also read some of the arguments that have kicked off in the comments, and in some cases I can blame other users snark (we can be a sassy sub) but also I definitely think there are places where OP took something critical (but not rude) the wrong way and everything devolved from there. Which I think potentially kind of mirrors the situation with OP's supervisor (except here OP feels more comfortable talking back to people). So if I were to leave OP with some advice after all of this, it would be to try to take a (mental) step back from a situation where you feel like someone is being cold/menacing/critical of you, and take a moment to really consider whether what is being said is warranted, and whether it is professional and constructive or if it should be taken personally. Doing that does mean uncoupling your personal feelings from your work and professional interactions. But I do think you'll feel a lot better about things if you manage to do so.

To be blunt, having read your responses in this thread alone, you seem to already have a *very* defensive mindset, which indicates a fairly high likelihood that you are reading your supervisor's criticism as hostile when it is not meant to be. You also complained that your supervisor tells you where you've gone wrong, but doesn't tell you what to do to fix it. This is because you are a graduate student; you are expected to already have the skills you need to find out, and it is typically expected that you will go to your supervisor or more senior students only if you get stuck in the process. Grad school really is a whole different beast from undergrad. However, if you are diligent, by the end of your first year you should have the technical aspects (formatting, expectations) mastered to the point where they are very nearly automatic, and can then focus on content.

rg8uk4

askacademia_train

Human: Is it normal to be put down in your first year of a PhD? I won't lie, there's been a massive learning curve for me this year to get used to how things are done at this level. Even simple things like writing papers, reports and presentations demands a standard I'm not very used to. Maybe I'm just being self-conscious and potentially reading the situations wrong but I always leave supervisor meetings feeling exhausted and somewhat put down if that makes sense? Like yesterday, my supervisor seemed very cold and distant, only offering criticisms of my work. Maybe it's just me? Assistant:

hok6rav

hoj94a6

To be blunt, having read your responses in this thread alone, you seem to already have a *very* defensive mindset, which indicates a fairly high likelihood that you are reading your supervisor's criticism as hostile when it is not meant to be. You also complained that your supervisor tells you where you've gone wrong, but doesn't tell you what to do to fix it. This is because you are a graduate student; you are expected to already have the skills you need to find out, and it is typically expected that you will go to your supervisor or more senior students only if you get stuck in the process. Grad school really is a whole different beast from undergrad. However, if you are diligent, by the end of your first year you should have the technical aspects (formatting, expectations) mastered to the point where they are very nearly automatic, and can then focus on content.

A lot of speculation when the answer could simply be you’re not that great at this. This is pretty out there but asking your supervisor point blank. It’s frustrating to watch people struggle at every point because it is ultimately detrimental to the integrity of the unit as a whole. Will you be able to adequately critique papers when you’re in that role? It’s unsettling that you do research full time right now and this is where you came to find out what your supervisor is thinking

ql6h8q

askacademia_train

Human: Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this. Assistant:

hj14fd0

hj0r1lw

Oh hell naw

If they are placed as co-authors in the said article, researchgate automatically detects RG members to check their authorship and let them tag themselves.

ql6h8q

askacademia_train

Human: Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this. Assistant:

hj0r71w

hj14fd0

Do you mean they are not co-authors of the publication?

Oh hell naw

ql6h8q

askacademia_train

Human: Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this. Assistant:

hj1oyu5

hj0r1lw

SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!!

If they are placed as co-authors in the said article, researchgate automatically detects RG members to check their authorship and let them tag themselves.

ql6h8q

askacademia_train

Human: Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this. Assistant:

hj1oyu5

hj1jjpx

SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!!

If you click on the paper, and then on Edit. There is a button to request a change in the list of authors. This request will be evaluated by someone. Did the person also added their name in the paper itself (if available) or just on RG?

ql6h8q

askacademia_train

Human: Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this. Assistant:

hj0r71w

hj1oyu5

Do you mean they are not co-authors of the publication?

SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!!

mpvf4u

askacademia_train

Human: Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia. Assistant:

guce5w4

guc875e

I think it depends on your area of interest.. I know some disciplines have very active twitter circles that are super fruitful, and it's pretty much expected of you to have one if you're going to be "somebody"

No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.

mpvf4u

askacademia_train

Human: Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia. Assistant:

gucncet

gucjxzv

Tweeting significantly increases citations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003497520308602

There are some subfields in which Twitter is a really handy networking tool. There are others in which it isn't helpful at all.

mpvf4u

askacademia_train

Human: Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia. Assistant:

gucj62l

gucncet

It's wack mostly. It's useful to follow for new pubs / books though. Terrible for hot takes about universities, subject matter of ur discipline, and US politics.

Tweeting significantly increases citations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003497520308602

mpvf4u

askacademia_train

Human: Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia. Assistant:

gucncet

guc875e

Tweeting significantly increases citations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003497520308602

No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.

mpvf4u

askacademia_train

Human: Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia. Assistant:

gucjh2o

gucj62l

I don't use Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn neither privately or professionally and I am doing just fine. (I have Instagram for the cats, though.)

It's wack mostly. It's useful to follow for new pubs / books though. Terrible for hot takes about universities, subject matter of ur discipline, and US politics.

v3a2k8

askacademia_train

Human: Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general? Assistant:

iax64ew

iax9tf0

Someone once told me that the difference between the Ivy League and everyone else is access. If you don't go to the Ivy League, you go through the process. If you did go to the Ivy League, you ignore the process, pick up the phone, and call your friend.

Went to MIT, which isn't a traditional Ivy, but close. Some of the comments are partially right that these schools get access to a much better candidate pools, so even the lower grade students are still pretty good (I was below average there, but got the highest grades in all my PhD classes at a lower ranking university). However, this is changing recently. When I got in, back in 2008, acceptance rate was about 16%. And the super bright students usually went to top schools. These days acceptance rates for MIT and other similar schools is about 4%. So many universities are filled with super bright kids (maybe you can distinguish the top 20% of an applicant pool, but after that you might as well setup a lottery to select the top 4%). So I expect the traditional top schools will slowly lose some of their shine, when companies realize that their great candidates are coming from all schools. The other note about quality of teaching is also partially true only. While these institutes will have generally smaller class sizes and easier to choose classes (at MIT I almost never had to worry about a class filling up or me not being able to get into one I wanted/needed), however the quality of teachers is not likely any better at any other school. And that's because none of your actual professors are hired, evaluated, or compensated for teaching. They are hired, promoted, evaluated, and retained for their research. To most of them teaching is a nuisance. So they get it done/out of the way with minimal effort required not to bomb their evals. One last thing that isn't mentioned is that the cutting edge research being done at top rank schools is actually a very good reason to attend them. I worked in labs for 3 out of my 4 undergrad years. And the amount of resources these labs have is immense. So a great part of my education, which is how to conduct research and plan/execute experiments would have not been the same at a much lower ranked university.

v3a2k8

askacademia_train

Human: Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general? Assistant:

iax9gp0

iax9tf0

Speaking as someone who did undergrad at a pretty good state school and PhD/postdoc in biomedical sciences at an Ivy: In general, courses are similar at both large state schools and Ivy - both bad. Professors at these research universities are there to perform world-class research, not teach. Some professors do care about teaching, but it's hit or miss. It might be different at more teaching-oriented Ivy like Brown. In terms of research, the research-intensive Ivy universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc) have a lot more resources compared to average universities. But obviously, there are state schools like Berkeley, Michigan, and UCSD that have better research output than Ivy schools like Dartmouth or Brown. As for the caliber of students: this is obviously a generalization, but I think that the middle and lower 90% are the same between state school and Ivy. But the top 10% at an Ivy (at least my Ivy) were exceptional - and they clearly stand out above the rest. In addition, the undergrads at an Ivy seem to care a lot more about extracurriculars than coursework. And many of them o very very cool stuff, and the university provides a lot of resource for them. This was not the case at my state school. So I guess it depends on what you mean "education."

Went to MIT, which isn't a traditional Ivy, but close. Some of the comments are partially right that these schools get access to a much better candidate pools, so even the lower grade students are still pretty good (I was below average there, but got the highest grades in all my PhD classes at a lower ranking university). However, this is changing recently. When I got in, back in 2008, acceptance rate was about 16%. And the super bright students usually went to top schools. These days acceptance rates for MIT and other similar schools is about 4%. So many universities are filled with super bright kids (maybe you can distinguish the top 20% of an applicant pool, but after that you might as well setup a lottery to select the top 4%). So I expect the traditional top schools will slowly lose some of their shine, when companies realize that their great candidates are coming from all schools. The other note about quality of teaching is also partially true only. While these institutes will have generally smaller class sizes and easier to choose classes (at MIT I almost never had to worry about a class filling up or me not being able to get into one I wanted/needed), however the quality of teachers is not likely any better at any other school. And that's because none of your actual professors are hired, evaluated, or compensated for teaching. They are hired, promoted, evaluated, and retained for their research. To most of them teaching is a nuisance. So they get it done/out of the way with minimal effort required not to bomb their evals. One last thing that isn't mentioned is that the cutting edge research being done at top rank schools is actually a very good reason to attend them. I worked in labs for 3 out of my 4 undergrad years. And the amount of resources these labs have is immense. So a great part of my education, which is how to conduct research and plan/execute experiments would have not been the same at a much lower ranked university.

v3a2k8

askacademia_train

Human: Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general? Assistant:

iax1xjs

iax9tf0

The top three benefits of attending an “elite” institution, in descending order: 1. Peer group will be full of bright, hard-working people with good learning habits. Even the bottom decile will be competent, which is not the case at most universities. 2. The name recognition and alumni network post-graduation. This is less important than it used to be, but it’s still big. 3. Quality of instruction. There is a huge draw for talent at elite institutions, and while some are useless muppets who only do research, there are many who really shine. Obligatory caveat: these benefits (especially 1 & 3) can be found at many institutions, and I’m a strong believer that institutional fit and intellectual match to major are many times more important for success than institutional prestige.

