text
stringlengths 82
12k
|
|---|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
I agree with the other comment about funding, but I'd also add that I feel like a contract of some kind would be so useful. Some places already do this, and there's no reason that everywhere can't adopt this. A huge amount of my PhD stress came from being in this weird in-between not-a-student-not-staff liminal space. I needed credits to graduate but couldn't enroll in modules because I wasn't a student. I was teaching and responsible for printing assessment and exams but couldn't use the staff printers (for free) because I'm not staff. I, too, constantly had a barrage of admin screw ups often because they didn't know what to do with me. I'm not staff so I can't be enrolled with HR, but because I can't be enrolled with HR I can't receive payslips or payment, which meant I couldn't be paid for teaching. But I was teaching. It took nearly a month to get payment going but I was still not staff and still not able to get payslips. A contract outlining expectations and entitlements, and also just generally clarifying our role for administration would be incredibly useful.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
I agree with the other comment about funding, but I'd also add that I feel like a contract of some kind would be so useful. Some places already do this, and there's no reason that everywhere can't adopt this. A huge amount of my PhD stress came from being in this weird in-between not-a-student-not-staff liminal space. I needed credits to graduate but couldn't enroll in modules because I wasn't a student. I was teaching and responsible for printing assessment and exams but couldn't use the staff printers (for free) because I'm not staff. I, too, constantly had a barrage of admin screw ups often because they didn't know what to do with me. I'm not staff so I can't be enrolled with HR, but because I can't be enrolled with HR I can't receive payslips or payment, which meant I couldn't be paid for teaching. But I was teaching. It took nearly a month to get payment going but I was still not staff and still not able to get payslips. A contract outlining expectations and entitlements, and also just generally clarifying our role for administration would be incredibly useful.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
For starters, have proper bloody funding. I mean like £25k-£30k or more per year of funding and for more than a select few PhDs so they can actually focus on their work rather than having to earn money alongside it/panicking about not having any money. That would be fair and reflect how PhDs are treated across Europe and the US. PhDs do cutting edge work that is the lifeblood of university departments. The system should give them the financial backing they deserve. Then people like me (who would find working alongside doing a PhD very hard if not impossible because of my mental health) would be able to pursue a PhD.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
UCU is mounting a 'PGRs as staff' campaign to have PhD students treated as staff which would hopefully result in guaranteed employment protections, access to paid leave for sickness/ holidays, and clearer structure and supervision of their research. Given my own and my peers' experiences, it's a long time coming. With mental health, finances, family issues and the difficulties caused by international status, hopefully the worst impacts could be mitigated by something like this. https://www.ucu.org.uk/pgr-manifesto-launch Also, if you're a PhD student in the UK, I would fully recommend joining UCU, and you can do so for free.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
don't just assume thesis advisors know how to manage people. most of them are absolutely horrible at it. literally don't give them the choice and say 'if you're going to be a professor you need to go through this manadatory training'. One of my former bosses was the kind of person where people would ask 'what's he like to work for?' and you know and they know the answer is never 'oh he's just as awesome as everyone says'. but when he became my group lead they had this policy where new group leads had to go through training through the business school. In about six months or maybe less a LOT of his rough edges had come off and I actually started learning some useful management skills from him third hand.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
A whole culture change. Pursuing a PhD becomes completely consuming and leaves little room for friends, family, hobbies and self-care. Too many PhDs I know gave up their health, their relationships, homes and so forth because of their work. This means that their entire identity (which for most people includes everything above) gets wrapped up in their work so when their work fails, their identity is that of failure. Isolated from home, family and friends, and add bad physical health, it would be shocking to hear that their mental health didn’t decline. Students are thrown into these projects often completely alone, with little guidance or help. Many labs do not have a sense of community and don’t function like a team. Everyone has their own project and that means that failures and successes are not likely shared. That’s great for successes as you don’t have to share first authorship and gives you ownership over your work but it’s miserable in failures and is incredibly isolating. The best projects I’ve worked on were ones that were collaborative. I shared first authorship but when the experiments failed, it wasn’t “my” fault. It was “our” fault and just that small change made a world of difference. It also meant I had more time for myself because I could share the workload. My colleague did all the cell culture experiments and I did all the mouse work and western blotting. Papers got published quicker. I wasn’t stuck doing something I hate and am terrible at (cell culture) and neither was my colleague (who hates animal work). We played to our strengths. This is how science should be now. The projects are too big these days to leave on the shoulders of one 25 year old. It’s absurd.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
A whole culture change. Pursuing a PhD becomes completely consuming and leaves little room for friends, family, hobbies and self-care. Too many PhDs I know gave up their health, their relationships, homes and so forth because of their work. This means that their entire identity (which for most people includes everything above) gets wrapped up in their work so when their work fails, their identity is that of failure. Isolated from home, family and friends, and add bad physical health, it would be shocking to hear that their mental health didn’t decline. Students are thrown into these projects often completely alone, with little guidance or help. Many labs do not have a sense of community and don’t function like a team. Everyone has their own project and that means that failures and successes are not likely shared. That’s great for successes as you don’t have to share first authorship and gives you ownership over your work but it’s miserable in failures and is incredibly isolating. The best projects I’ve worked on were ones that were collaborative. I shared first authorship but when the experiments failed, it wasn’t “my” fault. It was “our” fault and just that small change made a world of difference. It also meant I had more time for myself because I could share the workload. My colleague did all the cell culture experiments and I did all the mouse work and western blotting. Papers got published quicker. I wasn’t stuck doing something I hate and am terrible at (cell culture) and neither was my colleague (who hates animal work). We played to our strengths. This is how science should be now. The projects are too big these days to leave on the shoulders of one 25 year old. It’s absurd.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
