lewin

I don't know how much of this was directed my way but the "don't pile on" messages did start after my post so of course that's meaningful 
 
Analyzing posters' assumptions, reactions, and, perhaps, misunderstanding of graduate school norms can help them both with the current situation and future situations. Maybe that's being critical, but it could also be more helpful in the long run.
 
Here, when asking about a possibly mistaken grade or inquiring about a grade bump, the OP will have more success (now and later) if he/she doesn't assume: (1) that they know they're doing A(wesome) work; (2) that they deserve an A because they have scholarships, which is irrelevant; (3) that the professor is unprofessional; (4) that the professor is out to get them. Those attitudes--if they are perceived by the professor--can have toxic repercussions for one's reputation and future. #1 and #2 are more likely to come across because professors can sense entitlement from a mile away, and #4 just looks paranoid.

Since this forum is still fizzling, I will add this as a final post:
 
A classmate from this course works in one of the university's professional development centers, and shared what was happening with a boss that works closely with professors. This individual was shocked by the specifics of the class, and believes that there is a strong case against this professor for unprofessional conduct in the form of verbal harassment/abuse for repeated actions since the beginning of the semester. (This happened to a number of other students in this class too, and in past courses as well. I was warned by most everyone in my cohort when I arrived to university.)
 
I'm not interested in pursuing it AT ALL, but that is the one detail I will provide to show that perhaps I am not entirely crazy, paranoid, or grade mongering. (Again, there are others, but this one was the most important.) This course weighed me down all semester and negatively impacted my mental health, and I'm sorry for letting that shine through in the OP without relevant details (and for posting).
 
Mea culpa gradcafe. Thank you for the insights nonetheless!

I'm not going to say that C&C or anyone else shouldn't vent on this site. But, when I read the original post, all I could think was how annoyed I would be if a student came to me with those complaints and/or sent an email questioning my grading and saying I was purposefully trying to mess with them. It just strikes me as a sense of entitlement and very, very similar to stuff undergrads at the Big State U use to beg for grades late in the semester. I would think (incorrectly perhaps) that graduate students would know not to do that or, at a minimum, would find a polite way to request a higher grade that doesn't read like grade-grubbing. 
 
C&C, I'll just add this specifically for you. Unless you have proof that the professor waited until the last minute to grade things as part of a guise, I would never level this accusation at anyone. You honestly have zero clue what was going on in this professor's life and why the grading was delayed. Having taught before, I'll say that all sorts of things have delayed my grading including, but definitely not limited to, getting sick, having to take care of a seriously ill parent, and having pressing work (grant deadlines, manuscript deadlines) that must be met. I would never tell students those things because it's none of their damn business. Some of them have probably thought similarly to you but, in all honesty, that rarely plays a role. Why? Because in most classes, and especially in grad school where participation is a big part of your grade, there are plenty of ways to affect a student's grade without simply waiting to return work. In my own classes (I teach undergrads only), participation is 12-20% of the final grade. That gives one plenty of wiggle room if one so desires and is far easier to adjust than it is to hold on to work and try to do complicated math with paper assignments.
 
And, having read this thread the whole time, I'll just say that if this constitutes "piling on" then a whole lot of threads (past and future) will have to be shut down. People are far crueler than this in threads that are currently active and certain posters (one MSW student comes to mind) get attacked almost every single time they post. Nothing here is a clear violation of the community standards we have set and uphold.

Uh, so they learn and maybe next time they're in a stressful situation they'll behave differently?

Glad I wasn't the only one who got that impression. 89.90? Probably a coincidence in how everything averaged out. Ended up as a 90? Probably because everything gets rounded up to whole numbers. 
 
 
 
Says every student ever, but we know that people aren't good at evaluating their own skills.  
 
 
 
"I can't change grades based on non-academic circumstances," is what I tell the handful of students who tell me this, or variations on it, every time I teach.
 
 
 
Have you been feeling a loss of personal control since entering graduate school? That can lead people to see nefarious conspiracies.

A guy in my lab wrote the wrong university name in his first email to our eventual advisor. It was our advisor's running joke/jab at him for three or four years. But he still got in.

