Datasets:

Dahoas

/

filtered-SHP

like 2

m1lumw

askacademia_train

Human: I had a mild brain injury during my PhD program... Now unsure about my future My fiance suggested I create this account to talk about this issue, new to this community and just hoping to get some thoughts and perspective... So, a little background.... As I was going through my masters (and even before that) I felt like I would be really happy going the academic job route. There were a lot of things that I liked about it, so I decided to pursue a PhD (in natural resources/fisheries/ecology). All was going well enough, and I was preparing myself to one day enter the academic job market. About 3.5 years in to my program, and after passing my comprehensive exams, I got a concussion from a mild injury. Most people the symptoms pass within a few weeks, but unfortunately I became one of about 30% of people that get post concussion syndrome. I continued to deal with headaches, dizziness, extreme fatigue, etc.... Had to take some time off for an unofficial medical leave, and then came back to finish my degree. I continued with my concussion rehab for the past almost 2 years while writing my thesis, and I'm proud to say that I made it through all of this and will be defending in a few weeks. That brings me to the point of this post.... Prior to my injury, I was preparing myself for an academic position. It's all I've considered for so long, but with my current health status and the outlook for improvements, I no longer think it's the right path for me. I just can't realistically push my brain and body for 50-60 hour weeks to get through the application process and getting tenure. Which leaves me thinking.... what kind of career paths could I consider? How could I use the skills I learned during graduate school in fisheries? Has anyone else gone through a career change after their PhD? Thanks in advance! Assistant:

gqflwng

gqf8vqg

I don’t have much to offer, but my wife got her first concussion during pharmacy school. She ended up hitting her head another four times within pharmacy school. Her GP thinks she has some depth perception issues. She went from top of her class to a C student. She developed chronic headaches, depression, anxiety, and ADD. The fatigue and dizziness were there, too. She went to a bunch of different doctors, including neurologists, and all she got were meds for pain management. I can’t offer insight into your situation, but your post is such a comfort to read because it makes me feel a bit less alone. No one at her university, including some of her friends, seemed to take her situation seriously. It got laughed off because she just hit her head on a door—not like she was a football player, right? She kept getting written off as lazy by both her peers and preceptors. This went on during three years of pharmacy school, and it’s been two years since graduation. She’s still dealing with symptoms. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I’m so sorry that this happened to you. She went through a whole identity crisis given that, like you, she had to reevaluate her goals. She barely made it through school, and she knew she’d never be able to do a residency. Luckily, she ended up with a good job that hasn’t exacerbated her health issues too much. I hope your situation has a better outlook than hers, but even she’s flourishing—just not in the way we planned. I also hope that our story helps you feel less alone with such an insidious injury.

There's a woman that suffered similarly that gave a TED talk https://www.ted.com/talks/jill\_bolte\_taylor\_my\_stroke\_of\_insight?language=en

iqv77h

askacademia_train

Human: This academic advt. will make your day :) https://ibb.co/S3B3wHw Assistant:

g4ur82g

g4ufn1g

There is a sea-change in academia, and it requires longitidunal improvements. Not just more UG opportunities, but more Grad, Postdoc, and faculty are needed. I'm glad that she's doing this!

I want to believe her, but...

iqv77h

askacademia_train

Human: This academic advt. will make your day :) https://ibb.co/S3B3wHw Assistant:

g4vha2s

g4ufn1g

I believe her when she says she reads every applicant. However when she says potential, it will be hard for her to back it up. Harvard reads every applicant. Harvard also brags about their median and max GPA being 4.0 and near perfect SAT/GRE/MCAT/LSAT across the board. There are a few with bad GPAs and bad standardized test scores. But mostly Harvard has 97% rock solid and 3% “potential” with bad GPA and a strong letter showing passion.

I want to believe her, but...

jkyp2g

askacademia_train

Human: Ph.D did not prepare me for post-doc, very behind, need reading resources to get me up to speed Ok so the short version of it is that during my Ph.D I had a very bad mentor. This is not subjective, she was such a bad mentor that she was fired for never coming to work, never obtained a grant, and really I could count on two hands the number of times we sat down and I really learned something. Because I was determined to get my Phd, I did everything on my own. The university did give me another mentor, but my mentor didn't have a research lab, didn't have expertise in the techniques I used, but had a good understanding of my overall topic. I guess it was the best they could do. So a few weeks back I started a post-doc. I've only had a few days where I actually went in to the lab to work. This is very new for me, it's a big lab with lots of people and despite being a post doc, I feel very inadequate when it comes to working in a lab. In my Ph.D I used one very difficult and specific technique, and most of my skills are in the realm of surgery. So anything outside of surgery, I just cannot do, yet. ​ As time goes on, I will learn. What I'm trying to do is save the social embarrassment because I don't know the names of things or how techniques work and these are pretty standard techniques for the field, but I just have no experience. And everyone is assuming that I do because I'm a post-doc. Everyone in the lab is talking about grants and publishing and these are all probably topics that most people become familiar with during their ph.D. I know this is very vague, but if it helps I'm in the field of neuroscience. Basically what I'm asking for are resources for working in a lab, or what to do during your post-doc. Imagine that after your 1st year in a phd program, your advisor left they just gave your phd and then you started a post doc without any experience. Thats what it feels like. It feels like the only thing I can do, is perform surgery and read the literature and understand it in great depth and write about it. I do have those skills, but everything else, including the hands on stuff in the lab, I feel underprepared. Also the other thing is that everyone in the lab wants to become a professor at one point, and I don't even think I am interested in that. Assistant:

gam48j9

gam4got

I had the same situation but my advisor wasn't completely awful, but not really cutting edge. I work with a bunch of PhDs now and the general consensus is that all of or PhDs were not practical for real world or not applicable. I wouldn't worry about it. Guarantee you are not the only person that feels that way. In my experience if someone projects that their research is amazing, they are generally covering up the fact that it's full of holes. Just be competent at your job and you'll be fine. Google imposter syndrome and beware of dunning krueger.

There's a lot going on in your post, so I'll start with the easiest answered question. https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/At_the_Bench.html?id=BdBb_69bSUUC&redir_esc=y This not a bad book for widening your scope if you've previously hyperspecialised. For the rest: the PhD experience varies enormously, so don't feel that you're uniquely misplaced where you're at. You were hired for a reason - possibly your expertise in that very difficult technique. What's valuable to your labmates (and your boss) is to take that, and add a positive framing. "Hi, I'm FurnaceUBER the new postdoc. My PhD really focused on microsurgery, but I'm really eager to broaden my skills in this postdoc - could I shadow you and ask a bunch of questions while you run that Western?" Literally no-one can fault you for that approach. The opposite approach, where you're ashamed of being a permanent learner (we all are permanent learners) is what will catch you out, because someone will set you a task that you've no clue how to do, you'll hamfist it, and get shouted at for not accurately delineating your competencies. Honesty is 100% the best policy here. For what little it counts, if you're able to read widely, engage, and write, you're in a better position than most people who got treated like a technique monkey, and when you get a sense of the main lab techniques and costings, you'll be well placed to contribute to grant-writing.

jkyp2g

askacademia_train

Human: names of things or how techniques work and these are pretty standard techniques for the field, but I just have no experience. And everyone is assuming that I do because I'm a post-doc. Everyone in the lab is talking about grants and publishing and these are all probably topics that most people become familiar with during their ph.D. I know this is very vague, but if it helps I'm in the field of neuroscience. Basically what I'm asking for are resources for working in a lab, or what to do during your post-doc. Imagine that after your 1st year in a phd program, your advisor left they just gave your phd and then you started a post doc without any experience. Thats what it feels like. It feels like the only thing I can do, is perform surgery and read the literature and understand it in great depth and write about it. I do have those skills, but everything else, including the hands on stuff in the lab, I feel underprepared. Also the other thing is that everyone in the lab wants to become a professor at one point, and I don't even think I am interested in that. Assistant:

gamr21b

gamdmal

You're exactly where you should be - you're looking at the situation backwards. The point of the post-doc is to carve out a niche and develop yourself as an independent scientist. One of my former mentors would always ask "What's going to make you famous". While I always hated that phrase, the idea behind it is correct - what is it that you're going to be known for. It's not good enough to be good, you need to have an area or skill set that when people think of or need that area or skill, they turn to you. If everyone in the post-doc lab uses the same techniques that you're an expert in, then there's no opportunity for you - either to learn or excel. So you're an expert in surgery, make that your thing in the lab so that when people need that skill they turn to you. In my post-doc we had one person who specialized in the gut - no one else in the lab worked on it. He must have been put on a good 50% of the papers in the lab just by doing gut isolations and acting as a resource. Someone else was an expert in the toxoplasmosis model and they got put on several papers as people needed someone to run a quick Th1 disease model. Another was an outstanding bioinformatician and she was put on just about every paper for simple analyses (for her) that took her little time. If you're doing the same thing as everyone else in the lab, you're in the wrong lab. Most Ph.D. advisors don't train their students to write grants. Many Ph.D. advisors wrote their students' papers, and often a student's only exposure to writing was their thesis. You're probably not as far behind as you think and in another year you'll be the person that a new post-doc is measuring themselves up to. You also have another skill that many new post-docs don't - the ability to work independently. In large, highly competitive labs post-docs act as small independent labs. I have seen many post-docs who were extremely hand-held in their doctoral training that they were not able to function independently in the larger, competitive labs. You're not expected to know everything. Know your area, know it well. Be familiar enough with other areas to know when you need to venture into them, and then form collaborations with your peers (inside the lab or out). Learn when to speak up, you need to be visible, and when to keep your mouth shut. When I as a student, I once asked a HHMI investigator why she didn't ask many questions at our Work in Progress seminars. She said that she didn't know the first thing about most of the topics being presented. That surprised me and was a defining moment for me. I just came from study section - the reason we had 38 people on the panel was because people aren't deeply familiar with all the areas of science in the applications. For example, during discussion you'll often hear people ask why model X was used as they weren't familiar with the model, and someone would reply that the model is the standard model in that field and was being used for reasons A, B, an C. Students and new post-docs have this idea that PIs and others in the lab are experts in everything. The reality is that the PI has been working *in that space* for many years, but take them out of that space and they're just as lost as you. As a post-doc, develop *your* space - what's going to make you famous. You have three years to prep for your next interview.

I'm afraid you just have to suck it up and ask people. Your only way forward is being honest and admitting what you do and don't know, and making use of it as a learning opportunity. We're all learning!

jkyp2g

askacademia_train

Human: names of things or how techniques work and these are pretty standard techniques for the field, but I just have no experience. And everyone is assuming that I do because I'm a post-doc. Everyone in the lab is talking about grants and publishing and these are all probably topics that most people become familiar with during their ph.D. I know this is very vague, but if it helps I'm in the field of neuroscience. Basically what I'm asking for are resources for working in a lab, or what to do during your post-doc. Imagine that after your 1st year in a phd program, your advisor left they just gave your phd and then you started a post doc without any experience. Thats what it feels like. It feels like the only thing I can do, is perform surgery and read the literature and understand it in great depth and write about it. I do have those skills, but everything else, including the hands on stuff in the lab, I feel underprepared. Also the other thing is that everyone in the lab wants to become a professor at one point, and I don't even think I am interested in that. Assistant:

gamr21b

gamc5h1

You're exactly where you should be - you're looking at the situation backwards. The point of the post-doc is to carve out a niche and develop yourself as an independent scientist. One of my former mentors would always ask "What's going to make you famous". While I always hated that phrase, the idea behind it is correct - what is it that you're going to be known for. It's not good enough to be good, you need to have an area or skill set that when people think of or need that area or skill, they turn to you. If everyone in the post-doc lab uses the same techniques that you're an expert in, then there's no opportunity for you - either to learn or excel. So you're an expert in surgery, make that your thing in the lab so that when people need that skill they turn to you. In my post-doc we had one person who specialized in the gut - no one else in the lab worked on it. He must have been put on a good 50% of the papers in the lab just by doing gut isolations and acting as a resource. Someone else was an expert in the toxoplasmosis model and they got put on several papers as people needed someone to run a quick Th1 disease model. Another was an outstanding bioinformatician and she was put on just about every paper for simple analyses (for her) that took her little time. If you're doing the same thing as everyone else in the lab, you're in the wrong lab. Most Ph.D. advisors don't train their students to write grants. Many Ph.D. advisors wrote their students' papers, and often a student's only exposure to writing was their thesis. You're probably not as far behind as you think and in another year you'll be the person that a new post-doc is measuring themselves up to. You also have another skill that many new post-docs don't - the ability to work independently. In large, highly competitive labs post-docs act as small independent labs. I have seen many post-docs who were extremely hand-held in their doctoral training that they were not able to function independently in the larger, competitive labs. You're not expected to know everything. Know your area, know it well. Be familiar enough with other areas to know when you need to venture into them, and then form collaborations with your peers (inside the lab or out). Learn when to speak up, you need to be visible, and when to keep your mouth shut. When I as a student, I once asked a HHMI investigator why she didn't ask many questions at our Work in Progress seminars. She said that she didn't know the first thing about most of the topics being presented. That surprised me and was a defining moment for me. I just came from study section - the reason we had 38 people on the panel was because people aren't deeply familiar with all the areas of science in the applications. For example, during discussion you'll often hear people ask why model X was used as they weren't familiar with the model, and someone would reply that the model is the standard model in that field and was being used for reasons A, B, an C. Students and new post-docs have this idea that PIs and others in the lab are experts in everything. The reality is that the PI has been working *in that space* for many years, but take them out of that space and they're just as lost as you. As a post-doc, develop *your* space - what's going to make you famous. You have three years to prep for your next interview.

It could be the whole impostor syndrome thing that people talk about. You got a PhD and were hired to the postdoc for a reason, so you don't have to believe in yourself, just believe in the PI who believes in you! While some postdocs expect you to hit the ground running (e.g. you're hired to accomplish a specific task on a grant with a timeline), others are regarded more as opportunities for additional training in new areas and techniques. I'm soon to be in a pretty similar position, about to finish my PhD without any pubs from my thesis work or real grants and start a postdoc pivoting to a different field in a lab that produces many yearly Nature / Science / Cell papers and regularly fields $10M+ grants. Reading their research is a bit confusing, but that's why I'm going back to basics and working through introductory textbooks in the field. My PhD advisors were solid, they just worked on v. different sorts of things. Asking lots of questions and treating it as an exciting new learning opportunity!

l50qyi

askacademia_train

Human: Would it be weird to send an email to a professor who's book I loved? I read a book from an academic. It has no reviews anywhere but I really loved it and was wondering if would be weird to email them and tell them that I enjoyed their book? Assistant:

gkrncf6

gkrktwa

This isn't weird—it's a rare academic author who wouldn't be delighted to receive such an email. Consider describing what aspect of their style or content you especially enjoyed. Don't feel bad if you don't hear back. It's also a rare academic author who devotes much time for correspondence.

Not at all! As long as you're not weird about it I'm sure they'd love the feedback.

l50qyi

askacademia_train

Human: Would it be weird to send an email to a professor who's book I loved? I read a book from an academic. It has no reviews anywhere but I really loved it and was wondering if would be weird to email them and tell them that I enjoyed their book? Assistant:

gkrncf6

gkrn17l

This isn't weird—it's a rare academic author who wouldn't be delighted to receive such an email. Consider describing what aspect of their style or content you especially enjoyed. Don't feel bad if you don't hear back. It's also a rare academic author who devotes much time for correspondence.

Please do message them, I bet it will brighten their day! Keep it short and sweet... Maybe post a review on Goodreads or Amazon too

l50qyi

askacademia_train

Human: Would it be weird to send an email to a professor who's book I loved? I read a book from an academic. It has no reviews anywhere but I really loved it and was wondering if would be weird to email them and tell them that I enjoyed their book? Assistant:

gksb40c

gks5xto

Not at all. But make sure they're alive. I once wrote a long thankyou email to the late Paul B. Lyons only to discover that he'd passed away a few months earlier and I was gutted.

Only if you want to make their day/week!

l50qyi

askacademia_train

Human: Would it be weird to send an email to a professor who's book I loved? I read a book from an academic. It has no reviews anywhere but I really loved it and was wondering if would be weird to email them and tell them that I enjoyed their book? Assistant:

gksb40c

gks4ubw

Not at all. But make sure they're alive. I once wrote a long thankyou email to the late Paul B. Lyons only to discover that he'd passed away a few months earlier and I was gutted.

Do it, I think it would mean a lot to them :)

l50qyi

askacademia_train

Human: Would it be weird to send an email to a professor who's book I loved? I read a book from an academic. It has no reviews anywhere but I really loved it and was wondering if would be weird to email them and tell them that I enjoyed their book? Assistant:

gksb40c

gks6z2d

Not at all. But make sure they're alive. I once wrote a long thankyou email to the late Paul B. Lyons only to discover that he'd passed away a few months earlier and I was gutted.

No! Do it! You'll make their corona-crushed DAY!

hueqma

askacademia_train

Human: Dealing with research burnout during COVID Is anyone else experiencing research burnout? Especially in the humanities where most of my research is just staring at a screen. Feel like I can't read a single article without my eyes glossing over. Any tips for dealing with this? Assistant:

fymt8gp

fymrypv

I find the days blur together sometimes. I take random weekdays off sometimes.

I started reading for fun in between my reading for research.

hueqma

askacademia_train

Human: Dealing with research burnout during COVID Is anyone else experiencing research burnout? Especially in the humanities where most of my research is just staring at a screen. Feel like I can't read a single article without my eyes glossing over. Any tips for dealing with this? Assistant:

fymt8gp

fymsdt2

I find the days blur together sometimes. I take random weekdays off sometimes.

studying clinical psych here and very much feeling this - you're not alone!

o1wvcu

askacademia_train

Human: Career failure stories Academia is cut throat and MANY people fail in achieving their goals but don't talk about their failures. Would anyone here be open and discuss their failures in academia and how they gave up and moved on to other paths? I think this could be a great learning experience Assistant:

h238mr8

h23avjx

I just want to say that I loved reading each and every comment here and found them encouraging. Thank you all for sharing!

