SymmetryOfImperfection
-
Posts
263 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SymmetryOfImperfection
-
-
1. I am a 2nd year and already hold a MS where I did an independent project with minimal supervision from my professor that I am writing a paper for and has been presented at a conference.
2. I have done an independent project before. However, I am not totally familiar with the laboratory techniques of my current field (even though my previous field and my current field are both materials science/semiconductors, I am not a wet chemist and this lab involves some wet chemistry) so I am sometimes clumsy with the fabrication parts of my experiments. I am good at physical measurements and theory, and I don't have any problems with those. This experiment will primarily be based around measurements and theory; the fabrication is extremely simple and being "hard to make" was NOT the given reason for dismissing my ideas, especially since the postdoc already PROVED that these ideas at least work on some level.
3. I do not know. The postdoc seems to be clear to do anything he deems relevant to our final goals. The other senior graduate student in my lab does minimal changes without the PI's supervision but mostly works with the postdoc anyhow. Then there's me.
-
I am not sure how I should feel about my ideas being dismissed without consideration or feeling like I cannot come up with my own ideas about how to solve the problems given to me. I feel like that I am very limited in the things I'm allowed to pursue to solve my project's problems. It's as if not only the goals are set for me (which is expected) and that I have to obey the limitations of budget, lab theme and time, but even within these constraints, I have to do exactly what the professor is asking even if it is questionable.
Situation:
The idea was generated from a postdoc in my lab who came up with it independently and ran preliminary experiments to demonstrate that it worked, but had no idea why it worked. We have all the materials needed, all materials are extremely inexpensive and plentiful, and the analysis uses routine instrumentation in our lab that's almost always open for use. This, I assumed, was why the postdoc worked on this.
I noticed these promising results and designed a set of experiments that would elucidate the physical principle behind these ideas. I carefully read my project guidelines that my professor had set for me and noticed that these experiments 1. if successful, would fit the end goal of the project 2. do not divert significant time and attention away from current experiments and require no additional budget 3. do not entail any additional safety hazards (all chemicals used are routine) 4. fit the theme and goals of our laboratory 5. is a promising approach but with many open questions left in recent literature and would likely lead to publications.
From this, I expected that my professor would approve of me taking the initiative to do a literature search, find relationship to unsolved problems in our group's research, take the existing results of our group and expand on them, design a set of low cost experiments and getting out results in a relatively "hot" area that fits within our project constraints.
Unfortunately the professor dismissed my ideas without consideration. He said something about a complication, did not elaborate, and before I could refute, gave me another assignment that I knew the answer to from the literature. Then he left. I don't understand why this happened.
Now I am wondering: am I allowed to come up with my own ideas at all? I fully understand that within a PHD, the end goals, materials and methods of my project must fit with that of my group. I accepted that coming in. However, when I am given a problem, I expect to come up with my own potentially publishable ideas about how to solve the problem within the constraints given.
Was I wrong? Is it that being a PHD is just using your professor's ideas and running experiments for him?
What should I do?
-
My lab: teaching for all only. lol. I have a massive teaching workload (12 hours per week are spent in the classroom alone) and have to work on research, writing and oral exams. Apparently this is the norm around here since the department recently lost some huge funding in the physical chemistry program because alot of professors worked on a similar topic that then got axed by the DOE.
-
First time working a full day on the weekends.
-
I feel terrible. My MS experience seems to not help at all. I used to be able to fabricate samples and run experiments quite confidently, if a bit slowly. In my PHD, it seems like nothing goes the way it is supposed to. When I entered the lab, it seemed like I was just tossed into the lab with no preparation in how things actually run - I don't know how to buy chemicals, my PI isn't here, the postdoc thinks I suck at everything. Supplies are frequently short. I didn't do wet chemistry in the past, and yet now all my samples need to be solution processable. My previous experiments in this group all felt like they were pulled off only with extraordinary luck. I have very little input into the project either. I don't know what to do.
-
Thanks for the reply and good advice! Because of my independent major, I have very rigid requirements and won't be able to fit those classes in without adding an additional semester (which my scholarship won't cover and I definitely can't afford to pay for myself). However, I'm currently sitting in on a graduate level water chemistry course for no credit, but doing all of the work involved (homework, exams, labs, etc.). I know that this is not the same as taking the class for credit, but if I were to talk about it in my application and possibly do the same for fluid mechanics, do you think that might carry some weight? Or is there an alternative that might be better?