Glad I wasn't the only one who got that impression. 89.90? Probably a coincidence in how everything averaged out. Ended up as a 90? Probably because everything gets rounded up to whole numbers. 
 
 
 
Says every student ever, but we know that people aren't good at evaluating their own skills.  
 
 
 
"I can't change grades based on non-academic circumstances," is what I tell the handful of students who tell me this, or variations on it, every time I teach.
 
 
 
Have you been feeling a loss of personal control since entering graduate school? That can lead people to see nefarious conspiracies.

A guy in my lab wrote the wrong university name in his first email to our eventual advisor. It was our advisor's running joke/jab at him for three or four years. But he still got in.

I just want to pop in to defend the social sciences and dispute this implication that people in the "hard" sciences are smarter so going there would solve the problem.  Group discussions give people the opportunity to open their mouths and possibly look like idiots.  You might think that hard science students are more worthy of your time, but it could just be that in lecture-based classes they're not being given similar chances to demonstrate that many are, indeed, also morons.   [Assuming they're actually morons and we don't have an unskilled and unaware situation going on here...]
 
 
My practical advice is that if your advisor relationship is fine, stick with it and focus your outside-of-class time on the students whose contributions you enjoy. Grad school is more about the research than the classes anyway.

Thanks for clarifying, I agree with everybody else that it's invited then. But of course, you your friend could always ask your supervisor to be sure.

Thanks for clarifying, I agree with everybody else that it's invited then. But of course, you your friend could always ask your supervisor to be sure.

I just want to pop in to defend the social sciences and dispute this implication that people in the "hard" sciences are smarter so going there would solve the problem.  Group discussions give people the opportunity to open their mouths and possibly look like idiots.  You might think that hard science students are more worthy of your time, but it could just be that in lecture-based classes they're not being given similar chances to demonstrate that many are, indeed, also morons.   [Assuming they're actually morons and we don't have an unskilled and unaware situation going on here...]
 
 
My practical advice is that if your advisor relationship is fine, stick with it and focus your outside-of-class time on the students whose contributions you enjoy. Grad school is more about the research than the classes anyway.

I'm having a little trouble following the characters but a professor got invited to a talk and passed it to his/her graduate student? This has happened to me. I wouldn't put it as an invited talk, just a regular talk. Frankly, your friend wasn't the one invited  

I think you're misunderstanding me. I never said that prestige was more important than publications or that one can't publish outside the Ivy leage. I only said that--all else equal--somebody will have an easier time getting publications at Harvard than at North Idaho Community College because they'll have more resources, etc. On average.

Not to be cheeky, but you know what correlation means, right? It doesn't mean that prestigious always means productive, or that non-prestigious always means less productive, only that there is an association. Here is one example. Dartmouth College has an fMRI in the basement of the psych building, exclusively for the use of its faculty and students. Compare this to a school with fewer resources who only gets scanner access between 1am and 7am at the hospital an hour away. Wouldn't it be easier to get research done at Dartmouth than at the other place?

I gave you a +1 for the frank introspection about the popular appeal of your own work

You're right I should have phrased that better. I'm not saying the OP should treat grad school as a full time job or quit one of the others, but by their own admission they feel like they've "done nothing" this term. The reason for that seems pretty straightforward: Being productive in grad school requires full time+ time and I daresay that's impossible while holding down two jobs.  Those jobs could have their own benefits (like your friend's job) but there shouldn't be any illusions that one can do three things without something suffering.

I really encourage anybody in a medicine or mental health area to read this classic article "Why I don't attend case conferences" by Paul Meehl. It's a typology of dumb comments that occur when meetings are too much of the "everybody talks" variety. (Though set aside some time; it's 70+ pages.)
 
 
 
I think you're exactly right. Nobody pontificates on gravity just because they have experience dropping objects, yet they do it all the time psychology etc..  When I teach I drill it into students over and over: Many lay theories of human behaviour are wrong and I hope it sticks.