I am in the process of failing! I did a great Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics in a top worldwide institution. Had fun, it was amazing, I 100% enjoyed it, did great research, my advisor loved me, I totally would do it again. Unfortunately, my advisor was in the transition period between two areas, and I was, in a way, the last student in the first area. So towards the end of my Ph.D. research topics, I was kinda left on my own. Not bad, I love to work on my own, but it had consequences that now, after 3 years, I could understand. After the wonderful period that is a Postdoc hunt, I landed a 6-year term position in an ok-ish university. The trade-off? 4 hours of teaching. "I can certainly do it, it will be a piece of cake", I thought. Well... I did not. In these last 3 years, I have in total published 2 papers, and currently, I have nothing close to finishing. I have worked my ass off in this time, but the teaching load was much more than expected (for many reasons, between learning a new language, and the culture of my host country, it could some weeks take 120% of my work week), also external circumstances changed (During my Ph.D. I was alone and I could work 12 hours non-stop without noticing, now I have someone in my life who gets angry if I work too much, among other things.). Further mistakes from my side: \- I did not build a collaboration group. Since all my "Ph.D. siblings" were from another area, and my advisor too, after my Ph.D. I ended up without any collaboration network. Afterward, I got too focused on working hard and hyper-focused on a single project in my new institution, that I never build such a network. \- In my solitary research path, I have started many many many projects which I have later abandoned to be not good enough. In hindsight, I should have tried to make the most of these projects, but I am unsure if I would be happy publishing only mediocre-value incremental research. Overall, as the saying says. "Work smarter, not harder". I think I failed at this fundamental principle. On the positive aspect, I was never completely blind to the possibility of moving to industry, and I diverted part of my efforts in these years to master programming (luckily, very useful as an applied mathematician). So currently I am in the job market seeing the options. It does not seem so daunting, at worse, I can take an entry-level programming job. But before surrendering to that fate, I'm hoping to land a data scientist job. On the sad part, my area (medical imaging), got eaten alive by machine learning, and unfortunately, I have no research in that area. So it is unlikely that I will land a position in this topic (and most of the big companies that develop these things have laboratories in the middle of nowhere. ) So likely most of my true expertise will be lost in this transition. But I gotta say that I am ok with it. I think the harder step is regarding my own identity. I have been identifying as a researcher, and a mathematician, for years. I have based my life objectives in this direction and suddenly I am starting to wonder what will my future objectives be. I am sure I'll sort it out, but I gotta say that this is what has hit me the hardest.

o1wvcu

askacademia_train

Human: Career failure stories Academia is cut throat and MANY people fail in achieving their goals but don't talk about their failures. Would anyone here be open and discuss their failures in academia and how they gave up and moved on to other paths? I think this could be a great learning experience Assistant:

h23avjx

h235f2a

I am in the process of failing! I did a great Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics in a top worldwide institution. Had fun, it was amazing, I 100% enjoyed it, did great research, my advisor loved me, I totally would do it again. Unfortunately, my advisor was in the transition period between two areas, and I was, in a way, the last student in the first area. So towards the end of my Ph.D. research topics, I was kinda left on my own. Not bad, I love to work on my own, but it had consequences that now, after 3 years, I could understand. After the wonderful period that is a Postdoc hunt, I landed a 6-year term position in an ok-ish university. The trade-off? 4 hours of teaching. "I can certainly do it, it will be a piece of cake", I thought. Well... I did not. In these last 3 years, I have in total published 2 papers, and currently, I have nothing close to finishing. I have worked my ass off in this time, but the teaching load was much more than expected (for many reasons, between learning a new language, and the culture of my host country, it could some weeks take 120% of my work week), also external circumstances changed (During my Ph.D. I was alone and I could work 12 hours non-stop without noticing, now I have someone in my life who gets angry if I work too much, among other things.). Further mistakes from my side: \- I did not build a collaboration group. Since all my "Ph.D. siblings" were from another area, and my advisor too, after my Ph.D. I ended up without any collaboration network. Afterward, I got too focused on working hard and hyper-focused on a single project in my new institution, that I never build such a network. \- In my solitary research path, I have started many many many projects which I have later abandoned to be not good enough. In hindsight, I should have tried to make the most of these projects, but I am unsure if I would be happy publishing only mediocre-value incremental research. Overall, as the saying says. "Work smarter, not harder". I think I failed at this fundamental principle. On the positive aspect, I was never completely blind to the possibility of moving to industry, and I diverted part of my efforts in these years to master programming (luckily, very useful as an applied mathematician). So currently I am in the job market seeing the options. It does not seem so daunting, at worse, I can take an entry-level programming job. But before surrendering to that fate, I'm hoping to land a data scientist job. On the sad part, my area (medical imaging), got eaten alive by machine learning, and unfortunately, I have no research in that area. So it is unlikely that I will land a position in this topic (and most of the big companies that develop these things have laboratories in the middle of nowhere. ) So likely most of my true expertise will be lost in this transition. But I gotta say that I am ok with it. I think the harder step is regarding my own identity. I have been identifying as a researcher, and a mathematician, for years. I have based my life objectives in this direction and suddenly I am starting to wonder what will my future objectives be. I am sure I'll sort it out, but I gotta say that this is what has hit me the hardest.

Goals can change over time too so not necessarily giving up. Academia is what I am aiming for but I know it's difficult, especially times like these, so I guess as I learn more I'm reshaping my goals to make them more realistic.

o1wvcu

askacademia_train

Human: Career failure stories Academia is cut throat and MANY people fail in achieving their goals but don't talk about their failures. Would anyone here be open and discuss their failures in academia and how they gave up and moved on to other paths? I think this could be a great learning experience Assistant:

h23sbt3

h240uh9

I left my humanities PhD program halfway into writing the dissertation. While program was good and I liked my advisor and the department, but I was burned out, struggling to get by on adjunct gigs/TA stipend, and I was having lots of trouble making any progress. Also my roommate had a mental break and committed suicide. So I left -- though looking back I probably should have left sooner. At first I was pretty depressed about giving up and unsure what I could do. I applied to all sorts of jobs that people recommend for transitioning academics -- USAJobs, college admin roles, etc... -- but it went nowhere. Realizing that I needed to expand my skillset, I taught myself how to program and other CS fundamentals. One thing you become really good at in a PhD program is teaching yourself. These days I split my time between teaching CS at university and research & development in the tech industry.

I submitted my PhD the same week covid lockdowns happened and my examiners failed me. My supervisor reviewed my chapters over a week and most comments consisted of “I don’t like this picture.” She resigned a week after I submitted and couldn’t make a case to defend me so it was left in the hands of other academics. We tried to refute the examiner decision but the Dean of Graduate Studies said “Masters or nothing.” The Dean also came from the same faculty and had a notorious hate relationship with my supervisor so I don’t know if it was all politics. The 1 year anniversary of the failure news is coming up, I still haven’t told my grandparents about my big screw up and they’re still telling everyone I have a PhD. I’m trying to get an industry job with my masters, but I’ve also had a lot of teaching opportunities during my studies and am currently working as a tutor on the side. Aside from that, I really have no idea what I’m doing. To repeat what someone previously said, get therapy.

o1wvcu

askacademia_train

Human: Career failure stories Academia is cut throat and MANY people fail in achieving their goals but don't talk about their failures. Would anyone here be open and discuss their failures in academia and how they gave up and moved on to other paths? I think this could be a great learning experience Assistant:

h23t6qc

h240uh9

It's not as serious or as relevant as some of the other stories here, but when I was quite junior I applied to sit on a national committee run by a Government department which regulates and advises on the ethics of a particular type of research. I got an interview. It was in a very fancy government building, high security, the works. The interview was with a government chief scientist and two very senior civil servants. I totally blew the interview. Total disaster. I was just too junior for that role. I get out of this interview and I can't even leave because I have to wait for my security escort so I have to sit with the interviewers until the escort shows up after totally embarrassing myself. Finally, I leave. I figure it was an experience I can learn from and to put it behind me. But, they contact me a few weeks later to ask for a second interview. Somehow I convince myself that maybe that first interview wasn't the disaster I thought it was and go. Turns out the second interview was with the government's chief statistician who couldn't make the first interviews. I bombed just as hard a second time.

I submitted my PhD the same week covid lockdowns happened and my examiners failed me. My supervisor reviewed my chapters over a week and most comments consisted of “I don’t like this picture.” She resigned a week after I submitted and couldn’t make a case to defend me so it was left in the hands of other academics. We tried to refute the examiner decision but the Dean of Graduate Studies said “Masters or nothing.” The Dean also came from the same faculty and had a notorious hate relationship with my supervisor so I don’t know if it was all politics. The 1 year anniversary of the failure news is coming up, I still haven’t told my grandparents about my big screw up and they’re still telling everyone I have a PhD. I’m trying to get an industry job with my masters, but I’ve also had a lot of teaching opportunities during my studies and am currently working as a tutor on the side. Aside from that, I really have no idea what I’m doing. To repeat what someone previously said, get therapy.

o1wvcu

askacademia_train

Human: Career failure stories Academia is cut throat and MANY people fail in achieving their goals but don't talk about their failures. Would anyone here be open and discuss their failures in academia and how they gave up and moved on to other paths? I think this could be a great learning experience Assistant:

h23twg9

h240uh9

I got my bachelors in math, and I always dreamed of getting my PhD in math and becoming a professor. After 2.5 years in grad school, I dropped out with my masters. I’m lucky I guess because I ended up realizing how unhappy graduate school was making me early on. The grad school I went to was very toxic, and I wish I’d been more careful to ask students about their experiences before I ended up going there. The four other women in the program with me dropped out too; I never got to see any women pass the math qualifying exam while I was in the program. It’s tough, because I wish I had done more to change the way things were done in the department, but I just decided to leave instead. I am soooooooo much happier now though! I have my dream job working in operations research! Please don’t stay in graduate school if it’s ruining your mental health.

I submitted my PhD the same week covid lockdowns happened and my examiners failed me. My supervisor reviewed my chapters over a week and most comments consisted of “I don’t like this picture.” She resigned a week after I submitted and couldn’t make a case to defend me so it was left in the hands of other academics. We tried to refute the examiner decision but the Dean of Graduate Studies said “Masters or nothing.” The Dean also came from the same faculty and had a notorious hate relationship with my supervisor so I don’t know if it was all politics. The 1 year anniversary of the failure news is coming up, I still haven’t told my grandparents about my big screw up and they’re still telling everyone I have a PhD. I’m trying to get an industry job with my masters, but I’ve also had a lot of teaching opportunities during my studies and am currently working as a tutor on the side. Aside from that, I really have no idea what I’m doing. To repeat what someone previously said, get therapy.

hgyovo

askacademia_train

Human: By this time next year I plan to resign from my TT position and relocate back to my hometown. I'm embarking on a new career path in search of newer opportunities that don't place me in a position of severe economic impoverishment and overwork. How do I resign without sabotaging my reputation? How do continue to work throughout the year, showing "productivity" while knowing deep down that I will be resigning by the academic-year's end? When do I submit my letter of resignation, to give the department enough time to adjust? What do I say in my letter of resignation? Truth is, I hate my job. I hate being a professor. I hate working as hard as I do, and still I'm begging federal institutions for grants and money. I hate making exams, and grading papers. I hate my life. I'm planning to leave whether or not I have a job lined up because I'm just that miserable. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't sabotage my reputation. Advice please. Assistant:

fw6xogh

fw6vuob

Don't over think it. I was in a similar position, knowing for almost a year that I was going to leave. You can avoid most long term commitments if you just tell people that your plate is too full to take on new projects. You don't owe the department anything beyond professional courtesy - that means do your best to ensure a smooth transition of your responsibilities. But the will be loose ends, and that's just the nature of leaving a job. Regarding your resignation, all you need to do is give them the amount of notice your contract specifies, and your resignation letter just needs to say that you're leaving to pursue other opportunities. It's a formality, not a chance to express your feelings.

If you can, take a sabbatical first! Grass is always greener on the other side but it might not end up being the case.

hgyovo

askacademia_train

Human: By this time next year I plan to resign from my TT position and relocate back to my hometown. I'm embarking on a new career path in search of newer opportunities that don't place me in a position of severe economic impoverishment and overwork. How do I resign without sabotaging my reputation? How do continue to work throughout the year, showing "productivity" while knowing deep down that I will be resigning by the academic-year's end? When do I submit my letter of resignation, to give the department enough time to adjust? What do I say in my letter of resignation? Truth is, I hate my job. I hate being a professor. I hate working as hard as I do, and still I'm begging federal institutions for grants and money. I hate making exams, and grading papers. I hate my life. I'm planning to leave whether or not I have a job lined up because I'm just that miserable. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't sabotage my reputation. Advice please. Assistant:

fw719tz

fw6zi4w

I think if you leave and aren't a jerk about it, you'll be fine. Not your question, but have you worked outside of academia before? I say this as somebody who had a ten year career in a completely different field before getting my PhD and it sucked. I know some non-academics love their jobs, so obviously my experience isn't everybody's, but if there's any way to test the waters a bit before you make the leap, I would encourage it. Anyway, good luck!!

I don't have any advice but I just wanted to say I am sorry you're miserable and I hope you find your way to a job that makes you happier.

hgyovo

askacademia_train

Human: By this time next year I plan to resign from my TT position and relocate back to my hometown. I'm embarking on a new career path in search of newer opportunities that don't place me in a position of severe economic impoverishment and overwork. How do I resign without sabotaging my reputation? How do continue to work throughout the year, showing "productivity" while knowing deep down that I will be resigning by the academic-year's end? When do I submit my letter of resignation, to give the department enough time to adjust? What do I say in my letter of resignation? Truth is, I hate my job. I hate being a professor. I hate working as hard as I do, and still I'm begging federal institutions for grants and money. I hate making exams, and grading papers. I hate my life. I'm planning to leave whether or not I have a job lined up because I'm just that miserable. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't sabotage my reputation. Advice please. Assistant:

fw70p4d

fw719tz

You might want to look into your institution’s leave of absence policy. You might be able to take a year’s leave of absence that way if your new opportunity doesn’t work out, you’d still have a job to go back to. I am a bit risk adverse when it comes to jobs and so I’d feel more comfortable with a safety net. Of course, everyone’s different when it comes to these kinds of things. I wish you the best of luck sorting this out. I know how hard this can be.

I think if you leave and aren't a jerk about it, you'll be fine. Not your question, but have you worked outside of academia before? I say this as somebody who had a ten year career in a completely different field before getting my PhD and it sucked. I know some non-academics love their jobs, so obviously my experience isn't everybody's, but if there's any way to test the waters a bit before you make the leap, I would encourage it. Anyway, good luck!!

hgyovo

askacademia_train

Human: By this time next year I plan to resign from my TT position and relocate back to my hometown. I'm embarking on a new career path in search of newer opportunities that don't place me in a position of severe economic impoverishment and overwork. How do I resign without sabotaging my reputation? How do continue to work throughout the year, showing "productivity" while knowing deep down that I will be resigning by the academic-year's end? When do I submit my letter of resignation, to give the department enough time to adjust? What do I say in my letter of resignation? Truth is, I hate my job. I hate being a professor. I hate working as hard as I do, and still I'm begging federal institutions for grants and money. I hate making exams, and grading papers. I hate my life. I'm planning to leave whether or not I have a job lined up because I'm just that miserable. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't sabotage my reputation. Advice please. Assistant:

fw6zsd1

fw719tz

You dont owe anyone anything, but it is a small world and you could conceivably need a LOR. In any case, it doesn't really hurt to be considerate. If you are really sure that you want to leave, I would at least tell your chair so that they have some heads up that they will have to replace you. But that is only my 2 cents. If you have the chance to get out and do some consulting or job interview before you pull the plug, even if the things you get are not your long term goals, I would really advise you strongly to see if the other options are actually worse. Also advise at least a perfunctory job search in whatever you think the alternatives are to get a feeling for if they are alternatives for you. But this is in the context that I would not quit a job without having another job under any circumstances .

I think if you leave and aren't a jerk about it, you'll be fine. Not your question, but have you worked outside of academia before? I say this as somebody who had a ten year career in a completely different field before getting my PhD and it sucked. I know some non-academics love their jobs, so obviously my experience isn't everybody's, but if there's any way to test the waters a bit before you make the leap, I would encourage it. Anyway, good luck!!

hgyovo

askacademia_train

Human: By this time next year I plan to resign from my TT position and relocate back to my hometown. I'm embarking on a new career path in search of newer opportunities that don't place me in a position of severe economic impoverishment and overwork. How do I resign without sabotaging my reputation? How do continue to work throughout the year, showing "productivity" while knowing deep down that I will be resigning by the academic-year's end? When do I submit my letter of resignation, to give the department enough time to adjust? What do I say in my letter of resignation? Truth is, I hate my job. I hate being a professor. I hate working as hard as I do, and still I'm begging federal institutions for grants and money. I hate making exams, and grading papers. I hate my life. I'm planning to leave whether or not I have a job lined up because I'm just that miserable. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't sabotage my reputation. Advice please. Assistant:

fw7w8og

fw6zsd1

Chair here. I've had colleagues resign. No hard feelings, but I'd personally *absolutely* prefer to have a private heads-up as far in advance as possible because if someone leaves without warning in late spring I'd have to scramble to cover their classes for fall, or even risk losing the line. It wouldn't be a problem to keep that info confidential, but even better if the dean knew too so we could start conversations about a term hire to cover the classes. Nobody I know has resigned from a tenure-track position *without* telling the chair in advance at my school. It's a courtesy to do so. I've had no problems providing positive references for people who have left of their own accord that way. If someone simply bailed in May and left us hanging, though, I'd consider that unprofessional and would be much less willing to provide more than a basic "yes, she worked here" sort of reference. People leave academia all the time. Two friends of my did so one year after earning tenure. It's not uncommon, but doing it professionally will make it easier for everyone.

You dont owe anyone anything, but it is a small world and you could conceivably need a LOR. In any case, it doesn't really hurt to be considerate. If you are really sure that you want to leave, I would at least tell your chair so that they have some heads up that they will have to replace you. But that is only my 2 cents. If you have the chance to get out and do some consulting or job interview before you pull the plug, even if the things you get are not your long term goals, I would really advise you strongly to see if the other options are actually worse. Also advise at least a perfunctory job search in whatever you think the alternatives are to get a feeling for if they are alternatives for you. But this is in the context that I would not quit a job without having another job under any circumstances .

qc4o2t

askacademia_train

Human: I don’t think I want to get my PhD anymore, but I don’t know what else to do. I’m (22F) a first year PhD student in physics, and I kind of absolutely hate it. I know at least some of the problem is my mental health, adjusting to having moved across the country, and a bunch of non-school external stressors that I have been dealing with… I’m in therapy and I take meds. But I wake up and dread my classes. I dread my research. I feel like a disappointment to my advisor who is so nice and puts so much faith in me. I’m skipping class and sleeping and I’m still so exhausted. I don’t think this is what I want to do, and academica was never something I planned on doing after my doctorate anyway. I think I just want it so everyone knows I’m smart. And it’s always been my plan. But I don’t know what to do from here. I kind of want to teach. My mom was a teacher and she hated it, but I think I would enjoy teaching math, and it seems like that’s at least somewhat in demand. I don’t know what to do. Any advice from teachers, grad students, physicists, or anyone would be useful. Thank you. Assistant:

hhed6c1

hhe59s0

Youre figuring this out in first year? Good for you, quit. Quit right away. The sunk cost fallacy (which is less of a fallacy because you do only get your PhD at the end so you kinda get stuck gutting out out) gets worse with every passing year. Run now.