Went to MIT, which isn't a traditional Ivy, but close. Some of the comments are partially right that these schools get access to a much better candidate pools, so even the lower grade students are still pretty good (I was below average there, but got the highest grades in all my PhD classes at a lower ranking university). However, this is changing recently. When I got in, back in 2008, acceptance rate was about 16%. And the super bright students usually went to top schools. These days acceptance rates for MIT and other similar schools is about 4%. So many universities are filled with super bright kids (maybe you can distinguish the top 20% of an applicant pool, but after that you might as well setup a lottery to select the top 4%). So I expect the traditional top schools will slowly lose some of their shine, when companies realize that their great candidates are coming from all schools. The other note about quality of teaching is also partially true only. While these institutes will have generally smaller class sizes and easier to choose classes (at MIT I almost never had to worry about a class filling up or me not being able to get into one I wanted/needed), however the quality of teachers is not likely any better at any other school. And that's because none of your actual professors are hired, evaluated, or compensated for teaching. They are hired, promoted, evaluated, and retained for their research. To most of them teaching is a nuisance. So they get it done/out of the way with minimal effort required not to bomb their evals. One last thing that isn't mentioned is that the cutting edge research being done at top rank schools is actually a very good reason to attend them. I worked in labs for 3 out of my 4 undergrad years. And the amount of resources these labs have is immense. So a great part of my education, which is how to conduct research and plan/execute experiments would have not been the same at a much lower ranked university.

v3a2k8

askacademia_train

Human: Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general? Assistant:

iax3vka

iax9tf0

From an instructional point of view, the Ivies with smaller undergraduate programs (Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Brown, Dartmouth) have teaching expectations that are night and day different from large state universities. Here's some concrete reasons: - lower teaching loads, often 33-50% less than a large state institution. Which means faculty have substantially more attention to pay to each class - smaller class sizes, so each student gets more attention, and fewer cases of them "falling through the cracks." Each undergraduate student has faculty advisors to give them encouragement and advice when they're struggling, and advocate on their behalf - more resources per class: faculty can hire more teaching assistants, getting a ratio of 6:1 students per TA or 8:1 students per TA. So students almost always have someone to go to for help. Classes can invite and pay for travel for the best guest speakers, hold more office hours, have assignments that cost more to run. There's also resources for faculty to learn how to teach better, usually called teaching centers - teaching as part of faculty tenure cases: at state R1s, it's mainly research and funding that get you tenure, and while that's still largely true at Ivies, the mentoring and teaching aspects are also strongly considered. Overall there's more of a culture than values good teaching Edit: sounds like people are downvoting because it goes against the internet narrative about academia that: teaching is the same everywhere, only research matters, it's all just elitism. If anyone else has been faculty at both Ivy League schools, and state institutions, I'd like to hear why you disagree

Went to MIT, which isn't a traditional Ivy, but close. Some of the comments are partially right that these schools get access to a much better candidate pools, so even the lower grade students are still pretty good (I was below average there, but got the highest grades in all my PhD classes at a lower ranking university). However, this is changing recently. When I got in, back in 2008, acceptance rate was about 16%. And the super bright students usually went to top schools. These days acceptance rates for MIT and other similar schools is about 4%. So many universities are filled with super bright kids (maybe you can distinguish the top 20% of an applicant pool, but after that you might as well setup a lottery to select the top 4%). So I expect the traditional top schools will slowly lose some of their shine, when companies realize that their great candidates are coming from all schools. The other note about quality of teaching is also partially true only. While these institutes will have generally smaller class sizes and easier to choose classes (at MIT I almost never had to worry about a class filling up or me not being able to get into one I wanted/needed), however the quality of teachers is not likely any better at any other school. And that's because none of your actual professors are hired, evaluated, or compensated for teaching. They are hired, promoted, evaluated, and retained for their research. To most of them teaching is a nuisance. So they get it done/out of the way with minimal effort required not to bomb their evals. One last thing that isn't mentioned is that the cutting edge research being done at top rank schools is actually a very good reason to attend them. I worked in labs for 3 out of my 4 undergrad years. And the amount of resources these labs have is immense. So a great part of my education, which is how to conduct research and plan/execute experiments would have not been the same at a much lower ranked university.

v3a2k8

askacademia_train

Human: Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general? Assistant:

iax8c7f

iax9tf0

I’m highly skeptical that there is more student learning at an ivy compared to an elite small liberal arts college. Ivy professors may or may not care about their grad students but they definitely don’t care about the undergrads (with exceptions of course). There are networking and reputation advantages for Ivy League though.

Went to MIT, which isn't a traditional Ivy, but close. Some of the comments are partially right that these schools get access to a much better candidate pools, so even the lower grade students are still pretty good (I was below average there, but got the highest grades in all my PhD classes at a lower ranking university). However, this is changing recently. When I got in, back in 2008, acceptance rate was about 16%. And the super bright students usually went to top schools. These days acceptance rates for MIT and other similar schools is about 4%. So many universities are filled with super bright kids (maybe you can distinguish the top 20% of an applicant pool, but after that you might as well setup a lottery to select the top 4%). So I expect the traditional top schools will slowly lose some of their shine, when companies realize that their great candidates are coming from all schools. The other note about quality of teaching is also partially true only. While these institutes will have generally smaller class sizes and easier to choose classes (at MIT I almost never had to worry about a class filling up or me not being able to get into one I wanted/needed), however the quality of teachers is not likely any better at any other school. And that's because none of your actual professors are hired, evaluated, or compensated for teaching. They are hired, promoted, evaluated, and retained for their research. To most of them teaching is a nuisance. So they get it done/out of the way with minimal effort required not to bomb their evals. One last thing that isn't mentioned is that the cutting edge research being done at top rank schools is actually a very good reason to attend them. I worked in labs for 3 out of my 4 undergrad years. And the amount of resources these labs have is immense. So a great part of my education, which is how to conduct research and plan/execute experiments would have not been the same at a much lower ranked university.

j133te

askacademia_train

Human: I recently graduated from my university with a doctorate degree, and because I am no longer a current student they have removed my access to the library databases. What do I do? I have already sent an email to the library asking what I can do to reestablish my library privileges. I am currently in the middle of writing a manuscript, and of course I was conducting my literature research using my university’s library system. I graduated with my doctorate in August and just yesterday I found out that my privileges have been removed since I am no longer a current student. What in the world do I do if the university does not allow me access to the library system? I am currently working in a public high school, so right now I am not affiliated with any university. Please help! Assistant:

g6ww0ep

g6x61us

Some universities allow for community & alumni accounts who may have some (but not necessarily all) privileges that faculty/staff/students have. It might be worth looking into what your university can offer.

https://sci-hub.se/ It’s a website that allows to you to view every paper for free. Just copy and paste the doi link.

j133te

askacademia_train

Human: I recently graduated from my university with a doctorate degree, and because I am no longer a current student they have removed my access to the library databases. What do I do? I have already sent an email to the library asking what I can do to reestablish my library privileges. I am currently in the middle of writing a manuscript, and of course I was conducting my literature research using my university’s library system. I graduated with my doctorate in August and just yesterday I found out that my privileges have been removed since I am no longer a current student. What in the world do I do if the university does not allow me access to the library system? I am currently working in a public high school, so right now I am not affiliated with any university. Please help! Assistant:

g6x61us

g6wttb3

https://sci-hub.se/ It’s a website that allows to you to view every paper for free. Just copy and paste the doi link.

Most universities have some sort of courtesy appointment that they can give to affiliated researchers that provides library access and a few other privileges. Ask your advisor to get you one of those appointments. They generally come with zero pay and no real obligations. It is expected that you will collaborate with someone at some point and perhaps interact with some of the grad students, otherwise you bring no value to the university, but as they are not paying you this is not a heavy obligation. Usually, these appointments need only be signed by the Dean.

j133te

askacademia_train

Human: I recently graduated from my university with a doctorate degree, and because I am no longer a current student they have removed my access to the library databases. What do I do? I have already sent an email to the library asking what I can do to reestablish my library privileges. I am currently in the middle of writing a manuscript, and of course I was conducting my literature research using my university’s library system. I graduated with my doctorate in August and just yesterday I found out that my privileges have been removed since I am no longer a current student. What in the world do I do if the university does not allow me access to the library system? I am currently working in a public high school, so right now I am not affiliated with any university. Please help! Assistant:

g6wuwx7

g6x61us

Local Public library card?

https://sci-hub.se/ It’s a website that allows to you to view every paper for free. Just copy and paste the doi link.

j133te

askacademia_train

Human: I recently graduated from my university with a doctorate degree, and because I am no longer a current student they have removed my access to the library databases. What do I do? I have already sent an email to the library asking what I can do to reestablish my library privileges. I am currently in the middle of writing a manuscript, and of course I was conducting my literature research using my university’s library system. I graduated with my doctorate in August and just yesterday I found out that my privileges have been removed since I am no longer a current student. What in the world do I do if the university does not allow me access to the library system? I am currently working in a public high school, so right now I am not affiliated with any university. Please help! Assistant:

g6wy3jr

g6x61us

If you know what papers or books you want, ask a current grad student or your advisor if they can get you the PDF copies of them. You can also email the authors for a copy since some will send you it themselves.

https://sci-hub.se/ It’s a website that allows to you to view every paper for free. Just copy and paste the doi link.

j133te

askacademia_train

Human: I recently graduated from my university with a doctorate degree, and because I am no longer a current student they have removed my access to the library databases. What do I do? I have already sent an email to the library asking what I can do to reestablish my library privileges. I am currently in the middle of writing a manuscript, and of course I was conducting my literature research using my university’s library system. I graduated with my doctorate in August and just yesterday I found out that my privileges have been removed since I am no longer a current student. What in the world do I do if the university does not allow me access to the library system? I am currently working in a public high school, so right now I am not affiliated with any university. Please help! Assistant:

g6x61us

g6x3g4m

https://sci-hub.se/ It’s a website that allows to you to view every paper for free. Just copy and paste the doi link.

