What a great analogy for grad school. The shenanigans of treating Ph.D. students as students when it's best for the university and professors that we be students, and as employees when it's best for the university and the professors that we be employees.
Am I a student? Being a student implies that I'm being educated and trained. That I have an advisor to advise me on how to best obtain *my* goals. That I'm being evaluated in some way that will help me learn and prove that I've learned. Being a student somehow implies to me that I will get out of it what I put into it. That I'm the one invested in this endeavor. My success or failure matters a great deal to me, but should only matter to anyone else insofar as how much they care about me. I know, very idealistic.
Being a student also implies paying for that education. And I don't pay. The university does get paid. The "educators" do get paid. But not by me. By grants. Sometimes by grants obtained by me, sometimes by grants obtained by my advisor. And I get paid by these grants, as well.
I get paid, so I'm also an employee. Employees perform services for pay. They typically have contracts. I have a contract. It's a yearly renewed contract that can be cancelled at any time by me or my advisor. It says I work 20 hours per week on research. I have no allotted leave. No sick leave. No vacation leave. None. Zero, zip, zilch. All leave is at the discretion of my advisor. Renewal of my contract is at the discretion of my advisor. All work is at the discretion of my advisor.
My advisor is also an employee. He performs services for pay. He also has a contract, and though I don't know the details, I know the gist. He teaches, does service, and performs research. He is reviewed on his performance in these activities. He now has tenure, so there is little to no chance that his contract will not be renewed. But his performance is still reviewed for promotions and raises. And his career, the opinions of his colleagues, awards, future grants; all these depend on reviews of his performance. As his Ph.D. student and employee, I have little to do with his teaching and service. But I have a lot to do with his research performance.
My advisor is also supposed to be the person who advises me on how to best achieve *my* educational/professional goals. What happens when his goals and my goals no longer align? What happens when it's beneficial for him to keep me toiling away as a senior graduate student, highly productive for his research, but it's not beneficial for me? What happens when it's beneficial for me to take two weeks vacation to try to recover from burnout, but he doesn't see it? What happens when it's beneficial for me to take a course on teaching, but he sees no direct benefit? What happens when it's beneficial for me to spend time looking for jobs, taking trips for interviews, writing grants for those jobs, but it's not beneficial for him? Then what?
What happens when it's beneficial for me to get out from under these shenanigans, in which I'm a student so that the university gets paid, so that I won't leave because I've invested years in trying to get this degree, so that I work 40+ hours per week more than my contract states, yet still get no benefits such as retirement or health care paid or even contracted leave? What happens when I need to be done with that, but it's not in my advisor's and employer's best interest?
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
"Library" research
A post over at Uncertain Principles got me thinking about "library" research. What I mean by library research is really literature research, but it's called library research in the post, so I figured I'd keep the same nomenclature. "Library" is in quotes because somehow that seems to convey the sentiment that, in doing literature research, one does everything possible to avoid having to actually, physically, go to the library. And when one finds that the physical library is the only way to access certain information, one often starts to seriously reconsider if that information is all that essential. (Even worse if one finds the information must be ordered from another library, thus creating a delay in information access, in addition to having to physically go to the library.) But I digress.
What I really wanted to say about library research is that I don't understand why I was never taught how to do it correctly. I mean, how hard is it to explain that there are these things called "peer-reviewed journals" and they contain the acceptable articles to reference? And even more explicitly, when opening yourself up to a new research topic, there are things called "review articles" that are usually the best way to get started. There you go, library research, taught in two sentences.
But wait, there are some potential problems with that simplification. Firstly, there are books, which are usually not formally peer-reviewed. And I suspect books play a much more important role in humanities and social science research than in STEM research. Secondly, how does one find these peer-reviewed journals and indentify them from the rest of the vast internet of information? Is there a generally applicable solution to these problems?
For books, the answer seems to be, if it's accessible in the library, it's probably legit enough to reference. Obviously, that answer is more for undergrads doing class projects rather than researchers looking for answers. When you're really looking for answers (rather than just trying to make an A), it seems you intuitively acquire a more refined b-s detector. Ideally, you use the information that appears legitimate and useful, you reject information only if you have a legitimate reason to do so, and you file away questionable information for later. Non-ideally, you just believe what supports your thesis and reject what does not. Or cite the crap and cite what's wrong with it. Whichever.