A whole culture change. Pursuing a PhD becomes completely consuming and leaves little room for friends, family, hobbies and self-care. Too many PhDs I know gave up their health, their relationships, homes and so forth because of their work. This means that their entire identity (which for most people includes everything above) gets wrapped up in their work so when their work fails, their identity is that of failure. Isolated from home, family and friends, and add bad physical health, it would be shocking to hear that their mental health didn’t decline. Students are thrown into these projects often completely alone, with little guidance or help. Many labs do not have a sense of community and don’t function like a team. Everyone has their own project and that means that failures and successes are not likely shared. That’s great for successes as you don’t have to share first authorship and gives you ownership over your work but it’s miserable in failures and is incredibly isolating. The best projects I’ve worked on were ones that were collaborative. I shared first authorship but when the experiments failed, it wasn’t “my” fault. It was “our” fault and just that small change made a world of difference. It also meant I had more time for myself because I could share the workload. My colleague did all the cell culture experiments and I did all the mouse work and western blotting. Papers got published quicker. I wasn’t stuck doing something I hate and am terrible at (cell culture) and neither was my colleague (who hates animal work). We played to our strengths. This is how science should be now. The projects are too big these days to leave on the shoulders of one 25 year old. It’s absurd.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
A whole culture change. Pursuing a PhD becomes completely consuming and leaves little room for friends, family, hobbies and self-care. Too many PhDs I know gave up their health, their relationships, homes and so forth because of their work. This means that their entire identity (which for most people includes everything above) gets wrapped up in their work so when their work fails, their identity is that of failure. Isolated from home, family and friends, and add bad physical health, it would be shocking to hear that their mental health didn’t decline. Students are thrown into these projects often completely alone, with little guidance or help. Many labs do not have a sense of community and don’t function like a team. Everyone has their own project and that means that failures and successes are not likely shared. That’s great for successes as you don’t have to share first authorship and gives you ownership over your work but it’s miserable in failures and is incredibly isolating. The best projects I’ve worked on were ones that were collaborative. I shared first authorship but when the experiments failed, it wasn’t “my” fault. It was “our” fault and just that small change made a world of difference. It also meant I had more time for myself because I could share the workload. My colleague did all the cell culture experiments and I did all the mouse work and western blotting. Papers got published quicker. I wasn’t stuck doing something I hate and am terrible at (cell culture) and neither was my colleague (who hates animal work). We played to our strengths. This is how science should be now. The projects are too big these days to leave on the shoulders of one 25 year old. It’s absurd.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
A whole culture change. Pursuing a PhD becomes completely consuming and leaves little room for friends, family, hobbies and self-care. Too many PhDs I know gave up their health, their relationships, homes and so forth because of their work. This means that their entire identity (which for most people includes everything above) gets wrapped up in their work so when their work fails, their identity is that of failure. Isolated from home, family and friends, and add bad physical health, it would be shocking to hear that their mental health didn’t decline. Students are thrown into these projects often completely alone, with little guidance or help. Many labs do not have a sense of community and don’t function like a team. Everyone has their own project and that means that failures and successes are not likely shared. That’s great for successes as you don’t have to share first authorship and gives you ownership over your work but it’s miserable in failures and is incredibly isolating. The best projects I’ve worked on were ones that were collaborative. I shared first authorship but when the experiments failed, it wasn’t “my” fault. It was “our” fault and just that small change made a world of difference. It also meant I had more time for myself because I could share the workload. My colleague did all the cell culture experiments and I did all the mouse work and western blotting. Papers got published quicker. I wasn’t stuck doing something I hate and am terrible at (cell culture) and neither was my colleague (who hates animal work). We played to our strengths. This is how science should be now. The projects are too big these days to leave on the shoulders of one 25 year old. It’s absurd.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
From the article, referring to a study: >40 per cent of PhD students based at UK universities could be “at high risk of suicide” according to the findings of a survey that interviewed 1,263 respondents. Chronic stress levels and acute loneliness were cited as key reasons for the raised suicide risk. Researchers from the universities of Sussex and Westminster also found that eight per cent of respondents had actually attempted to take their own lives. 11 per cent of respondents considered suicide “very often” (more than five times in the past year) while nearly six per cent revealed they “often” thought about (three to four times in the past year). From the actual study: >"For recruitment purposes, every Doctoral School in the UK (N = 162) was asked to promote the survey to their students. The survey was also promoted via social media, Prolific Academic, and paid advertisements on Facebook, with snowball sampling encouraged in the debrief information provided to respondents" (pp. 759-760) The self-selected participation got them 1,263 participants. There are >100,000 doctoral students in the UK. So, some 0.1 % of these chose to participate in a survey about mental health. A very important topic but a misleading article about a study that doesn't even discuss obvious and very likely significant sampling bias.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
From the article, referring to a study: >40 per cent of PhD students based at UK universities could be “at high risk of suicide” according to the findings of a survey that interviewed 1,263 respondents. Chronic stress levels and acute loneliness were cited as key reasons for the raised suicide risk. Researchers from the universities of Sussex and Westminster also found that eight per cent of respondents had actually attempted to take their own lives. 11 per cent of respondents considered suicide “very often” (more than five times in the past year) while nearly six per cent revealed they “often” thought about (three to four times in the past year). From the actual study: >"For recruitment purposes, every Doctoral School in the UK (N = 162) was asked to promote the survey to their students. The survey was also promoted via social media, Prolific Academic, and paid advertisements on Facebook, with snowball sampling encouraged in the debrief information provided to respondents" (pp. 759-760) The self-selected participation got them 1,263 participants. There are >100,000 doctoral students in the UK. So, some 0.1 % of these chose to participate in a survey about mental health. A very important topic but a misleading article about a study that doesn't even discuss obvious and very likely significant sampling bias.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
I can't give advice considering I broke down in tears during a lab meeting today...
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
I can't give advice considering I broke down in tears during a lab meeting today...
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
I can't give advice considering I broke down in tears during a lab meeting today...
