What exactly IS a grad student's job

[cherubie]

Sorry for the LONGG post, feel free to skip around haha.

Okay, so this question has been bothering me for the last year or so. I'm currently a post-bachelors research assistant at a relatively big psychology lab. When I first started, there was only 1 grad student, and no RA (I don't think we had the money to afford both). The grad student did pretty much everything, from setting up for experiments, to recruiting subjects, to reading papers and attending conferences. The only problem is that he did everything half-assed, and created more of a headache for the lab than actually getting work done. That's when I came in, started volunteering there and got "trained" to do typical RA things (I think, this is my first human subjects lab, so I don't know). So, at first what I did is set up for experiments, recruit subjects, conduct interviews, data entry, post-data collection analysis/cleaning. THEN eventually, when the grad student left the lab, I also took over what I thought were his roles- managing undergrad students, training new people, being in charge of mini-projects (not experiments) here and there, literature search, and trying to kind of do some data analysis for a paper (which went nowhere since results were not interesting).

I thought that many of my responsibilities are also shared by grad students, ESPECIALLY managing the undergrads. But as of now (a year after), I feel like I'm doing everything and anything. I'm completely fine with this, since it's good for the rec letter and I'm gaining a lot from it. However, I'm not the type of person who will do other people's work without reward. If it's MY job, I'll be glad to do it, but if it's some other person's, no way am I that nice. The grad students in the lab always act like they're so "busy" and walk around as if they're so important, but in reality, they don't know anything about the experiment we're running. They don't know anything about the students, or what to do with them. When I'm not there, the students basically sit there and do their homework. I have to explain to the grad students MULTIPLE TIMES about background info on the experiment, and what is going on. Now, these are Ph.D. track and Psy.D. track students. It seems like all they do is try to write papers (I'm not sure how since they don't even know what the experiment consists of) and doing their own coursework in the lab.

Sorry for the long post, but is this normal? I'm getting peeved about this because I was told that they SHOULD get involved with the experiments as much as they can, since they're ultimately going to need to write papers on it. I have to make appointments with them in order to show them how to do something (one of the grad student joined us half a year ago, another has been there before me), and when I do, they seem so disinterested and bored. They think that everything I'm showing them is tedious (which it can be, but it needs to get done) and don't seem to care. One even had the audacity to tell me that "time is precious" and he doesn't want to sit down and learn something again for 2 hours and he's "already behind on things". [This is AFTER me taking out an hour to explain something to him that should've taken only 10 minutes. While I was explaining things, he just stared at the computer screen, and then at the end said that I needed to explain it again cus he didn't get any of it....I didn't realize that training someone required spoon feeding him, and taking notes for him also. He acted as if it was my pleasure to sit there with him or something.] I can't imagine what he's behind on except coursework (not part of the lab) since he doesn't even do much with the lab itself (other than paper and conference I think). While on my end, I'm literally running around all day at work, getting things done. I would love to write papers too, but I have no time because everything else takes up all day. Now if you're thinking that I don't have as much training as them in order to write papers, I'd disagree. This is my 3rd lab, and I have a BA, just as the first year Ph.D. student does. The only difference between me and him is that I haven't applied yet to grad school.

So, what is your experience, does this sound like I'm doing 3 people's work, or are grad students basically there to look smart and write papers? I want to bring this up to the PI but don't want to seem petty.

Edited February 3, 2011 by cherubie

[nhyn]

ok, no offense, but..it sounds like a really bad lab. I've never encountered grad students who don't know their experiments (you didn't make it clear - whose experiments were you trying to explain to them?). If the level of intelligence of grad students is like that (judging only from what you stated here), if I were you, I'd get another PAID RA job elsewhere. It also sounds like a messy lab. Unless the PI/school is reputable, I doubt if your rec letter is going to carry much weight.

Here's how it works in the labs I've worked in:

1/Lab A: very big lab. There are a few grad students and a few full-time RAs, and a bunch of undergrads. PI and grad students design a study, grad students program it, set up the infrastructure, and full-time RA coordinate undergrads to run it. RAs also run projects set up by PI and therefore can be 2nd author on that PI's paper. After a while grad students and RAs colllab on a project, so RAs get to program and analyze data too. Undergrad rarely do anything further than recruiting, data entry/cleaning, etc. (i.e. grunt but essential! work). If undergrad is doing thesis, then h/she gets to do more (i.e. data analysis, add stuff to an already working study and run it themselves for their thesis, etc.). Full-time RAs might not always get to write the paper (even though they can be 2nd/3rd author), but occasionally they get to edit/write some stuff. So, since this lab is so big and is of a hot stuff PI, grad students rarely have to run the experiments - but trust me, they are super knowledgeable and are always on top. They always have to make sure undergrads are not screwing up lol This is a behavioral lab.