As for how you find and identify peer-reviewed journals? Well, I do my literature searches in Pub-Med and on ISI Web of Knowledge/Science, and that works for me. And I look up articles cited by other articles in peer-reviewed journals. And that keeps me on track. But what of other fields? I've heard Google Scholar is nice, but I've never used it myself. Are there databases for humanities and social science? I also wonder if there is a statement on peer-reviewed journals' websites or journal hard-copies that states that these journals are peer reviewed? Maybe the best bet is to ask someone in the general field how they do their literature searches.
At least, that's how I learned about this stuff. I learned about the databases I use in graduate school, simply as offhand information offered in converstaion with profs and other students. That's also how I learned about the distinction between peer-reviewed articles and the general internet-information rif-raf. And when I typed some keywords from my thesis topic into those databases and was overwhelmed with the 1000+ articles, I asked my advisor, how the heck do I get a handle on all this literature? And he told me the common sense thing, which was start with the most recent review article and work backwards into the interesting references. But why didn't I learn any of this stuff earlier?
I thought part of the answer to why I didn't learn good literature research techniques earlier was that the internet was still debuting when I was an undergrad (1998-2002). But turns out PubMed has been around since 1996. ISI Web of Knowledge did launch in 2002, so at least my excuse is valid there. (What did non-bio-x scientists do before ISI?) So in reality, online access to journals was still developing when I was an undergrad, and I was being taught cutting edge research techniques in my 1998 college orientation class when I was taught to use the computer-based card-catalog at my college library. I guess the internet really changed things.
Another way the internet changed things? Pre-internet, it was a lot harder to even find information in any source other than peer-reviewed journals and library accessible books. So, I guess I can't place too much blame on my college educators for why I didn't learn to do "library" research the way it should be done in 2010.
The moral of the story? If you're trying to do legitimate research in a field, ask someone in the field how they get started. In science, ISI Web of Knowledge and PubMed (for bio-anything) are the best starting points. Start with the most recent review articles if you can find them, and work backwards into the references. Once you have a handle on the subject, you can generate more specific search terms and can scan other titles to find interesting articles. And that's how "library" research is done. At least in 2010.
What I really wanted to say about library research is that I don't understand why I was never taught how to do it correctly. I mean, how hard is it to explain that there are these things called "peer-reviewed journals" and they contain the acceptable articles to reference? And even more explicitly, when opening yourself up to a new research topic, there are things called "review articles" that are usually the best way to get started. There you go, library research, taught in two sentences.
But wait, there are some potential problems with that simplification. Firstly, there are books, which are usually not formally peer-reviewed. And I suspect books play a much more important role in humanities and social science research than in STEM research. Secondly, how does one find these peer-reviewed journals and indentify them from the rest of the vast internet of information? Is there a generally applicable solution to these problems?
For books, the answer seems to be, if it's accessible in the library, it's probably legit enough to reference. Obviously, that answer is more for undergrads doing class projects rather than researchers looking for answers. When you're really looking for answers (rather than just trying to make an A), it seems you intuitively acquire a more refined b-s detector. Ideally, you use the information that appears legitimate and useful, you reject information only if you have a legitimate reason to do so, and you file away questionable information for later. Non-ideally, you just believe what supports your thesis and reject what does not. Or cite the crap and cite what's wrong with it. Whichever.
As for how you find and identify peer-reviewed journals? Well, I do my literature searches in Pub-Med and on ISI Web of Knowledge/Science, and that works for me. And I look up articles cited by other articles in peer-reviewed journals. And that keeps me on track. But what of other fields? I've heard Google Scholar is nice, but I've never used it myself. Are there databases for humanities and social science? I also wonder if there is a statement on peer-reviewed journals' websites or journal hard-copies that states that these journals are peer reviewed? Maybe the best bet is to ask someone in the general field how they do their literature searches.