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
Pay your PhDs more, to the point that they have the freedom to afford basic living on their own (without roommates, parents' help, or food stamps). Create a sustainable social system in which having a PhD in a field of work that is transferrable to another job sector is favored and desirable. Stop underpaying adjuncts. No one with a PhD should be making an onlyfans account, or turning tricks, or living out of their cars by doing the work they do for universities.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
Pay your PhDs more, to the point that they have the freedom to afford basic living on their own (without roommates, parents' help, or food stamps). Create a sustainable social system in which having a PhD in a field of work that is transferrable to another job sector is favored and desirable. Stop underpaying adjuncts. No one with a PhD should be making an onlyfans account, or turning tricks, or living out of their cars by doing the work they do for universities.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
Pay your PhDs more, to the point that they have the freedom to afford basic living on their own (without roommates, parents' help, or food stamps). Create a sustainable social system in which having a PhD in a field of work that is transferrable to another job sector is favored and desirable. Stop underpaying adjuncts. No one with a PhD should be making an onlyfans account, or turning tricks, or living out of their cars by doing the work they do for universities.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
This is something I repeatedly see whenever people talk about suicide. People think that whatever annoys them must be what is causing someone else in a similar position to be suicidal. Suicide is a complex mental state. It's commonly associated with the mental disease of depression, which is NOT the same thing you feel when something bad happens in your life and you say "I feel depressed." Suicide doesn't have much to do with what you are describing. There are people who have your dream job who have killed themselves. Nothing personal, OP, but you are describing annoyances. Fixing all the annoyances in your PhD program is not going to help anyone on the brink of suicide.
|
### Instruction:
"40% of Ph.D. students in the UK at high risk of suicide". I knew Ph.D. life can be really testing, but not to this level!! How can we make the process more emotionally sustainable? https://thetab.com/uk/2021/10/14/40-per-cent-of-phd-students-are-at-high-risk-of-suicide-study-says-226001 Speaking from experience, I honestly felt I had it worse than anyone. I wouldn't say I was ever suicidal, but I honestly didn't know how I was supposed to cope if I didn't pass. Thankfully, despite having an incredibly bumpy Ph.D. journey, it was all worth it in the end, the viva went incredibly well, and so did the post viva (minor) corrections. Although I was the primary architect of my misery, I thought I'd share some admin/program level fails that made the whole process much more of a mental torment than it should've been: 1) Supervisors do not give back feedback until the final year, or the final few months prior to the (initial) submission deadline. I've sent them quite a lot of work throughout the years, which they've never responded to. The first real feedback they gave me was on my first thesis draft, which they absolutely tore apart. And that was a horrible blow because right up to that point (very close to the original submission date), I had no clue my written work was so bad. We had fairly regular meetings, but at no point did they even hint my progress, as far as written work goes, was not up to the par of doctoral level. This was perhaps the biggest psychological blow, especially when you're close to finishing. I needed 6 more months to re-write the whole thing from scratch. 2) Don't allow students to veer too much off the main aim of the project. You're encouraged to have a divergent mindset at the beginning of your Ph.D. But sometimes, particularly inexperienced researchers can easily fall into hopeless cul-de-sacs that waste a lot of time. I look back at my early work and cringe. I veered off so much initially, that it made my research scope inplausibly vast. I wish my supervisors would've at least hinted much earlier that some of those routes were complete dead ends, that ended up wasting almost a year of my time. This is a tricky one to critique, one should be encouraged to think expansively in the beginning. But less experienced researchers (as I was) can truly find themselves lost. And the intervention often comes too late 3) Admin f\*ckups. There have been so many admin failures, like delays to my compulsory international research visit (part of our Ph.D. training program) until the final few months of the year, or the time when they accidentally SENT THE WRONG DOCUMENTS TO me MY VIVA EXAMINERS INSTEAD OF MY ACTUAL THESIS. Our examination process consists of a 1-hour presentation + Q/A, and then a full classical British style Ph.D. viva. It's literally two viva examinations in one. I did the first part well. And then the chair of my viva told me "we're so sorry, but your examiners didn't receive your actual thesis, they got a minor document by accident". So I had to go through the psychological terror of viva anticipation all over again! 4) Have all the necessary facilities easily available for the student to cope with such pressure. This is a two-way street, the student must be prepared to also ask for help. Which I never did tbh, though looking back, I really should have. Encourage students to attend conferences, and events, and network as much as possible. Don't make them fall into the isolation trap as I had done. Please share some of your ideas! I know a Ph.D. isn't supposed to be easy. Stress is just the reality of life, and a Ph.D. is no different. But it shouldn't get to this level bad! Share your thoughts and experiences!