2/Lab B: small lab, but has quite a number of students from other labs jumping in to collab. This is a neuroimaging and behavioral lab. For neuroimaging studies, grad students ALWAYS run their own study, together with another RA (has to have 2 people scanning). Grad students and RAs do data analysis as well. For behavioral studies, grad students run their own study as well, and have help from undergrads and RAs. But since our grad students run soooo many slots and studies at the same time, usually grad students and RAs have the same share of running and recruiting. The other stuff is similar to lab A as well, except undergrads don't do much neuroimaging and we're a much smaller lab.

3/Lab C: big lab, 3 PIs. The lab manager of the head PI, besides doing the stuff mentioned above, also takes care of all kinds of admin stuff (ordering machines, allocating funds, communicating with other labs, etc.). This lab manager does the most admin stuff I've seen. Lab A also has a separate manager (besides full-time RAs) to do admin stuff alongside research duties; lab B has a lab manager who does a bit of admin but since it's a small lab the prof takes care of a lot of admin things.

I've interviewed with 11 different labs (for jobs) and a lot of them (except some clinical labs) expect the full-time RA to operate on a grad student level. So I'd say as an RA you do a lot of the same work as a grad student, but you might not be able to initiate your own project easily/quickly (due to experience, funding, expertise, etc.), or a lot of your projects depend on the PI (that's what they hire you for anyway), although full-time RAs can and are encouraged to initiate their own projects. And of course as a grad student you have less money (as opposed to getting wages, which I assume you don't have right now since you're volunteering) than a full-time RA, more pressure (qualifying exams, attending conferences, classes, etc.). But being an RA does prepare you a lot for the grad school life. I think that's why applicants with RA experience are desirable to PIs.

[cherubie]

Sorry I didn't make it clear. I <b>started out</b> volunteering, but got paid several months later, albeit on an hourly basis right now (going on full time, but need the paperworks/HR process to get done). The lab I'm at is pretty unique, I think (based on your reply). I've only worked at microbio labs before, which are VERY different than the one I'm at, so honestly, I have no idea what is the norm. But anyways, the lab I'm at has one "head PI" who doesn't actually do any experimenting, she mostly does grant writing, IRB stuff, write papers, and "bigger picture" stuff. Then under her are several researchers who are assistant professors, they are not PI's, but they are well-established researchers (not post-docs). Then we have a post-doc, who is very knowledgeable since they started at the lab when the lab first got going. Then there are 2 grad students, then there's me (a staff RA), then unpaid undergrads. <br><br>The thing that I think is unique about this lab is that we don't have... individual projects running. There is a HUGE experiment, with a grant of $1M+, collaborations with other teams, and the "experiment" itself spans 5 years, and is obnoxiously theoretical and complicated. So no one really has "their own" experiment, it seems like there's ONE experiment, then everyone kind of taking the data collected and then picking out pieces to write papers on. It almost seems to me like the lab is more about writing papers than actual experiments sometimes. Thus, the grad students don't have their OWN experiment, they can do data analysis on a PART of an experiment, but the current one we're running is 2 years in the making. So when I said I explain experiments to them, I mean this one huge experiment we're running. I try to explain basic things, like how the experiment is set up, what coding is for what, etc. <br><br>What you described sounds much more like the typical labs I've been in. Thus this is where my frustration comes in. I don't consider myself to be unintelligent, but I would expect grad students to be telling ME what to do, or at least teaching ME something, not the reverse. It gets to the point where the grad students comes to me to ask simple subject scheduling questions, and wants my "confirmation/opinion". Yes, it's a boost of confidence, but it also makes me think I'm working with monkeys. <br><br>Additionally, the students don't seem ONE BIT interested in the experiment themself. When we interview undergrads, they literally take up 40 minutes, talking about nonsense. They go on about themselves, how they got into grad school, and about THEIR life. I've had numerous interviewees or students telling me that they got nothing out of talking to the grad students. At this point, I'm not even going to even try to initiate training them anymore. <br><br>I'm sticking with this lab though even if you said it's not a good one, since I'm applying this coming cycle, and I really don't want to start over at another one. Plus, I will certainly make it clear either in my interview or my statement that I'm pretty much the RA AND the coordinator around here. Just the simple fact that I'm able to multitask and work on 4 things at once is something I definitely took away from this lab. The only downside is again, I get so caught up in doing everything that i don't have time for paper writing or I don't have a "project" to work on.