At least, that's how I learned about this stuff. I learned about the databases I use in graduate school, simply as offhand information offered in converstaion with profs and other students. That's also how I learned about the distinction between peer-reviewed articles and the general internet-information rif-raf. And when I typed some keywords from my thesis topic into those databases and was overwhelmed with the 1000+ articles, I asked my advisor, how the heck do I get a handle on all this literature? And he told me the common sense thing, which was start with the most recent review article and work backwards into the interesting references. But why didn't I learn any of this stuff earlier?
I thought part of the answer to why I didn't learn good literature research techniques earlier was that the internet was still debuting when I was an undergrad (1998-2002). But turns out PubMed has been around since 1996. ISI Web of Knowledge did launch in 2002, so at least my excuse is valid there. (What did non-bio-x scientists do before ISI?) So in reality, online access to journals was still developing when I was an undergrad, and I was being taught cutting edge research techniques in my 1998 college orientation class when I was taught to use the computer-based card-catalog at my college library. I guess the internet really changed things.
Another way the internet changed things? Pre-internet, it was a lot harder to even find information in any source other than peer-reviewed journals and library accessible books. So, I guess I can't place too much blame on my college educators for why I didn't learn to do "library" research the way it should be done in 2010.
The moral of the story? If you're trying to do legitimate research in a field, ask someone in the field how they get started. In science, ISI Web of Knowledge and PubMed (for bio-anything) are the best starting points. Start with the most recent review articles if you can find them, and work backwards into the references. Once you have a handle on the subject, you can generate more specific search terms and can scan other titles to find interesting articles. And that's how "library" research is done. At least in 2010.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Fair's fair?
I just followed a trail of bread crumbs about science and graduate school, beginning with Ph.D. training as a Ponzi scheme, meandering through The Real Science Gap, what's socially wrong with science, Something Deeply Wrong with Chemistry, something's wrong with this lab and it's not atypical, and finally jumping off that miserable, depressing trail to end with the upbeat, (and totally naive) Drawings of Scientists by 7th graders. By the end, when I read what the 7th graders wrote about the scientists being normal, happy people who lead normal, happy lives, I really wanted to cry (and also, tell those poor 7th graders "Don't believe it!").
Sigh...
What does it mean?
First, it's depressing.
But, then, I also note in the comments a few statements like "Sounds like the video game industry," or "Sounds like computer programming."
Is this just the way it is? The way it has to be? Is this as fair as it's ever going to get? What's fair? And for that matter, what's best?
Is it fair (or best) that young people (20-40 years old) work very hard for low pay in order to keep technology chugging along at a reasonable pace? Our hard work and low pay makes far more discovery and productivity possible than if we worked fewer hours and demanded higher pay. Right?
Is it fair (or best) that only a small percentage of us can make it to slightly cushier jobs, with some amount of financial payoff, job security and benefits? Surely that's the only way to ensure that only the cream-of-the-crop rise to the top and make the big, high-level decisions about what lines of research to pursue and how to spend the precious research dollars. Right?
And what of the remaining bright, inquisitive, scientific minds that refuse to live that life for long enough to rise to the top, or get a little unlucky somewhere along the way, or just don't make it into the top few percent? Is it right (or best) that they end up un- or under-employed, or working their entire lives like the 20-40 yr old "youngsters" with low pay, no security, few benefits, and ridiculous hours?
Or is it possible that a better way could be found? Could there be a system where bright scientific minds could find financial reward, job security, benefits and reasonable hours as well as intellecutally stimulating, rewarding jobs that also better maximize their contributions, and maybe that they could find these jobs at as early of an age as, say, 22? Is that what you get when you skip the Ph.D. and just join industry right out of college? Or do you get more of the same - high expectations for low pay and some distant possibility of moving up to financial reward, security, and the possibility of intellectual contribution?
Sigh...
What does it mean?
First, it's depressing.
But, then, I also note in the comments a few statements like "Sounds like the video game industry," or "Sounds like computer programming."
Is this just the way it is? The way it has to be? Is this as fair as it's ever going to get? What's fair? And for that matter, what's best?
Is it fair (or best) that young people (20-40 years old) work very hard for low pay in order to keep technology chugging along at a reasonable pace? Our hard work and low pay makes far more discovery and productivity possible than if we worked fewer hours and demanded higher pay. Right?