I'm so glad that you are addressing your mental health, above all else. Don't be miserable for something you hate when you can be stressed (but not miserable) for something you love! Also, you are so young, you have lots of years to change your mind again and again. Love to you :)

qc4o2t

askacademia_train

Human: I don’t think I want to get my PhD anymore, but I don’t know what else to do. I’m (22F) a first year PhD student in physics, and I kind of absolutely hate it. I know at least some of the problem is my mental health, adjusting to having moved across the country, and a bunch of non-school external stressors that I have been dealing with… I’m in therapy and I take meds. But I wake up and dread my classes. I dread my research. I feel like a disappointment to my advisor who is so nice and puts so much faith in me. I’m skipping class and sleeping and I’m still so exhausted. I don’t think this is what I want to do, and academica was never something I planned on doing after my doctorate anyway. I think I just want it so everyone knows I’m smart. And it’s always been my plan. But I don’t know what to do from here. I kind of want to teach. My mom was a teacher and she hated it, but I think I would enjoy teaching math, and it seems like that’s at least somewhat in demand. I don’t know what to do. Any advice from teachers, grad students, physicists, or anyone would be useful. Thank you. Assistant:

hhealcx

hhed6c1

>But I don’t know what to do from here. I don't know what you want to do as a career but based the skills you've learned as a physics PhD students could be very valuable in different fields because you guys are part time data scientists, part time CS / electrical engineers, part time mathematicians, and part time experimentalists. The combination of skill sets that you have might land you a job in other industries. Good luck.

Youre figuring this out in first year? Good for you, quit. Quit right away. The sunk cost fallacy (which is less of a fallacy because you do only get your PhD at the end so you kinda get stuck gutting out out) gets worse with every passing year. Run now.

qc4o2t

askacademia_train

Human: I don’t think I want to get my PhD anymore, but I don’t know what else to do. I’m (22F) a first year PhD student in physics, and I kind of absolutely hate it. I know at least some of the problem is my mental health, adjusting to having moved across the country, and a bunch of non-school external stressors that I have been dealing with… I’m in therapy and I take meds. But I wake up and dread my classes. I dread my research. I feel like a disappointment to my advisor who is so nice and puts so much faith in me. I’m skipping class and sleeping and I’m still so exhausted. I don’t think this is what I want to do, and academica was never something I planned on doing after my doctorate anyway. I think I just want it so everyone knows I’m smart. And it’s always been my plan. But I don’t know what to do from here. I kind of want to teach. My mom was a teacher and she hated it, but I think I would enjoy teaching math, and it seems like that’s at least somewhat in demand. I don’t know what to do. Any advice from teachers, grad students, physicists, or anyone would be useful. Thank you. Assistant:

hhed6c1

hhdqhiy

Youre figuring this out in first year? Good for you, quit. Quit right away. The sunk cost fallacy (which is less of a fallacy because you do only get your PhD at the end so you kinda get stuck gutting out out) gets worse with every passing year. Run now.

Sounds like its time for a deep think. Change can be good but determining where you want to go from here can be a challenge. If the coursework etc is adding to your health dilemmas, Personally I don’t think it’s worth the hit to your mental health.

qc4o2t

askacademia_train

Human: I don’t think I want to get my PhD anymore, but I don’t know what else to do. I’m (22F) a first year PhD student in physics, and I kind of absolutely hate it. I know at least some of the problem is my mental health, adjusting to having moved across the country, and a bunch of non-school external stressors that I have been dealing with… I’m in therapy and I take meds. But I wake up and dread my classes. I dread my research. I feel like a disappointment to my advisor who is so nice and puts so much faith in me. I’m skipping class and sleeping and I’m still so exhausted. I don’t think this is what I want to do, and academica was never something I planned on doing after my doctorate anyway. I think I just want it so everyone knows I’m smart. And it’s always been my plan. But I don’t know what to do from here. I kind of want to teach. My mom was a teacher and she hated it, but I think I would enjoy teaching math, and it seems like that’s at least somewhat in demand. I don’t know what to do. Any advice from teachers, grad students, physicists, or anyone would be useful. Thank you. Assistant:

hhed6c1

hheb9cg

Youre figuring this out in first year? Good for you, quit. Quit right away. The sunk cost fallacy (which is less of a fallacy because you do only get your PhD at the end so you kinda get stuck gutting out out) gets worse with every passing year. Run now.

Sometimes it takes actually diving into something to make us realize what is and isn't for us. There's a big fucking difference between THINKING you want something and actually doing that thing. I just moved to another country and uprooted my life, just to have pretty much the exact same thought process you're having. I dropped out and am heading back to the states in a couple days. I'm not saying that's what you'll end up doing, or even recommending it (I just don't know enough about your situation), but really think about what makes you happy and what YOU want, not what other's expect out of you. Life is too short for anything else. And if you don't know what you want, or what makes you happy yet (that's totally normal), then perhaps a break for diving into a PhD would be a healthy choice as well. Seems to me you've made up your mind to give it a break though, and you're looking for some validation.

qc4o2t

askacademia_train

Human: I don’t think I want to get my PhD anymore, but I don’t know what else to do. I’m (22F) a first year PhD student in physics, and I kind of absolutely hate it. I know at least some of the problem is my mental health, adjusting to having moved across the country, and a bunch of non-school external stressors that I have been dealing with… I’m in therapy and I take meds. But I wake up and dread my classes. I dread my research. I feel like a disappointment to my advisor who is so nice and puts so much faith in me. I’m skipping class and sleeping and I’m still so exhausted. I don’t think this is what I want to do, and academica was never something I planned on doing after my doctorate anyway. I think I just want it so everyone knows I’m smart. And it’s always been my plan. But I don’t know what to do from here. I kind of want to teach. My mom was a teacher and she hated it, but I think I would enjoy teaching math, and it seems like that’s at least somewhat in demand. I don’t know what to do. Any advice from teachers, grad students, physicists, or anyone would be useful. Thank you. Assistant:

hhe59s0

hhdqhiy

I'm so glad that you are addressing your mental health, above all else. Don't be miserable for something you hate when you can be stressed (but not miserable) for something you love! Also, you are so young, you have lots of years to change your mind again and again. Love to you :)

Sounds like its time for a deep think. Change can be good but determining where you want to go from here can be a challenge. If the coursework etc is adding to your health dilemmas, Personally I don’t think it’s worth the hit to your mental health.

o551bm

askacademia_train

Human: How the hell do you enjoy reading papers? I am a STEM student about to go into his final year of undergrad. I have been reading scientific papers and conducting research since my first semester and while I have gotten *better* at reading papers, it still sucks SO much to do so. I do not know what it is. Every time I start reading a paper I get like a page in and my mind goes 'wow this is boring and it sucks' and I stop. I will all the time hear post-docs and my PI talk about how cool a paper was and I cannot fathom how they think so. To be perfectly clear, I think my research is amazing and I love learning. Lectures are my favorite thing but something about scientific papers just turns me off so hard. Does anyone else feel this way? Does anyone have tips on how to make papers more palatable? Assistant:

h2kzfk7

h2kyvbc

It gets better when your research is really your own. Then you read papers because you want to know this new thing in your field. Like others said, scientific writing by nature should be concise and by extension bland. A well written article should still flow and make sense, however. The literary flourish, for those who have it, should be saved for reviews and such.

I reckon I was well into my PhD before I started enjoying it. One of the final exams in my bachelor's was being given a random paper and critically assessing it and I found it torturous. I remember doing a journal club in my first year of PhD where I presented a paper and again, found it a real slog just to get through the thing, just like you describe. I think the switch flipped at some point when I started to become really familiar with the common research methods of my field and the way experiments are designed within it. At some point, as that kind of information moves from stuff you have to be consciously aware of to a kind of background knowledge in your brain, assessing papers becomes a breeze. You can very quickly pick up what they wanted to do, what they did to address it and their general results with a quick skim. Once that becomes second nature, the whole process of critically digesting a paper becomes a hell of a lot quicker, and once you start to get a real feel for how people are doing and reporting their research it can even become enjoyable. I think getting to that stage is partly down to experience - for me, it was hugely important to be surrounded by people doing research, observing them and the way the process worked. At some point, what I was seeing in the lab clicked with what I was reading in papers (and trying to implement in my work!) But equally you can train yourself to get to know the truly important bits of papers. Try to pay close attention to the way experiments are designed and carried out - how the question is identified, what methods have been selected, and what information those methods can give. Take some papers in your area of research and try to practice breaking the papers down into these basic facts as quickly as possible - what was their research question? what methods did they use? what information did this give? and does their conclusion really match the information their methods were able to provide? Write a one sentence answer to these questions for a paper a day, or something like that. The first one will be a chore and take time. But once you get used to identifying these crucial bits of information, stripping away everything else, you'll eventually be able to digest and critically assess a paper relatively quickly. And as soon as that part of it becomes less of a chore, you might even start to enjoy it!

o551bm

askacademia_train

Human: How the hell do you enjoy reading papers? I am a STEM student about to go into his final year of undergrad. I have been reading scientific papers and conducting research since my first semester and while I have gotten *better* at reading papers, it still sucks SO much to do so. I do not know what it is. Every time I start reading a paper I get like a page in and my mind goes 'wow this is boring and it sucks' and I stop. I will all the time hear post-docs and my PI talk about how cool a paper was and I cannot fathom how they think so. To be perfectly clear, I think my research is amazing and I love learning. Lectures are my favorite thing but something about scientific papers just turns me off so hard. Does anyone else feel this way? Does anyone have tips on how to make papers more palatable? Assistant:

h2kyxu4

h2kyvbc

Academic papers are interesting when their content is useful or brings insight. If you don't have a specific problem and your conceptual challenges don't lie at the edge of human knowledge (i.e., you're still digesting textbook knowledge), it's natural for your eyes to glaze over when reading tons of papers. (And the writing quality and results of the average paper aren't that impressive.) As you gain experience—especially if you tie yourself to one or several lines of research in grad school—you'll tend to find certain papers much more interesting, because they'll contain content that you're deeply connected to. For now, it might be useful to write down a question or two before skimming a group of papers. If one of them answers a question well, read it carefully and note it; you may end up citing it someday. This will probably increase your engagement.

I reckon I was well into my PhD before I started enjoying it. One of the final exams in my bachelor's was being given a random paper and critically assessing it and I found it torturous. I remember doing a journal club in my first year of PhD where I presented a paper and again, found it a real slog just to get through the thing, just like you describe. I think the switch flipped at some point when I started to become really familiar with the common research methods of my field and the way experiments are designed within it. At some point, as that kind of information moves from stuff you have to be consciously aware of to a kind of background knowledge in your brain, assessing papers becomes a breeze. You can very quickly pick up what they wanted to do, what they did to address it and their general results with a quick skim. Once that becomes second nature, the whole process of critically digesting a paper becomes a hell of a lot quicker, and once you start to get a real feel for how people are doing and reporting their research it can even become enjoyable. I think getting to that stage is partly down to experience - for me, it was hugely important to be surrounded by people doing research, observing them and the way the process worked. At some point, what I was seeing in the lab clicked with what I was reading in papers (and trying to implement in my work!) But equally you can train yourself to get to know the truly important bits of papers. Try to pay close attention to the way experiments are designed and carried out - how the question is identified, what methods have been selected, and what information those methods can give. Take some papers in your area of research and try to practice breaking the papers down into these basic facts as quickly as possible - what was their research question? what methods did they use? what information did this give? and does their conclusion really match the information their methods were able to provide? Write a one sentence answer to these questions for a paper a day, or something like that. The first one will be a chore and take time. But once you get used to identifying these crucial bits of information, stripping away everything else, you'll eventually be able to digest and critically assess a paper relatively quickly. And as soon as that part of it becomes less of a chore, you might even start to enjoy it!

o551bm

askacademia_train

Human: How the hell do you enjoy reading papers? I am a STEM student about to go into his final year of undergrad. I have been reading scientific papers and conducting research since my first semester and while I have gotten *better* at reading papers, it still sucks SO much to do so. I do not know what it is. Every time I start reading a paper I get like a page in and my mind goes 'wow this is boring and it sucks' and I stop. I will all the time hear post-docs and my PI talk about how cool a paper was and I cannot fathom how they think so. To be perfectly clear, I think my research is amazing and I love learning. Lectures are my favorite thing but something about scientific papers just turns me off so hard. Does anyone else feel this way? Does anyone have tips on how to make papers more palatable? Assistant:

h2lu2qy

h2lv61v

The more you read, the more you learn about the field as a whole and the easier it gets to read and understand new contributions with less effort. At that point reading new literature become more fun because it doesn’t always seem like a heavy mental lift, you’re just adding a pebble to the beach.

As a research scientist, I bloody hate reading papers, even my own. I just force myself and hate every second.

o551bm

askacademia_train

Human: How the hell do you enjoy reading papers? I am a STEM student about to go into his final year of undergrad. I have been reading scientific papers and conducting research since my first semester and while I have gotten *better* at reading papers, it still sucks SO much to do so. I do not know what it is. Every time I start reading a paper I get like a page in and my mind goes 'wow this is boring and it sucks' and I stop. I will all the time hear post-docs and my PI talk about how cool a paper was and I cannot fathom how they think so. To be perfectly clear, I think my research is amazing and I love learning. Lectures are my favorite thing but something about scientific papers just turns me off so hard. Does anyone else feel this way? Does anyone have tips on how to make papers more palatable? Assistant:

h2luof7

h2lv61v

Happens over time. I'm able to sort of skim my eyes over bits like historical precedent and significance statements. Typically I read the abstract them go to the methods. If the methods are crap I don't need to continue. If they are good I read the results, scan the intro, then read the conclusion.

As a research scientist, I bloody hate reading papers, even my own. I just force myself and hate every second.

o551bm

askacademia_train

Human: How the hell do you enjoy reading papers? I am a STEM student about to go into his final year of undergrad. I have been reading scientific papers and conducting research since my first semester and while I have gotten *better* at reading papers, it still sucks SO much to do so. I do not know what it is. Every time I start reading a paper I get like a page in and my mind goes 'wow this is boring and it sucks' and I stop. I will all the time hear post-docs and my PI talk about how cool a paper was and I cannot fathom how they think so. To be perfectly clear, I think my research is amazing and I love learning. Lectures are my favorite thing but something about scientific papers just turns me off so hard. Does anyone else feel this way? Does anyone have tips on how to make papers more palatable? Assistant:

h2m1g6y

h2lu2qy

Usually when I talk about how "good" a paper is, I don't necessarily mean it's a riveting read the way a novel would be, but that the results are interesting or exciting. I definitely agree with people saying you should read it non-linearly. It's a different way of writing and should be a different way of reading. Usually I read the abstract and conclusion then look at the figures. Sometimes the intro if I'm not as familiar with the background. I'll then read the body carefully if it's a study I may want to replicate.

The more you read, the more you learn about the field as a whole and the easier it gets to read and understand new contributions with less effort. At that point reading new literature become more fun because it doesn’t always seem like a heavy mental lift, you’re just adding a pebble to the beach.

7vyt6k

askacademia_train

Human: The other day, I saw someone ask why anyone would even get a PhD. As I lay here on the floor of my office having an allergic reaction to MucinexDM, I am reminded why I don’t work in the corporate world. This is why. So we can lay on the floor and suffer in peace. Assistant:

dtwewk9

dtwffgu

I do it in the corporate world and I can afford better drugs!!

Professorship = naps I rarely take them but love knowing I can.

7vyt6k

askacademia_train

Human: The other day, I saw someone ask why anyone would even get a PhD. As I lay here on the floor of my office having an allergic reaction to MucinexDM, I am reminded why I don’t work in the corporate world. This is why. So we can lay on the floor and suffer in peace. Assistant:

dtwewk9

dtwi762

I do it in the corporate world and I can afford better drugs!!

When I was in the private sector I had that sort of autonomy. I left it because most private sector fields are fully neoliberal, and the academy isn't, yet. Plenty of knowledge work jobs offer that sort of flexibility, they're just more volatile, more susceptible to short term market shifts, and more likely to radically shift when middle or upper management does. Basically, no tenure.

7vyt6k

askacademia_train

Human: The other day, I saw someone ask why anyone would even get a PhD. As I lay here on the floor of my office having an allergic reaction to MucinexDM, I am reminded why I don’t work in the corporate world. This is why. So we can lay on the floor and suffer in peace. Assistant:

dtwnku2

dtwtheo

When I taught at the college level, my office was miserable. Tiny, smelly carpet, horrible heat and A.C. system in building... heard all the shenanigans from the hall. I may not have as much privacy now that I'm back to teaching high school, but my office and salary situations are honestly much better.

I got out of academia and went into the corporate world and I work from home. Just sayin’!

m7zi7u

askacademia_train

Human: What are some uncomfortable truths in academia? People have a tendency to ignore the more unsavory aspects of whatever line of work you're in. What is yours for academia? Assistant:

greistm

grel9t4

nobody on the zoom call is wearing pants

The expectation (and obligation) to do free addition work in an already underpaid job. I mean this for grad students, post docs and most faculty.

m7zi7u

askacademia_train

Human: What are some uncomfortable truths in academia? People have a tendency to ignore the more unsavory aspects of whatever line of work you're in. What is yours for academia? Assistant:

greyrhk

grez3tn

it is literally a pyramid scheme. let's start there.

The vast majority of us will not get tenure track positions.

m7zi7u

askacademia_train

Human: What are some uncomfortable truths in academia? People have a tendency to ignore the more unsavory aspects of whatever line of work you're in. What is yours for academia? Assistant:

grez3tn

greou7w

The vast majority of us will not get tenure track positions.

We spend more time working with, complaining about, and trying to prevent cheating among a small percent of bad students—but that makes it feel like all we’re doing is trying to deal with those bad students. It can make teaching feel demoralizing at times.

m7zi7u

askacademia_train

Human: What are some uncomfortable truths in academia? People have a tendency to ignore the more unsavory aspects of whatever line of work you're in. What is yours for academia? Assistant:

greistm

grez3tn

nobody on the zoom call is wearing pants

The vast majority of us will not get tenure track positions.

m7zi7u

askacademia_train

Human: What are some uncomfortable truths in academia? People have a tendency to ignore the more unsavory aspects of whatever line of work you're in. What is yours for academia? Assistant:

greqn9z

grez3tn

The university (or journal or society) is a business. It’s a non-profit, but that simply means they spend what they take in and as a result: Cash Rules Everything Around Me!