<div><br></div><div>I do understand and agree that grad students have more on their hand than someone who works 8 hours a day and have no other obligations. BUT classwork is NOT part of the lab. If they were doing their job at lab and did their classwork at home or in their free time, no problem. But it seems like that's ALL they do at lab, and everything else is for me. When I used to study for the GRE, I didn't do that at lab and then complain to say I'm "behind" in my studying.&nbsp;</div>

Edited February 4, 2011 by cherubie

[nhyn]

wow, those grad students sound ... lol while i think a first year grad student is essentially at the same level with me re: experience (i graduated last May) and perhaps maturity (a lot of them are mature beyond their age, though), i've found some pretty amazing first-year grad students here. they are all very smart, know what they are doing, and have extensive experience in areas im not familiar with, hence i always learn a lot from them. the third-year student i've been working with - amazing. she's not only smart, precise, productive, but also an inspiration (or intimidation? lol). her passion for her work really scares me, to be honest. makes me wonder when i will ever be passionate like that. and the other labs i interviewed at, the lab managers told me grad students and lab managers are pretty much equals. and while some lab man. may have more responsibilities than other RAs, and grad students have more say in certain things, i dont think grad students are supposed to "tell you what to do". of course RAs are hired to do certain things, with the profs' money, so the prof can assign you work, but if you have a grad student ordering you around, thats pretty weird. I mean, you can help them run studies, and that's your job because your boss is the PI, essentially. there shouldnt be a hierarchy in a research environment anyway - research is a product of contribution so, to answer your question, i dont think it's weird at all that the grad students don't tell you what to do. it is sad, however, that they can't teach you, give you instructions, or have something you want to learn from. but i think it's great that you operate independently despite lack of instructions!

all in all, im sorry you're stuck with these grad students, but trust me, if you get into a good lab for grad school, youll meet fantastic people, and will be doing what proper grad students do

Edited February 4, 2011 by nhyn

[LJK]

My experience has been as a graduate student in a department of small labs, so it maybe a bit different from where you are. Here we don't have any full-time RAs at the moment as there are only a few faculty with grants at the moment and they have chosen to support more grad students over having paid RAs.

As a graduate student, I am expected to design, run, analyze and write-up my own research. We are required to have semi-independent projects in our first year to get started and then a substantial independent project in our second year to culminate in a Master's Thesis. I happen to work in a very independent lab where my prof, the other grad student and myself are all working on pretty different projects though they are thematically related. If there is an undergraduate or two working on our particular project, we oversee them. This semester my undergrad RA fell through so I am personally running all the participants for my MS project myself. Last year, I had a graduate RA-ship in another professor's lab off his grant. His lab functions more collaboratively with all the graduate students (2 permanent and my transient self during that semester) meeting weekly with the PI to design the main collaborative series of experiments. Everyone had their own projects going on separate from this main effort. The other grad RA and myself were to coordinate the collaborative experiments, from training undergrad RAs, to setting the running schedule, assigning coding tasks and initial analysis of the data. The lab grad students, particularly the other grad RA who is more 'into' the lab activities took the lead in writing up some of these results, doing the literature reviews, doing more extensive analyses and thinking deeply about what the results mean in light of the previous research.

The job of a graduate student is to become an expert in their chosen sub-field and to gain the skills needed to become a PI after obtaining their PhD. We have a very diverse set of skills that we want to acquire: designing experiments, running experiments, supervising RAs (paid and undergrad), collaborating effectively, teaching, statistics, programming, presenting, scientific writing, grant writing, and probably some things I'm not thinking of at the moment. The grad student's advisor is the person who decides when each of these skills will be worked on. Some are basic: usually there is a first year sequence that covers basic statistical methods. Most psychology programs require a first year project as a first foray into designing, running and analyzing an experiment. After results are acquired, the presenting and writing up skills are worked on to effectively communicate the research project.