Is it fair (or best) that only a small percentage of us can make it to slightly cushier jobs, with some amount of financial payoff, job security and benefits? Surely that's the only way to ensure that only the cream-of-the-crop rise to the top and make the big, high-level decisions about what lines of research to pursue and how to spend the precious research dollars. Right?
And what of the remaining bright, inquisitive, scientific minds that refuse to live that life for long enough to rise to the top, or get a little unlucky somewhere along the way, or just don't make it into the top few percent? Is it right (or best) that they end up un- or under-employed, or working their entire lives like the 20-40 yr old "youngsters" with low pay, no security, few benefits, and ridiculous hours?
Or is it possible that a better way could be found? Could there be a system where bright scientific minds could find financial reward, job security, benefits and reasonable hours as well as intellecutally stimulating, rewarding jobs that also better maximize their contributions, and maybe that they could find these jobs at as early of an age as, say, 22? Is that what you get when you skip the Ph.D. and just join industry right out of college? Or do you get more of the same - high expectations for low pay and some distant possibility of moving up to financial reward, security, and the possibility of intellectual contribution?
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Can I achieve a balanced life and work 60 hrs/week?
During my Ph.D., like most people, I've worked a lot of long hours. At first, maybe I worked long hours because I felt pressure from my advisor. Later, I worked long hours because I wanted to get things done. In any case, I worked long hours. And I did not succeed at achieving the kind of balance I'd like in my life.
For a long time, I worked, played hard, and took reasonably good care of myself and my personal priorities. All, of course, at the expense of my sleep. As time passed and I got older, sleep became a bigger and bigger priority; 4-6 hours a night wasn't cutting it. Pretty soon, things started dropping out of my life so that I could get more sleep and continue to work those long hours. Soon, I was barely "playing" at all, I was never exercising, I was making quick, unhealthy food choices, and I was neglecting other personal priorities (family obligations, friends, hobbies). I started to physically and emotionally feel weak, fragile, tired, and eventually, depressed. The depression began to affect my work, and I realized I needed to back off, recover, and take better care of myself. Recently, I've done that, but definitely at the expense of those work hours.
As I look to the future and think about what kind of job to look for next, I think about those long hours, and I wonder, can I work those kind of hours and achieve balance? If I feel pressure to work 60 hours a week, that means 12 hours a day Monday thru Friday, or 10 hours a day Monday thru Saturday. I've always thought I preferred the 12 hours a day Monday thru Friday, so that Saturday can be a fun day, and Sunday can be a day to get stuff done (laundry, cleaning, grocery shopping).
So, if I work 12 hours a day, sleep 8 hours, eat 2 hours, spend 1 hour on personal hygiene, exercise 1 hour, and commute 1 hour, that adds up to 25 hours. Crap, I'm already over 24 hours. And that's without even adding a single moment for family and friends, hobbies, winding down before bed. And it's lumping all the daily chores into the eating and personal hygiene category. And still, I couldn't do it, not even theoretically. And I really don't want to cut any of that out. I could sleep 7 hours, or I could eat every meal but dinner at my desk (including breakfast). But you know what? I don't want to. I don't want to sleep less; I don't want to wolf down my breakfast and lunch at my desk. And I don't want to cut out every moment of possible time to spend on family, friends, hobbies, or winding down. So, working 12 hours a day is not something I want to do.
What about trying the 10 hours 6 days a week? Then I could actually fit my whole list into my day, with 1 hour to spare for family, friends, hobbies, or winding down. And I'd have 1 day left in my week to do everything else - anything fun, all cleaning, laundry, shopping, any family, friend, or hobby time that wouldn't fit into that spare hour I had during my week. You know what? That's shitty.
So do I want to work 60 hours a week? No. No matter how awesomely I am in love with my work, I don't want to do it at the expense of my health. And I've learned that my health depends on having that list of activities in my life. I need sleep; I need time to eat healthily; I need time to exercise; I need time for personal hygiene; and I need personal time for family, friends, fun, and chores. Does that make me a bad person? Does that make me uncommitted to my work? No. No, it doesn't.
