next »

[archman]

Ah... Supplemental Instruction... I know it well.

It's what schools that want to be "educationally innovative" do while maintaining 100-300 student classrooms. The schools that really have their @#$ together (like Polly_mer's apparently) can actually bring the level of instructor "face time" down to that approaching a community college, SLAC, or Ivy. It's #3 on my list for effective science teaching. It sure takes a lot of work to organize and maintain, however. At my current school, the TT faculty have all backed out of supervisory roles and foisted that duty onto the visiting lecturers.

[bread_pirate_naan]

Yes, yes, SI works very well in a lot of fields.  But...what did the chair say?

The chair said all instructors who are not PhDs should be addressed as "Professor."

<ducks and runs>

[wet_blanket]

...I GET THAT SHE'S BETTER THAN ME...

I think this explains the direction of the thread. 

OP, I don't doubt that you are valued in you lab and loved by the flying spaghetti monster.

[pathanalysis]

Sigh... My university lets hand-picked juniors and seniors (moslty seniors) teach one credit freshman seminars as instructors of record. I've taught and TA'ed a lot, and I've gotten good to excellent reviews, FWIW.

Also, in what kind of lab DON'T you do a lot of writing and editing? Are they producing journals in non-language-based formats now? (just kidding). I'm a writer. I'm, according to some, a very, very good writer. *shrug* Thus, my PI intrusts me with a ton of writing (among other tasks). Our stats person is a very good statician, so she does a ton of stats. We do other things, of course, but we are given a lot of responsibility in what we are best at. And writing is very important in my field--it's 1) what gets you funded and 2)  what gets your papers published.

This thread totally went off on the wrong tanget, and I do apologize. Perhaps I lashed out a little bit too quickly, but the assumption that undergrads can only do "grunt" work strikes me as incredibly limiting (and yes, most researchers of all levels--including me--do grunt work. Also, the overall attitude towards undergrads on this forum continues to chaff. Yes, I know undergrads have a lot to learn, but the assume they know absolutely nothing of value is a bit over-the-top, I think. Every time I've asked a question on the fora, I've gotten great, helpful responses UNTIL I've mentioned being an undergrad.
 
The relationship between my grad co-RA and I is a mostly equal relationship with a bit of mentorship thrown in. I respect her, and she respects my work. I'm often the go-to-person on writing, but that doesn't mean my work doesn't get track-changed through the roof at times` (and vice versa). As for knowing more, does she know more about the field overall? Undoubtedly, yes. Does she know more about our specific sub-sub-topic? Eh, it's probably equal because this isn't a topic taught in "mainstream" or even elective courses and because we have both, literally, read all the literature in the field from the past decade.

FWIW, I ALWAYS introduce myself as the "least qualified" person in the lab, and someone always says, "no, just the youngest." Take that as you will.

I apologize for the huge derailment of this thread.

Peace?

[wet_blanket]

Peace?

Not that I can speak for the fora at large, but sure!  I think it reflects well on you that you eschewed the GCF, and even went so far as to say apologize and admit that you'd been over-defensive.  For what it's worth, in hindsight there was a point after the thread was clearly a trainwreck but before it reached its greatest heights where it was being prodded just for the reaction (ugh, talk about mixed metaphor!)  For my part in that, I apologize.

I will say though that I think you're reading a lot into people's posts to get that people "assume they know absolutely nothing of value."  Yes, there is lots of making fun of dumb things students have done. But retail workers do the same about customers, doctors about patients, etc.  But even in this thread, people have mentioned that they have had very competent and valuable RAs.  If you read the fora looking for evidence that everyone here hates undergrads, I'm sure you could find a lot of examples.  If you approach it with your mind a bit more open, you might be surprised.

[spork]

You didn't answer my thong question.

[polly_mer]

You didn't answer my thong question.

You've assumed that all women wear thongs.  That's not the only option, now is it?  Be open-minded.


To get back to Pathanalysis, in all seriousness, as long as you wish to discuss teaching and research methods, tips, and such, you're fine here, as you have noted.  The responses you get after mentioning that you are an undergraduate isn't a matter of us having some irrational dislike of undergraduates or holding them in disdain.  Instead, it's more a function of "Oh, an advanced undergraduate isn't likely to know X, Y, and Z because I learned that much later in my education.  Let me give her some advice from my experience."  If these are things that you do know, a polite "Thank you" is all that is necessary.  A much less polite response to a good-intentioned reasonable bit of advice indicates to us that other advice is needed.  While we all wrestle with the "Damn it, I've said a thousand times, pay attention and answer the question that was asked!" response to our students, as a further bit of possibly unnecessary advice, if the good students are not answering in the way that you expect, perhaps you are not asking the question that you think you are.