Sorry if I come off as a little crazed - I really do want to put in whatever effort it takes, but I also don't want it to be misdirected.
fluid mechanics is a prerequisite for most environmental engineering programs, as that's where alot of environmental (water based) chemistry programs are located. Atmospheric environmental chemistry programs can be in either chemistry or environmental engineering.
-
it is possible. however you need to prove that you're up for it with strong grades in coursework. Chemistry programs are not as rigid as some others out there; physics, chemical engineering and math are incredibly rigid in their undergrad major requirements. Environmental engineering usually isn't so rigid either, since it is pretty interdisciplinary. Note that in the US there's licensing requirements for environmental engineers which involve a P.E. license.
For environmental chemistry I strongly suggest a fluid mechanics course and an actual environmental/water chemistry course since alot of the research in environmental chemistry involves pollutant transport in fluids (air and water).
-
It really does sound like you just don't get along with the director. It is really weird to me that the director has called you in so many times considering you don't really get feedback on how the class is going until after it is over. Don't worry about it. Research should be your focus anyways, not teaching. That being said, I might bring it up to my adviser. Not as a complaint, but just ask for feedback about the situation and how to deal with it. Also, that way if the teaching director talks to your adviser, he will have already heard your side of the story first and be aware of the situation.
When you are a Ph.D, it is your right to teach your class how you want. Not being about to do it exactly like someone else wants does not mean you are a bad teacher or not cut out for being in academia.
Struggling with being a TA doesn't mean you aren't suited for a PhD. A PhD is a research degree, not a teaching degree. If you're struggling with the teaching, you either work to improve it or you buy yourself out of it through grants/fellowships. I highly recommend that you talk to your university's teaching center and see if they can either observe you or have one of your classes recorded and then watch it with them. They can help you identify what you're doing well and what needs work, plus it's an outside evaluation that you can include in your departmental file and your overall teaching portfolio.
thanks guys.
I know where I'm going wrong from their point of view. Problem is, fixing what is wrong on my end requires incredible amounts of effort that I struggle to come up with because I have a shit ton of demands on my time (such as passing the candidacy exam, actually doing research, finishing up some electives for credit requirements, etc). I am under scrutiny so now I cannot make even a single mistake. I didn't plan to stay in academia, but I'm doubting my ability to even finish this PHD now. It would be great if I could get an RA, but if I have to TA, I'm scared that it's only a matter of time before I mess up.
-
I'm at a crossroads. Currently I'm having trouble with TAing. While this has not been a concern in the past, in recent months there has been stricter scrutiny of all TAs. I try my best to do what is right for the students and help them learn, but this has been interpreted as being too easy and not paying attention to the students enough. I don't know if I'm suited for the PHD anymore.
-
I have been called into the TA manager's office 3 times in the past 3 months alone. I never had an issue my first year now it seems like the issues don't stop. If it isn't them saying I grade too easy (even though I strictly follow the rubric) it is that I'm not caught up with my grading. Now I am grading very critically and am completely caught up, they tell me to come in for yet another meeting. I am dreading what it could be. I just dunno what to do about this.
-
what I mean by very strict interpretation of the rubric is, for instance, subjective things like organization, neatness, etc. this is an intro level class based on the guided inquiry approach, so I'm supposed to lead students to the answer on their own too, not give direct answers, and we are supposed to grade for argument, not correct answers(though trends have to be right ) so sometimes they'll try to justify something, but I know it's wrong, so I err on the side of caution and don't take off more points than necessary.This sounds very frustrating. I am also in the "we should always grade according to a rubric" camp because I think it's extremely unfair to grade students on things they are not told they will be graded on. I experience this a lot in physics when grading lab notebooks, there seems to be a lot of "unwritten rules" that no one tells you about and then you just "learn" them by failing a lot of assignments until you make all of the mistakes possible.
But I do agree with fuzzy that you do have to follow the head TA / instructor's lead on this one. If you believe the grading practice to be unfair, the right thing to do is to bring this up to the other TAs and instructors and maybe even take the initiative in creating change by writing up a more detailed rubric to include the aspects that others are deducting points for.