Go to a university library and use the databases or stacks there. It is also possible to access some academic articles from home; check google scholar. Join academia.edu as a lot of researchers post their publications there. Check out CVs of the authors you want to read- sometimes they link papers. You can get some academic books on goofle for free. Jstor lets you sign up for 5 free journal articles. You can always contact authors to ask for a copy. Peer review papers if asked, and sometimes they will give journal access as a perk ( SAGE does that).

ioy45o

askacademia_train

Human: Do Professors notice how you name your email attachments? I've been emailing potential PhD mentors with a CV pdf that's titled "Grad School CV". Am I risking shooting myself in the foot? Assistant:

g4glyj1

g4glqdi

Yes- please name it something like First-Last-CV_2020-date.pdf

Think of it this way: If they're receiving multiple CVs, do they really want to dig through a digital stack of poorly labeled files? Or would it be better if the filename was First-Last-CV or the like?

ioy45o

askacademia_train

Human: Do Professors notice how you name your email attachments? I've been emailing potential PhD mentors with a CV pdf that's titled "Grad School CV". Am I risking shooting myself in the foot? Assistant:

g4gtgyn

g4glqdi

Title: Yes. Post: Also yes. As other posters have mentioned, it makes it very difficult to organize and keep track of files if they all have generic names, which will likely darken the mood of any professor reading your attachment. However, you're also shooting yourself in the foot by increasing the chance of a file being lost or unread due to being confused with dozens of other similarly-named files (regrettably, for every person like you who asks, there's a dozen others who assume). As a general rule, any file name should have: your name, some kind of date (year, semester, month-day, etc. depending on what is appropriate), and a short but descriptive name. This lets a professor or any reader know from the file name whose it is, when it's from, and what it is, which tells them all they need to know to figure out if that file is relevant to them.

Think of it this way: If they're receiving multiple CVs, do they really want to dig through a digital stack of poorly labeled files? Or would it be better if the filename was First-Last-CV or the like?

ioy45o

askacademia_train

Human: Do Professors notice how you name your email attachments? I've been emailing potential PhD mentors with a CV pdf that's titled "Grad School CV". Am I risking shooting myself in the foot? Assistant:

g4gtgyn

g4gp6gb

Title: Yes. Post: Also yes. As other posters have mentioned, it makes it very difficult to organize and keep track of files if they all have generic names, which will likely darken the mood of any professor reading your attachment. However, you're also shooting yourself in the foot by increasing the chance of a file being lost or unread due to being confused with dozens of other similarly-named files (regrettably, for every person like you who asks, there's a dozen others who assume). As a general rule, any file name should have: your name, some kind of date (year, semester, month-day, etc. depending on what is appropriate), and a short but descriptive name. This lets a professor or any reader know from the file name whose it is, when it's from, and what it is, which tells them all they need to know to figure out if that file is relevant to them.

Please make it as easy as possible for the Prof/Admin team to make it easy for you. My CV is labelled- Name_Curriculium_Vitae My cover letter is- Name_(Project_name/number) The job I currently have had an explicit statement for naming documents which they stated within the application documents. Good luck for your applications.

ioy45o

askacademia_train

Human: Do Professors notice how you name your email attachments? I've been emailing potential PhD mentors with a CV pdf that's titled "Grad School CV". Am I risking shooting myself in the foot? Assistant:

g4gp6gb

g4gsanz

Please make it as easy as possible for the Prof/Admin team to make it easy for you. My CV is labelled- Name_Curriculium_Vitae My cover letter is- Name_(Project_name/number) The job I currently have had an explicit statement for naming documents which they stated within the application documents. Good luck for your applications.

I had a student submit an assignment online titled “thebravesplayin5minutesso.” I guess he was telling me why he didn’t do the assignment properly? But your title isn’t a problem, but would be better if your last name was included.

ioy45o

askacademia_train

Human: Do Professors notice how you name your email attachments? I've been emailing potential PhD mentors with a CV pdf that's titled "Grad School CV". Am I risking shooting myself in the foot? Assistant:

g4gp6gb

g4hczk4

Please make it as easy as possible for the Prof/Admin team to make it easy for you. My CV is labelled- Name_Curriculium_Vitae My cover letter is- Name_(Project_name/number) The job I currently have had an explicit statement for naming documents which they stated within the application documents. Good luck for your applications.

PSA: no matter who you are, watch what you name your docs. A colleague of mine (we work in curriculum development at a university) recieved a document from a professor he was working with that had the title of "PPRub." Say it out loud. It was a rubric for a PowerPoint assignment but my colleague wasnt sure if he wanted to open it at first.

a18yyv

askacademia_train

Human: PSA for Students: Talk to your faculty! I've seen a lot of people on here ask questions that they should really be asking their advisors/professors because those are the people that you're working with/ being evaluated by. I'm not saying this because I think you're asking the wrong questions, I'm saying this because you might be getting good answers that still don't work for your situation. It's also good for you. Especially in Grad school or those looking to enter grad school, you need to learn to build relationships with the faculty and communicate about what the expectations for projects, comps, publishing, etc. I've seen students struggle because they failed to ask the important questions of their advisors and then did things incorrectly. Don't let that be you! Always manage your expectations with the faculty you're working with. Assistant:

eanv985

eante4b

I did an experiment one semester: a 5-10 minute office hours visit could count for a few points of credit. Talk about class, life, cats, anything; just come by. About 2/3 of the class took me up on it. Had a lot of conversations about life and cats that semester, and a few great ones about random interesting psychology stuff that wasn't part of the class. Final average for the whole class (not counting the extra credit) was significantly higher than prior semesters. There are so many little questions students forget to ask, or think aren't worth asking, but they will if they're in my office anyway. Sometimes it's one of those hand on the doorknob "oh, and one other thing..." Come by just to say hello and you will end up getting more out of it than you expected.

Fair point, but my advisor is incredibly busy and reaching him can often be difficult, even when he’s in the country

zmwtax

askacademia_train

Human: I don’t want to be a trailing partner but I love my academic boyfriend - how do I talk about this productively? Hi — my partner is in academia and recently moved out of state for a post doc. The state he moved to is exceptionally beautiful and somewhere I can see myself living. But, the way he’s explained it to me, is he probably won’t get professorship here and will likely need to just move wherever work is. I don’t really know why, but something about post docs not being accepted to universities they post doc’d at. He’s tossing up between industry and academia at the moment. I’m not in academia and have a remote job. I want to build my work around life and he sees it the other way around. He’ll just go where the work is. Which I get - he doesn’t have a job he can do remotely and it’s a small-ish field. I love him and we work really well together. We have a healthy relationship, probably the first healthy relationship I’ve ever had. And I also don’t want to give up everything, my own goals and dreams, to be a trailing spouse or partner and live somewhere I may hate for his job. I want to find a middle ground - I believe there may be something there if he were to go into industry or work somewhere I’d enjoy living. I have read some helpful things on this sub - I know I should talk to him. I just don’t want it to turn into a “we should break up” conversation. I would love to hear some different perspectives that may offer something I haven’t thought of. Have you found yourself in a similar situation? Or know someone who did? How did you deal? EDIT: I’m sorry this is the wrong flair. Reddit would not let me post this with “interpersonal issue” flair. But he is in STEM if that’s helpful. Assistant:

j0dq7t3

j0dng3w

I’m in a similar situation to your BF. My wife and I have been together since the end of my undergrad (we moved for my grad school, postdoc, and expect to move for a faculty/industry position afterwards). My wife has a great job who supports her ability to work fully remotely. The compromise to the “trailing partner” dilemma we’ve had is that I’ve made her an important part of every decision to move based on her preferences. I had multiple grad school offers and postdoc offers, in a number of different locations. As long as I was happy with my shortlist of choices, I made sure she had a significant say in where we ended up. I think this way has given her some agency in deciding where to live, even if the list of options had to be compatible for my career. When the time comes for me to decide between faculty and industry, if and where I get faculty options will matter. Because even though it’s my slight preference, a faculty job offer at a university located somewhere she doesn’t want to live in will mean I either keep looking or move to industry (where the hubs are all in mostly nice metropolitan areas she would agree to live in). Long story short, I think if someone on the academic career path is serious about their partner they should consider their preferences even if it means sacrificing your absolute “top” choice from a career aspect.