It does make me question the supervisors demanding 60 hours a week. I honestly think they're demanding their employees live an unhealthy, unbalanced, unsustainable lifestyle. But hey, if people will do it, why not?
And it makes me wonder, how the heck do parents even begin to do everything I'm doing, plus take care of their kids? Obvious answer: they get no sleep. Sigh. My desire for kids is getting more and more hypothetical.
For a long time, I worked, played hard, and took reasonably good care of myself and my personal priorities. All, of course, at the expense of my sleep. As time passed and I got older, sleep became a bigger and bigger priority; 4-6 hours a night wasn't cutting it. Pretty soon, things started dropping out of my life so that I could get more sleep and continue to work those long hours. Soon, I was barely "playing" at all, I was never exercising, I was making quick, unhealthy food choices, and I was neglecting other personal priorities (family obligations, friends, hobbies). I started to physically and emotionally feel weak, fragile, tired, and eventually, depressed. The depression began to affect my work, and I realized I needed to back off, recover, and take better care of myself. Recently, I've done that, but definitely at the expense of those work hours.
As I look to the future and think about what kind of job to look for next, I think about those long hours, and I wonder, can I work those kind of hours and achieve balance? If I feel pressure to work 60 hours a week, that means 12 hours a day Monday thru Friday, or 10 hours a day Monday thru Saturday. I've always thought I preferred the 12 hours a day Monday thru Friday, so that Saturday can be a fun day, and Sunday can be a day to get stuff done (laundry, cleaning, grocery shopping).
So, if I work 12 hours a day, sleep 8 hours, eat 2 hours, spend 1 hour on personal hygiene, exercise 1 hour, and commute 1 hour, that adds up to 25 hours. Crap, I'm already over 24 hours. And that's without even adding a single moment for family and friends, hobbies, winding down before bed. And it's lumping all the daily chores into the eating and personal hygiene category. And still, I couldn't do it, not even theoretically. And I really don't want to cut any of that out. I could sleep 7 hours, or I could eat every meal but dinner at my desk (including breakfast). But you know what? I don't want to. I don't want to sleep less; I don't want to wolf down my breakfast and lunch at my desk. And I don't want to cut out every moment of possible time to spend on family, friends, hobbies, or winding down. So, working 12 hours a day is not something I want to do.
What about trying the 10 hours 6 days a week? Then I could actually fit my whole list into my day, with 1 hour to spare for family, friends, hobbies, or winding down. And I'd have 1 day left in my week to do everything else - anything fun, all cleaning, laundry, shopping, any family, friend, or hobby time that wouldn't fit into that spare hour I had during my week. You know what? That's shitty.
So do I want to work 60 hours a week? No. No matter how awesomely I am in love with my work, I don't want to do it at the expense of my health. And I've learned that my health depends on having that list of activities in my life. I need sleep; I need time to eat healthily; I need time to exercise; I need time for personal hygiene; and I need personal time for family, friends, fun, and chores. Does that make me a bad person? Does that make me uncommitted to my work? No. No, it doesn't.
It does make me question the supervisors demanding 60 hours a week. I honestly think they're demanding their employees live an unhealthy, unbalanced, unsustainable lifestyle. But hey, if people will do it, why not?
And it makes me wonder, how the heck do parents even begin to do everything I'm doing, plus take care of their kids? Obvious answer: they get no sleep. Sigh. My desire for kids is getting more and more hypothetical.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Student = Customer? Not really
My comment on a post at FSP.
Let's not forget that professors and universities are not only about teaching students, they are also about *evaluating* students. A few other commenters have touched on this point. Sure, students can go learn calculus on the internet and put a line on their resume that they can do calculus like a mo-fo, but do we just want to trust them on that? This discussion reminds me of the line in "Good Will Hunting" where Will makes fun of the Harvard guy for paying a half million dollars for an education he could've gotten for $1.99 at the public library.
And, as has been mentioned, the community and networking developed during college is perhaps just as important as the classroom education. The stats for getting a job definitely support the whole "it's who you know" adage. Not that you get hired by your buddies, but that people like to hire people who come with a recommendation they can trust.