I think consistency is important because although it might seem like you are doing what's best for the students by grading more leniently, it's not fair to the other students with different grading styles. Also, if students rotate between TAs, then this will just confuse them more because some of their assignments will lose points for X but others won't.
In order to get your grading in line with the norm for the course, maybe you can ask for more direct guidance from the instructor / other TAs? Perhaps you can take a look at how they are grading and compare? Maybe for the next 1 or 2 assignments, you should grade them together with another TA and discuss what you are doing. If the other TAs are willing to do this with you, this could potentially achieve both goals of consistent grading and allowing you to give input on the grading practice. That is, maybe the new "norm" can be somewhere in between your interpretation of the rubric and theirs? If sitting down together to grade is too much of a time constraint, maybe just a short meeting (15-20 mins) to discuss your interpretation of the rubric?
I am also interested in what you mean when you say other TAs have "very strict" interpretations of the rubric. I think rubrics need to clearly state what the expectations are, but at the level appropriate for the course. Like you have noticed, one downside of rubric grading is that some students will just follow it and not deviate from the rubric, which might limit what they could learn.
I have been fortunate that in all of my TA experiences, I have been given freedom to create my own rubric. I try hard to make rubrics at the level appropriate for the class. For example, a freshman physics lab notebook grading rubric might say something like "Ensure all graphs are drawn with a ruler, numbered, have labelled axis, a legend, and proper units." But for students in sophomore or higher levels (i.e. those who will be physics majors), I might just write "Graphs and Tables must be well annotated" and provide an example lab notebook writeup, because as physics majors, I would expect these students to either: 1) already know the expectations or 2) be able to figure it out from my example and ask me questions if they don't know.
Finally, unless your instructor / head TA tells you otherwise, you can still do what's best for your students and meet their grading expectations. Find out what they are grading for, get confirmation from them that this is what they are looking for and then communicate these expectations to your students. You can do this by providing more details in the rubric and/or creating a sample assignment showing them what an "A" assignment would look like. The other TAs/instructor cannot fault your section for having a high average if they are actually meeting all of the expectations of the other TAs. This would be more work for you though!
the projects whose rubric I had insight into had averages closer to the whole class average as well as the ones with the old 50pt rubric but the ones with the new 100 pt rubric were too high.
thanks for the tips.
-
How tiring teaching is. Never felt this bad during my MS... but holy shit the teaching...
-
This is a tough one. I understand your reluctance to grade in a way that feels unfair to you. However, you need to follow the primary instructor/TA manager's lead on this one. It's not fair to the students that points get taken off for the same issue by all but one TA. If this is how the other TAs are doing things, and the instructor is happy, there is very little you can do. You can ask about the rubric and specific issues you encounter, but if you're instructed to pay close attention to XYZ, you can't just decide that it's too nit-picky or not worth your attention. While you may see things differently, and you may very well be correct in how you see it, you are not in charge. One day, if and when you are in charge, you can instruct your TAs to grade however you see fit. For now, you need to conform to what is requested of you, unless there are very extreme circumstances (like, someone is asking you to given a B to someone who is doing F-level work), which doesn't seem to be the case here.
There have been no explicit instructions on what to pay attention for other than "reduce your average". This doesn't tell me where I'm being too lenient at all.
-
The TA manager at my school says I'm grading too easily.
When I go by the rubrics, what I see is that the students are following the directions and not deviating from the rubric. Other TAs are nitpicking things that aren't appearing on the rubric or are very very strict interpretations of the rubric, almost to an extreme. Is this what I'm supposed to be doing?
On one hand, I want the best for my students. On the other hand, I want to at least not be hated by the office. It is hard for me to be too harsh, because I know what ppl go through to learn this stuff.
-
Look on the bright side - the other direction is way worse. I went from one of the top 5 undergraduate schools for my major to a rank 40ish graduate school, and whenever people ask me where I did my undergrad, they always give me a "wow!" followed by either a spoken or an unspoken "so how'd you end up here...."
same. I went from a top 20 to a top 40. I don't care though. There's ALOT of ppl in my department who have done that. You aren't obligated to explain anything to anybody. Who the fk are they?