PIs need to fully understand all levels of the lab, or at least have people who do under them. It is in the best interest of the grad students to understand how the experiments are being run for the immediate purposes of working with the data but also so that they can run labs of their own one day collecting related data. It does seem a bit strange that they aren't interested or aren't able to grasp the main project that they are working on parts of. At the same time, one of the reasons to have paid RAs is to free graduate students from some coordinating of undergrads and running participants so that they can focus on getting these other skills that I listed. The PI could be deciding that these writing-level activities are the ones that need to be emphasized for the grad students. While a well rounded student would want to understand every level of the lab, the PI might be directing their activities away from what she thinks is your job. If you are unsure what is your responsibility vs. what is the grad students' responsibility, ask. It is completely reasonable for you as an employee to ask for a clarification of the duties of your job and in what ways you are to rely on the grad students and in what ways they are allowed to rely on you.

Are the students in your lab graduate RAs? If so, doing coursework for lab hours does not seem reasonable. At the same time, is all of it coursework? Publishable paper writing is lab work, as is all the literature review and endless data analyses that go with it. There are many PIs out there who don't know how to schedule participants - the last time they did it was when they found themselves without a graduate student or RA to do it for them which could have been 10 years ago on a completely different system. Some PIs are super involved in the daily activities of the lab and some are more removed. Specifically to your comment about not being behind with just doing writing: papers and conference submissions take a lot of time. It isn't like writing a paper for class. You have to read endlessly in order to do a thorough literature review, you have to analyze, reanalyze, graph and re-graph results, you have to coordinate with co-authors, etc. Then, you submit, wait months for the reviews to come back with a rejection or a revise and resubmit then get back to work writing and editing.

Also, my understanding of the term PI is Principle Investigator, which is a technical term used in grant writing as someone who is sponsored by a suitable organization (university, research institute, research hospital, etc.) and is eligible to be the main recipient of a grant. All tenure track professors (assistant professors are tenure-track without tenure yet) and research professors are PIs by this definition even if there is a clear 'head' professor in your lab. Post-docs are not PIs because they are not eligible to get full research grants on their own. On the grant that your lab is run on, the one professor may be the PI, but the rest are still PI-eligible, if that makes sense. I think most people on the fora refer to PI-eligibles as PIs. (Edit: All work that goes through the IRB process at my university must be sponsored by a PI so I guess in that sense the assistant professors without their own grants are full PIs not just PI-eligible.)

I wrote a lot here, but the main thing is: talk to the head professor, get a concrete idea of what your job responsibilities are and if at all possible get it in writing (email will do) in order to defend your position and time against the grad students who may try to dump more in your lap. She has all the authority to decide what are her students responsibilities and it can be vastly different depending on the her preferences and expectations. (Presuming the grad students have this 'head' professor as their advisor.)

Edited February 4, 2011 by LJK

[riceandbeans]

Once upon a time, I worked in a big lab where there was a huge multi-year experiment running. I went in as the low person on the totem poll, but, due to the lab manager leaving and not being replaced, pretty soon was doing everything (ordering, scheduling, running multiple types of testing, running interference with veterinarians, training undergrads and other techs, etc). And it was terrible. But I realized after awhile that I had kind of done it to myself. I had just sort of picked up other people's jobs that they were dropping the ball on, and they were more than happy to let me do that (not necessarily because they were lazy, but because everyone in the lab was overworked, even if the extra work was coming from teaching or coursework obligations). So, after taking a big step back and figuring out why the situation was as bad as it was, I figured out how to fix it. I did two major things:

1) I realized that our protocol (your lab must have one somewhere), while perfectly adequate at explaining the big picture of the experiment, didn't actually tell you how to do the day to day running of the experiment and all it's parts. So I wrote SOPs (standard operating procedures, not statement of purpose) for everything. And I mean everything. I wrote one on how to schedule tests, what supplies needed ordered and when, how to organize the drug closet, and on and on. It was a pain to do, but then when someone asked me a question about how to do some annoyingly small thing they should have figured out 3 months ago, I'd hand them the SOP, tell them what page to read, and then walk away. It saved a lot of time in the long run.

