next »

[timurid]

Grad students enter a community in which being smart is taken for granted.  In fact, they usually find themselves shocked by the (seeming) brilliance of their peers and strongly suspect that they don't deserve to be there.  If the program encourages the casual use of very specialized vocabulary, and if the area of study is one in which students are choosing passion over becoming well-paid, the combination of these forces often encourages a compensating attitude of cynical distaste and verbal bantering.

In other words, showing how clever you are because you "see through" the work of others makes you feel better about yourself.   It's fun, and it compensates for any fears of not being smart enough or strong enough to succeed in your field.

Most of us, fortunately, grow out of this stage.  You know it happens when you find yourself admiring the brilliance of a younger colleague without feeling resentful or unappreciated.

But, of course, I could be entirely wrong.

I was one of those "I don't deserve to be here" types, and a major proponent of "can't we all just get along?" I was "set straight" several times by my more brilliant graduate students.

I am now a full professor. Many of my detractors are still major players in that industry devoted to the delivery of flat, round, Italian themed food products.

Schadenfreude is a dish best served anytime, anywhere!

Schadenfreude... it's like German chocolate cake for the soul...

[frogfactory]

To what extent is this true in the sciences?  As a grad student myself, I don't feel qualified to judge, but during a recent seminar class/journal club, the professor has not disagreed with our tearing apart of multiple unconvincing papers over the semester.  I've seen a similar tendency in departmental journal clubs.

It's interesting, FF, that you describe the papers as "unconvincing."  The first thought I had, when I read that sentence, was:  Are the papers unconvincing as a result of your group tearing them apart without intervention by the professor? OR Did you tear them apart because they were, in essence, "offered up" as unconvincing before the criticism began?  My recollection of several grad seminars (in biology) was that the latter scenario was more likely--at least to my young, naive graduate student mind.

In those seminars, I often felt like just another piranha nibbling away at the next article on the list.  Readings were handed out like prey for our next feeding frenzy, and there was rarely any true guidance once the group attacks began.  When the frenzy was over, rather than feeling satisfied, I felt bewildered.  Yes, critique and argument and challenges to conventional wisdom are important in science (and, likely, any discipline), but over-the-top criticism just for the sake of criticizing doesn't seem constructive or helpful at all--except for those who get some sort of weird ego boost from doing so, of course.

I think that useful criticism of published works is a skill that develops over time (in much the way that languageabd and, on preview, terpsichore have described), and in a broader learning context than the weekly seminar or journal club session.  Maturation as a scholar is not necessarily fostered in these settings, although the seminars or journal clubs may serve, at least, to introduce students to current literature or topics in the field.  What I would love to see is an entry-level graduate seminar that provides some real guidance in how to critique others' work without resorting to hypercritical attacks.  Unfortunately, that old expression "we teach the way we were taught" probably has some truth, with respect to the typical graduate seminar course in the sciences.  I'd be interested to know if any others following this thread have ever taken such a course or, perhaps, teach one now.

I'm sadly neither young nor naive, although I have just done with the first year of this degree.  Thinking on it, I may have been doing more than my share of the tearing down myself in a class otherwise full  of first year grads.  The class - and my research - was/is in a field in which there have, in recent years, been hints that the dogmata of the last century may have been wrong in exciting ways, so it's been fashionable for many papers published to claim that they are tearing down a century of misapprehension, when actually they're presenting marginally statistically significant results on a single finding.  Lots of cases of extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.

So, this experience is probably not typical of graduate seminar classes.  I shall hop back to the lily pad.

[fiona]

Some grad programs, such as the one I survived, are intended to be boot camps, run by mean drill sergeants. If you did survive (if you were tough and determined, with a stripe of meanness probably), you did learn what others have said you should learn: that knowledge is a dialogue.

If you washed out, as most did, you went on to other careers which were probably fulfilling. At least I hope so. One of these days I'll check Facebook for my ole classmates.