[see_wolf]

Sigh... My university lets hand-picked juniors and seniors (moslty seniors) teach one credit freshman seminars as instructors of record. I've taught and TA'ed a lot, and I've gotten good to excellent reviews, FWIW.

Also, in what kind of lab DON'T you do a lot of writing and editing? Are they producing journals in non-language-based formats now? (just kidding). I'm a writer. I'm, according to some, a very, very good writer. *shrug* Thus, my PI intrusts me with a ton of writing (among other tasks). Our stats person is a very good statician, so she does a ton of stats. We do other things, of course, but we are given a lot of responsibility in what we are best at. And writing is very important in my field--it's 1) what gets you funded and 2)  what gets your papers published.

This thread totally went off on the wrong tanget, and I do apologize. Perhaps I lashed out a little bit too quickly, but the assumption that undergrads can only do "grunt" work strikes me as incredibly limiting (and yes, most researchers of all levels--including me--do grunt work. Also, the overall attitude towards undergrads on this forum continues to chaff. Yes, I know undergrads have a lot to learn, but the assume they know absolutely nothing of value is a bit over-the-top, I think. Every time I've asked a question on the fora, I've gotten great, helpful responses UNTIL I've mentioned being an undergrad.
 
The relationship between my grad co-RA and I is a mostly equal relationship with a bit of mentorship thrown in. I respect her, and she respects my work. I'm often the go-to-person on writing, but that doesn't mean my work doesn't get track-changed through the roof at times` (and vice versa). As for knowing more, does she know more about the field overall? Undoubtedly, yes. Does she know more about our specific sub-sub-topic? Eh, it's probably equal because this isn't a topic taught in "mainstream" or even elective courses and because we have both, literally, read all the literature in the field from the past decade.

FWIW, I ALWAYS introduce myself as the "least qualified" person in the lab, and someone always says, "no, just the youngest." Take that as you will.

I apologize for the huge derailment of this thread.

Peace?

I echo wet_blanket - if you LOOK for those hating undergrads, you will find it.  But I can think of several - one which is very recent - where an undergrad is having no such problems.

One thing you may consider... in this thread, you made no mention of being an undergrad until your 3rd post.  Many had responded to your question without this knowledge.  Once you disclosed you were an undergrad, it changed our thoughts and responses on your question.  I believe you received great, helpful responses, but it was at first based on the assumption you were a grad student.  After, I still believe you received great, helpful responses (just need to weed through the others).  Yes, your undergrad status DOES make a difference in our replies.

Point being - disclose your undergrad status in your first post.  The undergrad threads that have received the most & best advice have done this.  Heck, anybody who slowly leaks pertinent information over the course of several posts gets snarky replies... it's not just you.  Or undergrads. 

[galactic_hedgehog]

Since we're back on topic, did the department chair have anything to say?

[bread_pirate_naan]

...I GET THAT SHE'S BETTER THAN ME...

I think this explains the direction of the thread.  

OP, I don't doubt that you are valued in you lab and loved by the flying spaghetti monster.

Not for the reason you think.  The OP is a master of projection and has a preoccupation with reading comprehension.  The puppet* even went to the one-offs to poke at it again with sparkle tags.  In your selection above, Blanket, the poorly comprehended BETTER is fairly likely a misreading of the oft repeated term "superior" which is not being understood in terms of hierarchy, but value, in this instance.  The OP still doesn't get it, and changing the behavior for one that pleases others more doesn't really change that at all.

***

Pathanalysis, you seem to think everyone else has the problem.  The word is not chaff its chafe and you seem to think that you are not an undergrad and have no idea that no matter what you do you will be an undergrad until you go to grad school orientation.  You seem hell bent on proving that you are not like other undergrads, you are more like people who are more advanced in their careers.  We don't care about that, only you do.  The persistence with which you do this is a maladaptive behavior that others will recognize and either put up with it or avoid/isolate you.  I think you should go down to the Grad board and reread Temptedknight's threads, I see a lot of him in you, and that's not a compliment.  If you remember the one-offs they produced, even better.

Unfortunately, learning to stop emphasizing how much better you are than you peers, with phrases like "hand-picked" and reference to your evaluations are meaningless self-congratulation.  The prove nothing to us but these are the very most important elements of your self-image and qualification for entry into the realm of the cool kids who have political problems because they are colleagues.  You want to force this view onto others, but the manner is which you do it undermines the ability to see you as a skilled communicator or soon to be professional colleague.  It points to an undergraduate immaturity that you are desperately trying to shake.

Your methods are flawed and you've stopped throwing your tantrum, but the red flags are flying higher than ever.