The vast majority of us will not get tenure track positions.

ycxewf

askacademia_train

Human: I suspect I might have participated in a rigged search, this time as a candidate! Mostly just venting but would be happy to hear others' thoughts on this. Since this is "ask" academia my question is: "am I just being paranoid?" Several years ago I was on the search committee side of a hiring situation where the top candidate was clear to nearly all members of the committee but the provost had already decided on one person and we eventually learned that we were there just to rubber-stamp the process. I remember being livid at the time--not only had the committee's time been wasted but it felt so incredibly *unjust*. The fact that the "chosen" candidate was not only an arrogant ass but also less-qualified than the committee's recommend candidate made it even worse. Fast forward to a position I recently learned I would not be offered. I went all the way through a nearly day-long (Zoom-based) "campus" visit, presentation, met with all department faculty individually or in small groups, conversation with the dean, etc. Early on I had my suspicions about the position (red flags listed below) but the faculty I interacted with seemed genuinely interested in me/my work and had nothing but positive feedback for me. I was actually somewhat surprised to receive a rejection e-mail post-interview. The qualifications were quite narrow/focused but I met them all. The application window was so short I couldn't imagine that many qualified people applied, especially since it wasn't advertised in my field's typical venues. Then my thoughts turned to my own experience on the other side of the search process--I had been just as enthusiastic about the *real* top candidate as those faculty I recently met with were enthusiastic about me. Even though that previous search was truly a sham, most of the people involved in the search process weren't aware until we'd already met the candidates and discussed the pros and cons of each. What if the same thing happened here? Anyway, maybe I'm just being paranoid, or don't handle rejection well, but...the red flags: * The position was never listed in my field's primary job advertisement venue, only on the university's HR site and the Chronicle of Higher Ed jobs site. * The application period was open for only one month. * They asked if it was okay to call my references but never contacted any of them. IME in my field references are usually contacted for all finalist candidates. * The start date was mid-academic-year and only about 3 months after the application close date. The successful candidate would need to either be unemployed or have an extremely flexible position (thankfully I have the latter) to be able to start mid-year. Or already be on campus... * There's a long-time adjunct in this department with specific (course name/number) teaching duties identical to the courses listed in the job advertisement, with exactly the course load stated in the job ad. The adjunct's spouse has an upper-level administrative position at the same university. Any one of these alone I would brush off, but I've been on the other side of a process that felt very similar. I also think that this happens more frequently than we might expect--I know of a handful of cases like this. In fact, now that I think of it I can think of four cases off the top of my head where I was at least tangentially affected, either on a search committee or in a department, by a rigged search that was either attempted or successfully carried out. (The score is 2-2 if you're curious). What I suspect here is that the "candidate" already on campus was promised this position but according to the institution's rules, they had to do a national search. I happened upon the job listing just by chance and they had to play along; maybe having me in the pool even helped at some level. Faculty and many/most committee members were in the dark until the final "decision" had to be made. As I wrote at the beginning, this is mostly just me venting. It may just be me coping with rejection. The position was really ideal, though--I've never seen such a perfect fit (from me-as-candidate point of view). This might be one of the final straws that gets me out of academia. Thanks for reading my rant :) Assistant:

itp5duz

itp5iwx

Are you full time or adjunct?

Not paranoid at all. It happens.

ycxewf

askacademia_train

Human: I suspect I might have participated in a rigged search, this time as a candidate! Mostly just venting but would be happy to hear others' thoughts on this. Since this is "ask" academia my question is: "am I just being paranoid?" Several years ago I was on the search committee side of a hiring situation where the top candidate was clear to nearly all members of the committee but the provost had already decided on one person and we eventually learned that we were there just to rubber-stamp the process. I remember being livid at the time--not only had the committee's time been wasted but it felt so incredibly *unjust*. The fact that the "chosen" candidate was not only an arrogant ass but also less-qualified than the committee's recommend candidate made it even worse. Fast forward to a position I recently learned I would not be offered. I went all the way through a nearly day-long (Zoom-based) "campus" visit, presentation, met with all department faculty individually or in small groups, conversation with the dean, etc. Early on I had my suspicions about the position (red flags listed below) but the faculty I interacted with seemed genuinely interested in me/my work and had nothing but positive feedback for me. I was actually somewhat surprised to receive a rejection e-mail post-interview. The qualifications were quite narrow/focused but I met them all. The application window was so short I couldn't imagine that many qualified people applied, especially since it wasn't advertised in my field's typical venues. Then my thoughts turned to my own experience on the other side of the search process--I had been just as enthusiastic about the *real* top candidate as those faculty I recently met with were enthusiastic about me. Even though that previous search was truly a sham, most of the people involved in the search process weren't aware until we'd already met the candidates and discussed the pros and cons of each. What if the same thing happened here? Anyway, maybe I'm just being paranoid, or don't handle rejection well, but...the red flags: * The position was never listed in my field's primary job advertisement venue, only on the university's HR site and the Chronicle of Higher Ed jobs site. * The application period was open for only one month. * They asked if it was okay to call my references but never contacted any of them. IME in my field references are usually contacted for all finalist candidates. * The start date was mid-academic-year and only about 3 months after the application close date. The successful candidate would need to either be unemployed or have an extremely flexible position (thankfully I have the latter) to be able to start mid-year. Or already be on campus... * There's a long-time adjunct in this department with specific (course name/number) teaching duties identical to the courses listed in the job advertisement, with exactly the course load stated in the job ad. The adjunct's spouse has an upper-level administrative position at the same university. Any one of these alone I would brush off, but I've been on the other side of a process that felt very similar. I also think that this happens more frequently than we might expect--I know of a handful of cases like this. In fact, now that I think of it I can think of four cases off the top of my head where I was at least tangentially affected, either on a search committee or in a department, by a rigged search that was either attempted or successfully carried out. (The score is 2-2 if you're curious). What I suspect here is that the "candidate" already on campus was promised this position but according to the institution's rules, they had to do a national search. I happened upon the job listing just by chance and they had to play along; maybe having me in the pool even helped at some level. Faculty and many/most committee members were in the dark until the final "decision" had to be made. As I wrote at the beginning, this is mostly just me venting. It may just be me coping with rejection. The position was really ideal, though--I've never seen such a perfect fit (from me-as-candidate point of view). This might be one of the final straws that gets me out of academia. Thanks for reading my rant :) Assistant:

itpbztt

itpgwfc

Happens all the time. IMHO, 8/10 post-doctoral positions are made for the candidate. Academia is rotten. Get out.

Definitely happens. I think you're right that that's what happened to you. FWIW I've also heard of it going the the other way -- a candidate is promised a position but they just have to advertise it for legal reasons, but then the department decides they do want someone else, leaving the person the position was made for in the lurch. Ghost positions really just suck all around.

ycxewf

askacademia_train

Human: rigged search, this time as a candidate! Mostly just venting but would be happy to hear others' thoughts on this. Since this is "ask" academia my question is: "am I just being paranoid?" Several years ago I was on the search committee side of a hiring situation where the top candidate was clear to nearly all members of the committee but the provost had already decided on one person and we eventually learned that we were there just to rubber-stamp the process. I remember being livid at the time--not only had the committee's time been wasted but it felt so incredibly *unjust*. The fact that the "chosen" candidate was not only an arrogant ass but also less-qualified than the committee's recommend candidate made it even worse. Fast forward to a position I recently learned I would not be offered. I went all the way through a nearly day-long (Zoom-based) "campus" visit, presentation, met with all department faculty individually or in small groups, conversation with the dean, etc. Early on I had my suspicions about the position (red flags listed below) but the faculty I interacted with seemed genuinely interested in me/my work and had nothing but positive feedback for me. I was actually somewhat surprised to receive a rejection e-mail post-interview. The qualifications were quite narrow/focused but I met them all. The application window was so short I couldn't imagine that many qualified people applied, especially since it wasn't advertised in my field's typical venues. Then my thoughts turned to my own experience on the other side of the search process--I had been just as enthusiastic about the *real* top candidate as those faculty I recently met with were enthusiastic about me. Even though that previous search was truly a sham, most of the people involved in the search process weren't aware until we'd already met the candidates and discussed the pros and cons of each. What if the same thing happened here? Anyway, maybe I'm just being paranoid, or don't handle rejection well, but...the red flags: * The position was never listed in my field's primary job advertisement venue, only on the university's HR site and the Chronicle of Higher Ed jobs site. * The application period was open for only one month. * They asked if it was okay to call my references but never contacted any of them. IME in my field references are usually contacted for all finalist candidates. * The start date was mid-academic-year and only about 3 months after the application close date. The successful candidate would need to either be unemployed or have an extremely flexible position (thankfully I have the latter) to be able to start mid-year. Or already be on campus... * There's a long-time adjunct in this department with specific (course name/number) teaching duties identical to the courses listed in the job advertisement, with exactly the course load stated in the job ad. The adjunct's spouse has an upper-level administrative position at the same university. Any one of these alone I would brush off, but I've been on the other side of a process that felt very similar. I also think that this happens more frequently than we might expect--I know of a handful of cases like this. In fact, now that I think of it I can think of four cases off the top of my head where I was at least tangentially affected, either on a search committee or in a department, by a rigged search that was either attempted or successfully carried out. (The score is 2-2 if you're curious). What I suspect here is that the "candidate" already on campus was promised this position but according to the institution's rules, they had to do a national search. I happened upon the job listing just by chance and they had to play along; maybe having me in the pool even helped at some level. Faculty and many/most committee members were in the dark until the final "decision" had to be made. As I wrote at the beginning, this is mostly just me venting. It may just be me coping with rejection. The position was really ideal, though--I've never seen such a perfect fit (from me-as-candidate point of view). This might be one of the final straws that gets me out of academia. Thanks for reading my rant :) Assistant:

itpgwfc

itpgpic

Definitely happens. I think you're right that that's what happened to you. FWIW I've also heard of it going the the other way -- a candidate is promised a position but they just have to advertise it for legal reasons, but then the department decides they do want someone else, leaving the person the position was made for in the lurch. Ghost positions really just suck all around.

While there are internal candidates all the time, some of these red flags aren’t flags. The job was posted on chronicle of higher Ed, which is a large job search site. The job was posted for a month? That’s totally normal, and longer than a lot of jobs I have seen and applied for in the past. Start dates: at least where I am at, you can leave a job anytime. So if it’s mid semester and I’m a TT professor, I would just quit and leave for the new gig.

ycxewf

askacademia_train

Human: I suspect I might have participated in a rigged search, this time as a candidate! Mostly just venting but would be happy to hear others' thoughts on this. Since this is "ask" academia my question is: "am I just being paranoid?" Several years ago I was on the search committee side of a hiring situation where the top candidate was clear to nearly all members of the committee but the provost had already decided on one person and we eventually learned that we were there just to rubber-stamp the process. I remember being livid at the time--not only had the committee's time been wasted but it felt so incredibly *unjust*. The fact that the "chosen" candidate was not only an arrogant ass but also less-qualified than the committee's recommend candidate made it even worse. Fast forward to a position I recently learned I would not be offered. I went all the way through a nearly day-long (Zoom-based) "campus" visit, presentation, met with all department faculty individually or in small groups, conversation with the dean, etc. Early on I had my suspicions about the position (red flags listed below) but the faculty I interacted with seemed genuinely interested in me/my work and had nothing but positive feedback for me. I was actually somewhat surprised to receive a rejection e-mail post-interview. The qualifications were quite narrow/focused but I met them all. The application window was so short I couldn't imagine that many qualified people applied, especially since it wasn't advertised in my field's typical venues. Then my thoughts turned to my own experience on the other side of the search process--I had been just as enthusiastic about the *real* top candidate as those faculty I recently met with were enthusiastic about me. Even though that previous search was truly a sham, most of the people involved in the search process weren't aware until we'd already met the candidates and discussed the pros and cons of each. What if the same thing happened here? Anyway, maybe I'm just being paranoid, or don't handle rejection well, but...the red flags: * The position was never listed in my field's primary job advertisement venue, only on the university's HR site and the Chronicle of Higher Ed jobs site. * The application period was open for only one month. * They asked if it was okay to call my references but never contacted any of them. IME in my field references are usually contacted for all finalist candidates. * The start date was mid-academic-year and only about 3 months after the application close date. The successful candidate would need to either be unemployed or have an extremely flexible position (thankfully I have the latter) to be able to start mid-year. Or already be on campus... * There's a long-time adjunct in this department with specific (course name/number) teaching duties identical to the courses listed in the job advertisement, with exactly the course load stated in the job ad. The adjunct's spouse has an upper-level administrative position at the same university. Any one of these alone I would brush off, but I've been on the other side of a process that felt very similar. I also think that this happens more frequently than we might expect--I know of a handful of cases like this. In fact, now that I think of it I can think of four cases off the top of my head where I was at least tangentially affected, either on a search committee or in a department, by a rigged search that was either attempted or successfully carried out. (The score is 2-2 if you're curious). What I suspect here is that the "candidate" already on campus was promised this position but according to the institution's rules, they had to do a national search. I happened upon the job listing just by chance and they had to play along; maybe having me in the pool even helped at some level. Faculty and many/most committee members were in the dark until the final "decision" had to be made. As I wrote at the beginning, this is mostly just me venting. It may just be me coping with rejection. The position was really ideal, though--I've never seen such a perfect fit (from me-as-candidate point of view). This might be one of the final straws that gets me out of academia. Thanks for reading my rant :) Assistant:

itpgwfc

itp5duz

Definitely happens. I think you're right that that's what happened to you. FWIW I've also heard of it going the the other way -- a candidate is promised a position but they just have to advertise it for legal reasons, but then the department decides they do want someone else, leaving the person the position was made for in the lurch. Ghost positions really just suck all around.

Are you full time or adjunct?

ycxewf

askacademia_train

Human: I suspect I might have participated in a rigged search, this time as a candidate! Mostly just venting but would be happy to hear others' thoughts on this. Since this is "ask" academia my question is: "am I just being paranoid?" Several years ago I was on the search committee side of a hiring situation where the top candidate was clear to nearly all members of the committee but the provost had already decided on one person and we eventually learned that we were there just to rubber-stamp the process. I remember being livid at the time--not only had the committee's time been wasted but it felt so incredibly *unjust*. The fact that the "chosen" candidate was not only an arrogant ass but also less-qualified than the committee's recommend candidate made it even worse. Fast forward to a position I recently learned I would not be offered. I went all the way through a nearly day-long (Zoom-based) "campus" visit, presentation, met with all department faculty individually or in small groups, conversation with the dean, etc. Early on I had my suspicions about the position (red flags listed below) but the faculty I interacted with seemed genuinely interested in me/my work and had nothing but positive feedback for me. I was actually somewhat surprised to receive a rejection e-mail post-interview. The qualifications were quite narrow/focused but I met them all. The application window was so short I couldn't imagine that many qualified people applied, especially since it wasn't advertised in my field's typical venues. Then my thoughts turned to my own experience on the other side of the search process--I had been just as enthusiastic about the *real* top candidate as those faculty I recently met with were enthusiastic about me. Even though that previous search was truly a sham, most of the people involved in the search process weren't aware until we'd already met the candidates and discussed the pros and cons of each. What if the same thing happened here? Anyway, maybe I'm just being paranoid, or don't handle rejection well, but...the red flags: * The position was never listed in my field's primary job advertisement venue, only on the university's HR site and the Chronicle of Higher Ed jobs site. * The application period was open for only one month. * They asked if it was okay to call my references but never contacted any of them. IME in my field references are usually contacted for all finalist candidates. * The start date was mid-academic-year and only about 3 months after the application close date. The successful candidate would need to either be unemployed or have an extremely flexible position (thankfully I have the latter) to be able to start mid-year. Or already be on campus... * There's a long-time adjunct in this department with specific (course name/number) teaching duties identical to the courses listed in the job advertisement, with exactly the course load stated in the job ad. The adjunct's spouse has an upper-level administrative position at the same university. Any one of these alone I would brush off, but I've been on the other side of a process that felt very similar. I also think that this happens more frequently than we might expect--I know of a handful of cases like this. In fact, now that I think of it I can think of four cases off the top of my head where I was at least tangentially affected, either on a search committee or in a department, by a rigged search that was either attempted or successfully carried out. (The score is 2-2 if you're curious). What I suspect here is that the "candidate" already on campus was promised this position but according to the institution's rules, they had to do a national search. I happened upon the job listing just by chance and they had to play along; maybe having me in the pool even helped at some level. Faculty and many/most committee members were in the dark until the final "decision" had to be made. As I wrote at the beginning, this is mostly just me venting. It may just be me coping with rejection. The position was really ideal, though--I've never seen such a perfect fit (from me-as-candidate point of view). This might be one of the final straws that gets me out of academia. Thanks for reading my rant :) Assistant:

itpgwfc

itpfnci

Definitely happens. I think you're right that that's what happened to you. FWIW I've also heard of it going the the other way -- a candidate is promised a position but they just have to advertise it for legal reasons, but then the department decides they do want someone else, leaving the person the position was made for in the lurch. Ghost positions really just suck all around.

I feel bad for you but they literally have to advertise the position and go through the motions - it is the law. What precisely do you want them to do?

dpkj5i

askacademia_train

Human: Anyone Else Sick of Shitty Online Applications? So many of these are either poorly designed, mildly abusive, or flat out broken. Why do you need me to tell you everything that is in my CV that I just uploaded on your site? Why can’t I put international phone numbers in my application without triggering errors? Why do you want my high school address, gpa, and number of credits? No you may not have my social security number to check my background and credit before I’m selected to interview. These things are designed by sociopaths. Assistant:

f5w9c58

f5wcseg

I assume you are talking about academic job applications where you end up having to fill out the university’s internal job application. I think most folks just skip as much of that as possible. It wastes so much time when all you are trying to do is upload the actual application.

I applied to a job at Princeton (which I won't get, but hey). The application website is one page. No login or account. Just put in name and email info; upload the cover letter, CV, and work sample; write down the names and emails of references; and check the various demographic boxes. Couldn't have taken more than five minutes. It really made me appreciate just how bad every other one of these is. Particularly CUNY's. CUNY's is terrible.

dpkj5i

askacademia_train

Human: Anyone Else Sick of Shitty Online Applications? So many of these are either poorly designed, mildly abusive, or flat out broken. Why do you need me to tell you everything that is in my CV that I just uploaded on your site? Why can’t I put international phone numbers in my application without triggering errors? Why do you want my high school address, gpa, and number of credits? No you may not have my social security number to check my background and credit before I’m selected to interview. These things are designed by sociopaths. Assistant:

f5wemcy

f5wpfyo

Yes! I once had an application for a job ask me to type in every single university module I had done and the grade. Could’ve just uploaded the transcript and saved so much time.

This will get buried but I am more tired of having to write 10+ pages of documents tailored for that specific place / position, only to have my application completely ignored. I might as well start printing my docs straight into trash :(

dpkj5i

askacademia_train

Human: Anyone Else Sick of Shitty Online Applications? So many of these are either poorly designed, mildly abusive, or flat out broken. Why do you need me to tell you everything that is in my CV that I just uploaded on your site? Why can’t I put international phone numbers in my application without triggering errors? Why do you want my high school address, gpa, and number of credits? No you may not have my social security number to check my background and credit before I’m selected to interview. These things are designed by sociopaths. Assistant:

f5wpfyo

f5wjv4q

This will get buried but I am more tired of having to write 10+ pages of documents tailored for that specific place / position, only to have my application completely ignored. I might as well start printing my docs straight into trash :(

Oh god yes. Like why do you need EVERY JOB I HAVE EVER HAD. The supervisor for my first tutoring job is deceased. No you can't talk to her.

dpkj5i

askacademia_train

Human: Anyone Else Sick of Shitty Online Applications? So many of these are either poorly designed, mildly abusive, or flat out broken. Why do you need me to tell you everything that is in my CV that I just uploaded on your site? Why can’t I put international phone numbers in my application without triggering errors? Why do you want my high school address, gpa, and number of credits? No you may not have my social security number to check my background and credit before I’m selected to interview. These things are designed by sociopaths. Assistant:

f5wgt6a

f5wpfyo

There's no frustration quite like having to faff around with a log-in to do a journal a *favour*.