The Fiona

[balancing_act]

I agree with Balancing_Act, Fiona, and Belowtheradar, I think. Graduate students will often (but not always) mirror the attitude of faculty in their department.

This is very true in my department, but the faculty have always made it clear that we are their "colleagues in training."

[kedves]

In my graduate school experience (musicology), I was not taught to be snide at all, and I would think that any program in which such an attitude is cultivated has a serious problem.  I was taught to read and analyze critically, and I was also taught not be reluctant to engage the literature in my field, rather than just soak it up passively.  I remember once my advisor joking that many a career has been launched by a graduate student taking some old dead German guy to task (remember, this was a musicology program).  My point is that one of the things graduate students need to learn is that scholarship is an ongoing dialogue, a discussion.  To become a substantive part of that discussion they need to carve out a little space for themselves, which can be accomplished by finding fault with established work in the field (the anxiety of influence, perhaps).  But (and this is important) this can and should be done with some degree of respect, which is what I was taught, not with viciousness or malice.

The department outlined above was similar to mine in sociology.  We were shown how to analyze and argue rigorously--to the extent of intellectual ruthlessness if necessary--but respectfully, without malice or snideness.  In fact, a negative tone motivated by personal feeling or attitude would have been thought to weaken an otherwise strong critique.  My undergraduate department's approach was similar in political science.

[temporaryname]

I would say that it's not just grad students. Reviewing in general tends to fall into harsh/negative and effusively positive. And guess what? Negative reviews are more fun to write.

I have read (and received) scathing anonymous peer reviews from journals; seen many a restaurant, film, and music reviews that were almost drooling with venom. Why should book reviews be any different? There are, after all, a lot of bad books out there.

This was posted a couple days ago, but nobody's responded, so I have to ask: Am I the only one for whom this just simply isn't true?

In the last two months, I had to write two very negative anonymous peer reviews. I hated it. Not only was it difficult to do (I had to explain where the problems were, offer suggestions for improvement, and be absolutely clear on why the problems were severe), I really felt bad for the authors.

(And this is not knowing who they were--reviews in my discipline are largely double-blind. I can't imagine what I'd feel like if I had names.)

Now, these were "reject and don't resubmit" reviews. It's a lot happier to write "reject but revise and resubmit" ones. But still, I don't like dashing people's hopes, even when it's what I have to do.

I can't be alone in feeling like this. Can I?

[ots1927]

This was posted a couple days ago, but nobody's responded, so I have to ask: Am I the only one for whom this just simply isn't true?

No, you're not the only one.  I hate to think that one would actually enjoy raking another scholar over the coals, but I suppose there are people who might.  Perhaps it would be more broadly accurate to say that writing negative reviews is more empowering than writing positive ones, even if subconsciously.

OTOH, I have to admit that reading negative reviews can be more fun than reading glowing ones.  There's that Schadenfreude again.

[polly_mer]

This was posted a couple days ago, but nobody's responded, so I have to ask: Am I the only one for whom this just simply isn't true?

No, you're not the only one.  I hate to think that one would actually enjoy raking another scholar over the coals, but I suppose there are people who might.  Perhaps it would be more broadly accurate to say that writing negative reviews is more empowering than writing positive ones, even if subconsciously.

About half of the reviews I do are of the reject-and-don't-resubmit variety.  In fact, I suspect that one journal purposely sends me some articles knowing that I will write a detailed discussion of why the work is flat-out flawed and how it contradicts other established facts and theories in the field with minimal evidence of why this work should be taken seriously because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  If possible, I will include suggestions about other experiments, simulations, analysis techniques, and theory that could be applied to the project that would result in a useful paper.

I don't know that they are fun to write so much as I see it as necessary.  Undoubtedly, my views were formed by interactions with people who push hard to think not just about what the author or speaker presented, but also to make connections on that data and between the common ideas in the literature.  Thus, while I observed and then became confident enough to participate in spirited discussions that often involve pointing out deficiencies in models or flaws in arguments, being snide or otherwise mean spirited was seldom a part of the discussions. 