### Response:
LOL.........decrease the wealth gap. But that is not gonna happen.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
In general, the 'science' portion of STEM has always been incorrect - at least with regards to bachelor's degrees. While Physicists could get away with pretending they were mathematicians with a peculiar obsession with tensors, Biologists and Chemists weren't so lucky.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
In general, the 'science' portion of STEM has always been incorrect - at least with regards to bachelor's degrees. While Physicists could get away with pretending they were mathematicians with a peculiar obsession with tensors, Biologists and Chemists weren't so lucky.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Interesting fact: many humanities majors do far better at mid-career than do common STEM majors. For example, this study places philosophy majors well above chemistry, biology, biochem, and geology for mid-career earnings. While the top-earning degrees are indeed mostly in STEM, all of them are applied degrees-- engineering, computer science, petrochemical engineering, and the like -- or math fields like statistics that have broad application in areas like finance. Traditional science fields like biology not only pay less than some common humanities fields at mid-career, but placement rates for advanced degrees in biology are actually \*worse\* than fields like history for academic careers. STEM is hardly the golden ticket the media like to pretend it is, and if money is the motivator than a very large number of STEM students are actually in the wrong fields entirely.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Interesting fact: many humanities majors do far better at mid-career than do common STEM majors. For example, this study places philosophy majors well above chemistry, biology, biochem, and geology for mid-career earnings. While the top-earning degrees are indeed mostly in STEM, all of them are applied degrees-- engineering, computer science, petrochemical engineering, and the like -- or math fields like statistics that have broad application in areas like finance. Traditional science fields like biology not only pay less than some common humanities fields at mid-career, but placement rates for advanced degrees in biology are actually \*worse\* than fields like history for academic careers. STEM is hardly the golden ticket the media like to pretend it is, and if money is the motivator than a very large number of STEM students are actually in the wrong fields entirely.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Interesting fact: many humanities majors do far better at mid-career than do common STEM majors. For example, this study places philosophy majors well above chemistry, biology, biochem, and geology for mid-career earnings. While the top-earning degrees are indeed mostly in STEM, all of them are applied degrees-- engineering, computer science, petrochemical engineering, and the like -- or math fields like statistics that have broad application in areas like finance. Traditional science fields like biology not only pay less than some common humanities fields at mid-career, but placement rates for advanced degrees in biology are actually \*worse\* than fields like history for academic careers. STEM is hardly the golden ticket the media like to pretend it is, and if money is the motivator than a very large number of STEM students are actually in the wrong fields entirely.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Interesting fact: many humanities majors do far better at mid-career than do common STEM majors. For example, this study places philosophy majors well above chemistry, biology, biochem, and geology for mid-career earnings. While the top-earning degrees are indeed mostly in STEM, all of them are applied degrees-- engineering, computer science, petrochemical engineering, and the like -- or math fields like statistics that have broad application in areas like finance. Traditional science fields like biology not only pay less than some common humanities fields at mid-career, but placement rates for advanced degrees in biology are actually \*worse\* than fields like history for academic careers. STEM is hardly the golden ticket the media like to pretend it is, and if money is the motivator than a very large number of STEM students are actually in the wrong fields entirely.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Interesting fact: many humanities majors do far better at mid-career than do common STEM majors. For example, this study places philosophy majors well above chemistry, biology, biochem, and geology for mid-career earnings. While the top-earning degrees are indeed mostly in STEM, all of them are applied degrees-- engineering, computer science, petrochemical engineering, and the like -- or math fields like statistics that have broad application in areas like finance. Traditional science fields like biology not only pay less than some common humanities fields at mid-career, but placement rates for advanced degrees in biology are actually \*worse\* than fields like history for academic careers. STEM is hardly the golden ticket the media like to pretend it is, and if money is the motivator than a very large number of STEM students are actually in the wrong fields entirely.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Interesting fact: many humanities majors do far better at mid-career than do common STEM majors. For example, this study places philosophy majors well above chemistry, biology, biochem, and geology for mid-career earnings. While the top-earning degrees are indeed mostly in STEM, all of them are applied degrees-- engineering, computer science, petrochemical engineering, and the like -- or math fields like statistics that have broad application in areas like finance. Traditional science fields like biology not only pay less than some common humanities fields at mid-career, but placement rates for advanced degrees in biology are actually \*worse\* than fields like history for academic careers. STEM is hardly the golden ticket the media like to pretend it is, and if money is the motivator than a very large number of STEM students are actually in the wrong fields entirely.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Interesting fact: many humanities majors do far better at mid-career than do common STEM majors. For example, this study places philosophy majors well above chemistry, biology, biochem, and geology for mid-career earnings. While the top-earning degrees are indeed mostly in STEM, all of them are applied degrees-- engineering, computer science, petrochemical engineering, and the like -- or math fields like statistics that have broad application in areas like finance. Traditional science fields like biology not only pay less than some common humanities fields at mid-career, but placement rates for advanced degrees in biology are actually \*worse\* than fields like history for academic careers. STEM is hardly the golden ticket the media like to pretend it is, and if money is the motivator than a very large number of STEM students are actually in the wrong fields entirely.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Interesting fact: many humanities majors do far better at mid-career than do common STEM majors. For example, this study places philosophy majors well above chemistry, biology, biochem, and geology for mid-career earnings. While the top-earning degrees are indeed mostly in STEM, all of them are applied degrees-- engineering, computer science, petrochemical engineering, and the like -- or math fields like statistics that have broad application in areas like finance. Traditional science fields like biology not only pay less than some common humanities fields at mid-career, but placement rates for advanced degrees in biology are actually \*worse\* than fields like history for academic careers. STEM is hardly the golden ticket the media like to pretend it is, and if money is the motivator than a very large number of STEM students are actually in the wrong fields entirely.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
*laughs in philosphy and classics double major because i never had your illusions of wealth*
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
*laughs in philosphy and classics double major because i never had your illusions of wealth*
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
*laughs in philosphy and classics double major because i never had your illusions of wealth*
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
*laughs in philosphy and classics double major because i never had your illusions of wealth*
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
*laughs in philosphy and classics double major because i never had your illusions of wealth*
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
*laughs in philosphy and classics double major because i never had your illusions of wealth*
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
*laughs in philosphy and classics double major because i never had your illusions of wealth*
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Fortunately, there's a bit of overlap- I moved from DNA sequencing into genomic data science. My pay literally went up 2.5x when I did this
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Fortunately, there's a bit of overlap- I moved from DNA sequencing into genomic data science. My pay literally went up 2.5x when I did this
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Fortunately, there's a bit of overlap- I moved from DNA sequencing into genomic data science. My pay literally went up 2.5x when I did this
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