It would be helpful for you to be able to articulate to him how open vs restrictive your geographic preferences are since that's what this boils down to. If your no-go list is longer than your acceptable list, things may not work out for you two. But if your list of places you don't want to end up isn't very long and doesn't include the top areas for his work, this could turn out to be a relationship-strengthening conversation about how you are both willing to compromise to make the relationship with.

zmwtax

askacademia_train

Human: I don’t want to be a trailing partner but I love my academic boyfriend - how do I talk about this productively? Hi — my partner is in academia and recently moved out of state for a post doc. The state he moved to is exceptionally beautiful and somewhere I can see myself living. But, the way he’s explained it to me, is he probably won’t get professorship here and will likely need to just move wherever work is. I don’t really know why, but something about post docs not being accepted to universities they post doc’d at. He’s tossing up between industry and academia at the moment. I’m not in academia and have a remote job. I want to build my work around life and he sees it the other way around. He’ll just go where the work is. Which I get - he doesn’t have a job he can do remotely and it’s a small-ish field. I love him and we work really well together. We have a healthy relationship, probably the first healthy relationship I’ve ever had. And I also don’t want to give up everything, my own goals and dreams, to be a trailing spouse or partner and live somewhere I may hate for his job. I want to find a middle ground - I believe there may be something there if he were to go into industry or work somewhere I’d enjoy living. I have read some helpful things on this sub - I know I should talk to him. I just don’t want it to turn into a “we should break up” conversation. I would love to hear some different perspectives that may offer something I haven’t thought of. Have you found yourself in a similar situation? Or know someone who did? How did you deal? EDIT: I’m sorry this is the wrong flair. Reddit would not let me post this with “interpersonal issue” flair. But he is in STEM if that’s helpful. Assistant:

j0dq7t3

j0dne47

I’m in a similar situation to your BF. My wife and I have been together since the end of my undergrad (we moved for my grad school, postdoc, and expect to move for a faculty/industry position afterwards). My wife has a great job who supports her ability to work fully remotely. The compromise to the “trailing partner” dilemma we’ve had is that I’ve made her an important part of every decision to move based on her preferences. I had multiple grad school offers and postdoc offers, in a number of different locations. As long as I was happy with my shortlist of choices, I made sure she had a significant say in where we ended up. I think this way has given her some agency in deciding where to live, even if the list of options had to be compatible for my career. When the time comes for me to decide between faculty and industry, if and where I get faculty options will matter. Because even though it’s my slight preference, a faculty job offer at a university located somewhere she doesn’t want to live in will mean I either keep looking or move to industry (where the hubs are all in mostly nice metropolitan areas she would agree to live in). Long story short, I think if someone on the academic career path is serious about their partner they should consider their preferences even if it means sacrificing your absolute “top” choice from a career aspect.

I think you need to have a chat about your respective expectations and priorities. Will he prioritize any job or is he willing to be selective about where he applies? For you: would you be willing to move with him to this really nice place even if it's just for a few years or is your priority to settle down? You might be able to find some middle ground or you might find your expectations are too far apart. In my case my DH followed me when I got a postdoc in an exciting place, he was happy to come along for the adventure. In return, I've only applied for permanent posts in locations that are acceptable to him. Finally, if you're a woman and have a desire to have kids at some point, then I think it is really important to have this conversation sooner rather than later. If you come to the conclusion that your long term plans are incompatible, then it's better to find out now, then when you're 39 and desperate for a baby.

zmwtax

askacademia_train

Human: I don’t want to be a trailing partner but I love my academic boyfriend - how do I talk about this productively? Hi — my partner is in academia and recently moved out of state for a post doc. The state he moved to is exceptionally beautiful and somewhere I can see myself living. But, the way he’s explained it to me, is he probably won’t get professorship here and will likely need to just move wherever work is. I don’t really know why, but something about post docs not being accepted to universities they post doc’d at. He’s tossing up between industry and academia at the moment. I’m not in academia and have a remote job. I want to build my work around life and he sees it the other way around. He’ll just go where the work is. Which I get - he doesn’t have a job he can do remotely and it’s a small-ish field. I love him and we work really well together. We have a healthy relationship, probably the first healthy relationship I’ve ever had. And I also don’t want to give up everything, my own goals and dreams, to be a trailing spouse or partner and live somewhere I may hate for his job. I want to find a middle ground - I believe there may be something there if he were to go into industry or work somewhere I’d enjoy living. I have read some helpful things on this sub - I know I should talk to him. I just don’t want it to turn into a “we should break up” conversation. I would love to hear some different perspectives that may offer something I haven’t thought of. Have you found yourself in a similar situation? Or know someone who did? How did you deal? EDIT: I’m sorry this is the wrong flair. Reddit would not let me post this with “interpersonal issue” flair. But he is in STEM if that’s helpful. Assistant:

j0dq5zs

j0dq7t3

Yeah, you really need to have this conversation with your partner and both be open and honest about it. The reality of an academic career is he's likely to wind up where he winds up and probably won't get to be too picky (and it may take 5-10 years of bouncing around before winding up there). Granted academic careers aren't the be all and end all and he may be willing to make career sacrifices for you but only he can answer that.

I’m in a similar situation to your BF. My wife and I have been together since the end of my undergrad (we moved for my grad school, postdoc, and expect to move for a faculty/industry position afterwards). My wife has a great job who supports her ability to work fully remotely. The compromise to the “trailing partner” dilemma we’ve had is that I’ve made her an important part of every decision to move based on her preferences. I had multiple grad school offers and postdoc offers, in a number of different locations. As long as I was happy with my shortlist of choices, I made sure she had a significant say in where we ended up. I think this way has given her some agency in deciding where to live, even if the list of options had to be compatible for my career. When the time comes for me to decide between faculty and industry, if and where I get faculty options will matter. Because even though it’s my slight preference, a faculty job offer at a university located somewhere she doesn’t want to live in will mean I either keep looking or move to industry (where the hubs are all in mostly nice metropolitan areas she would agree to live in). Long story short, I think if someone on the academic career path is serious about their partner they should consider their preferences even if it means sacrificing your absolute “top” choice from a career aspect.

zmwtax

askacademia_train

Human: I don’t want to be a trailing partner but I love my academic boyfriend - how do I talk about this productively? Hi — my partner is in academia and recently moved out of state for a post doc. The state he moved to is exceptionally beautiful and somewhere I can see myself living. But, the way he’s explained it to me, is he probably won’t get professorship here and will likely need to just move wherever work is. I don’t really know why, but something about post docs not being accepted to universities they post doc’d at. He’s tossing up between industry and academia at the moment. I’m not in academia and have a remote job. I want to build my work around life and he sees it the other way around. He’ll just go where the work is. Which I get - he doesn’t have a job he can do remotely and it’s a small-ish field. I love him and we work really well together. We have a healthy relationship, probably the first healthy relationship I’ve ever had. And I also don’t want to give up everything, my own goals and dreams, to be a trailing spouse or partner and live somewhere I may hate for his job. I want to find a middle ground - I believe there may be something there if he were to go into industry or work somewhere I’d enjoy living. I have read some helpful things on this sub - I know I should talk to him. I just don’t want it to turn into a “we should break up” conversation. I would love to hear some different perspectives that may offer something I haven’t thought of. Have you found yourself in a similar situation? Or know someone who did? How did you deal? EDIT: I’m sorry this is the wrong flair. Reddit would not let me post this with “interpersonal issue” flair. But he is in STEM if that’s helpful. Assistant:

j0ducu8

j0dq5zs

I’m the academic, my partner is the trailing partner. It’s a similar situation: he has worked remotely since the mid 2010’s, when I was still in grad school. We have lived in three different countries. Ever since I accepted my postdoc, then my lectureship, I have made it clear: he always, ALWAYS has a kill switch. If he wants out, to move back to our original country, whatever, he says so, and we make it work. I’m lucky in that a shift to industry would be trivial, and I’m pretty sure I’d be competitive in most mid-tier academic markets. It doesn’t matter though: he still has that wild card. He’s never used it. He is happy where we are, I am happy, we are happy together. Will it stay that way? I hope so. That said, we have talked openly about this ever since I had the idea of moving overseas for a postdoc. Communication is key. Good luck!