Good luck with that.

The dead-on advice I gave you in my last post to this thread was intended to take advantage of the HOF-ripeness of this thread(to tacitly demonstrate my awesomeness), entertain my colleagues who will get all the jokes, and point out some thing you need to make conscious.  A multifaceted, teachable moment based on observing your behavior and some hard-won personal experience.  I wish you the best in your future endeavors and hope that you are the sort of person who chose psychology because you were ready to learn as much about yourself as you were about others, because your choices on this thread suggest that you are not all that good at, or happy to develop expertise by taking subordinate roles or flourishing under the guidance of people more insightful and accomplished than yourself.  This is what being a student is all about and many of us are lifelong learners.  

Indeed, you are intent on separating yourself from some herd and that herd is looking more and more like the well-adjusted.  That's okay.  Some of us have been annoying a lot longer than you have.

We are so awesome, we don't really need to mention it anymore.  (Oops, still talking about it.  This is called modeling.  Because I am a supermodel.  Oh dear, stop me before I do it again.)

Good luck.


*P is for puppet that's good enough for me (today)

[prytania3]

http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg

[pathanalysis]

Pathanalysis, you seem to think everyone else has the problem.  The word is not chaff its chafe and you seem to think that you are not an undergrad and have no idea that no matter what you do you will be an undergrad until you go to grad school orientation.  You seem hell bent on proving that you are not like other undergrads, you are more like people who are more advanced in their careers.  We don't care about that, only you do.  The persistence with which you do this is a maladaptive behavior that others will recognize and either put up with it or avoid/isolate you.  I think you should go down to the Grad board and reread Temptedknight's threads, I see a lot of him in you, and that's not a compliment.  If you remember the one-offs they produced, even better.

I'm sincerely sorry this is the impression you've gotten of me. I'm really perhaps the least arrogant person you'll ever meet in real life. I don't think I'm better than... anyone, really. I get that everyone in my lab has more knowledge/experience than I do. I don't think I'm a good writer; other people tell me I'm a good writer--in fact, other people tell me I'm an excellent writer/researcher. Could they all be deluded? Yeah, I guess. There's pretty of other things I'm not good at and plenty of things I need to learn. Writing, however, is the one thing I'm very, very good at (literally, I can't tie my own shoes, so I'm not shining with arrogance here), and so I get graduate-level writing tasks.

Trust me, I get that I'm not a grad student; for that matter, I  get that I may NEVER be a grad student (clinical psych programs are ultra-competitive, after all). The dynamics in our lab are different from other labs--because it's not a university-based lab, because my PI doesn't care to separate us out, because, whatever else, and I was trying to avoid awkwardness.

Sigh... train meet wreck.

[plebeian]

I resent the puppet remarks. Not the puppet bit, but the assumption that I'm the OP's puppet; I'm much more selective than that about who gets to shove their hand up my rear.

[grasshopper]

I dunno. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Pathanalysis does indeed have a very promising reputation, and is very possibly one who stands apart from her classmates. It's not unheard of, after all. Some students do stand out, and they do get special opportunities, like being an active and valuable member of a research lab, and teaching classes (which still makes me a bit hesitant, but that's a subject for another thread).

At the end of the day, though, it's still about potential. As it is for Path's grad student friend, for that matter.

But I'm thinking now that maybe we're laying it thick on Path for not knowing about the differences between a graduate student and an undergraduate student. After all, how would she know? She's never been a graduate student. I remember thinking that my PhD would be like my MA all over again, except, you know, bigger. People told me that it was different. They told me that it was a whole other level of scholarship. And I let my eyes get wide, and I told them that I understood. But I didn't understand. I didn't have a clue. No idea what was involved... because I'd never done it.

Now people are talking to me about the differences between a doctoral dissertation and a book. And I know that there is a difference - I can see it when I read others' dissertations, and compare those with books. But I have no idea what the difference will mean when I go to actually produce a book. I'm mouthing the words, "Oh, yes, I understand." But I don't, because I've never done it.

We're really getting on Path's case because she doesn't understand the differences. And they're differences that you can't really explain to someone who doesn't have the right frame of reference. Or at least, I can't explain it. I find it really frustrating that she didn't just trust us when we said over and over and over again that there are differences. That even if they do the same work, there are differences. That even if grad student colleague turns to Path for assistance in certain ways, she's still higher up in the hierarchy. And I've been frustrated when Path says that she understands, but doesn't really seem to. But now I'm starting to wonder if maybe that's just a normal response. How could she understand the differences? She's never experienced them.

[bread_pirate_naan]

Sigh... train meet wreck.