When people say STEM they mean engineering.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
When people say STEM they mean engineering.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
When people say STEM they mean engineering.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
When people say STEM they mean engineering.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
In bio lots of people go for funded phds, so the job market tends to place a ceiling on career growth for people with just a B.S. or even an M.S. Bio is a hot market if you are going the computational or molecular route, but I bet doing field work is pretty rough right now.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
At this point many health care professions have their own degrees and are not STEM. The main exception is physicians, which all biology freshmen think they will be. It frustrates me that by the time they co.e to terms with the fact they won't be physicians (organic chemistry) they have sunk years into courses which don't count toward professional health degrees.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
At this point many health care professions have their own degrees and are not STEM. The main exception is physicians, which all biology freshmen think they will be. It frustrates me that by the time they co.e to terms with the fact they won't be physicians (organic chemistry) they have sunk years into courses which don't count toward professional health degrees.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
At this point many health care professions have their own degrees and are not STEM. The main exception is physicians, which all biology freshmen think they will be. It frustrates me that by the time they co.e to terms with the fact they won't be physicians (organic chemistry) they have sunk years into courses which don't count toward professional health degrees.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
At this point many health care professions have their own degrees and are not STEM. The main exception is physicians, which all biology freshmen think they will be. It frustrates me that by the time they co.e to terms with the fact they won't be physicians (organic chemistry) they have sunk years into courses which don't count toward professional health degrees.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
We need to stop thinking about degrees and the jobs they purportedly ensure and start thinking and talking about the relation between commitment and competency. If you are a s*** student with an engineering degree but you hate engineering, then you probably won’t get a good job. If you’re a great student in chemistry, it will be because you love it, you commit to it, and you stand a pretty good chance of getting a good job. The problem with all of these studies on the relationship between jobs and degrees is that they are EXTREMELY bad at differentiating between levels of competency and commitment amongst recent graduates. I’m not saying “work harder,” by the way. I can see people extrapolating that from this comment. The truth is that people work too hard sometimes to make a degree work for them that doesn’t really fit their temperament or personality. Find what you love and can commit to. Go from there. Do not pick a degree for the job it will get you. Edit: a word
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
We need to stop thinking about degrees and the jobs they purportedly ensure and start thinking and talking about the relation between commitment and competency. If you are a s*** student with an engineering degree but you hate engineering, then you probably won’t get a good job. If you’re a great student in chemistry, it will be because you love it, you commit to it, and you stand a pretty good chance of getting a good job. The problem with all of these studies on the relationship between jobs and degrees is that they are EXTREMELY bad at differentiating between levels of competency and commitment amongst recent graduates. I’m not saying “work harder,” by the way. I can see people extrapolating that from this comment. The truth is that people work too hard sometimes to make a degree work for them that doesn’t really fit their temperament or personality. Find what you love and can commit to. Go from there. Do not pick a degree for the job it will get you. Edit: a word
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
We need to stop thinking about degrees and the jobs they purportedly ensure and start thinking and talking about the relation between commitment and competency. If you are a s*** student with an engineering degree but you hate engineering, then you probably won’t get a good job. If you’re a great student in chemistry, it will be because you love it, you commit to it, and you stand a pretty good chance of getting a good job. The problem with all of these studies on the relationship between jobs and degrees is that they are EXTREMELY bad at differentiating between levels of competency and commitment amongst recent graduates. I’m not saying “work harder,” by the way. I can see people extrapolating that from this comment. The truth is that people work too hard sometimes to make a degree work for them that doesn’t really fit their temperament or personality. Find what you love and can commit to. Go from there. Do not pick a degree for the job it will get you. Edit: a word
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Here's some data: https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Economic-Value-of-College-Majors-Full-Report-v2.compressed.pdf Here's chemistry: https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/careers/salaries/secure/salaries/new-graduates-2014-revised.pdf Then I got bored
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
Here's some data: https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Economic-Value-of-College-Majors-Full-Report-v2.compressed.pdf Here's chemistry: https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/careers/salaries/secure/salaries/new-graduates-2014-revised.pdf Then I got bored
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
It‘s just as if there’s no demand anymore for any workforce whatsoever. I mean I didn’t know it looks as grim for STEM grads as well but I would say this is clear evidence that there’s a structural phenomenon underlying this …
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
It‘s just as if there’s no demand anymore for any workforce whatsoever. I mean I didn’t know it looks as grim for STEM grads as well but I would say this is clear evidence that there’s a structural phenomenon underlying this …
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
It‘s just as if there’s no demand anymore for any workforce whatsoever. I mean I didn’t know it looks as grim for STEM grads as well but I would say this is clear evidence that there’s a structural phenomenon underlying this …
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
It‘s just as if there’s no demand anymore for any workforce whatsoever. I mean I didn’t know it looks as grim for STEM grads as well but I would say this is clear evidence that there’s a structural phenomenon underlying this …
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
I agree... But I'll add I feel this way about most jobs. I'm a phd student but only after coming back to school after ten years working in a different industry. When I get to great school and I hear the panic about how jobs are scarce, get out to industry where the real money is, I want to tell people it's just not true. Some people get lucky and change station. Most people stay in their social economic class their parents were in and according to rich billionaires in Forbes the major players for success are having had connections to begin with (silver spoon) and luck. Every market is horrible right now and they are all suffering. Pensions and benefits have been slashed in every market by enormous percents. Younger genx and millennials will be the first to not only make less than their parents but live shorter lives or have more health problems. I had arthritis at 25. I saw a girl waiting tables today about 22, with a knee brace..... That didn't happen to anyone fifty years ago except vets. I'm not sure there are any safe harbors anywhere, not even in stem. The only thing I can do is study what I love and accept I will always be poor, have debt, but at least my life has meaning and I don't want to die like I did in my last career.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
I agree... But I'll add I feel this way about most jobs. I'm a phd student but only after coming back to school after ten years working in a different industry. When I get to great school and I hear the panic about how jobs are scarce, get out to industry where the real money is, I want to tell people it's just not true. Some people get lucky and change station. Most people stay in their social economic class their parents were in and according to rich billionaires in Forbes the major players for success are having had connections to begin with (silver spoon) and luck. Every market is horrible right now and they are all suffering. Pensions and benefits have been slashed in every market by enormous percents. Younger genx and millennials will be the first to not only make less than their parents but live shorter lives or have more health problems. I had arthritis at 25. I saw a girl waiting tables today about 22, with a knee brace..... That didn't happen to anyone fifty years ago except vets. I'm not sure there are any safe harbors anywhere, not even in stem. The only thing I can do is study what I love and accept I will always be poor, have debt, but at least my life has meaning and I don't want to die like I did in my last career.