-
There is a difference and while I think a lot of what shinigamiasuka says is true, I do not think this is the main reason why there is a different standard. For example, I was told the same thing and I'm from Canada, where our education system is pretty much identical to the United States.
The main reason for a different standard is because at most public US schools, the tuition rate for international students is about 3 or 4 times more expensive than the tuition rate for domestic students (although our stipends would be the same). This ultimately results in the total cost of an international student to be around 2 to 3 times more than a domestic student. The reason for the tuition rate difference is that public schools are funded by the government (taxes) and Americans pay taxes towards this while international people like us do not.
This means that public schools often have a low rate of international students. In most US schools, this is around 10% or lower. So, if a school is accepting 40 students, there would be only 4 international student spots. As an international applicant, this means we would have to be in the top 4 of the international pool to get in (but if we were American, we just have to be in the top 36).
Then, on top of this, certain schools, especially the University of California schools, are very very popular with international students. I know one professor who worked there and he said that 75% of their applications are from international students!! But only 10% of their spots are awarded to international students. The entire world is very big, it's much harder to be the top 4 applicants in the entire world than the top 36 from the United States.
When I applied to US grad schools, my mentors told me that while I should still try for the University of California schools, I should apply to more private schools because tuition there is the same for everyone and thus there is no difference in cost! And they were right--I got into some top private universities but rejected from all of the University of California schools (even ones that are supposedly less competitive than my current school). At my current private school, the international student population is around 45% !! Much larger than 10%.
Therefore, my advice to international students with strong profiles is to focus mostly on the top private schools and/or apply to a very large number of schools because the chances of getting in is much lower for international people like us!
+1. You can get into MUCH better privates with the same score, than you would in public schools. I'm talking like, you can jump from a top 40's public, to a top 20's private. That's how big the difference is. There are some publics that aren't so bad (UIUC, Minnesota) and then there's some that are pretty much impossible (all the UCs).
-
think I'm going nuts. Teaching + Research is just a total pain.
-
sup, I'm in chemical physics. Its a great field and very cool. My previous degree was in physics.
MD is money doctor - you gotta have money to be a doctor. PHD is poor hungry doctor - you can be this doctor even if you are poor and hungry.
Don't worry about gender but do note that alot of guys and girls in physical chemistry are not exactly the most social people out there.
It is not that much easier though.
-
you really don't know what you want to do until you really start doing it. if you haven't actually done cosmology/gravitational lensing vs. direct detection, you can't really say which you like better. Personal experience.
-
You say that, but there's no skill like speaking all of those langauges, and personally I don't think I'd survive professionally if I didn't.
Being able to talk theory with a chemical physicist and talk delivery mechanisms or enzyme kinetics with a biochemist is a valuable skill, and I would argue that getting a PhD in Chemistry means you can pretty fluently read a paper from any journal in the spectrum, and analyze it pretty well. When it comes to papers, for that matter, you'd be surprised how far afield you'll be asked to review things. I've helped review papers from J Chem Phys and J Phys Chem through some electrial engineering and molecular biology stuff.
I would also say in modern organic chemistry, outside of some of the most traditional labs, MatLAB is quite useful, to take an example from your post. You can say either case is useful, I'd say a well-trained chemist, regardless of subfield can run a TLC and explain the theory behind it as well as use MatLAB. And a biophysicist isn't going far if they don't keep up with current biochemistry publications, and a biochemist isn't going far if they don't keep up with current biophysics. Some of the journals may use different terminology, but you'd better know both pretty fluently.
I just finished helping one of our chemical physics groups set up a shlenk line. They've got a need to synthesize some very specific things, and it's easier for them to set up and do it themselves rather than find a collaborator willing to devote the time to it. They have the basic skills necessary from a well rounded undergrad, and all they needed was google and a bit of help with the initial setup.
I also spent a pretty interesting couple of months teaching one of our theoretical electrodynamics groups how to purify and analyze DNA... They were interested in getting some measurements to couple to their theoretical calculations for charge transfer. And again, they had the skills necessary to pretty quickly pick up the lab work, because they were well rounded.