First the legal stuff:
 
Is this tutorial part of your duty as a TA? I think you are at a Canadian school right? This means that you are probably on a TA contract for your specific course and if someone is asking you to do a tutorial for a different course (i.e. one where you are not contracted for), then you have the right to refuse the additional work. Check with your collective bargaining agreement (CBA) if you are not sure. At my previous Canadian school, if the department wants to you to TA a different class, even if it's just a single tutorial, they usually have to draw up a new contract for something like 3 hours (prep time included) and they require your agreement.
 
However, if this tutorial is part of your contract for the course you are the TA for, then you cannot refuse this work. It is your responsibility as a TA and a professional to do the work that you are assigned to and committed to doing. As graduate students, we are paid to complete this TA work, and the money is generally public funds or donations. Actions like skipping tutorials or shirking other responsibilities just because you don't feel like it reflect poorly on your colleagues and other academics as well.
 
Second, practical advice:
 
If you have a legal reason to not accept this TA duty (first paragraph above), then it's up to you to decide whether or not to exercise your right to refuse the extra work. There are pros and cons: accepting the work even if you don't want it means that the school is more likely to step over other TA rights in the future; however, rejecting the work might damage your future relationship with the TA manager (even though technically your right to refuse work protects you against actions).
 
However, if you don't have a good reason, I would suggest that you accept that it is going to be sucky for the one day and bring your own work to the 8:30am tutorial and do that if no one shows up. Or, be honest and say that you don't think people will show up next week because it's the end of the term. I would think that the second choice will do you more harm than good and you will likely have to work the 8:30am tutorial anyways.
 
----
 
Finally, I reread this and now I am not 100% sure if you meant that you are asked to do a single 8:30am tutorial coming up really soon, or you are being assigned to a 8:30am tutorial for the upcoming semester as part of the department's TA scheduling. Everything above assumes that this is a one time thing in addition to whatever you have been TAing this term.
 
However, if you are talking about TA assignments for the next semester, then there is nothing you can do. Employees (TAs) do not get to choose their own work hours -- this is the prerogative of the employer (i.e. the Department). If they want to assign you to a 8:30am tutorial then it is well within their rights to do so because I don't think any CBA in Canada prevents this (nor should they). Sometimes you can hope that the Department allows for some legitimate excuses (e.g. picking up/dropping off children at daycare, bus schedules not matching up etc.) but if it's not in the CBA then they don't have to honour these requests. 
 
Sorry that this is not what you want to hear, but in your case, given that you admit there is no real reason for you to not do the 8:30am class (other than you want to sleep in), I don't think you have a choice and it is your responsibility to take the assignment given to you as you are the employee! If you are seriously worried that students will suffer because the tutorial time is inconvenient for students, you might want to talk to the professor in charge of the course to reschedule, but given that classroom scheduling is often very tight at many schools, it's unlikely that there are other open spots (you can still try though).
 
Edit: one last option that I highly do not recommend, but I'll include it for completeness. If this is your TA offer for the upcoming semester and you have not yet signed the contract, then you are also within your rights to refuse the TA appointment. This will mean that you will give up the TA salary and depending on the agreement/policies, potentially give up future years of guaranteed TA employment and/or other funding sources contingent on receiving TA salary. It will also very likely damage your relationship with the department. It is highly not recommended but it is usually an option.

I just want to pop in to defend the social sciences and dispute this implication that people in the "hard" sciences are smarter so going there would solve the problem.  Group discussions give people the opportunity to open their mouths and possibly look like idiots.  You might think that hard science students are more worthy of your time, but it could just be that in lecture-based classes they're not being given similar chances to demonstrate that many are, indeed, also morons.   [Assuming they're actually morons and we don't have an unskilled and unaware situation going on here...]
 
 
My practical advice is that if your advisor relationship is fine, stick with it and focus your outside-of-class time on the students whose contributions you enjoy. Grad school is more about the research than the classes anyway.

There are definitely higher and lower impact conferences within subdisciplines and the criteria are (1) do important people attend? and (2) is it hard to get in? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by the time you graduate you should have two pages of poster presentations, so the little ones don't really matter for your CV because they fail both the above criteria, though of course they can be good experience while you're learning. I don't bother listing any presentations that were on my home campus anymore. 
 