2) I worked on my delegating skills. Everything I felt comfortable handing off to someone else, I did. And I handed things off to people at every single level of the lab food chain. I told other techs that they were in charge of schedule certain kinds of tests. I figured out what data the grad students were analyzing, and suggested that if they were analyzing the data, they might want to run those tests so they were in control of the data quality. I asked postdocs if they would be comfortable dealing with the vets, since they were on a more even playing field with them. Everyone got their very own undergrad that they were in charge of training and supervising, and then what they did with that undergrad was not my problem (I assumed that they'd use that undergrad to help them with whatever aspect of the experiment they were focusing on). If there was a really awesome and together undergrad (it happened from time to time), I let them run experiments on their own (once I was sure they were capable, of course). And then if something wasn't getting done that I had delegated, I brought it up with my PI. (I actually talked to my PI before starting to give responsibilities away to make sure he understood that I was really overworked, and I really needed to cut down my workload, but I wanted to do it in a way he was comfortable with)

So, yes, it still felt like I was the only one in the lab who knew everything that was supposed to get done, and I was still really busy, but it was a manageable level of busy and I was able to make time (note, I'm saying make, not have) to do my own side projects. As the only paid RA, everyone else in the lab will look at you as the person who knows how to get the nuts and bolts stuff done. Also, it helps to realize that, even though you want to be good at your job and want the research to go as smoothly as possible, at the end of the day it is not your research.

Note: The above is based on my experience in a similar (but not exactly the same) situation. I wanted to share with you how I dealt with it, because I thought it might help you figure out how to make your situation better. I don't want to imply that you created your own problem like I did, because I obviously don't know all the details and because you are not likely as much of a push-over as I am. I just wanted to illustrate that it might be time for you to take a giant step back, look at the whole picture (not just the grad students), figure out why it's messed up, and then come up with ways to fix it (and you might realize it's un-fixable, and then you need to get the hell out). Because staying in a lab where you a running non-stop for 60 hours a week and have been given responsibilities that are way too big for your pay grade is not a good plan. You don't want to start grad school already burnt out.

[cherubie]

I definitely agree with everyone, and thanks for telling your own experience of grad students.

Nyhn: You're right, I don't really expect grad students to order me around. I guess I'm used to it from undergrad and other labs where I was working directly under a grad student, essentially, he/she was my immediate boss.

LKJ: Yeap, these are graduate RA's. When I say "coursework" I mean reading chapters assigned by their professors (not the PI), then summarizing them, or whatever. Basically, work that has to do with classes, not related to the lab. I do understand that a grad student is expected to stay in the lab AND get their classwork done. But again, it's not a matter of whether or not they're busy, it's a matter of am I doing THEIR job for them (while they're getting paid full time haha). To my understanding, students are allowed to do their own classwork in lab, as long as they get their sh*t done first, my PI didn't hire them to do homework.

riceandbeans: It sounds like what happened to you is exactly what has been happening to me. In the beginning, I wanted to learn more and more, so as more responsibilities got piled up, I took them on with zeal. However, I was also told that that was a "temporary" situation while one of the grad student was transitioning from being part time to being a full time GA. Also, I do write up SOPs like you mentioned. I use them all the time for myself because everything requires SO MANY details, getting one of them wrong gets you the stare of death from people. I send these same SOPs to the grad students. Maybe I'm expecting too much out of them? I come from an undergrad institution where hard work is taken for granted. No one slacked off, I worked my butt off, no partying or anything, for the last 4 years, and so did all my peers. I'm also used to the notion of well...motivation. Everyone in my undergrad was extremely motivated and was a go-getter, we didn't need people to tell us to do stuff in order to do it. Anyways, I digress. Back to the students. Again, I think I'm expecting a wee bit too much out of them. I thought that someone who wants to dedicate the next 7 years of their life learning this stuff, then the rest of their life working on it, would AT LEAST read protocols people send them. When I go to show them something that BUILDS on top of something I had showed them THEN write up a SOP and sent it to them, it's painfully obvious that they didn't read it. I would start my sentence with "As you might remember...." and I glance over and their faces are , except it has some aspects of horror and "what is this stuff" written on their forehead. It's THAT frustrating.

Also, the reason why I seem so knowledgeable is because I work extremely closely with one of the researchers who actually runs the experiment. I re-wrote the protocol for/with her, thus I pretty much know the experiment inside and out. I also like to watch things, so I learned a lot from there. The students, they probably never read the experimental protocol since they don't know which part comes first or last. It's pretty sad.

I would love to talk to my PI, but she's so detached from the minutia of every day running of the lab, I'm not sure if she'll care. I get this sense that around the lab, as long as things get done, it doesn't matter who does it. Plus, I don't think it'll change anything since this is part of MY responsibility anyway. The researcher is even hesitant to ask the grad students to do something because they always do it wrong (or half ass it), so they always come to me, fully knowing the students aren't doing squat.

[UnlikelyGrad]

My first thought was: Are they first years? Because I didn't know squat about what was going on when I was a first year. And now the first-year in our lab only vaguely knows what's going on, as far as I can tell.