When our group is looking for someone, we'd prefer someone that can do syntheis, work with biological systems, has a solid stats background, and can do mathematical prediction and modeling. We really don't have a lot of interest in getting people that have specialized so much they can't easily branch out as the situation requires.
That said, it may also be an age/time in degree thing. I notice our first and second years are much more insular in their interests, and it really seems to hurt them in terms of networking with the faculty and other researchers.
Yeah maybe its because of being new since new students usually don't get to do alot of out of field things. However I think its kind of unreasonable to think that you have to be able to know *anything* from chemistry. I mean, a guy in materials or biophysics is not going to be able to understand a total synthesis paper and the opposite is true too, but thats OK since their jobs are different.
Or maybe its because I learn slowly and can't handle too much information lol. Gotta break it down into nice compartments.
-
From BS to MS, not much surprised me. From MS to PHD, huge changes. It is really hard to get to know ppl in the department, especially in a big interdisciplinary program where you really aren't anchored to any one department.
-
Personally, I'd advice against picking a specialization too early. There's more and more overlap between subfields, and it's not really until after you've experienced multiple research areas that you have a solid idea of what you do and don't like. Advanced classes will help, as well.
To be perfectly honest, I didn't even have a defined idea when i applied to grad school, and I'd taken the equivalent of an MS in coursework, and had 4 years or research experience.
I knew there were things I liked, things I didn't like, and a general goal for my research- I liked biological/biologically inspired projects, and I liked working on things that had defined practical and applied outcomes.
I ended up applying to different schools in different subfields- bioinorganic some places, instrumentation development others, and even some very biophysical programs. Also just some standard wet organic medicinal chemistry labs.
Even when I started grad school, I'd courted several different groups in different areas, and picked the one that let me work in the most interdisciplinary area.
At the professional level, there's not as much focus on "field". You're a chemist, and as such expected to be relatively fluent in all of the sub disciplines, and a lot of people transition from one to the other at various points in their career, depending on exact research interests and applications.
Accordingly, my advice would be to work on developing a solid, well rounded background- and as mentioned, get research experience. It doesn't need to be exactly in the area you're most interested in long term, but it should be with a good advisor, and something that will get you some defined wet-lab skills, and see what a research environment is like.
I disagree. I'm in chemical physics, and we don't even speak the same language as organic chemists do. Hell, even biophysics and biochemistry (listed separately in our chemistry department's research!) don't speak the same language and their papers read nothing alike. I'd say that its best to pick the general direction early because you want to gear yourself towards study in each subfield - learning how to run TLCs is useless in physical chemistry but essential in organic while learning computer modeling with MatLAB is useless in organic chemistry but almost a requirement in physical chemistry.
-
It sounds like you are down to one option -- having a co-PI with this professor in biophysics (if you are uncertain whether you can succeed in the field of semiconductors). Having co-PI may also help with your funding situation. In terms of who pay what % of your stipend -- that discussion will eventually happened and the PIs will figure that out.
You'll just need to "talk to that professor" on the collaborating project.
yep, thanks for the advice.
-
I am a 1st year grad student who quit my old advisor's group back in January. I feel way better, much less stressed and actually look forward to doing research now. I'm currently doing an independent study in fundamental semiconductor physics. Most of my fabrication experiments have been failures but I'm getting along with the group and feel pretty comfortable. However, this professor already said that he can't fund me over the summer, and whether he can actually take me as a student is an unknown, since the department requires students to be funded by PIs whenever they are not on TA. He told me to talk to other professors to keep my options open in case that he can't.
Right now I've talked to two other professors. One is a professor in semiconductors and said that he has the money but doesn't want to take any new students this year - come talk to him again in July. The other professor in biophysics said "maybe I can take another student" but the project I'm most interested in is a collaboration with another professor; he suggested for me to also talk to that professor. After actually doing research in semiconductors, I'm starting to doubt whether I can succeed in this field. My independent study ends in May, and I have to find a permanent group by then. Hard choices.
Professor shot down my proven idea. Should I even be coming up with ideas?
in Research
Posted
Thanks for the tips, I'll do just that for now. I guess there's just a gap between my expectations and my PI's expectations, since I "feel" like a senior due to my previous MS but I'm actually kind of new to the group, and haven't fully proven myself yet.