This will get buried but I am more tired of having to write 10+ pages of documents tailored for that specific place / position, only to have my application completely ignored. I might as well start printing my docs straight into trash :(

dpkj5i

askacademia_train

Human: Anyone Else Sick of Shitty Online Applications? So many of these are either poorly designed, mildly abusive, or flat out broken. Why do you need me to tell you everything that is in my CV that I just uploaded on your site? Why can’t I put international phone numbers in my application without triggering errors? Why do you want my high school address, gpa, and number of credits? No you may not have my social security number to check my background and credit before I’m selected to interview. These things are designed by sociopaths. Assistant:

f5wpfyo

f5w9c58

This will get buried but I am more tired of having to write 10+ pages of documents tailored for that specific place / position, only to have my application completely ignored. I might as well start printing my docs straight into trash :(

I assume you are talking about academic job applications where you end up having to fill out the university’s internal job application. I think most folks just skip as much of that as possible. It wastes so much time when all you are trying to do is upload the actual application.

vxjo08

askacademia_train

Human: How to talk to a grad student about productivity issues? I'm paying one of my grad students for 40 hours of work per week, and I feel like I'm getting barely half of that. How do I politely approach her on this subject without sounding like I'm micromanaging? I'm fairly new to academia, so I haven't really had to deal with this before. Most of what she's currently working on is funded from an internal pot of money, so it's not like she's missing external deadlines from sponsors. I will tell her that I want a certain model estimated by so-and-so, and when that time comes she'll tell me that she was having issues with the software, or the model was giving errors, or that it's taking longer to converge than she expected. I.e., nothing I can definitively call her out on. This is a PhD student entering her third year, and I'm worried that she's slipping. I just don't know how to broach this respectfully. Assistant:

ifwd0sa

ifwhlnw

Speaking as a phd student, it's not going to be a good talk. That being said, I have questions. - are you actually paying her for 40 hours? In the US, most grad students only get paid for 20 hours a week, and may have other responsibilities. If she's teaching or taking classes, that takes a lot of time - have you addressed the issues and offered support for someone to help troubleshoot? If this is all new modeling/software, everything takes longer, especially if she's running into issues. Troubleshooting new techniques without help and someone to bounce ideas off of is very isolating and it's hard to make progress at all because nothing feels like it'll help - have you made sure she's OK emotionally and in her life? My productivity tanked when my family was having massive health issues. If this is a new problem, cut her some slack, life is really fucking hard right now I suggest having her put together a timeline for her week/summer, and both of you can discuss it and make sure expectations line up. It seems like that might not have been established before, and now the consequences are showing up. Sit down together, and evaluate expectations.

Setting up tasks and keeping an eye on the progress is totally fair, just make sure that you realistically estimate the time those tasks need. Sorting out a package installation can take the whole day. Fixing convergence issues can take a week. On top of that, everything takes \*much\* longer for a student who is doing this for the first time. Maybe you should first see if she is actually putting in approximately a full time's worth of work, or if it's a motivation problem.

vxjo08

askacademia_train

Human: How to talk to a grad student about productivity issues? I'm paying one of my grad students for 40 hours of work per week, and I feel like I'm getting barely half of that. How do I politely approach her on this subject without sounding like I'm micromanaging? I'm fairly new to academia, so I haven't really had to deal with this before. Most of what she's currently working on is funded from an internal pot of money, so it's not like she's missing external deadlines from sponsors. I will tell her that I want a certain model estimated by so-and-so, and when that time comes she'll tell me that she was having issues with the software, or the model was giving errors, or that it's taking longer to converge than she expected. I.e., nothing I can definitively call her out on. This is a PhD student entering her third year, and I'm worried that she's slipping. I just don't know how to broach this respectfully. Assistant:

ifwhlnw

ifweiqx

Setting up tasks and keeping an eye on the progress is totally fair, just make sure that you realistically estimate the time those tasks need. Sorting out a package installation can take the whole day. Fixing convergence issues can take a week. On top of that, everything takes \*much\* longer for a student who is doing this for the first time. Maybe you should first see if she is actually putting in approximately a full time's worth of work, or if it's a motivation problem.

Personally I would focus on her performance and the fact you're concerned that she's not delivering at the right level for a PhD. Don't talk about time because you actually wouldn't care if she was only working 1h a day if she was delivering stellar results. Also you need to be very clear about what the problem is and what you expect to see, and how she should deal with it. You don't want to be cruel or mean but directly stating the problem isn't being mean. It's tempting to try and soften the message but often that means the recipient won't actually understand what you're saying or the gravity of the situation. This also shouldn't be a one-time conversation. You should be meeting with all your team one on one regularly and discussing progress. Rehearse what you want to say so that you don't get lost when the nerves take over. My approach is to go in with a script something like: "I've noticed that when I ask you to do [x] by a certain time, you often don't make the deadline. I wanted to check in and make sure everything is ok. Is there a specific problem I should be aware of or is there something you need from me" That gives an opportunity for them to raise genuine problems. From there (assuming they're making excuses) I'd go, "You've mentioned several times now that you're struggling with the software/equipment/blah blah. I am concerned because as a PhD student I would expect you to be able to do X, and I am worried you are slipping and not producing at the level required for a PhD. I need to see you doing [insert the change you need to see], do you feel you're able to do this?". I really recommend checking out Ask A Manager. She's got great advice for managers and employees and she definitely discusses how to give difficult feedback.

vxjo08

askacademia_train

Human: How to talk to a grad student about productivity issues? I'm paying one of my grad students for 40 hours of work per week, and I feel like I'm getting barely half of that. How do I politely approach her on this subject without sounding like I'm micromanaging? I'm fairly new to academia, so I haven't really had to deal with this before. Most of what she's currently working on is funded from an internal pot of money, so it's not like she's missing external deadlines from sponsors. I will tell her that I want a certain model estimated by so-and-so, and when that time comes she'll tell me that she was having issues with the software, or the model was giving errors, or that it's taking longer to converge than she expected. I.e., nothing I can definitively call her out on. This is a PhD student entering her third year, and I'm worried that she's slipping. I just don't know how to broach this respectfully. Assistant:

ifweiqx

ifwrm0z

Personally I would focus on her performance and the fact you're concerned that she's not delivering at the right level for a PhD. Don't talk about time because you actually wouldn't care if she was only working 1h a day if she was delivering stellar results. Also you need to be very clear about what the problem is and what you expect to see, and how she should deal with it. You don't want to be cruel or mean but directly stating the problem isn't being mean. It's tempting to try and soften the message but often that means the recipient won't actually understand what you're saying or the gravity of the situation. This also shouldn't be a one-time conversation. You should be meeting with all your team one on one regularly and discussing progress. Rehearse what you want to say so that you don't get lost when the nerves take over. My approach is to go in with a script something like: "I've noticed that when I ask you to do [x] by a certain time, you often don't make the deadline. I wanted to check in and make sure everything is ok. Is there a specific problem I should be aware of or is there something you need from me" That gives an opportunity for them to raise genuine problems. From there (assuming they're making excuses) I'd go, "You've mentioned several times now that you're struggling with the software/equipment/blah blah. I am concerned because as a PhD student I would expect you to be able to do X, and I am worried you are slipping and not producing at the level required for a PhD. I need to see you doing [insert the change you need to see], do you feel you're able to do this?". I really recommend checking out Ask A Manager. She's got great advice for managers and employees and she definitely discusses how to give difficult feedback.

Are your expectations regarding the amount of work possible in 40 hours based on your own skills, your own skillset in the 3rd year of your phd, or something else entirely? If it's the first, your expectations are too high. If it's the second, think about the differences between your two experiences and think about the ways you might bridge the gap (e.g. maybe you had an officemate who could help you with small hiccups, maybe you were explicitly taught how to deal with models that take a long time to run and ways you can mitigate waiting-around, etc). If it's the third, idk how to help you. Generally people who get to the 3rd year of their phd are not being lazy. They are sometimes burnt out, or hate asking for help, or are furiously spinning their wheels, or a bunch of other stuff, but very few are unproductive on purpose.

vxjo08

askacademia_train

Human: How to talk to a grad student about productivity issues? I'm paying one of my grad students for 40 hours of work per week, and I feel like I'm getting barely half of that. How do I politely approach her on this subject without sounding like I'm micromanaging? I'm fairly new to academia, so I haven't really had to deal with this before. Most of what she's currently working on is funded from an internal pot of money, so it's not like she's missing external deadlines from sponsors. I will tell her that I want a certain model estimated by so-and-so, and when that time comes she'll tell me that she was having issues with the software, or the model was giving errors, or that it's taking longer to converge than she expected. I.e., nothing I can definitively call her out on. This is a PhD student entering her third year, and I'm worried that she's slipping. I just don't know how to broach this respectfully. Assistant:

ifwrm0z

ifwlwjv

Are your expectations regarding the amount of work possible in 40 hours based on your own skills, your own skillset in the 3rd year of your phd, or something else entirely? If it's the first, your expectations are too high. If it's the second, think about the differences between your two experiences and think about the ways you might bridge the gap (e.g. maybe you had an officemate who could help you with small hiccups, maybe you were explicitly taught how to deal with models that take a long time to run and ways you can mitigate waiting-around, etc). If it's the third, idk how to help you. Generally people who get to the 3rd year of their phd are not being lazy. They are sometimes burnt out, or hate asking for help, or are furiously spinning their wheels, or a bunch of other stuff, but very few are unproductive on purpose.

>I will tell her that I want a certain model estimated by so-and-so, and when that time comes she'll tell me that she was having issues with the software, or the model was giving errors, or that it's taking longer to converge than she expected. I.e., nothing I can definitively call her out on. I encounter this problem a lot, also being statistically oriented. And I remember being in that stage, and having things take much longer than expected. That being said, students do need to show improvement. Would you say she's been improving - hitting deadlines more often, being more capable of troubleshooting? How often are meetings with her? When she comes to meetings, does she have the code prepared, even if the results aren't ready? Does it look right? Just trying to suss out if "it's not converging" is because the model isn't converging, or if it's not being done right and therefore not converging? It might be time to start having a weekly code review where you look at things together. Or perhaps give her some guidelines for how long to struggle with something before asking for help. I'd sit down and really evaluate her workflow with her. A lot of students get into this mindset of "I just need this one thing to work" and they don't transfer the lessons of that on to the next problem. But if you're a lab doing a lot of statistical work, those lessons need to be absorbed for continued success, and the student needs to gain self-efficacy in solving their own problems. If she's not developing that, it will be a problem. And self-efficacy doesn't mean doing it alone - I just spent an hour troubleshooting convergence issues with a student today. If she's struggling to ask for help, that needs to be addressed, too.

vxjo08

askacademia_train

Human: How to talk to a grad student about productivity issues? I'm paying one of my grad students for 40 hours of work per week, and I feel like I'm getting barely half of that. How do I politely approach her on this subject without sounding like I'm micromanaging? I'm fairly new to academia, so I haven't really had to deal with this before. Most of what she's currently working on is funded from an internal pot of money, so it's not like she's missing external deadlines from sponsors. I will tell her that I want a certain model estimated by so-and-so, and when that time comes she'll tell me that she was having issues with the software, or the model was giving errors, or that it's taking longer to converge than she expected. I.e., nothing I can definitively call her out on. This is a PhD student entering her third year, and I'm worried that she's slipping. I just don't know how to broach this respectfully. Assistant:

ifwlua7

ifwrm0z

Just keep it to the facts. She isn't meeting deadlines. This needs to be fixed. Does she need help with modeling because you're finding errors. etc.

Are your expectations regarding the amount of work possible in 40 hours based on your own skills, your own skillset in the 3rd year of your phd, or something else entirely? If it's the first, your expectations are too high. If it's the second, think about the differences between your two experiences and think about the ways you might bridge the gap (e.g. maybe you had an officemate who could help you with small hiccups, maybe you were explicitly taught how to deal with models that take a long time to run and ways you can mitigate waiting-around, etc). If it's the third, idk how to help you. Generally people who get to the 3rd year of their phd are not being lazy. They are sometimes burnt out, or hate asking for help, or are furiously spinning their wheels, or a bunch of other stuff, but very few are unproductive on purpose.

upod7g

askacademia_train

Human: Why do we have famous scientist-influencers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan but no famous philisopher-influencers or other humanities experts on the same level? I originally wanted to ask this question in a philosophy subreddit but I don't think the rules allow for it. I think the question could apply to lots of other humanities though. Not sure if the tag should be interdisciplinary or humanities. Assistant:

i8mdmj9

i8m4j9k

They're called "public intellectuals," and there are so, so many from the humanities. Top 100 Public Intellectuals

Mary Beard

upod7g

askacademia_train

Human: Why do we have famous scientist-influencers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan but no famous philisopher-influencers or other humanities experts on the same level? I originally wanted to ask this question in a philosophy subreddit but I don't think the rules allow for it. I think the question could apply to lots of other humanities though. Not sure if the tag should be interdisciplinary or humanities. Assistant:

i8mdmj9

i8m2dge

They're called "public intellectuals," and there are so, so many from the humanities. Top 100 Public Intellectuals

Why doesn't math have a popularizer? Because ordinary people can't understand it. It's too technical. The same is true for physics, but popularizers like Tyson can dumb it down to the point where people *think* they understand it. Philosophy is all about the gnitty gritty specifics in arguments. Most ordinary people don't want to sit through those any more than they want to learn how to take an integral.

upod7g

askacademia_train

Human: Why do we have famous scientist-influencers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan but no famous philisopher-influencers or other humanities experts on the same level? I originally wanted to ask this question in a philosophy subreddit but I don't think the rules allow for it. I think the question could apply to lots of other humanities though. Not sure if the tag should be interdisciplinary or humanities. Assistant:

i8mdmj9

i8m4th2

They're called "public intellectuals," and there are so, so many from the humanities. Top 100 Public Intellectuals

Henry Louis Gates?

upod7g

askacademia_train

Human: Why do we have famous scientist-influencers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan but no famous philisopher-influencers or other humanities experts on the same level? I originally wanted to ask this question in a philosophy subreddit but I don't think the rules allow for it. I think the question could apply to lots of other humanities though. Not sure if the tag should be interdisciplinary or humanities. Assistant:

i8m4j9k

i8m9pjf

Mary Beard

Peter Singer and fellow philosophers (e.g. Toby Ord, Will MacAskill, etc.) have arguably influenced the movement of many billions of dollars.

upod7g

askacademia_train

Human: Why do we have famous scientist-influencers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan but no famous philisopher-influencers or other humanities experts on the same level? I originally wanted to ask this question in a philosophy subreddit but I don't think the rules allow for it. I think the question could apply to lots of other humanities though. Not sure if the tag should be interdisciplinary or humanities. Assistant:

i8m9pjf

i8m2dge

Peter Singer and fellow philosophers (e.g. Toby Ord, Will MacAskill, etc.) have arguably influenced the movement of many billions of dollars.

Why doesn't math have a popularizer? Because ordinary people can't understand it. It's too technical. The same is true for physics, but popularizers like Tyson can dumb it down to the point where people *think* they understand it. Philosophy is all about the gnitty gritty specifics in arguments. Most ordinary people don't want to sit through those any more than they want to learn how to take an integral.

j915vh

askacademia_train

Human: Can't say it enough, publishing in journals is very frustrating. I just got contradictory reviews. This is just a rant. I just received the first round of review for this paper that I submitted to a journal. My paper is about delinquency and the first time around when I submitted it, I got rejected but one of the reviews said that I should include this theory that would enhance my argument. Then, I resubmitted it, and this time, the review said, please get rid of the theory as it is pointless. I am this close to stating in my "Response to Reviewers" that I do not want to listen to you (i.e., the current reviewer) because I took my time to write a thoughtful part of my paper to include the theory BECAUSE of a review from the past and now I need to delete it? Obviously I won't write that in my response. I think I'll just delete it. Hope this paper is published this time around. Assistant:

g8gdkrf

g8gau6t

Peer reviewing seems broken in all fields. In my own field (machine learning) it's also a bit of a shit show. It's funny because everyone I ask or talk to regarding peer reviewing agrees with things like "reviews should be sincere and take a holistic view on the value of the paper" or "reviews should not obsess with state-of-the-art performance" etc. Yet, every single review that seems to surface seems to contradict this. I wonder how these reviewers are being selected.

That happens fairly often. Maybe just copy and paste the previous version of that section into the manuscript, sounds like an easy fix. One of my papers was submitted in Feb this year, it's still in review.. so annoying

j915vh

askacademia_train

Human: Can't say it enough, publishing in journals is very frustrating. I just got contradictory reviews. This is just a rant. I just received the first round of review for this paper that I submitted to a journal. My paper is about delinquency and the first time around when I submitted it, I got rejected but one of the reviews said that I should include this theory that would enhance my argument. Then, I resubmitted it, and this time, the review said, please get rid of the theory as it is pointless. I am this close to stating in my "Response to Reviewers" that I do not want to listen to you (i.e., the current reviewer) because I took my time to write a thoughtful part of my paper to include the theory BECAUSE of a review from the past and now I need to delete it? Obviously I won't write that in my response. I think I'll just delete it. Hope this paper is published this time around. Assistant:

g8gau6t

g8gbzrd

That happens fairly often. Maybe just copy and paste the previous version of that section into the manuscript, sounds like an easy fix. One of my papers was submitted in Feb this year, it's still in review.. so annoying

It’s such a crapshoot. I find it impossible to get in the head of the people writing these reviews sometimes. We submitted a paper earlier this year to a mid-high journal, a really comprehensive work we were super proud of. The reviews were really positive, complimentary etc, but noted a minor inconsistency in an argument that was unimportant... they offered some helpful constructive feedback alongside straight reject recommendations. Great...

j915vh

askacademia_train

Human: Can't say it enough, publishing in journals is very frustrating. I just got contradictory reviews. This is just a rant. I just received the first round of review for this paper that I submitted to a journal. My paper is about delinquency and the first time around when I submitted it, I got rejected but one of the reviews said that I should include this theory that would enhance my argument. Then, I resubmitted it, and this time, the review said, please get rid of the theory as it is pointless. I am this close to stating in my "Response to Reviewers" that I do not want to listen to you (i.e., the current reviewer) because I took my time to write a thoughtful part of my paper to include the theory BECAUSE of a review from the past and now I need to delete it? Obviously I won't write that in my response. I think I'll just delete it. Hope this paper is published this time around. Assistant:

g8gsfgi

g8ghpgt

It’s always possible to disagree with a reviewer and articulate why. Politely state your case and you can probably get by. I’m known for being more argumentative than my colleagues, but I am often successful at pushing back. I get all the ugly feeling out of my system with a first draft. If I still feel I’m right, I tone it down a bit while sticking to my guns. If, on reflection, I now think the reviewer was right, I incorporate their suggestion. Remember, you don’t have to convince reviewers. You have to convince the editor.