Any way you can submit as a talk? Talks are more prestigious than posters because (1) more people will see you and (2) everyone knows the rejection rate is higher. Exclusivity = prestige is a strong heuristic. Your supervisor could say whether it's strong enough. 
 
 
 
I know you didn't ask about social but that's all I know, so I'll mention those in case there are lurkers from social.  The highest impact conferences are often but not necessarily the larger international conferences. It's not just how many people might see you, but who those people are. You want to go where the important people are. Here are some general impressions...
 
The #1: Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP). Talks only, no posters. Prestigious because it's small (membership by nomination), all the top people attend, and attendance requires a member sponsor. High rejection rate. You won't attend this as an undergrad and probably not as a graduate student but included for completeness.
 
The standard conference is Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP). Talks are prestigious because symposia have a rejection rate of 70% and large audiences attend. Posters are good too because lots of people are there, but the acceptance rate is 90%+ so getting in is kind of expected. SPSP also has lots of preconferences that are great to submit to because there you'l be exposed to people in your specific research area. They're also smaller so you get more attention, and many have possibilities for short grad student talks or data blitz talks (3-5 minutes).
 
In my area, there are also subdiscipline conferences like Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) and International Society for Justice Research (ISJR). Those are good because they're small and you get a chance to meet people who really care about your specific research area (if you're into social justice). Great for networking.
 
Next are regional conferences like Eastern Psychological Association and Midwestern Psychological Association. These can be worthwhile if the conference is near good universities. MPA is really great because it's in Chicago and you get people from Northwestern, Chicago, Ohio State, Michigan, Waterloo, etc., which all have really strong social programs. MPA takes talks and posters. I've never been to EPA but I think they're more oriented towards cognitive/neuro?
 
Last are big, interdisciplinary conferences like Association for Psychological Science (APS), American Psychological Association (APA), and Canadian Psychological Association (CPA). I've never attended APS but there are usually big name speakers and it looks like they attract sexy research so could be worthwhile. APA and CPA are, frankly, dominated by clinical psychologists so they're less interesting for a social person to attend. The CPA preconference is usually really interesting though, and they take posters.

There are definitely higher and lower impact conferences within subdisciplines and the criteria are (1) do important people attend? and (2) is it hard to get in? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by the time you graduate you should have two pages of poster presentations, so the little ones don't really matter for your CV because they fail both the above criteria, though of course they can be good experience while you're learning. I don't bother listing any presentations that were on my home campus anymore. 
 
Any way you can submit as a talk? Talks are more prestigious than posters because (1) more people will see you and (2) everyone knows the rejection rate is higher. Exclusivity = prestige is a strong heuristic. Your supervisor could say whether it's strong enough. 
 
 
 
I know you didn't ask about social but that's all I know, so I'll mention those in case there are lurkers from social.  The highest impact conferences are often but not necessarily the larger international conferences. It's not just how many people might see you, but who those people are. You want to go where the important people are. Here are some general impressions...
 
The #1: Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP). Talks only, no posters. Prestigious because it's small (membership by nomination), all the top people attend, and attendance requires a member sponsor. High rejection rate. You won't attend this as an undergrad and probably not as a graduate student but included for completeness.
 
The standard conference is Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP). Talks are prestigious because symposia have a rejection rate of 70% and large audiences attend. Posters are good too because lots of people are there, but the acceptance rate is 90%+ so getting in is kind of expected. SPSP also has lots of preconferences that are great to submit to because there you'l be exposed to people in your specific research area. They're also smaller so you get more attention, and many have possibilities for short grad student talks or data blitz talks (3-5 minutes).
 
In my area, there are also subdiscipline conferences like Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) and International Society for Justice Research (ISJR). Those are good because they're small and you get a chance to meet people who really care about your specific research area (if you're into social justice). Great for networking.
 
Next are regional conferences like Eastern Psychological Association and Midwestern Psychological Association. These can be worthwhile if the conference is near good universities. MPA is really great because it's in Chicago and you get people from Northwestern, Chicago, Ohio State, Michigan, Waterloo, etc., which all have really strong social programs. MPA takes talks and posters. I've never been to EPA but I think they're more oriented towards cognitive/neuro?
 