Yeah, you really need to have this conversation with your partner and both be open and honest about it. The reality of an academic career is he's likely to wind up where he winds up and probably won't get to be too picky (and it may take 5-10 years of bouncing around before winding up there). Granted academic careers aren't the be all and end all and he may be willing to make career sacrifices for you but only he can answer that.

zmwtax

askacademia_train

Human: I don’t want to be a trailing partner but I love my academic boyfriend - how do I talk about this productively? Hi — my partner is in academia and recently moved out of state for a post doc. The state he moved to is exceptionally beautiful and somewhere I can see myself living. But, the way he’s explained it to me, is he probably won’t get professorship here and will likely need to just move wherever work is. I don’t really know why, but something about post docs not being accepted to universities they post doc’d at. He’s tossing up between industry and academia at the moment. I’m not in academia and have a remote job. I want to build my work around life and he sees it the other way around. He’ll just go where the work is. Which I get - he doesn’t have a job he can do remotely and it’s a small-ish field. I love him and we work really well together. We have a healthy relationship, probably the first healthy relationship I’ve ever had. And I also don’t want to give up everything, my own goals and dreams, to be a trailing spouse or partner and live somewhere I may hate for his job. I want to find a middle ground - I believe there may be something there if he were to go into industry or work somewhere I’d enjoy living. I have read some helpful things on this sub - I know I should talk to him. I just don’t want it to turn into a “we should break up” conversation. I would love to hear some different perspectives that may offer something I haven’t thought of. Have you found yourself in a similar situation? Or know someone who did? How did you deal? EDIT: I’m sorry this is the wrong flair. Reddit would not let me post this with “interpersonal issue” flair. But he is in STEM if that’s helpful. Assistant:

j0dqrye

j0ducu8

I had a similar discussion with my SO when in academia. However, I was the postdoc and SO the trailing partner. He has a job that can more easily move around. I'm not. However when I was looking for a postdoc after grad school, we had a discussion about the area we are comfortable moving to with good work for him while giving me good opportunities. We came with a large geographic region (Midwest for those USA folks) that I focused on while applying. I'd have many more opportunities if I looked at the coasts but knew my SO wouldn't be happy there. So the geographic region was a good compromise. We ended up settling down more in the area I got my postdoc because a good industry position opened up and I have no interest in following the professor track. But even if my current position hadn't happened, we would be having that discussion again about our future because I would need to potentially move and where would he be okay going. For academia and becoming a professor, it's a lot harder to stay in a specific geographic location. Simply because there are few openings every year and most are looking for people to come in and focus on a specific general research area that fits with that department. However, you can move after being a professor for awhile (and getting promotions) to a different university but that takes time. To stay in academia can be a gamble location wise. As well as the time commitment it takes to start a successful lab. For a conversation, you can have to think about what are each of your long term goals. And what's reasonably going to happen (professorships are hard to get in reality). Are there some boundaries you have location wise? What locations are best for your partner job wise? What locations is your partner thinking about? It's important to not take anything too person and be calm. It's not easy. But can be done. And it may take a few different talks (like he's okay with a longer commute if it means you can live in a nearby town that's more in line with your ideal living area) to find those solutions. Some that more depends on what your partner is thinking as well. Do you look at areas with lots of industry or go full force with academia search. I also don't know how much time is left for their postdoc. It is possible to stay at that university as a research professor or scientist. It doesn't come with tenure typically but gives more time to figure out next steps. But if they want to be a professor, they really need to look for that as a postdoc.

I’m the academic, my partner is the trailing partner. It’s a similar situation: he has worked remotely since the mid 2010’s, when I was still in grad school. We have lived in three different countries. Ever since I accepted my postdoc, then my lectureship, I have made it clear: he always, ALWAYS has a kill switch. If he wants out, to move back to our original country, whatever, he says so, and we make it work. I’m lucky in that a shift to industry would be trivial, and I’m pretty sure I’d be competitive in most mid-tier academic markets. It doesn’t matter though: he still has that wild card. He’s never used it. He is happy where we are, I am happy, we are happy together. Will it stay that way? I hope so. That said, we have talked openly about this ever since I had the idea of moving overseas for a postdoc. Communication is key. Good luck!

xgvj46

askacademia_train

Human: Did any other academics end up taking a more blue-collar career path? I graduated from university with a major in Political Science and a minor in History. I do a lot of work as a Tutor (about 10-40 hours a week, depending on the season and how busy I am with other work) and also occasionally write articles. However, while going to school, I worked in construction to help pay the bills. Even after I graduated, I continued to do a lot of construction work and started my own business (and for the right price, occasionally still help out other companies as well, for the right price). I particularly do a lot of roofing, concrete work, and landscaping. Some people are surprised when they learn about my educational background. While my background helps me get a lot of work during the off-season, the bulk of my income remains from construction work. While I don't really mind the desk work, I love construction because it helps me burn off energy, makes me feel like I'm contributing to society, and keeps me in shape. Assistant:

ioub5x4

ioubmlm

I know a humanities professor who is also a long-haul trucker. He spends summers on the road. Another I know owns a tree farm and does 95% of the work there himself, but that's arguably a hobby.

I have family that uses a HVAC repair guy that is also a tenured biology professor and does AC work on the side.

xgvj46

askacademia_train

Human: Did any other academics end up taking a more blue-collar career path? I graduated from university with a major in Political Science and a minor in History. I do a lot of work as a Tutor (about 10-40 hours a week, depending on the season and how busy I am with other work) and also occasionally write articles. However, while going to school, I worked in construction to help pay the bills. Even after I graduated, I continued to do a lot of construction work and started my own business (and for the right price, occasionally still help out other companies as well, for the right price). I particularly do a lot of roofing, concrete work, and landscaping. Some people are surprised when they learn about my educational background. While my background helps me get a lot of work during the off-season, the bulk of my income remains from construction work. While I don't really mind the desk work, I love construction because it helps me burn off energy, makes me feel like I'm contributing to society, and keeps me in shape. Assistant:

iou94ty

ioubmlm

I know an anthropologist who quit the biz, got a nursing degree, and is now very happy working as a nurse.

I have family that uses a HVAC repair guy that is also a tenured biology professor and does AC work on the side.

xgvj46

askacademia_train

Human: Did any other academics end up taking a more blue-collar career path? I graduated from university with a major in Political Science and a minor in History. I do a lot of work as a Tutor (about 10-40 hours a week, depending on the season and how busy I am with other work) and also occasionally write articles. However, while going to school, I worked in construction to help pay the bills. Even after I graduated, I continued to do a lot of construction work and started my own business (and for the right price, occasionally still help out other companies as well, for the right price). I particularly do a lot of roofing, concrete work, and landscaping. Some people are surprised when they learn about my educational background. While my background helps me get a lot of work during the off-season, the bulk of my income remains from construction work. While I don't really mind the desk work, I love construction because it helps me burn off energy, makes me feel like I'm contributing to society, and keeps me in shape. Assistant:

iov070c

iovdnam

Yep, me. After having two degrees (programming and poltical science) and then working in those careers, I opted to leave them and do business development and be less stressed and more happy.

Linguistics major. I had a tech career by accident. Now I'm a distiller. So, yes.

xgvj46

askacademia_train

Human: Did any other academics end up taking a more blue-collar career path? I graduated from university with a major in Political Science and a minor in History. I do a lot of work as a Tutor (about 10-40 hours a week, depending on the season and how busy I am with other work) and also occasionally write articles. However, while going to school, I worked in construction to help pay the bills. Even after I graduated, I continued to do a lot of construction work and started my own business (and for the right price, occasionally still help out other companies as well, for the right price). I particularly do a lot of roofing, concrete work, and landscaping. Some people are surprised when they learn about my educational background. While my background helps me get a lot of work during the off-season, the bulk of my income remains from construction work. While I don't really mind the desk work, I love construction because it helps me burn off energy, makes me feel like I'm contributing to society, and keeps me in shape. Assistant:

ioumpb6

iovdnam

A colleague worked as a contractor between undergrad and grad school. It's great to say 'Hey Paul, can you give me a hand with a thing?' Also Paul rocks...

Linguistics major. I had a tech career by accident. Now I'm a distiller. So, yes.

xgvj46

askacademia_train

Human: Did any other academics end up taking a more blue-collar career path? I graduated from university with a major in Political Science and a minor in History. I do a lot of work as a Tutor (about 10-40 hours a week, depending on the season and how busy I am with other work) and also occasionally write articles. However, while going to school, I worked in construction to help pay the bills. Even after I graduated, I continued to do a lot of construction work and started my own business (and for the right price, occasionally still help out other companies as well, for the right price). I particularly do a lot of roofing, concrete work, and landscaping. Some people are surprised when they learn about my educational background. While my background helps me get a lot of work during the off-season, the bulk of my income remains from construction work. While I don't really mind the desk work, I love construction because it helps me burn off energy, makes me feel like I'm contributing to society, and keeps me in shape. Assistant:

iov4zte

iovdnam

What's a good career for a chap with a bone spur, meaning I suffer severe pain in my foot, and can't walk long distances? Currently I'm a housekeeper at a hospital. I'm considering nursing or radiology, but those entail years of college. Would I be better off getting a business cert?