True, online courses are a different beast from simply teaching yourself from a book or the internet. An online course does have exams and means of evaluating the student. And I think it's wonderful that these courses have become available for people who may need a more flexible learning environment because they're working and/or dealing with family commitments. But, I don't think you can replace the learning community and networking opportunities available at a real, physical college campus.
Let's not forget that professors and universities are not only about teaching students, they are also about *evaluating* students. A few other commenters have touched on this point. Sure, students can go learn calculus on the internet and put a line on their resume that they can do calculus like a mo-fo, but do we just want to trust them on that? This discussion reminds me of the line in "Good Will Hunting" where Will makes fun of the Harvard guy for paying a half million dollars for an education he could've gotten for $1.99 at the public library.
And, as has been mentioned, the community and networking developed during college is perhaps just as important as the classroom education. The stats for getting a job definitely support the whole "it's who you know" adage. Not that you get hired by your buddies, but that people like to hire people who come with a recommendation they can trust.
True, online courses are a different beast from simply teaching yourself from a book or the internet. An online course does have exams and means of evaluating the student. And I think it's wonderful that these courses have become available for people who may need a more flexible learning environment because they're working and/or dealing with family commitments. But, I don't think you can replace the learning community and networking opportunities available at a real, physical college campus.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Hilarity. And an excellent point.
This is too awesome to not repost:
A comment from steph on a post at FSP
I can't tell you how hard I was laughing by the end of the "aspergers" paragraph. Awesome.
A comment from steph on a post at FSP
steph said...
Instead of obsessing about this kind of stuff, science should be thinking about how it can KEEP the women who can compete with the oh so wonderfully smart men, but leave science for OTHER reasons. Yeah, we should do something at all levels, but there are tons of women who have proven their skills at the BS or PhD level who still end up leaving science. Why not focus more on keeping them?
Oh, because "real" scientists if devote 80 hours a week to it and give up on the idea of having a family and a life outside of science. So, women are just "choosing" to not be scientists....AS SCIENTISTS ARE CURRENTLY DEFINED. If you broadened your definitions and made the scientific culture more accepting of all people who love science and are good at it and put in an effort to succeed, I bet you'd catch more flies/women/minorities/men who aren't crazy aspergers.
Sure that is just my opinion from my experience, but tell me you all haven't seen the same thing?
I can't tell you how hard I was laughing by the end of the "aspergers" paragraph. Awesome.
What should I be when I grow up?
When I fall asleep at night, I like to fantasize about my future, usually at least 3 years down the road. It has to be multiple years into the future, or else I get stressed about something I should be doing right now to make that future happen. But I find 3 years is far enough to feel like lots can change, and I can feel free to get a good nights sleep.
In undergrad, I remember fantasizing about grad school. I fantasized about teaching a classroom full of cool students who all loved me (haha :) and I fantasized about brief periods of staying up all night to push through an important aspect of a project. The fantasy included the super-tired but accomplished feeling I would have afterwards as I finally got to fall into bed, exhausted. Turned out, I never taught in grad school, and I'm still waiting for that final accomplishment of a submitted 1st author paper.
As a young grad student, I fantasized about my talents finally being recognized and my hard work finally paying off. I fantasized about giving talks and publishing papers that wowed people, and finally made my advisor think I was smart and good.
As a slightly older grad student, I gave up that dream and fantasized about going to be a post doc somewhere, where my new advisor would appreciate me and my talents, and my hard work would pay off with fantastic papers and talks. And my new advisor would run into my old advisor at a conference, and talk about how amazing I was, and my old advisor wouldn't know what to say.
I also like to fantasize about further down the road, sometimes with more fantastical scenarios. The most common fantasy involves me being an award-winning, best-selling author. In this fantasy, I write amazing fiction novels as well as non-fiction pieces about science and education. I write in my home office with my 2 golden retrievers loyally at my side. And I make boatloads of money because I'm an award-winning and best-selling author, obviously. Ahhh....Lately I've been combining the author fantasy with a teaching fantasy where I also teach at a respected undergrad institution. Sometimes I can get excited about doing a little experimental research on the side in this fantasy, but sometimes I can't.