Last are big, interdisciplinary conferences like Association for Psychological Science (APS), American Psychological Association (APA), and Canadian Psychological Association (CPA). I've never attended APS but there are usually big name speakers and it looks like they attract sexy research so could be worthwhile. APA and CPA are, frankly, dominated by clinical psychologists so they're less interesting for a social person to attend. The CPA preconference is usually really interesting though, and they take posters.

There are definitely higher and lower impact conferences within subdisciplines and the criteria are (1) do important people attend? and (2) is it hard to get in? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by the time you graduate you should have two pages of poster presentations, so the little ones don't really matter for your CV because they fail both the above criteria, though of course they can be good experience while you're learning. I don't bother listing any presentations that were on my home campus anymore. 
 
Any way you can submit as a talk? Talks are more prestigious than posters because (1) more people will see you and (2) everyone knows the rejection rate is higher. Exclusivity = prestige is a strong heuristic. Your supervisor could say whether it's strong enough. 
 
 
 
I know you didn't ask about social but that's all I know, so I'll mention those in case there are lurkers from social.  The highest impact conferences are often but not necessarily the larger international conferences. It's not just how many people might see you, but who those people are. You want to go where the important people are. Here are some general impressions...
 
The #1: Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP). Talks only, no posters. Prestigious because it's small (membership by nomination), all the top people attend, and attendance requires a member sponsor. High rejection rate. You won't attend this as an undergrad and probably not as a graduate student but included for completeness.
 
The standard conference is Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP). Talks are prestigious because symposia have a rejection rate of 70% and large audiences attend. Posters are good too because lots of people are there, but the acceptance rate is 90%+ so getting in is kind of expected. SPSP also has lots of preconferences that are great to submit to because there you'l be exposed to people in your specific research area. They're also smaller so you get more attention, and many have possibilities for short grad student talks or data blitz talks (3-5 minutes).
 
In my area, there are also subdiscipline conferences like Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) and International Society for Justice Research (ISJR). Those are good because they're small and you get a chance to meet people who really care about your specific research area (if you're into social justice). Great for networking.
 
Next are regional conferences like Eastern Psychological Association and Midwestern Psychological Association. These can be worthwhile if the conference is near good universities. MPA is really great because it's in Chicago and you get people from Northwestern, Chicago, Ohio State, Michigan, Waterloo, etc., which all have really strong social programs. MPA takes talks and posters. I've never been to EPA but I think they're more oriented towards cognitive/neuro?
 
Last are big, interdisciplinary conferences like Association for Psychological Science (APS), American Psychological Association (APA), and Canadian Psychological Association (CPA). I've never attended APS but there are usually big name speakers and it looks like they attract sexy research so could be worthwhile. APA and CPA are, frankly, dominated by clinical psychologists so they're less interesting for a social person to attend. The CPA preconference is usually really interesting though, and they take posters.

There are definitely higher and lower impact conferences within subdisciplines and the criteria are (1) do important people attend? and (2) is it hard to get in? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by the time you graduate you should have two pages of poster presentations, so the little ones don't really matter for your CV because they fail both the above criteria, though of course they can be good experience while you're learning. I don't bother listing any presentations that were on my home campus anymore. 
 
Any way you can submit as a talk? Talks are more prestigious than posters because (1) more people will see you and (2) everyone knows the rejection rate is higher. Exclusivity = prestige is a strong heuristic. Your supervisor could say whether it's strong enough. 
 
 
 
I know you didn't ask about social but that's all I know, so I'll mention those in case there are lurkers from social.  The highest impact conferences are often but not necessarily the larger international conferences. It's not just how many people might see you, but who those people are. You want to go where the important people are. Here are some general impressions...
 
The #1: Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP). Talks only, no posters. Prestigious because it's small (membership by nomination), all the top people attend, and attendance requires a member sponsor. High rejection rate. You won't attend this as an undergrad and probably not as a graduate student but included for completeness.
 