Linguistics major. I had a tech career by accident. Now I'm a distiller. So, yes.

t6suzi

askacademia_train

Human: I think my boss has been playing me and as a result my career is likely ruined. Help? I want to stay in academia, and I have a specific vision for my work. When I joined the lab (2nd postdoc), my boss made promises of mentorship and support to reach my career goals. Since then: \- I had a big grant rejected, which could have been avoided had she not pressured me to add more and more experiments that I have no expertise in, claiming that the collaborators would be enough to convince the reviewers. I found out the hard way that that's BS \- I then got another grant for 2 years with the possibility to hire my own PhD student, if she had promised to pay the third year. She told me she had no idea if she would be able to pay, which ended up in me getting a TA instead. I then found out that she offered a PhD student to another postdoc with the same funding as me a couple of months later \- She was dismissive of my ideas to the point that I was seriously doubting myself, until I received good feedback from our collaborators. Then she was interested. Now she's trying to push her own unfounded, sloppy ideas into my story and is threatening me that if I don't work on this aspect she has no interest in keeping me \- She blocked a collaboration that I made with an industry partner at a conference, saying she has no interest in it and the idea is'stupid' (its not). She then uses my contact to ask for something completely different and not related to my research and expects me to do the experiments. In the emails she switched from english to her mother language and even sent one without me in Cc which I later saw in the thread, saying that I work for her in a very condescending tone \- I have been asking her consistently for other projects since I didn't publish since my last postdoc (4 years, hoping to submit this year). She keeps giving me dead-end mini projects she knows won't be published. There are other opportunities in the lab that she is not including me in, saying I will get 'distracted' \- She blocked me from publishing because we got 1 (ONE) editor rejection from a high impact journal, so now I am working overtime for more functional experiments that would make it 'interesting enough' for publishing, so I can finally submit and apply for other positions while in review \- she's arguing with me in front of other people, via email or in online meetings, anything I say is wrong, she's constantly putting me down given the chance and it's awkward and embarrassing. \- she argues with me for not telling her absolutely everything, even though I started with the aim to build up to independence. This includes applications for conferences and discussions with other PIs in the institute \- she yelled at me several times for spending too much money for my project, whereas another colleague is spending 10x more but that's apparently ok because it's my boss' ideas. We are working in one of the most funded institutes where money shouldn't be an issue \- if I confront her about anything she gets super defensive, aggressive even, and I'm afraid to say anything in case it makes things worse. I told her I am applying for faculty positions (with a preprint), and she sent her references, but now I am really worried that she will ruin me. I always had good feedback from other PIs and collaborators but she broke me down so much, I am doubting my abilities as a scientist, and I am getting bitter and jealous of other postdocs who have OK projects but are getting ahead because they have the right support/ contacts (as I said, well funded institute). Ultimately I feel like I am missing out on productive and fun scientific discussion and real mentorship, scientific and otherwise, and I am worried that I am not equipped for the next step because of it. I still have a tiny slither of hope but I don't know for how much longer. Several people have left the lab already for similar reasons apart from her now'star postdoc' who is wasting tons of money. Her PhD students all left (or will leave) academia. Am I doomed? Assistant:

hzdpoe4

hzdpfsg

Have a friend at an institution ask for your rec letters. Then you, yourself, can take a look. I uncovered a faculty "friend" who damned me with her letters. No regrets.

Oooh, you must be threatening to this PI. Take her sabotage as a mark of your power/potential/intelligence. Then run.

t6suzi

askacademia_train

Human: I think my boss has been playing me and as a result my career is likely ruined. Help? I want to stay in academia, and I have a specific vision for my work. When I joined the lab (2nd postdoc), my boss made promises of mentorship and support to reach my career goals. Since then: \- I had a big grant rejected, which could have been avoided had she not pressured me to add more and more experiments that I have no expertise in, claiming that the collaborators would be enough to convince the reviewers. I found out the hard way that that's BS \- I then got another grant for 2 years with the possibility to hire my own PhD student, if she had promised to pay the third year. She told me she had no idea if she would be able to pay, which ended up in me getting a TA instead. I then found out that she offered a PhD student to another postdoc with the same funding as me a couple of months later \- She was dismissive of my ideas to the point that I was seriously doubting myself, until I received good feedback from our collaborators. Then she was interested. Now she's trying to push her own unfounded, sloppy ideas into my story and is threatening me that if I don't work on this aspect she has no interest in keeping me \- She blocked a collaboration that I made with an industry partner at a conference, saying she has no interest in it and the idea is'stupid' (its not). She then uses my contact to ask for something completely different and not related to my research and expects me to do the experiments. In the emails she switched from english to her mother language and even sent one without me in Cc which I later saw in the thread, saying that I work for her in a very condescending tone \- I have been asking her consistently for other projects since I didn't publish since my last postdoc (4 years, hoping to submit this year). She keeps giving me dead-end mini projects she knows won't be published. There are other opportunities in the lab that she is not including me in, saying I will get 'distracted' \- She blocked me from publishing because we got 1 (ONE) editor rejection from a high impact journal, so now I am working overtime for more functional experiments that would make it 'interesting enough' for publishing, so I can finally submit and apply for other positions while in review \- she's arguing with me in front of other people, via email or in online meetings, anything I say is wrong, she's constantly putting me down given the chance and it's awkward and embarrassing. \- she argues with me for not telling her absolutely everything, even though I started with the aim to build up to independence. This includes applications for conferences and discussions with other PIs in the institute \- she yelled at me several times for spending too much money for my project, whereas another colleague is spending 10x more but that's apparently ok because it's my boss' ideas. We are working in one of the most funded institutes where money shouldn't be an issue \- if I confront her about anything she gets super defensive, aggressive even, and I'm afraid to say anything in case it makes things worse. I told her I am applying for faculty positions (with a preprint), and she sent her references, but now I am really worried that she will ruin me. I always had good feedback from other PIs and collaborators but she broke me down so much, I am doubting my abilities as a scientist, and I am getting bitter and jealous of other postdocs who have OK projects but are getting ahead because they have the right support/ contacts (as I said, well funded institute). Ultimately I feel like I am missing out on productive and fun scientific discussion and real mentorship, scientific and otherwise, and I am worried that I am not equipped for the next step because of it. I still have a tiny slither of hope but I don't know for how much longer. Several people have left the lab already for similar reasons apart from her now'star postdoc' who is wasting tons of money. Her PhD students all left (or will leave) academia. Am I doomed? Assistant:

hzekpxc

hzek503

Resubmit the big grant with her BS removed. Pursue the industry grant separately. Resubmit the rejected manuscript to a lower tier journal. Don’t forget - as long as it is indexed on pubmed or whatever the standard in your field is, the rest matters a lot less. Read up on narcissism, the grey rock technique, and broken record technique. Check out the book “crucial confrontations”.

Avoid getting LORs from this toxic person. They will likely only try and sabotage you...possibly with the hope of keeping you and torturing you more. Get LORs from your collaborators possibly? I know it may be unconventional but this person seems like a nightmare that would definitely be that selfish/does not have the right frame of mind to write you a solid letter. Also, GTFO.

t6suzi

askacademia_train

Human: career is likely ruined. Help? I want to stay in academia, and I have a specific vision for my work. When I joined the lab (2nd postdoc), my boss made promises of mentorship and support to reach my career goals. Since then: \- I had a big grant rejected, which could have been avoided had she not pressured me to add more and more experiments that I have no expertise in, claiming that the collaborators would be enough to convince the reviewers. I found out the hard way that that's BS \- I then got another grant for 2 years with the possibility to hire my own PhD student, if she had promised to pay the third year. She told me she had no idea if she would be able to pay, which ended up in me getting a TA instead. I then found out that she offered a PhD student to another postdoc with the same funding as me a couple of months later \- She was dismissive of my ideas to the point that I was seriously doubting myself, until I received good feedback from our collaborators. Then she was interested. Now she's trying to push her own unfounded, sloppy ideas into my story and is threatening me that if I don't work on this aspect she has no interest in keeping me \- She blocked a collaboration that I made with an industry partner at a conference, saying she has no interest in it and the idea is'stupid' (its not). She then uses my contact to ask for something completely different and not related to my research and expects me to do the experiments. In the emails she switched from english to her mother language and even sent one without me in Cc which I later saw in the thread, saying that I work for her in a very condescending tone \- I have been asking her consistently for other projects since I didn't publish since my last postdoc (4 years, hoping to submit this year). She keeps giving me dead-end mini projects she knows won't be published. There are other opportunities in the lab that she is not including me in, saying I will get 'distracted' \- She blocked me from publishing because we got 1 (ONE) editor rejection from a high impact journal, so now I am working overtime for more functional experiments that would make it 'interesting enough' for publishing, so I can finally submit and apply for other positions while in review \- she's arguing with me in front of other people, via email or in online meetings, anything I say is wrong, she's constantly putting me down given the chance and it's awkward and embarrassing. \- she argues with me for not telling her absolutely everything, even though I started with the aim to build up to independence. This includes applications for conferences and discussions with other PIs in the institute \- she yelled at me several times for spending too much money for my project, whereas another colleague is spending 10x more but that's apparently ok because it's my boss' ideas. We are working in one of the most funded institutes where money shouldn't be an issue \- if I confront her about anything she gets super defensive, aggressive even, and I'm afraid to say anything in case it makes things worse. I told her I am applying for faculty positions (with a preprint), and she sent her references, but now I am really worried that she will ruin me. I always had good feedback from other PIs and collaborators but she broke me down so much, I am doubting my abilities as a scientist, and I am getting bitter and jealous of other postdocs who have OK projects but are getting ahead because they have the right support/ contacts (as I said, well funded institute). Ultimately I feel like I am missing out on productive and fun scientific discussion and real mentorship, scientific and otherwise, and I am worried that I am not equipped for the next step because of it. I still have a tiny slither of hope but I don't know for how much longer. Several people have left the lab already for similar reasons apart from her now'star postdoc' who is wasting tons of money. Her PhD students all left (or will leave) academia. Am I doomed? Assistant:

hzdzxv8

hzekpxc

Your boss sounds toxic. It's hard to really "see" why she does what she does, or how bad her behavior is, because she's the boss (and from the looks of it, exercises power considerably). Unfortunately, this happens. Like the others, I suggest trying to find other jobs. My personal opinion is to stick this out until you have another job to go to (just do the minimum, bear with it a few months while job-hunting). This is so you will have a bargaining chip in your job-hunt (do not bad mouth your current job during interviews). I feel you. I've been there. You can get through this, and from this you'll learn what not to do as a boss.