In my last submission, I had one reviewer tell me the results looked poor, and another one tell me the results were excellent. The problem, in my case, was that the former didn't read the paper thoroughly (there was some feedback to add things that were already in the paper). Otherwise, the paper did explain why the results looked poor, but in actuality are quite good.

j915vh

askacademia_train

Human: Can't say it enough, publishing in journals is very frustrating. I just got contradictory reviews. This is just a rant. I just received the first round of review for this paper that I submitted to a journal. My paper is about delinquency and the first time around when I submitted it, I got rejected but one of the reviews said that I should include this theory that would enhance my argument. Then, I resubmitted it, and this time, the review said, please get rid of the theory as it is pointless. I am this close to stating in my "Response to Reviewers" that I do not want to listen to you (i.e., the current reviewer) because I took my time to write a thoughtful part of my paper to include the theory BECAUSE of a review from the past and now I need to delete it? Obviously I won't write that in my response. I think I'll just delete it. Hope this paper is published this time around. Assistant:

g8gob0f

g8gsfgi

You should include that kind of statement in your response, IMHO. Many peer reviewers don't put a lot of effort into it, or forget their original advice (or it was a new peer reviewer because the old one went MIA). Also, the editors do/should look at such comments, so its good to let them know the situation so they can accept you challenging the reviewers comments.

It’s always possible to disagree with a reviewer and articulate why. Politely state your case and you can probably get by. I’m known for being more argumentative than my colleagues, but I am often successful at pushing back. I get all the ugly feeling out of my system with a first draft. If I still feel I’m right, I tone it down a bit while sticking to my guns. If, on reflection, I now think the reviewer was right, I incorporate their suggestion. Remember, you don’t have to convince reviewers. You have to convince the editor.

tvt0s0

askacademia_train

Human: Use of the word "request" by students from South Asia I regularly receive emails from students from India and Pakistan who want to enroll in PG studies or internships. Many of these emails seem fairly formal and respectful BUT make a troubling use of the word "request", in a way that feels downright disrespectful and abrupt. I'm talking about sentences like "I request you to take me under your mentorship", or "I request you to please let the process be continued"... Since I'm not a native speaker I'm not sure whether that's the way other people would perceive this use of the word. Perhaps it's some overly-formal British English turn of phrase that's gone out of fashion elsewhere. And I wonder why so many of these students use it, and where they learn it from. Any thoughts on this? Assistant:

i3bd0is

i3blhs8

People learn different varieties of English in different language environments (which will influence how they construct phrases in English). I would not worry about this at all.

Indian here: Yes written English taught in Indian schools can sometimes be quite old-fashioned. By requesting you to be their mentor, they are basically asking you for an opportunity to interview. And under no circumstance are they trying to be disrespectful to you. In fact, they are actively trying to avoid that at every cost, whether you interview them or not.

tvt0s0

askacademia_train

Human: Use of the word "request" by students from South Asia I regularly receive emails from students from India and Pakistan who want to enroll in PG studies or internships. Many of these emails seem fairly formal and respectful BUT make a troubling use of the word "request", in a way that feels downright disrespectful and abrupt. I'm talking about sentences like "I request you to take me under your mentorship", or "I request you to please let the process be continued"... Since I'm not a native speaker I'm not sure whether that's the way other people would perceive this use of the word. Perhaps it's some overly-formal British English turn of phrase that's gone out of fashion elsewhere. And I wonder why so many of these students use it, and where they learn it from. Any thoughts on this? Assistant:

i3bgyl6

i3blhs8

It's just one of those things you find in country-specific variations of English. Don't think too much of it. When I came to Thailand I was kinda shocked at how all my students use the word 'diligent' regularly. Keep in mind that their English is, for the most part, shockingly awful. So when I hear the word 'diligent' just being randomly thrown around, it piqued my interest. Turns out it's just some common word here.

Indian here: Yes written English taught in Indian schools can sometimes be quite old-fashioned. By requesting you to be their mentor, they are basically asking you for an opportunity to interview. And under no circumstance are they trying to be disrespectful to you. In fact, they are actively trying to avoid that at every cost, whether you interview them or not.

tvt0s0

askacademia_train

Human: Use of the word "request" by students from South Asia I regularly receive emails from students from India and Pakistan who want to enroll in PG studies or internships. Many of these emails seem fairly formal and respectful BUT make a troubling use of the word "request", in a way that feels downright disrespectful and abrupt. I'm talking about sentences like "I request you to take me under your mentorship", or "I request you to please let the process be continued"... Since I'm not a native speaker I'm not sure whether that's the way other people would perceive this use of the word. Perhaps it's some overly-formal British English turn of phrase that's gone out of fashion elsewhere. And I wonder why so many of these students use it, and where they learn it from. Any thoughts on this? Assistant:

i3blhs8

i3baz2z

Indian here: Yes written English taught in Indian schools can sometimes be quite old-fashioned. By requesting you to be their mentor, they are basically asking you for an opportunity to interview. And under no circumstance are they trying to be disrespectful to you. In fact, they are actively trying to avoid that at every cost, whether you interview them or not.

I get that a lot and I do not consider it as rude or abrupt. It's just some form of English that is spoken there. It may from an old form of English or a direct translation from their own language.

tvt0s0

askacademia_train

Human: Use of the word "request" by students from South Asia I regularly receive emails from students from India and Pakistan who want to enroll in PG studies or internships. Many of these emails seem fairly formal and respectful BUT make a troubling use of the word "request", in a way that feels downright disrespectful and abrupt. I'm talking about sentences like "I request you to take me under your mentorship", or "I request you to please let the process be continued"... Since I'm not a native speaker I'm not sure whether that's the way other people would perceive this use of the word. Perhaps it's some overly-formal British English turn of phrase that's gone out of fashion elsewhere. And I wonder why so many of these students use it, and where they learn it from. Any thoughts on this? Assistant:

i3bhmud

i3blhs8

It has less to do with local language and more to do with how we are taught to write letters and emails directed towards authority / decision makers when in school as part of our English language training. Request is a word that features heavily in the taught sentence structure and it indoctrinates what we are conditioned to believe. Respect and reverence for authority and formality as a representation of respect . Whether it be teachers , officers , professors . It's taught as respect intermingled with fear to some degree. So 'request' you see in these conversations represent the bureaucracy as reflected in language.

Indian here: Yes written English taught in Indian schools can sometimes be quite old-fashioned. By requesting you to be their mentor, they are basically asking you for an opportunity to interview. And under no circumstance are they trying to be disrespectful to you. In fact, they are actively trying to avoid that at every cost, whether you interview them or not.

tvt0s0

askacademia_train

Human: Use of the word "request" by students from South Asia I regularly receive emails from students from India and Pakistan who want to enroll in PG studies or internships. Many of these emails seem fairly formal and respectful BUT make a troubling use of the word "request", in a way that feels downright disrespectful and abrupt. I'm talking about sentences like "I request you to take me under your mentorship", or "I request you to please let the process be continued"... Since I'm not a native speaker I'm not sure whether that's the way other people would perceive this use of the word. Perhaps it's some overly-formal British English turn of phrase that's gone out of fashion elsewhere. And I wonder why so many of these students use it, and where they learn it from. Any thoughts on this? Assistant:

i3bd0is

i3bmlp1

People learn different varieties of English in different language environments (which will influence how they construct phrases in English). I would not worry about this at all.

Yeah, request is a pretty common "Indianism." Basically different countries around the world have developed their own little linguistic quirks in how ideas and concepts are phrased. Another thing you might come across from South Asian students (or at least Indians) is the ubiquitous use of "sir" when addressing faculty or other people older/senior to them. It took me *ages* before I lost the habit myself and started addressing my faculty by their own names. I definitely understand why it might sound disrespectful, but its not meant to be. In fact its meant to be the opposite. Its meant to be deferential, and its the phrase most of them will have been taught is appropriate for formal requests. If you ever see communications by Indians to officials for instance you'll frequently see the phrase "I request you to do the needful." Its definitely an evolution from the high formal English of the Victorian/Colonial era. These sorts of variations are very common in many ex-colonies of the Empire where English became a sort of local language itself beyond just being a lingua-franca.

kwj2um

askacademia_train

Human: How do I bring up the fact that my PhD supervisor died and that's why I don't have him as a reference (and some more CV questions) Hello all, My phd supervisor unfortunately passed away this fall so alas, I cannot list him in my references. I'm afraid that not including my main supervisor as a reference might raise some eyebrows.. what if that's enough to stop my application from reaching the point of contacting the other references (who will surely explain the situation)? Should I include a tiny note in the references section of my CV or would that be too tacky/weird? Besides this unpleasant issue, I'd also love to read some opinions on the following CV doubts #####Professional Appointments/Employment Is this really necessary? I have just finished my phd so this would just be my initial grant and then 3 consecutive contracts in the same lab while finishing my phd. Because of that I don't think it adds much value to my profile, does it? #####Research experience Similarly, i think this will just re-iterate what I did for my phd, I'm not sure I fully appreciate what I'm supposed to highlight in this section Is this where I showcase the things I can do as a researcher? #####Key competencies I think it's a good idea to have a brief section where you can highlight these but it doesn't seem to be a thing in academic context As my CV stands right now, I have 4 subsections in there: Bioinformatics, Data Science, Informatics, Biology where I highlight my competences that are most relevant to each section. For example the "Data science" parts reads as follows: >Data Science: Experienced in applying and developing statistical analyses and machine learning tech-niques for biological questions. Enjoys handling big amounts of data and takes pride indeveloping and optimizing fast performing computational pipelines. Very comfortable with the Python data science stack of libraries (jupyter, pandas, numpy, sci-kit, sci-py, seaborn,TensorFlow) Should all this just go in the cover letter instead? Or in the research experience somehow? #####Repositories As a bioinformatician, I've created some repositories for which I'm quite proud and I'd like to showcase them. This again doesn't seem to be a thing in academia, what do you think? Assistant:

gj4uggi

gj4nwf6

I have a line in my cover letter- though it helps that his death coincided with a change in direction for me. It’s something like “following the death of my advisor, I changed directions somewhat and ...). On my CV it is also part of the eduction section- something like “PhD in X under mentor Y [deceased, YEAR].” If you feel comfortable asking, I think it helps to have a reference from someone who knew your advisor and is willing to speak to your advisor’s general opinion of you.

For your applications are you also including a cover letter? Personal statement? Etc? If so, you could mention it there. “With great sadness my PhD advisor passed away and I have been doing XYZ in the wake of it”.

kwj2um

askacademia_train

Human: How do I bring up the fact that my PhD supervisor died and that's why I don't have him as a reference (and some more CV questions) Hello all, My phd supervisor unfortunately passed away this fall so alas, I cannot list him in my references. I'm afraid that not including my main supervisor as a reference might raise some eyebrows.. what if that's enough to stop my application from reaching the point of contacting the other references (who will surely explain the situation)? Should I include a tiny note in the references section of my CV or would that be too tacky/weird? Besides this unpleasant issue, I'd also love to read some opinions on the following CV doubts #####Professional Appointments/Employment Is this really necessary? I have just finished my phd so this would just be my initial grant and then 3 consecutive contracts in the same lab while finishing my phd. Because of that I don't think it adds much value to my profile, does it? #####Research experience Similarly, i think this will just re-iterate what I did for my phd, I'm not sure I fully appreciate what I'm supposed to highlight in this section Is this where I showcase the things I can do as a researcher? #####Key competencies I think it's a good idea to have a brief section where you can highlight these but it doesn't seem to be a thing in academic context As my CV stands right now, I have 4 subsections in there: Bioinformatics, Data Science, Informatics, Biology where I highlight my competences that are most relevant to each section. For example the "Data science" parts reads as follows: >Data Science: Experienced in applying and developing statistical analyses and machine learning tech-niques for biological questions. Enjoys handling big amounts of data and takes pride indeveloping and optimizing fast performing computational pipelines. Very comfortable with the Python data science stack of libraries (jupyter, pandas, numpy, sci-kit, sci-py, seaborn,TensorFlow) Should all this just go in the cover letter instead? Or in the research experience somehow? #####Repositories As a bioinformatician, I've created some repositories for which I'm quite proud and I'd like to showcase them. This again doesn't seem to be a thing in academia, what do you think? Assistant:

gj4uggi

gj4sdnv

I have a line in my cover letter- though it helps that his death coincided with a change in direction for me. It’s something like “following the death of my advisor, I changed directions somewhat and ...). On my CV it is also part of the eduction section- something like “PhD in X under mentor Y [deceased, YEAR].” If you feel comfortable asking, I think it helps to have a reference from someone who knew your advisor and is willing to speak to your advisor’s general opinion of you.

Note it in the cover letter. You are right that it may raise questions, best just answer it with a simple sentence in the part of your cover letter where you briefly discuss your research.

kwj2um

askacademia_train

Human: How do I bring up the fact that my PhD supervisor died and that's why I don't have him as a reference (and some more CV questions) Hello all, My phd supervisor unfortunately passed away this fall so alas, I cannot list him in my references. I'm afraid that not including my main supervisor as a reference might raise some eyebrows.. what if that's enough to stop my application from reaching the point of contacting the other references (who will surely explain the situation)? Should I include a tiny note in the references section of my CV or would that be too tacky/weird? Besides this unpleasant issue, I'd also love to read some opinions on the following CV doubts #####Professional Appointments/Employment Is this really necessary? I have just finished my phd so this would just be my initial grant and then 3 consecutive contracts in the same lab while finishing my phd. Because of that I don't think it adds much value to my profile, does it? #####Research experience Similarly, i think this will just re-iterate what I did for my phd, I'm not sure I fully appreciate what I'm supposed to highlight in this section Is this where I showcase the things I can do as a researcher? #####Key competencies I think it's a good idea to have a brief section where you can highlight these but it doesn't seem to be a thing in academic context As my CV stands right now, I have 4 subsections in there: Bioinformatics, Data Science, Informatics, Biology where I highlight my competences that are most relevant to each section. For example the "Data science" parts reads as follows: >Data Science: Experienced in applying and developing statistical analyses and machine learning tech-niques for biological questions. Enjoys handling big amounts of data and takes pride indeveloping and optimizing fast performing computational pipelines. Very comfortable with the Python data science stack of libraries (jupyter, pandas, numpy, sci-kit, sci-py, seaborn,TensorFlow) Should all this just go in the cover letter instead? Or in the research experience somehow? #####Repositories As a bioinformatician, I've created some repositories for which I'm quite proud and I'd like to showcase them. This again doesn't seem to be a thing in academia, what do you think? Assistant:

gj4uggi

gj4q6v5

I have a line in my cover letter- though it helps that his death coincided with a change in direction for me. It’s something like “following the death of my advisor, I changed directions somewhat and ...). On my CV it is also part of the eduction section- something like “PhD in X under mentor Y [deceased, YEAR].” If you feel comfortable asking, I think it helps to have a reference from someone who knew your advisor and is willing to speak to your advisor’s general opinion of you.

> Professional Appointments/Employment This is normally there because (at least in my experience) most recent PhD grads have had various jobs prior to applying for postdocs - part-time work as a student, summer jobs, a full-time job between undergrad and grad school, co-ops or internships, etc. > Research experience, Key competencies Personally I think that it makes sense to describe your research experience/specialisations as part of your description of your PhD under "Education", and a "Skills" section below if that isn't covered in the rest of the CV Alternatively, some people only list the degree title/institution/year under "Education" and then include a separate research section. In either case, I agree you shouldn't have it on there twice, and regardless you should definitely also put these things in your cover letter but much more customized to the specific requirements of the job you're appying for.

kb35fo

askacademia_train

Human: I Hate Rejecting Papers So I became a reviewer for one of the journals I published to during my PhD and I'm happy to be doing it, but I find that I reject far more papers than I accept and it's bothering me. I can always tell when a great deal of work and thought has gone into a manuscript and it makes me sad to send a rejection recommendation. Obviously, the field would not necessarily benefit if I lowered my standards (assuming they are calibrated properly), and I do make sure to find and note aspects of the paper I like and give grace where I can, but even so, rejecting doesn't feel great, especially when you've been on the other side of it, as we all have I'm sure. Any way to get over this while making sure I stay a quality reviewer? Assistant:

gfe7unn

gfebyec

It might vary by discipline, but in my discipline it's normal for papers to be rejected once. Unless people are trying to get their papers published quickly, most of my colleagues will aim for a journal that they don't realistically expect to be accepted by, and then quickly resubmit to a more realistic second choice. Rejection is infuriating the first few times it happens, but researchers should soon learn that it's part of the process. The fact that people have put a lot of work in shouldn't concern you - it's not like all that work evaporates when you reject the paper. As long as you give them constructive criticism they can tighten up the paper and resubmit it elsewhere, and that hard work was still worthwhile. It's important to be courteous and constructive, but I don't think you'd be posting this question in the first place if you were an arsehole! The standards calibration thing is always a challenge for me. Perfect research is very rare, and you can pick apart anything if you want to. It is hard to get the right balance between letting minor things go but being strict about the things that really matter. I don't want to be the one arsehole reviewer that tears a paper apart when the other reviewers were fine with it, and likewise I don't want to be the one soft touch who misses something important.

I think it's important to keep in mind that you aren't rejecting any papers as a reviewer. That's not your role. You are simply giving evidence-based (hopefully) recommendations, and the editor is the one making the final decision. A good editor should not choose to reject only because a reviewer recommended it, and there are certainly cases where editors overrule reviewers. As you gain experience in the field, you will start to better calibrate your standards to those of the specific journal, but in the meantime, remember that you are a reviewer to assess the facts, not the amount of effort that authors put in.

kb35fo

askacademia_train

Human: I Hate Rejecting Papers So I became a reviewer for one of the journals I published to during my PhD and I'm happy to be doing it, but I find that I reject far more papers than I accept and it's bothering me. I can always tell when a great deal of work and thought has gone into a manuscript and it makes me sad to send a rejection recommendation. Obviously, the field would not necessarily benefit if I lowered my standards (assuming they are calibrated properly), and I do make sure to find and note aspects of the paper I like and give grace where I can, but even so, rejecting doesn't feel great, especially when you've been on the other side of it, as we all have I'm sure. Any way to get over this while making sure I stay a quality reviewer? Assistant:

gfebyec

gfea3ry

I think it's important to keep in mind that you aren't rejecting any papers as a reviewer. That's not your role. You are simply giving evidence-based (hopefully) recommendations, and the editor is the one making the final decision. A good editor should not choose to reject only because a reviewer recommended it, and there are certainly cases where editors overrule reviewers. As you gain experience in the field, you will start to better calibrate your standards to those of the specific journal, but in the meantime, remember that you are a reviewer to assess the facts, not the amount of effort that authors put in.

