Do you want profs to think you're smart and a slacker, or hard-working and clueless?

[SeriousSillyPutty]

Philosophical question here:

Ideally, we would like to project the image that we are smart AND hard-working. (In theory, projecting that image got us in to grad school.) But sometimes things go wrong. For instance, I bombed a quiz recently. In part it was because the part of the book it asked about hadn't jumped out at me as important enough to memorize, and in part because I hadn't read that chapter very thoroughly to begin with.

If you get a bad grade, it seems to me the two main interpretations are (a) you don't get it, or ( you've been slacking. (Or c - You were slacking on this class because you were working your tail off on another class, but I think the profs just group that with b.)

So, when talking to a prof after a bad grade, which interpretation is more desirable, if you have the option of spinning things more one way or the other?

I know research has shown that kids who are praised for being hard workers accomplish more than those praised for being smart, because the former group keeps working hard when problems get difficult, while the latter group assumes they're not smart enough. Personally, I take more offense when a professor suggests that we haven't been working hard enough (doing the homework, studying, what have you) when I know I have been doing those things. But would it do any good to confront that accusation with, "That's not true! I HAVE been doing all the homework, and I STILL don't get it."

Thoughts?

[bamafan]

Still neither. You're hardworking and smart, but made a mistake. Everyone has a bad test or a bad assignment or an off day.

[1Q84]

Personally, I take more offense when a professor suggests that we haven't been working hard enough (doing the homework, studying, what have you) when I know I have been doing those things.

Totally agree with this one. I don't know, I wouldn't want the professor to think that I "just don't get it" either, though. I would hope like bamafan said, a professor would be wise to know everyone has hiccups in their record.

[Lyra Belacqua]

If you get a bad grade, it seems to me the two main interpretations are (a) you don't get it, or ( you've been slacking. (Or c - You were slacking on this class because you were working your tail off on another class, but I think the profs just group that with b.)

Or (c'): you were doing something of your own. We don't get grades on individual assignments in my program, but I was working my tail off on a fellowship application and a conference abstract (in close succession) recently, so I sort of neglected my classes during that time (I had a paper due for one class around the same time as the fellowship application, so it ended up being pretty much exactly the minimum length; for another class, I have a final project that I didn't touch for those 3 weeks or so and am just getting back into). Professors should understand that your research and career come first.

I know research has shown that kids who are praised for being hard workers accomplish more than those praised for being smart, because the former group keeps working hard when problems get difficult, while the latter group assumes they're not smart enough. Personally, I take more offense when a professor suggests that we haven't been working hard enough (doing the homework, studying, what have you) when I know I have been doing those things. But would it do any good to confront that accusation with, "That's not true! I HAVE been doing all the homework, and I STILL don't get it."

Thoughts?

I'd read that too, but I think I've also read that the "self-esteem building" rhetoric of "you can do anything if you put your mind to it" also has a negative effect: once things get difficult, the kids think "there must be something wrong with me, that I'm incapable of trying hard enough!"

What I usually do when "I've been doing all the homework but still don't get it" (which I think puts a slightly more positive, or at least less terrible, spin on the situation) is to figure out some very specific question that I can ask (even if that's not the only thing I don't understand), like "I'm trying to understand what the precise difference is between Concept X and Concept Y. I know that X is caused by Z, but in situation Q, I'm having trouble telling them apart." That way, I don't feel like I'm just futilely exclaiming "I don't get it!", even if that's secretly closer to how I really feel. It gets a conversation started in a focused way, which you can then steer to other issues if needed.

To the original question: if it's a choice between the two, then "smart and a slacker".

[juilletmercredi]

Why don't you just tell the truth? If you don't get it, that doesn't mean you're clueless, you just need some help understanding this one concept. And if you were slacking off because you were working on other things, well, you don't even need to meet with the prof. You know what you need to do.

[comp12]

See, in my own case, the more relevant question would be: HOW do you get profs to think you're smart and hard working, when you are a slacker and clueless?

[wildviolet]

So what does it mean to get a bad grade?

In my program, we are told over and over again by both faculty and students that grades just don't matter. Here's the reason--grades are fairly arbitrary, and no reputable hiring committee (at least in my field) will care to look at your transcript. I can see how this is the case by comparing my first two courses in grad school this semester.

One course is a broad foundational course that everyone is required to take the first semester. The real purpose of the course is to develop our academic writing skills, particularly in forming an argument and supporting it with citations, evidence, and reasoning. So, grading in this course was tough, especially on the first assignment (which we had to redo if we received a 3.0 or less). I'll be lucky if I come out with a 3.5 in this course!

On the other hand, the other course is specific to my subject area (science education). I've gotten a 4.0 on all my assignments (granted, the lowest 4.0 possible) even though the instructor's comments on my paper suggested that it should have been a 3.0 at most! So, what do I gather from this evidence? That grades aren't an accurate reflection of the skills you are required to have as an academic.

One fifth year student told me that the 4.0s she received in courses were meaningless--in the process of writing her dissertation, it's her committee that matters, and they have her rewrite until they are satisfied.

Another instructor also commented that she once had a student who was clearly a slacker--didn't participate in class discussions, didn't do all the readings. Yet, the student wrote a kick-ass dissertation that garnered respect in the field and went on to a TT position.

So, no worries! If you are concerned, do you feel comfortable enough talking about it with your advisor? I'd guess that he or she has the most say in terms of how well you're progressing in the program. I know in my program we have yearly reviews to discuss areas of strength as well as weakness. And just because you have weaknesses doesn't mean that you don't belong in a PhD program. That's why we're here--to learn!

[SeriousSillyPutty]

Thanks for your thoughts!

The individual quiz that I did badly on wasn't such a big deal. (Though our department does care about grades more than what it seems most grad schools care about... B's are frowned upon, and a C is unmentionable... but that's another issue.) But as I was preparing what I was going to say to the prof (he commented specifically that, "it looks like you have some confusion on these issues; we should meet" -- or something like that) it occurred to me that I wasn't sure which way to spin it, even if I wanted to. In this particular situation, I avoided explanations somewhat: I emailed him explaining what I was referencing, acknowledged that it was not what he was talking about, and assured him that I now knew what he was referencing and would read that passage more thoroughly, and we didn't end up meeting at all.

But, generally, it seems like it's hard to defend poor performance on any grounds -- you end up falling into one hole or the other (or both) and the best strategy is to aim for the shallowest hole possible. Hm.