|
### Instruction:
Can we talk about how strictly “STEM” doesn’t really mean job security or good pay anymore? And the illusion is misleading students. STEM = Science Technology Engineering Math I will absolutely agree that: (1) Engineering and Technology, (2) Health Care (sub sector of “Science”) and (3) Statistics/Data Science (subsector of“Math”..?) are in high demand and are usually well paid. Going into any of these specific fields directly is healthy. HOWEVER basic scientists like biologists and chemists are not paid all that great and are certainly not in demand. It’s not quite as bad as being a Art History major but I see many similarities on these Reddit threads between science grad students and humanities grad students. It’s not unusual for grads with M.S. in life sciences to apply for many jobs with hopes of making just $45-50k. Meanwhile their business and engineering counterparts start out at $80k with a just B.S. Ok. So what? Why is this a problem? Well because many naive students believe their hard work, years of late night studying, 45 page thesis, lab work, etc. in life sciences will translate to a good paying job easily. I mean it is “STEM” right? But that’s just not the case. It’s a problem because budding science undergrads should be warned with a flashing red light that if they don’t go into health care directly, their degree will require several more years of study for a job that will probably be underpaid. (Steps off of soap box...)
### Response:
I agree... But I'll add I feel this way about most jobs. I'm a phd student but only after coming back to school after ten years working in a different industry. When I get to great school and I hear the panic about how jobs are scarce, get out to industry where the real money is, I want to tell people it's just not true. Some people get lucky and change station. Most people stay in their social economic class their parents were in and according to rich billionaires in Forbes the major players for success are having had connections to begin with (silver spoon) and luck. Every market is horrible right now and they are all suffering. Pensions and benefits have been slashed in every market by enormous percents. Younger genx and millennials will be the first to not only make less than their parents but live shorter lives or have more health problems. I had arthritis at 25. I saw a girl waiting tables today about 22, with a knee brace..... That didn't happen to anyone fifty years ago except vets. I'm not sure there are any safe harbors anywhere, not even in stem. The only thing I can do is study what I love and accept I will always be poor, have debt, but at least my life has meaning and I don't want to die like I did in my last career.
|
### Instruction:
Update: gave my 15 minute presentation about my PhD at a job interview Hi all- I just wanted to say thanks x1000 to all your super helpful tips. I posted here last week about summarizing my doctorate work for a job interview. The job interview was about 2 hours of questions/discussion going over the position and my past experience. I then gave my presentation, which in the end took 18 minutes 😬. I summarized two papers from my work, the 2 I thought would be most interesting to the outside world. And per your tips, I really just gave the most high level take home messages, didn’t get too lost in methods and details. And in the end I was offered the job 🎉🎊. Thanks reddit family!!
### Response:
what's the position? what's your field?
|
### Instruction:
Update: gave my 15 minute presentation about my PhD at a job interview Hi all- I just wanted to say thanks x1000 to all your super helpful tips. I posted here last week about summarizing my doctorate work for a job interview. The job interview was about 2 hours of questions/discussion going over the position and my past experience. I then gave my presentation, which in the end took 18 minutes 😬. I summarized two papers from my work, the 2 I thought would be most interesting to the outside world. And per your tips, I really just gave the most high level take home messages, didn’t get too lost in methods and details. And in the end I was offered the job 🎉🎊. Thanks reddit family!!
### Response:
what's the position? what's your field?
|
### Instruction:
Finally! Open Science -- All US Federally Funded Research must now be Freely Available! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/ ​ Research results should be freely available. Too excited not to share...
### Response:
We had something similar pass in Canada a few years back. The ultimate outcome was that it was decided that PIs could upload a pre-formatting post-review draft of the manuscript to their website or university repository and that would be sufficient. It doesn't make journal-formatted papers free.
|
### Instruction:
Finally! Open Science -- All US Federally Funded Research must now be Freely Available! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/ ​ Research results should be freely available. Too excited not to share...
### Response:
Do you still have to pay the open access fee for publishing?
|
### Instruction:
Finally! Open Science -- All US Federally Funded Research must now be Freely Available! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/ ​ Research results should be freely available. Too excited not to share...
### Response:
Do you still have to pay the open access fee for publishing?
|
### Instruction:
Finally! Open Science -- All US Federally Funded Research must now be Freely Available! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/ ​ Research results should be freely available. Too excited not to share...
### Response:
Do you still have to pay the open access fee for publishing?
|
### Instruction:
Finally! Open Science -- All US Federally Funded Research must now be Freely Available! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/ ​ Research results should be freely available. Too excited not to share...
### Response:
Do you still have to pay the open access fee for publishing?
|
### Instruction:
Finally! Open Science -- All US Federally Funded Research must now be Freely Available! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/ ​ Research results should be freely available. Too excited not to share...
### Response:
So now publishers can just crank up their OA fees since you don’t have a choice but to pay them. Everyone ups the costings in their grant apps to compensate. These costs are borne by the public. Less money being spent on actual science, more profits for the publishers.
|
### Instruction:
Finally! Open Science -- All US Federally Funded Research must now be Freely Available! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/ ​ Research results should be freely available. Too excited not to share...
### Response:
So now publishers can just crank up their OA fees since you don’t have a choice but to pay them. Everyone ups the costings in their grant apps to compensate. These costs are borne by the public. Less money being spent on actual science, more profits for the publishers.
|
### Instruction:
Finally! Open Science -- All US Federally Funded Research must now be Freely Available! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/ ​ Research results should be freely available. Too excited not to share...