I think that as long as you point out shortfalls/strengths/impact and give constructive criticism, any editor would be well happy with your reviews. It is not always easy to calibrate your expectations according to the specific journal (especially if you are using your own work as reference it might be a bit trickier to not be biased), but if you feel that rejection is appropriate after comparing to similar articles on the same field I would not think twice about it. As another reply said, there is so much junk being published that proper peer-review is essential to weed out what has been properly done (and in the end, it's up to the editor anyway).

kb35fo

askacademia_train

Human: I Hate Rejecting Papers So I became a reviewer for one of the journals I published to during my PhD and I'm happy to be doing it, but I find that I reject far more papers than I accept and it's bothering me. I can always tell when a great deal of work and thought has gone into a manuscript and it makes me sad to send a rejection recommendation. Obviously, the field would not necessarily benefit if I lowered my standards (assuming they are calibrated properly), and I do make sure to find and note aspects of the paper I like and give grace where I can, but even so, rejecting doesn't feel great, especially when you've been on the other side of it, as we all have I'm sure. Any way to get over this while making sure I stay a quality reviewer? Assistant:

gfebyec

gfeb1co

I think it's important to keep in mind that you aren't rejecting any papers as a reviewer. That's not your role. You are simply giving evidence-based (hopefully) recommendations, and the editor is the one making the final decision. A good editor should not choose to reject only because a reviewer recommended it, and there are certainly cases where editors overrule reviewers. As you gain experience in the field, you will start to better calibrate your standards to those of the specific journal, but in the meantime, remember that you are a reviewer to assess the facts, not the amount of effort that authors put in.

Remember that you are helping the public and the submitter when you reject the paper - you are improving the quality of knowledge and quality of work.

kb35fo

askacademia_train

Human: I Hate Rejecting Papers So I became a reviewer for one of the journals I published to during my PhD and I'm happy to be doing it, but I find that I reject far more papers than I accept and it's bothering me. I can always tell when a great deal of work and thought has gone into a manuscript and it makes me sad to send a rejection recommendation. Obviously, the field would not necessarily benefit if I lowered my standards (assuming they are calibrated properly), and I do make sure to find and note aspects of the paper I like and give grace where I can, but even so, rejecting doesn't feel great, especially when you've been on the other side of it, as we all have I'm sure. Any way to get over this while making sure I stay a quality reviewer? Assistant:

gfegdk4

gffh9qy

I go in to every review hoping to read a great paper. I comment and suggest edits in the hope that my suggestions can help to make it a great paper. I really only ever suggest rejection when there are critical/substantial technical flaws not easily addressed or obvious omissions. For instance, my most recent review led to a suggested Major Revision (I debated recommending Reject) because I could not understand the degree of overlap between the authors’ new manuscript and a previous publication of theirs. And the advancement they made wasn’t clearly couched relative to their previous paper. After much consideration, I figured there was a path to making that distinction but it’ll require considerable reconstruction. Nevertheless, the ideas they were advancing were interesting and by suggesting Major Revision rather than Reject, I’m hoping that they tackle the revision in good faith rather than send unchanged elsewhere. The only time I easily reject papers is when they propose baseless notions that contravene logic - rare, but happens.

I follow the golden rule: write the review you want to get. The review that I want is honest, thoughtful, and delivered with respect. I end each of my reviews with something like “I hope these comments are helpful, and I wish you the best of luck as you move your work forward.” That’s how I approach the whole thing: how can I help move this work forward?

kb35fo

askacademia_train

Human: I Hate Rejecting Papers So I became a reviewer for one of the journals I published to during my PhD and I'm happy to be doing it, but I find that I reject far more papers than I accept and it's bothering me. I can always tell when a great deal of work and thought has gone into a manuscript and it makes me sad to send a rejection recommendation. Obviously, the field would not necessarily benefit if I lowered my standards (assuming they are calibrated properly), and I do make sure to find and note aspects of the paper I like and give grace where I can, but even so, rejecting doesn't feel great, especially when you've been on the other side of it, as we all have I'm sure. Any way to get over this while making sure I stay a quality reviewer? Assistant:

gfeil79

gffh9qy

If the paper can be remediated by 1) adding something or taking something away 2) changing the analysis 3) modifying the interpretation and still has value why reject outright? If something else is actually really needed for the experiment do a revision. I reject outright stuff that is not salvageable or is badly thought out and poorly designed .

I follow the golden rule: write the review you want to get. The review that I want is honest, thoughtful, and delivered with respect. I end each of my reviews with something like “I hope these comments are helpful, and I wish you the best of luck as you move your work forward.” That’s how I approach the whole thing: how can I help move this work forward?

l16sbg

askacademia_train

Human: Does anyone else feel like they aren't doing enough towards their PhD? So I'm a second year PhD student (UK) researching horror games. While I'm reading up on the literature, taking notes, working on my literature review and methodology, prepping for data collection next month, keeping an eye out for potential CfPs, attending (and sometimes participating in) online seminars, and making plans with my supervisor to hopefully do some guest lecturing down the line, there are times when I feel I'm not doing enough. I make it sound like I'm really busy, but I'm truly not. A lot of the stuff I've listed is hugely spaced out. Weeks go by without half of this stuff occurring. As of now, I don't really know what to do to fill my time. I can read papers and take notes, that's no problem. But I just feel like a lot of the time I'm sat there thinking of what to do. I try to keep a weekly list of tasks I want to get done, but most of my days I feel I can walk away from my desk by 2pm. Sometimes earlier. I don't know if it's because there's this ideological view of what doing a PhD requires, but a lot of the blog posts and online posts I read from others suggests that this is an unbelievably busy period and there are simply not enough hours in the day and people's mental health is at stake because of the hours they put in. And honestly, I just don't feel like that. I find it very easy to walk away from my work (either in the evenings or to take breaks now and then) and I wonder if this is detrimental to my completing a satisfactory thesis. None of my supervisors seem to have any cause for concern and I have plans ahead of me, so I'm not stuck for anything to do. I just wonder if there's a toxicity to the whole PhD lifestyle which pressures people into thinking they have to work themselves into dust or it's not good enough. Maybe this is an American mindset. Maybe it's because of the subject matter I'm researching (I can do it all online from my own bedroom). I don't know. Anyone else feel this way? Assistant:

gjy7zjb

gjy6yqj

Here's an idea...if you're struggling to find something to do then take a break for a few days. No point spending time at the computer being less productive than you want to be, take a few days off and come back to the computer with a well structured to-do list. If you've scoped out your project with clear deadlines and your supervisor is happy with what you've suggested then don't fret. Take breaks now whilst you can. When you get to the arse-end of year 3 (or even into year 4?) then you'll be gagging for a break.

A lot of posts from PhD students on Reddit and YouTube are from STEM. I feel like that contributed a lot to their busy schedule. They have a lot of lab work in addition to what you are doing. If your supervisor is happy, I’m assuming what you are doing is fine for now. I’m sure it’ll change once you start collecting data

k5b5jj

askacademia_train

Human: Now that you're in academia, do you really think grades matter? Out of curiosity! I once worked with the head of a PhD program who casually mentioned that the University's grade cutoffs for candidates sometimes leaves them with people who are great at coursework but have no research experience (implied: they drop out too). That's why he's not a fan of the cut-offs but it's the policy... and I'm also wondering if you choose RAs or TAs based wholly on their grades? Assistant:

gedoyyi

gedt5rr

They matter to the extent you're unlikely\* to succeed in academia if you don't have the ability\*\* to get good (or at least decent) grades, but with all sorts of caveats. In particular, the converse clearly isn't true, i.e., students who are good at exams aren't necessarily good at research. (There's also a restriction of range thing - within the set of people who go into research, I can imagine grades matter less; while your typical D, C student isn't going to be in that set in the first place.) Cut-offs are a particularly blunt measure but given a presumable over-supply of candidates I do get it. \* Pre-empting - unlikely, not impossible. \*\* Mainly, you could think of students who are just weak cognitively, but even, in all its unfairness, if it's environmental, that's still going to be predictive.

I had a 2.4 in undergrad, and now am in a TT position at an R1. I was successful in grad school. Because of this, I push my department on admissions to look past the GPA of a student, and at everything else. Courses are (at least in my experience), SO DIFFERENT at the graduate level, that they tend to lend themselves to students differently.

k5b5jj

askacademia_train

Human: Now that you're in academia, do you really think grades matter? Out of curiosity! I once worked with the head of a PhD program who casually mentioned that the University's grade cutoffs for candidates sometimes leaves them with people who are great at coursework but have no research experience (implied: they drop out too). That's why he's not a fan of the cut-offs but it's the policy... and I'm also wondering if you choose RAs or TAs based wholly on their grades? Assistant:

gedt5rr

gedr2x6

I had a 2.4 in undergrad, and now am in a TT position at an R1. I was successful in grad school. Because of this, I push my department on admissions to look past the GPA of a student, and at everything else. Courses are (at least in my experience), SO DIFFERENT at the graduate level, that they tend to lend themselves to students differently.

In my area of bench science, I'd say there are four weakly interacting components, raw intellect, applied effort, environment and luck, probably in ascending order. In so far as raw intellect and applied effort feed into grades, they assist in getting into good environments. That said, most school and undergraduate grading systems are designed to weed out under-performers, not highlight high achievers, so I don't find grades particularly predictive, and a period of failure to apply effort is often a case of personal circumstances / stress / mental health, rather than the historical assumption of laziness. I'd imagine that this is less the case in theoretical fields with a wider spread on the grading curve.

k5b5jj

askacademia_train

Human: Now that you're in academia, do you really think grades matter? Out of curiosity! I once worked with the head of a PhD program who casually mentioned that the University's grade cutoffs for candidates sometimes leaves them with people who are great at coursework but have no research experience (implied: they drop out too). That's why he's not a fan of the cut-offs but it's the policy... and I'm also wondering if you choose RAs or TAs based wholly on their grades? Assistant:

gedt5rr

gedqd8x

I had a 2.4 in undergrad, and now am in a TT position at an R1. I was successful in grad school. Because of this, I push my department on admissions to look past the GPA of a student, and at everything else. Courses are (at least in my experience), SO DIFFERENT at the graduate level, that they tend to lend themselves to students differently.

2.8 undergrad gpa and I'm publishing papers now as a masters student. While I am no longer getting Cs I still hate dedicating so much time for assignments .

k5b5jj

askacademia_train

Human: Now that you're in academia, do you really think grades matter? Out of curiosity! I once worked with the head of a PhD program who casually mentioned that the University's grade cutoffs for candidates sometimes leaves them with people who are great at coursework but have no research experience (implied: they drop out too). That's why he's not a fan of the cut-offs but it's the policy... and I'm also wondering if you choose RAs or TAs based wholly on their grades? Assistant:

gedr2x6

gedtt74

In my area of bench science, I'd say there are four weakly interacting components, raw intellect, applied effort, environment and luck, probably in ascending order. In so far as raw intellect and applied effort feed into grades, they assist in getting into good environments. That said, most school and undergraduate grading systems are designed to weed out under-performers, not highlight high achievers, so I don't find grades particularly predictive, and a period of failure to apply effort is often a case of personal circumstances / stress / mental health, rather than the historical assumption of laziness. I'd imagine that this is less the case in theoretical fields with a wider spread on the grading curve.

Disclaimer: I'm a current PhD student in genetics My first time applying to work in a research lab as an undergraduate, the professor sent me a form to fill out for the application. The questions were just a bunch of stuff like "what's your favorite book?" and "what are your hobbies?" He explained that he hadn't yet found a reliable way to determine if an undergrad would be any good at research. From what I could tell, the only criteria he actually used to filter candidates was their current course schedule to see if they could make it to lab meeting.

k5b5jj

askacademia_train

Human: Now that you're in academia, do you really think grades matter? Out of curiosity! I once worked with the head of a PhD program who casually mentioned that the University's grade cutoffs for candidates sometimes leaves them with people who are great at coursework but have no research experience (implied: they drop out too). That's why he's not a fan of the cut-offs but it's the policy... and I'm also wondering if you choose RAs or TAs based wholly on their grades? Assistant:

gedtt74

gedqd8x

Disclaimer: I'm a current PhD student in genetics My first time applying to work in a research lab as an undergraduate, the professor sent me a form to fill out for the application. The questions were just a bunch of stuff like "what's your favorite book?" and "what are your hobbies?" He explained that he hadn't yet found a reliable way to determine if an undergrad would be any good at research. From what I could tell, the only criteria he actually used to filter candidates was their current course schedule to see if they could make it to lab meeting.

2.8 undergrad gpa and I'm publishing papers now as a masters student. While I am no longer getting Cs I still hate dedicating so much time for assignments .

iwzfa0

askacademia_train

Human: Help! My advisor put me in acknowledgment not co authorship. I finished my Masters this year. It was the worst memory in my life due to a conflict with my advisor. Anyway he got asked to conduct a simulation of our group model for the analysis of ensemble models. He told me to work on this project for co-authorship last year. The paper just published early this month and when I see it i was in acknowledgment not co authorship. Instead he is in co authorship. The project is for us to conduct computer simulations and submit its results for their analysis of different model results. I did all the simulations from the beginning to the end. I feel very unfair and confused. What should the difference of co-authorship and acknowledgment be in this case? What should I do? Any help will be very appreciated. Assistant:

g63vv2i

g63iy92

Some additional information might help to clarify: How many other authors are on the paper? Are you absolutely sure that they used **your simulation numbers?** or they only used your simulation procedure and not your numbers? If they used your numbers, how did you give them the numbers? Do you still have records of the numbers (sent email) If they used your procedure, did you leave behind/send them the documented steps to do the simulation? Any record (sent email)? Did you have your PI promise of coauthorship on record (email communication)?

E.g., see https://provost.yale.edu/policies/academic-integrity/guidance-authorship-scholarly-or-scientific-publications

iwzfa0

askacademia_train

Human: Help! My advisor put me in acknowledgment not co authorship. I finished my Masters this year. It was the worst memory in my life due to a conflict with my advisor. Anyway he got asked to conduct a simulation of our group model for the analysis of ensemble models. He told me to work on this project for co-authorship last year. The paper just published early this month and when I see it i was in acknowledgment not co authorship. Instead he is in co authorship. The project is for us to conduct computer simulations and submit its results for their analysis of different model results. I did all the simulations from the beginning to the end. I feel very unfair and confused. What should the difference of co-authorship and acknowledgment be in this case? What should I do? Any help will be very appreciated. Assistant:

g63vv2i

g63jc76

Some additional information might help to clarify: How many other authors are on the paper? Are you absolutely sure that they used **your simulation numbers?** or they only used your simulation procedure and not your numbers? If they used your numbers, how did you give them the numbers? Do you still have records of the numbers (sent email) If they used your procedure, did you leave behind/send them the documented steps to do the simulation? Any record (sent email)? Did you have your PI promise of coauthorship on record (email communication)?

> The paper just published early this month and when I see it i was in acknowledgment not co authorship. Instead he is in co authorship. After a paper has been published, there is very little you can do about it. My suggestion would be to just let it pass, and maybe get a good letter of recommendation from your advisor as a consolation price. If you try to get back at your advisor either through official channels or unoffical ones (like contacting the editor of the journal or the other authors of the paper), it will most likely backfire on you.

iwzfa0

askacademia_train

Human: Help! My advisor put me in acknowledgment not co authorship. I finished my Masters this year. It was the worst memory in my life due to a conflict with my advisor. Anyway he got asked to conduct a simulation of our group model for the analysis of ensemble models. He told me to work on this project for co-authorship last year. The paper just published early this month and when I see it i was in acknowledgment not co authorship. Instead he is in co authorship. The project is for us to conduct computer simulations and submit its results for their analysis of different model results. I did all the simulations from the beginning to the end. I feel very unfair and confused. What should the difference of co-authorship and acknowledgment be in this case? What should I do? Any help will be very appreciated. Assistant:

g63jc76

g64roxa

> The paper just published early this month and when I see it i was in acknowledgment not co authorship. Instead he is in co authorship. After a paper has been published, there is very little you can do about it. My suggestion would be to just let it pass, and maybe get a good letter of recommendation from your advisor as a consolation price. If you try to get back at your advisor either through official channels or unoffical ones (like contacting the editor of the journal or the other authors of the paper), it will most likely backfire on you.

I disagree there's little you can do. In my field there could be a retraction or a correction. Not including you can be considered academic fraud. If you were promised authorship then you were cheated and you should contact the journal editor (or your co-author first, then editor). Two caveats. 1. You need to have done work worthy of authorship. Other than your advisor screwing you over, this is the obvious reason you'd have no authorship (he still should have let you know ahead of time even if this is true). This really needs to be determined by people in your field looking at the actual paper. Find someone you trust. 2. You need receipts. You need something written promising authorship. This is not worth he said she saiding. Acknowledgement is not worth anything on the job market, but it should actually help while applying for PhD. Obviously the route I'm discussing is scorched earth, so proceed with caution.

h0yz79

askacademia_train

Human: Am I the only one who can't see how physical distancing is feasible in classrooms? I recently read two great articles from Inside Higher Ed. " At his small, teaching-focused institution, Clark and a facilities colleague spent half a day measuring and "experiencing" every classroom and lab, all of which were designed for active learning. They looked at every space "from the perspectives of cleaning, scheduling, room capacities, HVAC systems, pedagogical practices, student and faculty behaviors, student conduct issues, and more," he wrote to the POD Network. "It's one thing to draw six-foot circles, talk about reduced classroom capacities, and propose wearing masks in class -- it's a whole other thing to actually experience it." Link This article links to Clark's amazing article: The Physically Distanced Classroom: A Day in the Life ​ I spent the morning going through my syllabus and I have a ton of small group discussion that simply isn't going to work in these new socially-distanced classrooms. Our university is telling us to plan for hybrid, which means there's another layer of unnecessary complexity to this. Despite all the complaining about online education, being able to use breakout rooms in Zoom for synchronous small group discussion is actually a huge benefit pedagogically. Except everyone seems to be desperate to get back on campus without really thinking about what it will look like. Do you have any ideas to share about how you're planning to adapt your courses for the fall? Assistant:

ftp125l

ftp20ja

Yes, I agree. I don't see in-class classes being feasible, especially a lab or similar setup. The administration, in my experience, view is to pretend everything will be just fine come the fall. I'm not sure if that is optimism or just trying to pretend that there isn't a problem.