One of my more hilarious fantasies involved me being recruited as a spy after my Ph.D. graduation. In this fantasy, I'm whipped into shape by government gurus who recognize my potential and somehow my biophysicsy background is perfect for their spying needs. I also get paid boatloads of money, with tons of benefits such as excellent health-care, paid travel, a huge wardrobe budget, and amazing housing provided via the government. That was a very fun and hilarious fantasy.
But in seriousness, I'm trying to think about these fantasies and what they might mean in regards to what I should actually try to do after I graduate. I recognize the common thread of wanting boatloads of money, but I think that's more about security than anything else. So I really just need to make enough money to be relatively financially secure. I recognize a teaching thread, and I really think I should pursue that. Trouble is, teaching is one of the worst paid jobs out there. The writing fantasy is great, but unless it's combined with an actual paid job, it does not grant financial security. (The whole best-selling, award-winning thing is a little hard to guarantee.) And I wonder about the experimental research aversion. Is it just because it's been soooooo hard in grad school? I keep thinking maybe it will be better in a different lab with a different group and different project. I do like problem solving...But I worry any pull I feel toward experimental research is more because of expectations. I'm expected to go do experimental research because that's what I've been trained in for the last several years. I'm expected to do experimental research because that's much higher paid than teaching. I'm expected to do experimental research because that's what people do after a science Ph.D.
But what if I hate banging my head against a wall?
In undergrad, I remember fantasizing about grad school. I fantasized about teaching a classroom full of cool students who all loved me (haha :) and I fantasized about brief periods of staying up all night to push through an important aspect of a project. The fantasy included the super-tired but accomplished feeling I would have afterwards as I finally got to fall into bed, exhausted. Turned out, I never taught in grad school, and I'm still waiting for that final accomplishment of a submitted 1st author paper.
As a young grad student, I fantasized about my talents finally being recognized and my hard work finally paying off. I fantasized about giving talks and publishing papers that wowed people, and finally made my advisor think I was smart and good.
As a slightly older grad student, I gave up that dream and fantasized about going to be a post doc somewhere, where my new advisor would appreciate me and my talents, and my hard work would pay off with fantastic papers and talks. And my new advisor would run into my old advisor at a conference, and talk about how amazing I was, and my old advisor wouldn't know what to say.
I also like to fantasize about further down the road, sometimes with more fantastical scenarios. The most common fantasy involves me being an award-winning, best-selling author. In this fantasy, I write amazing fiction novels as well as non-fiction pieces about science and education. I write in my home office with my 2 golden retrievers loyally at my side. And I make boatloads of money because I'm an award-winning and best-selling author, obviously. Ahhh....Lately I've been combining the author fantasy with a teaching fantasy where I also teach at a respected undergrad institution. Sometimes I can get excited about doing a little experimental research on the side in this fantasy, but sometimes I can't.
One of my more hilarious fantasies involved me being recruited as a spy after my Ph.D. graduation. In this fantasy, I'm whipped into shape by government gurus who recognize my potential and somehow my biophysicsy background is perfect for their spying needs. I also get paid boatloads of money, with tons of benefits such as excellent health-care, paid travel, a huge wardrobe budget, and amazing housing provided via the government. That was a very fun and hilarious fantasy.
But in seriousness, I'm trying to think about these fantasies and what they might mean in regards to what I should actually try to do after I graduate. I recognize the common thread of wanting boatloads of money, but I think that's more about security than anything else. So I really just need to make enough money to be relatively financially secure. I recognize a teaching thread, and I really think I should pursue that. Trouble is, teaching is one of the worst paid jobs out there. The writing fantasy is great, but unless it's combined with an actual paid job, it does not grant financial security. (The whole best-selling, award-winning thing is a little hard to guarantee.) And I wonder about the experimental research aversion. Is it just because it's been soooooo hard in grad school? I keep thinking maybe it will be better in a different lab with a different group and different project. I do like problem solving...But I worry any pull I feel toward experimental research is more because of expectations. I'm expected to go do experimental research because that's what I've been trained in for the last several years. I'm expected to do experimental research because that's much higher paid than teaching. I'm expected to do experimental research because that's what people do after a science Ph.D.
But what if I hate banging my head against a wall?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