[cherubie]

One is a first year, another is a 2nd year. My biggest problem is not that they don't know what's going on (it's understandable, thus I've been extremely patient with them). My problem is that they don't know the stuff, don't care to learn, don't care to ADMIT they don't know, and tries to act like they know everything. Everyone has to start SOMEWHERE, the stuff we do at the lab is pretty obscure and very hard to understand, so that's fine. But again, i have to make appointments with them JUST to show them something? Then I have to go and REMIND them that it's time, and on top of that, they don't listen and don't remember ANYTHING I tell them. The last straw for me was (again), when I spent an hour explaining a very very basic concept, only to have him tell me "I'm gonna need you to write that down for me". I literally wanted to punch him in the face. I made it VERY clear that if there are questions, stop and ask. I even said "you may want to take notes".

Seriously, if a professor explains something, do you raise your hand and go "I didn't get ANY of that, and I didn't take any notes, will you type it up for me?" THEN AFTER I typed down like 3 lines of what I did, he went, "you definitely did more than that". #$#@# WHAT THE....?!!!

Anyways, I've decided I'm going to go on and do my own thing. Again, I'd rather take on too many responsibilities than to not have any. I don't want to leave this lab and tell grad school committees that all I did was followed directions. At least at this point, I can confidently say that i was in charge of training undergrads, AND grad students on top of other things I did. I already told my immediate supervisor (not the PI) that I did my job in training the students, I'm done with them. As far as how much they remember or how competent they feel, I don't know, but I've showed them everything. It's up to them to do the stuff now. I'm not going to come to them and tell them "hey I have something to show you, do you have some time?" anymore, rather I'd just tell them you have to do so and so. If they ask how or when, I'd just say that we already went over that, and if you have questions, ask the supervisor.

I'm talking about 30 year olds here, not 5th graders. There's no way I need to constantly re-explain the same concept to some snotty grad student (sorry, not all grad students are this way of course).

[qbtacoma]

One is a first year, another is a 2nd year. My biggest problem is not that they don't know what's going on (it's understandable, thus I've been extremely patient with them). My problem is that they don't know the stuff, don't care to learn, don't care to ADMIT they don't know, and tries to act like they know everything. Everyone has to start SOMEWHERE, the stuff we do at the lab is pretty obscure and very hard to understand, so that's fine. But again, i have to make appointments with them JUST to show them something? Then I have to go and REMIND them that it's time, and on top of that, they don't listen and don't remember ANYTHING I tell them. The last straw for me was (again), when I spent an hour explaining a very very basic concept, only to have him tell me "I'm gonna need you to write that down for me". I literally wanted to punch him in the face. I made it VERY clear that if there are questions, stop and ask. I even said "you may want to take notes".

Seriously, if a professor explains something, do you raise your hand and go "I didn't get ANY of that, and I didn't take any notes, will you type it up for me?" THEN AFTER I typed down like 3 lines of what I did, he went, "you definitely did more than that". #$#@# WHAT THE....?!!!

Anyways, I've decided I'm going to go on and do my own thing. Again, I'd rather take on too many responsibilities than to not have any. I don't want to leave this lab and tell grad school committees that all I did was followed directions. At least at this point, I can confidently say that i was in charge of training undergrads, AND grad students on top of other things I did. I already told my immediate supervisor (not the PI) that I did my job in training the students, I'm done with them. As far as how much they remember or how competent they feel, I don't know, but I've showed them everything. It's up to them to do the stuff now. I'm not going to come to them and tell them "hey I have something to show you, do you have some time?" anymore, rather I'd just tell them you have to do so and so. If they ask how or when, I'd just say that we already went over that, and if you have questions, ask the supervisor.

I'm talking about 30 year olds here, not 5th graders. There's no way I need to constantly re-explain the same concept to some snotty grad student (sorry, not all grad students are this way of course).

I don't know what it is about people who can't be bothered to do anything for themselves. Seriously! Especially in a lab which is theoretically an interesting workplace with long-term potential. Reminds me of one of my co-workers at a pizza place I worked in a while back - she wanted to be told everything. Our last day of work together she still came up to me and said "Qbtacoma, what should I do?" It's a pizza place, idiot, at which you have worked for six months. Clean something, chop some veggies, wash some dishes, figure it out. I did not say this to her, however.

I also heard of a student employee in my university accounting office who actually fell asleep, several times, at work. What the hell.