Being able to make a rigorous argument on facts and being able to pull from multiple sources on the fly during a discussion is a valuable skill.  Being a novice on the receiving end of an expert in that skill can be rough, particularly if the expect doesn't believe in sugar coating anything.  However, a huge difference exists between pointing out the flaws in someone's argument with contrary evidence and calling the person names.  I enjoy having a spirited discussion with smart people who pull no punches.  However, I also want those people to be able to concede valid points and counterarguments.  The occasional snide remark or snark is fine, but I want that snark to be based on a substantive argument that can be produced if requested (e.g., You're worried about staple versus paperclip when you chosen the wrong kind of paper?  Next, you'll say that you haven't carefully considered the implications of choosing 12 pt Times New Roman over 11 pt Arial.).

Some of my colleagues will instigate very spirited discussions with loud voices and many pronouncements of "That conclusion is flawed.  You have completely neglected X, Y, and Z" at every seminar or journal club meeting.  Being able to withstand the probing of these people without resorting to name-calling is a mark of honor, while failing to do so indicates a lack of intellectual maturity.  Their probes are never personal and a valid response in many cases is a simple "That's a good point.  We did not investigate that in this study" or "I am unfamiliar with those results.  Could you provide a reference?".  The point isn't to attack the other person as a human being, but instead to clarify either the applicability of the findings or induce the speaker to expand the study to investigate things relevant to a wider community.  Students often fail to discern the distinction between a rigorous argument and being mean.

As others have written, two parts exist to professional scholarly criticism: one is being able to point out the flaws in an argument and the other is to be able to construct one's own argument, point out the inadequacies in the argument, and be able to modify it appropriately based on new data.  Being snide may fulfill the bare minimum of the first requirement, but it does nothing for the important second requirements.

[powercrt]

Fiona,

I believe it depends on whether they took "anal retention 101". :)

The one weakness in their armour (so to speak) is when they get found out as not knowing whatever it is they profess to be the master of.

[fiona]

Fiona,

I believe it depends on whether they took "anal retention 101". :)

The one weakness in their armour (so to speak) is when they get found out as not knowing whatever it is they profess to be the master of.

What does one read and do in Anal Retention 101?

The Fiona

[conjugate]

There are a few legendary famous bad reviews in mathematics.  There is the traditional (and possibly apocryphal) masterpiece, "This work fills a much-needed gap in the literature."  There is another that goes something like this: "There are three theorems in this paper; one is taken without attribution from the reviewer, and the other two are wrong."

[immigrant]

I'm sorry to resurrect this thread, but I'm curious if anyone remembers the actual title of the article. I thought it would be good to have our new grad students read this piece, but since the Chronicle's web redesign, the original link no longer works! I'd track it down through google if I could recall it's title!

[edit] Apologies, I found it by a stroke of menu-surfing luck. On the off chance anyone else is looking for it, the new link is http://chronicle.com/article/Reading-Like-a-Graduate-Stu/47922/

[fiona]

Thanks for reminding me about the article and giving a link. It's definitely useful for grad students, especially beginning ones.

The Fiona

[puckk]

Stages in academic concept development:

1.  Someone does a pretty good classical or "seminal or germinal" study that illustrates a theory well.  This stands up for a while, even if other theories can be brought in to argue something else.

2.  Someone (ambitious) picks nits and purports to have overturned 1.  E.g. Mead-Freeman controversy.

3.  Postmodernists then arrive to state that no theorizing is even possible.

[fiona]

Stages in academic concept development:

1.  Someone does a pretty good classical or "seminal or germinal" study that illustrates a theory well.  This stands up for a while, even if other theories can be brought in to argue something else.

2.  Someone (ambitious) picks nits and purports to have overturned 1.  E.g. Mead-Freeman controversy.

3.  Postmodernists then arrive to state that no theorizing is even possible.

4. Public ignores conflict, or portrays it in blogs and elsewhere as silly and arcane, like most professorial work. More tenure track lines are lost.

The Fiona