The standard conference is Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP). Talks are prestigious because symposia have a rejection rate of 70% and large audiences attend. Posters are good too because lots of people are there, but the acceptance rate is 90%+ so getting in is kind of expected. SPSP also has lots of preconferences that are great to submit to because there you'l be exposed to people in your specific research area. They're also smaller so you get more attention, and many have possibilities for short grad student talks or data blitz talks (3-5 minutes).
 
In my area, there are also subdiscipline conferences like Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) and International Society for Justice Research (ISJR). Those are good because they're small and you get a chance to meet people who really care about your specific research area (if you're into social justice). Great for networking.
 
Next are regional conferences like Eastern Psychological Association and Midwestern Psychological Association. These can be worthwhile if the conference is near good universities. MPA is really great because it's in Chicago and you get people from Northwestern, Chicago, Ohio State, Michigan, Waterloo, etc., which all have really strong social programs. MPA takes talks and posters. I've never been to EPA but I think they're more oriented towards cognitive/neuro?
 
Last are big, interdisciplinary conferences like Association for Psychological Science (APS), American Psychological Association (APA), and Canadian Psychological Association (CPA). I've never attended APS but there are usually big name speakers and it looks like they attract sexy research so could be worthwhile. APA and CPA are, frankly, dominated by clinical psychologists so they're less interesting for a social person to attend. The CPA preconference is usually really interesting though, and they take posters.

I tend to refer to this problem as dividing programs/subjects/areas of study in “everybody-can-have-an-opinion” ones VS “only-the-experts-can-have-an-opinion” with two similar courses I’ve taken.  During my first year as a computer science grad it was mandatory for us to take an ethics course in the Philosophy Department with a focus towards computer science (I guess they wanted to prevent us from becoming black hat hackers or something). Everybody in my cohort dreaded that course and I didn’t know why, but I tried to go in with an open mind. Gosh… WHAT.A.WASTE.OF.TIME. The course was mostly split around 15-20% CompSci students and 80-85% social science/humanities/business students. There was no formal structure to it (with the professor encouraging ‘discussion’ among students) and all I can say was that a lot of yapping was going on, with people mostly talking about their life experiences with file sharing networks and social media. Every now and then somebody would make a tangentially relevant point but it was mostly just 4 months of incessant yapping. What I found was, of course, that the material of the course was something everybody could relate to so you didn’t actually need to know anything about philosophy or ethics or computer science to have an opinion about it. You just needed to have used a computer at some point in your lifetime.
 
 But there was this one time where I took a course with a catchy name like “Modern Practice of Bioinformatics” or something that promised it would touch upon issues like genetics, bioengineering, GMOs, etc. It attracted a similar split of students (with the CompSci people being in the minority) but the course had so much emphasis on the technical details of computing that it effectively cut the yapping that was going on. Only people who knew their stuff  and had something relevant to contribute dared rise their hand and say something, and this ‘something’ was usually very relevant.
 
For better or worse, I think most areas of the soft sciences are easier to relate to which means a lot of people who are not experts can think they are experts and say stuff just for the sake of saying stuff. The hard sciences, on the other hand, are more difficult to relate to because your usual everyday life experiences are not very relevant to, say optimizing an algorithm or solving an integral. And if your everyday life experiences cannot help you make an argument or say something in a class discussion, you're forced to rely on your knowledge of the material, effectively filtering-out the opinions of people who don't understand the material. 
 
In any case, it’s always up to you to make the best you want from your degree.

I just want to pop in to defend the social sciences and dispute this implication that people in the "hard" sciences are smarter so going there would solve the problem.  Group discussions give people the opportunity to open their mouths and possibly look like idiots.  You might think that hard science students are more worthy of your time, but it could just be that in lecture-based classes they're not being given similar chances to demonstrate that many are, indeed, also morons.   [Assuming they're actually morons and we don't have an unskilled and unaware situation going on here...]
 
 
My practical advice is that if your advisor relationship is fine, stick with it and focus your outside-of-class time on the students whose contributions you enjoy. Grad school is more about the research than the classes anyway.