### Response:
So now publishers can just crank up their OA fees since you don’t have a choice but to pay them. Everyone ups the costings in their grant apps to compensate. These costs are borne by the public. Less money being spent on actual science, more profits for the publishers.
|
### Instruction:
Finally! Open Science -- All US Federally Funded Research must now be Freely Available! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/ ​ Research results should be freely available. Too excited not to share...
### Response:
1) OA requirement for all NIH funded research was already a thing. This just removes the delay of a year. 2) I haven't read the whole law, but right now you pay a pub fee, and open access fee in addition to your subscription to the journals and this does nothing to demand that the journals don't charge for it, so the onus is on researchers, who will mostly do this from their grant, so the tax payers are still paying twice for this. Not sure why you are so excited?
|
### Instruction:
Do you think universities are becoming too "business-minded"? I'm referring to a growing trend where universities are churning graduates without any regard for jobs or educational achievement. Equally frightening is this over-reliance on International students, solely for the money they can charge them. It feels thats universities have stopped becoming higher education centres and are profit generating businesses. Do you agree and if so which country are you referencing?
### Response:
Yes. United States. On the one hand, academic ideals were perhaps a bit too idealistic; after all, somebody does have to pay to keep universities running. As I see it (which may not be especially well) there are 3 problems. 1. Students who just want jobs and don't care about learning. They just want to pay for a certificate. 2. Administration should not be separate from faculty. Some admin is necessary, but when people talk about a university, they often mean the administration.... They should mean the faculty and students but the power has been taken (and perhaps given) away from them. Students should take more responsibility for things like housing, while faculty, the same people who teach, should be making many of the decisions presidents or provosts do. 3. State governments who don't properly fund institutions who then have to take business like approaches to keep the lights on.
|
### Instruction:
Do you think universities are becoming too "business-minded"? I'm referring to a growing trend where universities are churning graduates without any regard for jobs or educational achievement. Equally frightening is this over-reliance on International students, solely for the money they can charge them. It feels thats universities have stopped becoming higher education centres and are profit generating businesses. Do you agree and if so which country are you referencing?
### Response:
obviously. Just from a very simple "big picture" perspective. USA government gives money (student loans) to people for university, universities increase student costs to soak up all that extra money. Other independent point: USA college sports is BIG BUSINESS. It is a billion dollar industry, and its raw resource is 18 year old kids. They are consumed, universities chew them up and spit them out, and profit.
|
### Instruction:
Do you think universities are becoming too "business-minded"? I'm referring to a growing trend where universities are churning graduates without any regard for jobs or educational achievement. Equally frightening is this over-reliance on International students, solely for the money they can charge them. It feels thats universities have stopped becoming higher education centres and are profit generating businesses. Do you agree and if so which country are you referencing?
### Response:
obviously. Just from a very simple "big picture" perspective. USA government gives money (student loans) to people for university, universities increase student costs to soak up all that extra money. Other independent point: USA college sports is BIG BUSINESS. It is a billion dollar industry, and its raw resource is 18 year old kids. They are consumed, universities chew them up and spit them out, and profit.
|
### Instruction:
Do you think universities are becoming too "business-minded"? I'm referring to a growing trend where universities are churning graduates without any regard for jobs or educational achievement. Equally frightening is this over-reliance on International students, solely for the money they can charge them. It feels thats universities have stopped becoming higher education centres and are profit generating businesses. Do you agree and if so which country are you referencing?
### Response:
obviously. Just from a very simple "big picture" perspective. USA government gives money (student loans) to people for university, universities increase student costs to soak up all that extra money. Other independent point: USA college sports is BIG BUSINESS. It is a billion dollar industry, and its raw resource is 18 year old kids. They are consumed, universities chew them up and spit them out, and profit.
|
### Instruction:
Do you think universities are becoming too "business-minded"? I'm referring to a growing trend where universities are churning graduates without any regard for jobs or educational achievement. Equally frightening is this over-reliance on International students, solely for the money they can charge them. It feels thats universities have stopped becoming higher education centres and are profit generating businesses. Do you agree and if so which country are you referencing?
### Response:
Masters programs in the US. Yes 100%.
|
### Instruction:
Do you think universities are becoming too "business-minded"? I'm referring to a growing trend where universities are churning graduates without any regard for jobs or educational achievement. Equally frightening is this over-reliance on International students, solely for the money they can charge them. It feels thats universities have stopped becoming higher education centres and are profit generating businesses. Do you agree and if so which country are you referencing?
### Response:
Masters programs in the US. Yes 100%.
|
### Instruction:
Do you think universities are becoming too "business-minded"? I'm referring to a growing trend where universities are churning graduates without any regard for jobs or educational achievement. Equally frightening is this over-reliance on International students, solely for the money they can charge them. It feels thats universities have stopped becoming higher education centres and are profit generating businesses. Do you agree and if so which country are you referencing?
### Response:
Australia leads all other countries in this case.
|
### Instruction:
Do you think universities are becoming too "business-minded"? I'm referring to a growing trend where universities are churning graduates without any regard for jobs or educational achievement. Equally frightening is this over-reliance on International students, solely for the money they can charge them. It feels thats universities have stopped becoming higher education centres and are profit generating businesses. Do you agree and if so which country are you referencing?