Last week I spent Monday morning planning out a seminar for my class in September. We're doing hybrid teaching, so we're going to have one cohort who's taking the class online and half (if we're lucky) who are actually in the building. So, I'm planning the class and I want to have them interview each other to identify an entrepreneurial opportunity and then reflect on how they observed it. Online, as you say, it's easy enough. Breakout rooms, shared whiteboards, easy peasy. But then I realised I Can't Do That In Person. 2 meters distance! I'm in Scotland so the guidance is "leave room for a hairy coo". How are we supposed to have in-person seminars people need to shout at each other from across the room to think, pair, share? Frankly, I think the underlying assumption to any in-person teaching plans is that by September we're going to ignore a lot of social distancing guidelines. Either formally as the regulations get changed or informally because that's just the way things have to be for it to work. There is no solution for making teaching work in a Covid world. We're just pretending there is in order to preserve some sense of normality and ensure there is some sort of teaching income.

h0yz79

askacademia_train

Human: Am I the only one who can't see how physical distancing is feasible in classrooms? I recently read two great articles from Inside Higher Ed. " At his small, teaching-focused institution, Clark and a facilities colleague spent half a day measuring and "experiencing" every classroom and lab, all of which were designed for active learning. They looked at every space "from the perspectives of cleaning, scheduling, room capacities, HVAC systems, pedagogical practices, student and faculty behaviors, student conduct issues, and more," he wrote to the POD Network. "It's one thing to draw six-foot circles, talk about reduced classroom capacities, and propose wearing masks in class -- it's a whole other thing to actually experience it." Link This article links to Clark's amazing article: The Physically Distanced Classroom: A Day in the Life ​ I spent the morning going through my syllabus and I have a ton of small group discussion that simply isn't going to work in these new socially-distanced classrooms. Our university is telling us to plan for hybrid, which means there's another layer of unnecessary complexity to this. Despite all the complaining about online education, being able to use breakout rooms in Zoom for synchronous small group discussion is actually a huge benefit pedagogically. Except everyone seems to be desperate to get back on campus without really thinking about what it will look like. Do you have any ideas to share about how you're planning to adapt your courses for the fall? Assistant:

ftp125l

ftp2y41

Yes, I agree. I don't see in-class classes being feasible, especially a lab or similar setup. The administration, in my experience, view is to pretend everything will be just fine come the fall. I'm not sure if that is optimism or just trying to pretend that there isn't a problem.

What about hallways and stairways? This is clearly not feasible.

h0yz79

askacademia_train

Human: Am I the only one who can't see how physical distancing is feasible in classrooms? I recently read two great articles from Inside Higher Ed. " At his small, teaching-focused institution, Clark and a facilities colleague spent half a day measuring and "experiencing" every classroom and lab, all of which were designed for active learning. They looked at every space "from the perspectives of cleaning, scheduling, room capacities, HVAC systems, pedagogical practices, student and faculty behaviors, student conduct issues, and more," he wrote to the POD Network. "It's one thing to draw six-foot circles, talk about reduced classroom capacities, and propose wearing masks in class -- it's a whole other thing to actually experience it." Link This article links to Clark's amazing article: The Physically Distanced Classroom: A Day in the Life ​ I spent the morning going through my syllabus and I have a ton of small group discussion that simply isn't going to work in these new socially-distanced classrooms. Our university is telling us to plan for hybrid, which means there's another layer of unnecessary complexity to this. Despite all the complaining about online education, being able to use breakout rooms in Zoom for synchronous small group discussion is actually a huge benefit pedagogically. Except everyone seems to be desperate to get back on campus without really thinking about what it will look like. Do you have any ideas to share about how you're planning to adapt your courses for the fall? Assistant:

ftp2y41

ftp24si

What about hallways and stairways? This is clearly not feasible.

Seems like large lectures that are not super collaborative could work ok but small group / partner work is going to be a real hurdle for sure.

h0yz79

askacademia_train

Human: Am I the only one who can't see how physical distancing is feasible in classrooms? I recently read two great articles from Inside Higher Ed. " At his small, teaching-focused institution, Clark and a facilities colleague spent half a day measuring and "experiencing" every classroom and lab, all of which were designed for active learning. They looked at every space "from the perspectives of cleaning, scheduling, room capacities, HVAC systems, pedagogical practices, student and faculty behaviors, student conduct issues, and more," he wrote to the POD Network. "It's one thing to draw six-foot circles, talk about reduced classroom capacities, and propose wearing masks in class -- it's a whole other thing to actually experience it." Link This article links to Clark's amazing article: The Physically Distanced Classroom: A Day in the Life ​ I spent the morning going through my syllabus and I have a ton of small group discussion that simply isn't going to work in these new socially-distanced classrooms. Our university is telling us to plan for hybrid, which means there's another layer of unnecessary complexity to this. Despite all the complaining about online education, being able to use breakout rooms in Zoom for synchronous small group discussion is actually a huge benefit pedagogically. Except everyone seems to be desperate to get back on campus without really thinking about what it will look like. Do you have any ideas to share about how you're planning to adapt your courses for the fall? Assistant:

ftp448f

ftp24si

My university has basically given us a mathematically impossible task. I have an 800 square foot classroom. 27 students. It's packed tight in a normal semester. But no, we aren't making class sizes smaller. (Obviously, because then we would have to hire people). And "it's on the professors to ensure that guidelines are being followed." The only reason why I'm not entirely worried is because they are also requiring that our classes be adaptable for *both* virtual and in-person students (... instead of some remote/virtual classes and some in-person classes... because that would clearly be too hard) and we have to be ready for students to determine their status on a class by class basis throughout the semester (for instance, if a student would be exposed and need to self quarantine or basically if they just decide to stop coming to class because we obviously can't argue with students about whether it's safe or not). So while I haven't quite figured out how to adapt a curriculum to meet all of these needs at once, on the plus side, I am pretty confident nobody will show up for class after the first week.

Seems like large lectures that are not super collaborative could work ok but small group / partner work is going to be a real hurdle for sure.

h0yz79

askacademia_train

Human: Am I the only one who can't see how physical distancing is feasible in classrooms? I recently read two great articles from Inside Higher Ed. " At his small, teaching-focused institution, Clark and a facilities colleague spent half a day measuring and "experiencing" every classroom and lab, all of which were designed for active learning. They looked at every space "from the perspectives of cleaning, scheduling, room capacities, HVAC systems, pedagogical practices, student and faculty behaviors, student conduct issues, and more," he wrote to the POD Network. "It's one thing to draw six-foot circles, talk about reduced classroom capacities, and propose wearing masks in class -- it's a whole other thing to actually experience it." Link This article links to Clark's amazing article: The Physically Distanced Classroom: A Day in the Life ​ I spent the morning going through my syllabus and I have a ton of small group discussion that simply isn't going to work in these new socially-distanced classrooms. Our university is telling us to plan for hybrid, which means there's another layer of unnecessary complexity to this. Despite all the complaining about online education, being able to use breakout rooms in Zoom for synchronous small group discussion is actually a huge benefit pedagogically. Except everyone seems to be desperate to get back on campus without really thinking about what it will look like. Do you have any ideas to share about how you're planning to adapt your courses for the fall? Assistant:

ftpoz47

ftp8h94

I just don’t see how classrooms are anywhere near the biggest problem. No matter how much we distance in there these kids are still going back to their cramped dorms and apartments.

Collaborating in Google Docs or Slides (or similar) may be a way to work in groups in real time from various devices. If you have a main doc/slide open and on your monitor, you can watch each group’s progress from a distance and offer feedback verbally or in the chat. If there is a full class review of what each group discussed, you can project the shared doc while students talk from their seats.

yn00te

askacademia_train

Human: Why do academics seem to loath their profession? This isn't a hard and fast rule but I've observed there seems to be an above average dislike for ones profession among academics. Most times (I'd say 95%) I ask a question about future career planning to be an academic, the top comment is "Get a job that isn't being an academic - we all hate it here so you probably will as well". I didn't enjoy my time as a software engineer but I didn't go around r/CScareers telling everyone to not aspire to it so what gives? Can anyone explain this? Assistant:

iv6bp3v

iv6egkk

In academia you tend to sit on temporary contracts and projects, and you always have this "carrot" in front of you that the next publication, or next grant application will booster your career if you work hard enough (meaning working late or on weekends), but it seldom does and people become frustrated. In industry you can switch positions more easily and permanent positions are available. Your career is less dependant on lucky observations and luck with publishing.

(This is from a social sciences perspective.) Part of the "hidden curriculum" is that it's, roughly speaking, a two-tier system. Naive low-hopers (e.g., no professor-level parents + network) get sucked in, with great idealism, thinking if they're talented and work hard enough (for someone in Tier 1) it'll be like they see it is for people in Tier 1, the people giving cool keynotes about their research, who have the grant money and resources and enough slaves to create work-life balance for themselves etc. But most people won't end up in Tier 1, and discover that Tier 2 is constant stress, overwork, ongoing humiliation, moral injury, a waste of your life, burnout, a truly systemically awful leadership class, and so on. But the next problem is that Tier 2 people get stuck - or aren't aware of their alternatives - after massive investment and sacrifice on their part. They might be terrified to lose their job if they've managed to get anything at all. So it's a dream turned nightmare you can't escape, hence the loathing. And some people in Tier 2, or decent people in Tier 1 with self-awareness, want to warn the next generation of victims. In contrast, people in Tier 1, or in Tier 2 who still aspire to be Tier 1, have an inherent conflict with that because they need fresh PhD students and postdocs to do the actual scientific work for them. So I think that explains a fair bit of the dynamics you see.

yn00te

askacademia_train

Human: Why do academics seem to loath their profession? This isn't a hard and fast rule but I've observed there seems to be an above average dislike for ones profession among academics. Most times (I'd say 95%) I ask a question about future career planning to be an academic, the top comment is "Get a job that isn't being an academic - we all hate it here so you probably will as well". I didn't enjoy my time as a software engineer but I didn't go around r/CScareers telling everyone to not aspire to it so what gives? Can anyone explain this? Assistant:

iv6b31u

iv6egkk

One of my professors said that she loves teaching and working with students but doesn't like all of the meetings that go with it.

(This is from a social sciences perspective.) Part of the "hidden curriculum" is that it's, roughly speaking, a two-tier system. Naive low-hopers (e.g., no professor-level parents + network) get sucked in, with great idealism, thinking if they're talented and work hard enough (for someone in Tier 1) it'll be like they see it is for people in Tier 1, the people giving cool keynotes about their research, who have the grant money and resources and enough slaves to create work-life balance for themselves etc. But most people won't end up in Tier 1, and discover that Tier 2 is constant stress, overwork, ongoing humiliation, moral injury, a waste of your life, burnout, a truly systemically awful leadership class, and so on. But the next problem is that Tier 2 people get stuck - or aren't aware of their alternatives - after massive investment and sacrifice on their part. They might be terrified to lose their job if they've managed to get anything at all. So it's a dream turned nightmare you can't escape, hence the loathing. And some people in Tier 2, or decent people in Tier 1 with self-awareness, want to warn the next generation of victims. In contrast, people in Tier 1, or in Tier 2 who still aspire to be Tier 1, have an inherent conflict with that because they need fresh PhD students and postdocs to do the actual scientific work for them. So I think that explains a fair bit of the dynamics you see.

yn00te

askacademia_train

Human: Why do academics seem to loath their profession? This isn't a hard and fast rule but I've observed there seems to be an above average dislike for ones profession among academics. Most times (I'd say 95%) I ask a question about future career planning to be an academic, the top comment is "Get a job that isn't being an academic - we all hate it here so you probably will as well". I didn't enjoy my time as a software engineer but I didn't go around r/CScareers telling everyone to not aspire to it so what gives? Can anyone explain this? Assistant:

iv6bp3v

iv6cnct

In academia you tend to sit on temporary contracts and projects, and you always have this "carrot" in front of you that the next publication, or next grant application will booster your career if you work hard enough (meaning working late or on weekends), but it seldom does and people become frustrated. In industry you can switch positions more easily and permanent positions are available. Your career is less dependant on lucky observations and luck with publishing.

The thing that gnawed on my advisor was that If he had a losing streak on grants for a few years where he was ONLY in the top 85 percent and not top 90 percent, he would have to fire his staff and destroy the career trajectory of his students and postdocs. And it would be his fault for failing to run a successful lab.

yn00te

askacademia_train

Human: Why do academics seem to loath their profession? This isn't a hard and fast rule but I've observed there seems to be an above average dislike for ones profession among academics. Most times (I'd say 95%) I ask a question about future career planning to be an academic, the top comment is "Get a job that isn't being an academic - we all hate it here so you probably will as well". I didn't enjoy my time as a software engineer but I didn't go around r/CScareers telling everyone to not aspire to it so what gives? Can anyone explain this? Assistant:

iv6b31u

iv6cnct

One of my professors said that she loves teaching and working with students but doesn't like all of the meetings that go with it.

The thing that gnawed on my advisor was that If he had a losing streak on grants for a few years where he was ONLY in the top 85 percent and not top 90 percent, he would have to fire his staff and destroy the career trajectory of his students and postdocs. And it would be his fault for failing to run a successful lab.

yn00te

askacademia_train

Human: Why do academics seem to loath their profession? This isn't a hard and fast rule but I've observed there seems to be an above average dislike for ones profession among academics. Most times (I'd say 95%) I ask a question about future career planning to be an academic, the top comment is "Get a job that isn't being an academic - we all hate it here so you probably will as well". I didn't enjoy my time as a software engineer but I didn't go around r/CScareers telling everyone to not aspire to it so what gives? Can anyone explain this? Assistant:

iv6ylgx

iv6bp3v

I think the core of this is that PhD students have an inaccurate view of what their work life will be like. Often they went to elite colleges for their undergrads and grad studies and they expect to have a career like that of the professors they studied under. Instead, they often struggle to get hired ANYWHERE or end up at a lower-tier school and are then unhappy about the discrepancy between their career expectations and reality. The bitterness is probably a result of the years they dedicated to accomplishing something that isn't what they'd hoped it would be.

In academia you tend to sit on temporary contracts and projects, and you always have this "carrot" in front of you that the next publication, or next grant application will booster your career if you work hard enough (meaning working late or on weekends), but it seldom does and people become frustrated. In industry you can switch positions more easily and permanent positions are available. Your career is less dependant on lucky observations and luck with publishing.

mpfify

askacademia_train

Human: My advisor was sexually inappropriate - how can I get around a letter of recommendation from him for PhD applications? Background: I finished my undergraduate a few years ago. Research was my passion, but this burned me out and I've been too afraid to go back. I'm also not in the US. Long story short, my advisor was a creep to me, I don't want to elaborate in case he's on this subreddit. I know he uses Reddit a lot. I didn't really work with anyone else in the department, and I have no interest in reporting it - it's well known, my department doesn't care. I also don't want to bring this up in a new application, I don't want to seem like I'm slandering someone - and frankly, it's probably irrational, but I'd feel unprofessional talking about it. I'm finally in a place where I want to apply for my PhD, but I don't know how to explain the fact I won't have a letter of reference from the person I did my undergraduate thesis with. I honestly don't even know who else I can ask for a letter from - it's been so long since I left that I don't think any professors would remember me. Does anyone have any idea how I can frame this without it coming off as unprofessional, or like *I* did something to sour the relationship? ​ Thanks Reddit. Assistant:

gua7q6i

gua3i0u

(a) I'm sorry. That is terrible and incredibly inappropriate and wrong. (b) I would request three letters from faculty that know you best beyond the POS faculty member. I'd give them a few weeks notice, full info on your career goals/work, etc., and then build a really, really excellent application letter/all that jazz. I'd think strategically about those letters. Think about what each faculty member could emphasize. When a student of mine asks for letters. I ask them to give me as much detail as possible, what they want to me to emphasize, etc. Best of luck to you and take care

I agree with all the other comments but just want to add if you have been working in the same field that you wabt to go into you can often get a letter of rec from a boss or supervisor from that job. Especially if they have an advanced degree. I wouldn't have it be your only leter of rec but if you need multiple it can be one of them easy.

l8x6rv

askacademia_train

Human: Why does it seem that students who have a science background or are more science-minded tend to do quite well in arts subjects but not vice versa? I was not getting any luck in getting an answer in r/NoStupidQuestions so I thought this would be relevant here I'm currently both a science and arts student and I have noticed this to be quite true in most cases. Arts student will complain about struggling through a math or science requirement, while science students in arts classes tend to fair better I noticed that institutions think this is the case as well as I also noticed that universities will have courses such as "calculus for the social sciences" or "biology for the arts" which is known to be less rigorous than the main calculus/biology class. On the other hand, I don't commonly see them offer "philosophy for the sciences" or "sociology for engineers". If science students wish to take arts classes, they are expected to enroll in the main class Assistant:

glfj41c

glfgsjf

I think part of it is the prerequisite knowledge. For an introductory college humanities class, you need to be able to read, write, and think critically. For even a remedial math class, you need all of the above plus all the math you’ve learned up to that point. Someone who is good at math already has the skills to do well in other fields. They just have to learn domain-specific information. Regardless of your major, everyone will show up to an intro philosophy class with almost no philosophy background. You can’t show up to a calculus class with good critical thinking skills and no math knowledge expecting it to go well. The cumulative nature of math also explains the existence of courses like “calculus for social sciences”. A standard calculus track is teaching you some math you’ll use in your field but also preparing you for more math which is usually the hardest part. If someone doesn’t need more math, they’re better off just learning what they’ll actually need.

My experience is exactly the opposite, speaking as someone who came from the performing arts into science. The so-called “soft skills” I learned in the arts always seems to be in high demand. Conversely, People with strong sciences suffer in the arts greatly, hence the demand for such classes.

l8x6rv

askacademia_train

Human: Why does it seem that students who have a science background or are more science-minded tend to do quite well in arts subjects but not vice versa? I was not getting any luck in getting an answer in r/NoStupidQuestions so I thought this would be relevant here I'm currently both a science and arts student and I have noticed this to be quite true in most cases. Arts student will complain about struggling through a math or science requirement, while science students in arts classes tend to fair better I noticed that institutions think this is the case as well as I also noticed that universities will have courses such as "calculus for the social sciences" or "biology for the arts" which is known to be less rigorous than the main calculus/biology class. On the other hand, I don't commonly see them offer "philosophy for the sciences" or "sociology for engineers". If science students wish to take arts classes, they are expected to enroll in the main class Assistant:

glfht41

glfj41c

The real answer? I hate to say it (and I'm certain I'll be downvoted to hell for this), but as a whole, succeeding in science/math disciplines generally requires more hours, study time, and discipline. As a whole, excellent science students cultivate from an early point in their academic journey that struggling/not understanding something is natural, and learn to push through it. With the humanities/arts, many of those students who take sciences courses may not used to that sudden realization that something makes absolutely no sense, and are likely to immediately self-label themselves in those courses as "not good students" even though they are probably highly capable in those fields as well.

I think part of it is the prerequisite knowledge. For an introductory college humanities class, you need to be able to read, write, and think critically. For even a remedial math class, you need all of the above plus all the math you’ve learned up to that point. Someone who is good at math already has the skills to do well in other fields. They just have to learn domain-specific information. Regardless of your major, everyone will show up to an intro philosophy class with almost no philosophy background. You can’t show up to a calculus class with good critical thinking skills and no math knowledge expecting it to go well. The cumulative nature of math also explains the existence of courses like “calculus for social sciences”. A standard calculus track is teaching you some math you’ll use in your field but also preparing you for more math which is usually the hardest part. If someone doesn’t need more math, they’re better off just learning what they’ll actually need.