It can be a conversation.  Or it can be a taking off point for more successful conversations on other topics, threads and boards.  I will not pretend to dislike trainwrecks.  You should be flattered the comparisons being made are to what is arguably the greatest threadwreck in fora history. 

***

It's important not to be a shrinking violet or minimize your accomplishments.  No one doubts your accomplishments.  That's why you don't have to tell us that your co-workers disabuse you of any sense of undergraduate abilities.  That's not really what this has been about at all.  It doesn't matter what your abilities are because the question of the class is more about the subtler dynamics.  We all have uneven areas of development and your network will probably be stronger in the long run if you don't take the grad's class.  Even if you do have the ability to seamlessly change roles from labmates to teacher-student.  I think most of the contributors could agree with that.

I don't think you would be at risk of losing your job in the slightest. If you've finished your apps, no one can even regret what they might have written in a letter of rec after the deadline.  No one even thinks undergrads lack certain specific abilities or exceptional qualities.  Many professors were once exceptional undergrads.  I was not, but I thought I was.  As a grad I am more the sort of person I claimed to be when I was making a lot of claims that were not necessarily untrue, but Huge Red Flags.  I am not under the impression this has stopped because I am a lofty grad now.  It's probably a life time handicap.

So, I think this is totally a grad board sort of thread, but it fits here too.  Undergrads occasionally post things here that are slightly different from the overall tone of the board.  Anyone who reads the Grad board (fewer than read this one) knows you are an undergrad because you are writing about apps there.  It is assumed that In the Classroom posts are posts from the head of the class, meaning Professor, not top student.  None of this really matters(talk about an irrelevant inclusion!), because one of the key threads active right now is about a very important topic and was OP'd by an undergrad who is in a very delicate situation with very different power dynamics.

So, there is a general tone that I am simply suggesting you to be aware of and I am glad you are listening.  You had a harder time hearing it before.  On that note, let's go back to another thread on the grad board, The Grandstanding Colleague thread.  Now hold on, because I am going to reveal a bunch of stuff that is full-on bragging and also factual.  MG's colleague rubs him the wrong way.  It happens to all of us.  Nobody likes everybody and even the people who pretend to are suspicious.  Anyway, two of the first grandstanding complaints are things I can identify with rather closely.  I had the opportunity to pitch my project for a diss for which I hadn't even written a prospectus to the editor of a good uni press.  I was told that the press would welcome my manuscript, that my project is a fit for their list.  I have also had nice contacts with senior scholars at conferences.  The sort of thing where they say, "You should send your paper to this journal, I am a reviewer.  Give my name when you submit"  If I were a little thicker, I might share my good fortune with my colleagues by claiming I had a book deal for an unwritten diss and two shoo-in articles.  But I don't.  One of those journals require you flag colleagues who could review a submission.

You don't have to keep everything to yourself, nor do you have to identify all that closely with temptedknight or grandstanding_colleague, but it never hurts to try really, really hard to be receptive to things you don't want to hear.  Even if you think the respondents have it wrong.  If you aren't sure why they disagree, you can even say that and ask for clarification rather than assume and repeatedly imply everyone on the thread is illiterate.  That's more the lesson of this thread than the appearance you are excessively self-promoting.  You were being perceived in a manner contrary to your intentions, a perception that is that is potentially quite pliable. 

So, back to being full of oneself.  There is generally another side to that coin, the insecure side.  Everything I wrote above is true, but like many grads, often I feel not so secure with my progress.  When I say as much to my peers or to my advisor (not unlike the end of your penultimate post), they say things that are awesome.*  Still, there is always more to be done and those accomplishments and opportunities are fleeting moments.  There are a lot of people like us.  Some are more accomplished, some less.  Just try and find the lesson in the experience you are having even when it isn't the one you asked for.


*Using some restraint, I will not tell you what my advisor said, because it would be an extra-annoying flourish of self-promotion and congratulation that serves no purpose here.  The people who read my CV will deduce that for themselves -- if they are so gracious to agree.  Which they may not.  And nothing may come of any of my manuscripts, which may be poorly received even if they do come to press.  Everything that is secure can be fuel for insecurity.  So I might as well learn something, or draw some conclusion about the nature of 'success'.  Even if I am wrong now, I might be closer to right later.  Or not.  You dig?


On preview:

I resent the puppet remarks. Not the puppet bit, but the assumption that I'm the OP's puppet; I'm much more selective than that about who gets to shove their hand up my rear.

If you are not a puppet, you should stop plagiarizing (repeating the statements) the OP.  That fisting comment is super-puppety, but more like a regular than an undergrad.  So. Whoever you are, you are a super-suspicious character.  That's interesting.  For a minute. Or not.