### Response:
tldr: Holy fuck yes. (not so)Little story. I'm a PhD student at an English university (I won't get too specific, but some of you might still be able to guess where - then again, I think a lot of this is true everywhere). The UK government allowed uni's to charge up to £9000 per year tuition a few years ago (while also cutting lots of government support for university). The typical amount beforehand was £3k (for domestic students at least; internationals were often 1.5x higher or more). Immediately, pretty much every uni put their fees up to £9k. \[From what I understand of US universities/collages, it's only a few elite expensive ones that change anything equivalent or more, and even then very few students pay all of that top-whack themselves due to various grants and scholarships - there is still gov or scholarships in the UK, but you're not coming out of uni without a big fat debt\] Fortunately, I was in Scotland where tuition was (& is) free for long-term residents of Scotland or EU...just not England, which was hilarious. Anyway, this change happened while I was in my second year of 5 (inc. Master's). The class size when I started was about 30-35. This gradually whittled down to around 20 getting Batchelor's degrees and 5 of us getting Master's there. The year group after us was about 40 in first year, and the one after that started with 70. I heard the lecturers worrying how they were going to accommodate so many students in all the practicals, and where they could possibly lecture (I think there were only 5 lecture theatres at the uni that were designed to accommodate more than 55 at once - most rooms had only \~30 seats at most, though I guess they could've packed more chairs into some of them if they made the desks smaller). It wasn't just our department facing the massive influx. Cut to my current institution, where I did some lab demonstration and marking of the first years (oh my god. the marking. If you're reading this and you still have some essay's to write, please for the love of god put some effort into it; you may only have to write one, we have to mark a hundred and try to keep our faith in the future of humanity intact - also, if they give you a guide on how to write an essay; ffs read it). I therefore had contact with all 200 new students in my department. My current uni is bigger than my old one, but not THAT much bigger, so most departments were bursting at the seams. It was so full, the uni decided to move the start times to half past the hour; allowing them to start at 8:30 & finish at 5:30. Literally no one like this. Except possibly the bean counters who could now get maximal utility out of their lectures ... oh, I don't believe they saw a pay increase commensurate with these longer hours by the way. Couple all this with the already stressful conditions many academics face nowadays, and it's hardly surprising that it's been getting quite fraught the last few years. I've been here 3 years, every year's new intake has been about 200 to my department alone. They are franticly trying to build more space for everything. Meanwhile, my uni was in the news for one of the largest payouts to a retiring vice-chancellor ever (equivalent to around 93 student's tuition that year) on top of his pension. One day I was bored of analysing my own data, so I spent a harrowing afternoon looking up all the properties the uni had available for rent (the uni, or it's subsidiaries, none of the many private companies parasitising off the students' housing needs). I worked out that they had a turnover of around £25 Million a year, just in rent. They are currently building more student housing. I later looked up the uni's publicly available accounting document; the last financial year had a turnover of £400M, and a profit of £40M (even after all the building work across multiple campuses and paying massive bonuses to top staff I've never seen). Despite this, the finance department are busily bullying the academic staff into cutting costs while delivering better lectures and bringing in even more grant money (bit more difficult what with Brexit looming over our heads), and they are not-so-quietly threatening to close either the physics or engineering department (physics has been struggling to meet their student recruitment targets, so they fined them...no, I don't know how an institution can fine itself for not getting enough money either - BUT - Engineering, despite getting more students in and exceeding their targets, is more expensive to run per student and the building is currently having the asbestos removed...again, so it's still a toss up). That's not an empty threat either; they've closed a department before (and NOW some of you know exactly where I'm at). What we can be fairly confident in is that the business school is safe. All their students need is Excel, and that may go some way towards explaining why they get all the new comfy chairs and plush carpets. One last example, because I think it is particularly germane: In order to charge £9k/year, the universities must demonstrate to the government that they are 'committed' to outreach to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. As part of my PhD program I am required to carry out a certain number of hours of outreach (I'm not complaining, it's mostly pretty fun, but that it was a requirement was confusing to me until I found out the finial incentive). I have therefore met many people from the uni's outreach team, and every single one of them when I 'sarcastically' suggest 'Maybe not charging them nine grand a year would encourage these students to come here,' they all (unironically) agree with me. They know exactly what is needed, but whenever they propose grants for disadvantaged local students, or similar, it is immediately shot down as too expensive. It's all especially fervent in STEM, where there is a special box you get to tick if your outreach event would encourage young girls to come to you (and yea, it really does sound that creepy in the meetings too) - it's all pretty ineffectual though, because to get science students at all, they need to take the science classes at school; so really we'd need to target children before they're 11 (after this pupils in the UK pick their subjects for high school, and if you don't pick sciences then, most schools won't let you take it later \[because they're worried you'll drag their average marks down\]). Despite this, most of our outreach is targeted at high schools and specifically 16-18 year olds (because that yields more immediate results in student uptake). I was involved in a multi-university effort in this vain, so I know it's not a unique issue to us. All of this activity, which is good as far as it goes, could be massively improved by the university as a whole having a genuine desire to educate rather than primarily be to make money. Oh, did I forget to mention they're all registered charities? I could go on about how the profit-driven attitude provides some very perverse incentives for everyone, or specifically talk about how much they are courting Chinese students obsessively (I am of course happy we're educating the world, but they are targeting China more than the the non-European world combined, and it's nakedly about money), and I won't go into too much detail about the companies (who have no internal training programs) I've heard complain graduates don't have the exact specific skills they need, but sufficed to say; I am getting my doctorate and fucking off to be unemployable somewhere else.
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
SFT Format Dataset
Overview
This dataset is converted to SFT (Supervised Fine-Tuning) format. It was created by transforming OpenMathInstruct and Stanford Human Preferences (SHP) datasets.
Dataset Structure
Each entry follows this format:
Instruction: [Problem, question, or conversation history]
Response: [Solution, answer, or response]
Usage Guide
Loading the Dataset
from datasets import load_dataset
# Load datasets from Hugging Face
openmath_train = load_dataset("Seono/sft-openmath-train")
openmath_eval = load_dataset("Seono/sft-openmath-eval")
shp_train = load_dataset("Seono/sft-shp-train")
shp_eval = load_dataset("Seono/sft-shp-eval")
Using for Fine-tuning
# Setting for SFT Trainer
trainer = SFTTrainer(
model=model,
tokenizer=tokenizer,
args=training_args,
train_dataset=openmath_train["train"],
dataset_text_field="text"
)
then other codes..
- Downloads last month
- 3