Resubmit the big grant with her BS removed. Pursue the industry grant separately. Resubmit the rejected manuscript to a lower tier journal. Don’t forget - as long as it is indexed on pubmed or whatever the standard in your field is, the rest matters a lot less. Read up on narcissism, the grey rock technique, and broken record technique. Check out the book “crucial confrontations”.

t6suzi

askacademia_train

Human: I think my boss has been playing me and as a result my career is likely ruined. Help? I want to stay in academia, and I have a specific vision for my work. When I joined the lab (2nd postdoc), my boss made promises of mentorship and support to reach my career goals. Since then: \- I had a big grant rejected, which could have been avoided had she not pressured me to add more and more experiments that I have no expertise in, claiming that the collaborators would be enough to convince the reviewers. I found out the hard way that that's BS \- I then got another grant for 2 years with the possibility to hire my own PhD student, if she had promised to pay the third year. She told me she had no idea if she would be able to pay, which ended up in me getting a TA instead. I then found out that she offered a PhD student to another postdoc with the same funding as me a couple of months later \- She was dismissive of my ideas to the point that I was seriously doubting myself, until I received good feedback from our collaborators. Then she was interested. Now she's trying to push her own unfounded, sloppy ideas into my story and is threatening me that if I don't work on this aspect she has no interest in keeping me \- She blocked a collaboration that I made with an industry partner at a conference, saying she has no interest in it and the idea is'stupid' (its not). She then uses my contact to ask for something completely different and not related to my research and expects me to do the experiments. In the emails she switched from english to her mother language and even sent one without me in Cc which I later saw in the thread, saying that I work for her in a very condescending tone \- I have been asking her consistently for other projects since I didn't publish since my last postdoc (4 years, hoping to submit this year). She keeps giving me dead-end mini projects she knows won't be published. There are other opportunities in the lab that she is not including me in, saying I will get 'distracted' \- She blocked me from publishing because we got 1 (ONE) editor rejection from a high impact journal, so now I am working overtime for more functional experiments that would make it 'interesting enough' for publishing, so I can finally submit and apply for other positions while in review \- she's arguing with me in front of other people, via email or in online meetings, anything I say is wrong, she's constantly putting me down given the chance and it's awkward and embarrassing. \- she argues with me for not telling her absolutely everything, even though I started with the aim to build up to independence. This includes applications for conferences and discussions with other PIs in the institute \- she yelled at me several times for spending too much money for my project, whereas another colleague is spending 10x more but that's apparently ok because it's my boss' ideas. We are working in one of the most funded institutes where money shouldn't be an issue \- if I confront her about anything she gets super defensive, aggressive even, and I'm afraid to say anything in case it makes things worse. I told her I am applying for faculty positions (with a preprint), and she sent her references, but now I am really worried that she will ruin me. I always had good feedback from other PIs and collaborators but she broke me down so much, I am doubting my abilities as a scientist, and I am getting bitter and jealous of other postdocs who have OK projects but are getting ahead because they have the right support/ contacts (as I said, well funded institute). Ultimately I feel like I am missing out on productive and fun scientific discussion and real mentorship, scientific and otherwise, and I am worried that I am not equipped for the next step because of it. I still have a tiny slither of hope but I don't know for how much longer. Several people have left the lab already for similar reasons apart from her now'star postdoc' who is wasting tons of money. Her PhD students all left (or will leave) academia. Am I doomed? Assistant:

hze57wp

hzekpxc

Leave this bitch behind. And don't despair. Given what you've stated here, you're talented in your own right. These people are always trying to punk out junior researchers and make them think they need them, when often times it's the other way around. Focus on moving on. You can do it. And you will be successful. Strengthen your partnerships with others in your network. And don't let her steal your focus. Think of it this way, she wouldn't have allowed you to stay so long if you weren't valuable. I'm sorry you had to go through this.

Resubmit the big grant with her BS removed. Pursue the industry grant separately. Resubmit the rejected manuscript to a lower tier journal. Don’t forget - as long as it is indexed on pubmed or whatever the standard in your field is, the rest matters a lot less. Read up on narcissism, the grey rock technique, and broken record technique. Check out the book “crucial confrontations”.

t6suzi

askacademia_train

Human: career is likely ruined. Help? I want to stay in academia, and I have a specific vision for my work. When I joined the lab (2nd postdoc), my boss made promises of mentorship and support to reach my career goals. Since then: \- I had a big grant rejected, which could have been avoided had she not pressured me to add more and more experiments that I have no expertise in, claiming that the collaborators would be enough to convince the reviewers. I found out the hard way that that's BS \- I then got another grant for 2 years with the possibility to hire my own PhD student, if she had promised to pay the third year. She told me she had no idea if she would be able to pay, which ended up in me getting a TA instead. I then found out that she offered a PhD student to another postdoc with the same funding as me a couple of months later \- She was dismissive of my ideas to the point that I was seriously doubting myself, until I received good feedback from our collaborators. Then she was interested. Now she's trying to push her own unfounded, sloppy ideas into my story and is threatening me that if I don't work on this aspect she has no interest in keeping me \- She blocked a collaboration that I made with an industry partner at a conference, saying she has no interest in it and the idea is'stupid' (its not). She then uses my contact to ask for something completely different and not related to my research and expects me to do the experiments. In the emails she switched from english to her mother language and even sent one without me in Cc which I later saw in the thread, saying that I work for her in a very condescending tone \- I have been asking her consistently for other projects since I didn't publish since my last postdoc (4 years, hoping to submit this year). She keeps giving me dead-end mini projects she knows won't be published. There are other opportunities in the lab that she is not including me in, saying I will get 'distracted' \- She blocked me from publishing because we got 1 (ONE) editor rejection from a high impact journal, so now I am working overtime for more functional experiments that would make it 'interesting enough' for publishing, so I can finally submit and apply for other positions while in review \- she's arguing with me in front of other people, via email or in online meetings, anything I say is wrong, she's constantly putting me down given the chance and it's awkward and embarrassing. \- she argues with me for not telling her absolutely everything, even though I started with the aim to build up to independence. This includes applications for conferences and discussions with other PIs in the institute \- she yelled at me several times for spending too much money for my project, whereas another colleague is spending 10x more but that's apparently ok because it's my boss' ideas. We are working in one of the most funded institutes where money shouldn't be an issue \- if I confront her about anything she gets super defensive, aggressive even, and I'm afraid to say anything in case it makes things worse. I told her I am applying for faculty positions (with a preprint), and she sent her references, but now I am really worried that she will ruin me. I always had good feedback from other PIs and collaborators but she broke me down so much, I am doubting my abilities as a scientist, and I am getting bitter and jealous of other postdocs who have OK projects but are getting ahead because they have the right support/ contacts (as I said, well funded institute). Ultimately I feel like I am missing out on productive and fun scientific discussion and real mentorship, scientific and otherwise, and I am worried that I am not equipped for the next step because of it. I still have a tiny slither of hope but I don't know for how much longer. Several people have left the lab already for similar reasons apart from her now'star postdoc' who is wasting tons of money. Her PhD students all left (or will leave) academia. Am I doomed? Assistant:

hzek503

hzdzxv8

Avoid getting LORs from this toxic person. They will likely only try and sabotage you...possibly with the hope of keeping you and torturing you more. Get LORs from your collaborators possibly? I know it may be unconventional but this person seems like a nightmare that would definitely be that selfish/does not have the right frame of mind to write you a solid letter. Also, GTFO.

Your boss sounds toxic. It's hard to really "see" why she does what she does, or how bad her behavior is, because she's the boss (and from the looks of it, exercises power considerably). Unfortunately, this happens. Like the others, I suggest trying to find other jobs. My personal opinion is to stick this out until you have another job to go to (just do the minimum, bear with it a few months while job-hunting). This is so you will have a bargaining chip in your job-hunt (do not bad mouth your current job during interviews). I feel you. I've been there. You can get through this, and from this you'll learn what not to do as a boss.

yqm34a

askacademia_train

Human: Why do professors ignore letter of recommendation requests instead of just declining? Is it a sign that they simply forgot to reply or missed my email, or is it that they just can't be bothered to reply at all if they aren't interested? ​ **Edit:** When I make requests in the future, would it be appropriate to tack on "just a simple yes or no answer is fine" at the end of the email, to hint that I would appreciate even a very curt refusal rather than silence? Assistant:

ivp05c1

ivp0sxu

They're probably somewhere on the spectrum of wanting to do so but not having the time available for it. While you might appreciate a quick yes/no, it might not be so simple for them to commit. Did you give a clear deadline and provide all the info needed for them to do the request? If not, then a response also has to include time to sort out these details. In my crunch teaching time, I'll ignore emails for weeks to focus on what I have to get done and reply to Reddit questions.

No, tacking that on would be passive aggressive. And it's often because the email was lost in the neverending flood of other things, or because it's easier to ignore than deal with the response to a no. Send a single, polite followup or ask them during office hours. If no response then, head elsewhere.

yqm34a

askacademia_train

Human: Why do professors ignore letter of recommendation requests instead of just declining? Is it a sign that they simply forgot to reply or missed my email, or is it that they just can't be bothered to reply at all if they aren't interested? ​ **Edit:** When I make requests in the future, would it be appropriate to tack on "just a simple yes or no answer is fine" at the end of the email, to hint that I would appreciate even a very curt refusal rather than silence? Assistant:

ivp1zd5

ivpguxg

I think the whole convention is silly. I wish that would be removed from admission processes. Profs get so bombarded with these. Most have a general template that they cut and paste and maybe add in a few specific sentences. I Always seem to get these requests during end of semester/finals week when I’m swamped. I don’t ignore, it’s just not a priority and falls to the bottom of the list often times.

When did you send the email? Did you send it from your university address? Our IT department has ridiculous spam filters and unless emails come from a .edu account they're likely to go to spam. Are you asking professors who know you well? Beyond just good performance in one class? You can send a polite follow-up email. And if they still don't respond you can drop by their office hours to ask. Sometimes emails get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes professors won't respond if they feel they don't know you well (your email deserves a response, in my view). Sometimes we thought we responded but did not. Sometimes your email is the lowest priority on my to-do list, and it takes me a while to get to it. You should send a reminder email 1 - 1.5 weeks after the first email.

yqm34a

askacademia_train

Human: Why do professors ignore letter of recommendation requests instead of just declining? Is it a sign that they simply forgot to reply or missed my email, or is it that they just can't be bothered to reply at all if they aren't interested? ​ **Edit:** When I make requests in the future, would it be appropriate to tack on "just a simple yes or no answer is fine" at the end of the email, to hint that I would appreciate even a very curt refusal rather than silence? Assistant:

ivpguxg

ivpdo3i

When did you send the email? Did you send it from your university address? Our IT department has ridiculous spam filters and unless emails come from a .edu account they're likely to go to spam. Are you asking professors who know you well? Beyond just good performance in one class? You can send a polite follow-up email. And if they still don't respond you can drop by their office hours to ask. Sometimes emails get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes professors won't respond if they feel they don't know you well (your email deserves a response, in my view). Sometimes we thought we responded but did not. Sometimes your email is the lowest priority on my to-do list, and it takes me a while to get to it. You should send a reminder email 1 - 1.5 weeks after the first email.

Every recommendation letter that I wrote, were for students that have been working on their thesis in our lab. I know the students how they work and can recommend them. If some random student sends me an email asking for a recommendation because they were just in a class I was teaching, without seeing them work on actual problems in laboratory environment, then I decline. And as a few fellow scientists said, often the emails are overlooked because of numerous reasons. Try to see the professor in person.

yqm34a

askacademia_train

Human: Why do professors ignore letter of recommendation requests instead of just declining? Is it a sign that they simply forgot to reply or missed my email, or is it that they just can't be bothered to reply at all if they aren't interested? ​ **Edit:** When I make requests in the future, would it be appropriate to tack on "just a simple yes or no answer is fine" at the end of the email, to hint that I would appreciate even a very curt refusal rather than silence? Assistant:

ivpguxg

ivp4o9c

When did you send the email? Did you send it from your university address? Our IT department has ridiculous spam filters and unless emails come from a .edu account they're likely to go to spam. Are you asking professors who know you well? Beyond just good performance in one class? You can send a polite follow-up email. And if they still don't respond you can drop by their office hours to ask. Sometimes emails get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes professors won't respond if they feel they don't know you well (your email deserves a response, in my view). Sometimes we thought we responded but did not. Sometimes your email is the lowest priority on my to-do list, and it takes me a while to get to it. You should send a reminder email 1 - 1.5 weeks after the first email.

Some faculty get flooded with email and things get lost in the shuffle. Or sometimes I want to say yes but need to double check my other commitments to make sure I can do it, and that can that time, i.e., I will wait till I have a block of open time to review my planner, or sometimes we need to wait to hear back from others to confirm meeting times or deadlines, etc. Anyway, there are many possible reasons that have nothing to do with you, so best not to overthink it. Please do not tack on that message at the end of the email. Just follow up if they don't respond in a week or so.

yqm34a

askacademia_train

Human: Why do professors ignore letter of recommendation requests instead of just declining? Is it a sign that they simply forgot to reply or missed my email, or is it that they just can't be bothered to reply at all if they aren't interested? ​ **Edit:** When I make requests in the future, would it be appropriate to tack on "just a simple yes or no answer is fine" at the end of the email, to hint that I would appreciate even a very curt refusal rather than silence? Assistant:

ivp1zd5

ivpw8p4

I think the whole convention is silly. I wish that would be removed from admission processes. Profs get so bombarded with these. Most have a general template that they cut and paste and maybe add in a few specific sentences. I Always seem to get these requests during end of semester/finals week when I’m swamped. I don’t ignore, it’s just not a priority and falls to the bottom of the list often times.

Students have no concept of how wildly overwhelming most academics' inboxes are

rmop6i

askacademia_train

Human: Is burnout normal in academics? Im a doctoral candidate, (4th year) and though there is the light at the end of the tunnel, I feel like I burnt myself out so hard last year (COVID, grant writing w no laptop, could not go to lab, got married, family disowned me, and threats from family members, took quals twice (failed the first time)). My advisors dont know how hard the last year was for me. My advisors are extremely selfless and wonderful advisors and they are treking out a plan where I can publish 1-2 papers within 20-24 months and graduate on time. Since May, Ive been completely burnt out and disinterested. I never get up on time, and I am going to lab at 2pm and forcing myself to stay there for 8 hours. Even when my body is in lab, my work is not great, and I can hardly motivate myself to thaw out cells. Other people in academia seem to have trials with burn out from time to time. Virtually all PIs are over extended, post-docs too. I was wondering if burnout is a bug or a feature in academia? Does everyone feel burntout from time to time or did I fuck myself? thanks Assistant:

hpnutsc

hpnl3yp

It’s sadly very common. Try to prioritize mental health now. Don’t tell yourself to push trough and deal with that stuff after finishing the PhD. I’ve seen many friends where this strategy did not work out well.

Burnout is _extremely_ uncommon. You are an anomaly. How in the hell could I (or anyone else) ever get burned out from working 60+ hours a week while raising young kids and trying to grind tenure in one of the most competitive industries in the world? More seriously, of course people get burned out. Spend 3 minutes scrolling through the submissions on any of the academia oriented subreddits and the extreme commonness of burnout should be obvious.

rmop6i

askacademia_train

Human: Is burnout normal in academics? Im a doctoral candidate, (4th year) and though there is the light at the end of the tunnel, I feel like I burnt myself out so hard last year (COVID, grant writing w no laptop, could not go to lab, got married, family disowned me, and threats from family members, took quals twice (failed the first time)). My advisors dont know how hard the last year was for me. My advisors are extremely selfless and wonderful advisors and they are treking out a plan where I can publish 1-2 papers within 20-24 months and graduate on time. Since May, Ive been completely burnt out and disinterested. I never get up on time, and I am going to lab at 2pm and forcing myself to stay there for 8 hours. Even when my body is in lab, my work is not great, and I can hardly motivate myself to thaw out cells. Other people in academia seem to have trials with burn out from time to time. Virtually all PIs are over extended, post-docs too. I was wondering if burnout is a bug or a feature in academia? Does everyone feel burntout from time to time or did I fuck myself? thanks Assistant:

hpoj8nv

hpooeke

It's sad, but very common to be burned out, especially in the field you are studying /working. I also worked in an animal hospital and was studying, until I had a collapse and got chronicly ill. I don't say that this will happen to you, but I hope you look after yourself before it's too late. Treat yourself with something nice, do something that's only for you. Don't try to be the best at all time, you don't need to be perfect. I hope this helps 🌈

Honest a lot of dissertations are less good than originally imagined. Seriously consider if you can cut anything out.

qkazmf

askacademia_train

Human: Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? From what I've read, it is not uncommon for supervisors to retaliate after they get reported. Assistant:

hivofen

hivmvkj

Reported? Yes. Improved. Not at all. In fact, shit got worse.

That’s not going to work. Find a diplomatic way to change supervisors (do you have associate supervisors?). It may depend on what program you are enrolled in and your university, but lodging complaints doesn’t work, so don’t bother.

qkazmf

askacademia_train

Human: Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? From what I've read, it is not uncommon for supervisors to retaliate after they get reported. Assistant:

hivqwva

hivsgo3

What are you reporting them for? Discrimination, targeted harassment, sexual harassment, generally being an asshole, not letting students graduate, forcing students out of the group, research misconduct, never meeting with students, and many more things are all possible grounds for reporting someone. The outcome, good or bad, depends very much on your individual situation.

If you are making the step of formally reporting something, it's because informal communications have broken down, or that they have committed an act so egregious that it puts them in conflict with institutional ethical guidelines, the law, or something of that ilk. So if you're at the point of reporting someone, you're at the point where you should no longer be working with them.

qkazmf

askacademia_train

Human: Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? Has anyone ever reported their academic advisor/supervisor and things actually improved after that? From what I've read, it is not uncommon for supervisors to retaliate after they get reported. Assistant:

hivttb7

hivvnor

Your university has kept them around this long. You think you're the first to have a problem? Students, especially grad students, have very little agency. You're a number, that professor is an asset to the school. I left a lab, but made it explicitly clear I would not be reporting what I heard or experienced. It's likely the primary reason I was able to make a clean break, because there would've been retaliation if I had. The school would've taken their side.

No - every case I have heard of (my research is on why grad students leave their PhD programs), it never got better. :( I agree with some other comments here that changing labs, or even programs entirely was probably the best outcome for the student.