Anyone else sick of whiny graduate students?

[themmases]

I think academica attracts and rewards people who seriously over-identify with their work, and that attitude can magnify trivial individual choices into huge affronts to our worldviews. Sometimes our choices of things to get mad about can also be incredibly self-serving, which is my own personal favorite thing to dislike about others!

 

Like most major life decisions, attending grad school is both useful for several possible goals and poorly thought out by many of the people who make it. This accounts for the irritating diversity of experiences and approaches plaguing seminars everywhere.

[TakeruK]

Personally, I think it's taking the cheap way out to not even read the paper just have someone else give you a synopsis. 

 

That's different than everyone reading all the papers, but having one person focus on each paper in depth (checking sources, etc) and then discussing it. 

 

But I feel like if it was assigned, you should have at least skimmed it. 

 

I agree--I was originally going to write that as a group, we would "skim" each paper and only have one of us go in-depth on one paper. But then upon reflection, while I did download each paper, I would probably only know what the question the paper tackled, what was their method, and what was the main result (i.e. I would probably read the abstract, intro, methods, conclusion and glanced at figures). I think most academics would call this not deep enough even for "skimming". I wouldn't know the details of how exactly did the method work for the specific case or all of the implications of the main result, so I felt it would have been dishonest if I claimed that I really "skimmed" the paper. I could honestly say that most of the time, we all had good intentions to read every paper quickly and only go in depth for one of them, but in reality we often took some kind of "cheap way out" and really only read one and just "glanced at" the others. So yes, this is definitely one part of academia/school that I struggle with, but I seem to be doing okay (for now!).

Edited May 5, 2014 by TakeruK

[Eigen]

It's one of the fundamental truths of Academia: Everyone Skims. 

[bakalamba]

I guess the distinction between whiny peers and those with valid shared complaints that one would agree with is a slight difference. However, I'm also tired of "don't care" grads: those who see the degree as a goal and magical door to employment, but don't like the field, don't read anything that's not assigned, and don't lend anything valuable in discussions (whether they're capable of interesting thoughts may be beside the point). And when their papers get the same grade, and they progress as quickly, or quicker, than other students, and graduate early with a haphazard dissertation and line up for decent jobs, that's annoying.

 

I think that's my main reason for applying to other programs than where I got my Masters. Hopefully their bullshit detectors are more sensitive.

[MakeYourself]

I guess the distinction between whiny peers and those with valid shared complaints that one would agree with is a slight difference. However, I'm also tired of "don't care" grads: those who see the degree as a goal and magical door to employment, but don't like the field, don't read anything that's not assigned, and don't lend anything valuable in discussions (whether they're capable of interesting thoughts may be beside the point). And when their papers get the same grade, and they progress as quickly, or quicker, than other students, and graduate early with a haphazard dissertation and line up for decent jobs, that's annoying.

 

I think that's my main reason for applying to other programs than where I got my Masters. Hopefully their bullshit detectors are more sensitive.

 

This x 10000000.

[TakeruK]

I guess the distinction between whiny peers and those with valid shared complaints that one would agree with is a slight difference. However, I'm also tired of "don't care" grads: those who see the degree as a goal and magical door to employment, but don't like the field, don't read anything that's not assigned, and don't lend anything valuable in discussions (whether they're capable of interesting thoughts may be beside the point). And when their papers get the same grade, and they progress as quickly, or quicker, than other students, and graduate early with a haphazard dissertation and line up for decent jobs, that's annoying.

 

I think that's my main reason for applying to other programs than where I got my Masters. Hopefully their bullshit detectors are more sensitive.

 

I am not sure why people like this are "annoying", but maybe you might consider me one of "those people" (although I would not identify with many of the traits you list there). In general, the world is not designed to reward those who are more passionate or care more about their work or field. So, to me, I don't think there is a problem at all if a student who cares very little about their field manages to do well.

 

Personally, I do care about my field and I am interested in my work. But I don't consider my field my true/sole/main passion in life. Rather, I have many other passions which I would also like to explore and for now, being a PhD student in my field is currently the best way to achieve what I want in life. I see my career as a means to get what I want out of life (gotta pay the bills). Again, my field does interest me so I do work hard at it, but I also consider the PhD as a goal and ultimately, something that will help me gain employment doing a job that I want. I don't care if my eventual career is in my field or in academia or even if it's in science. My two main career goals is to find something that stimulates me (i.e. utilizes my skill, not just my labour) and to find something that can support my other passions in life.

 

So I do think statements that academia should only be for people who are truly passionate about their field and their main goal should be to further human knowledge is both naive and a little elitist. Obviously, those who are driven to succeed will likely do better and that's fine. But if you are doing well and also don't have any passion at all about your field, then that should be fine too (but in general, I'd say it's rare to find someone who is willing to work in academia that isn't somewhat passionate about what they do).

[Eigen]

I can't upvote TakeruK's comments more than once, sadly. But I completely agree that it's not all about passion, but also about practical expertise and work in your field. 

 

Maybe being in a STEM field has biased me, but I don't think we should be favoring graduate students who are "passionate" and consumed by their work and want to stay in academia over those who are competent, solid researchers but do not find their work all consuming, and may or may not want to stay in the field their whole lives. 

 

To me, a sensitive bullshit detector is as much about detecting the difference between passion for a field and talent in that field. If someone has a good grasp of the material, the discussion, and the thought that surrounds it, then they should get a good grade, and move forward. Passion and reading lots but not retaining enough to get a significantly better grasp on the field isn't necessarily "better". 

 

Academia, as much as the rest of the world, isn't about doing the "best" job- it's about doing a good job of everything you're balancing on your plate, and knowing when something is good enough to get out, and when you should focus on other priorities (including the rest of your life, and balance). 

 

There are lots of reasons for going to grad school, and I'd argue that passion *alone* is one of the worse ones. You can find plenty of advice threads on the Chronicle from faculty advising that if you're passionate, take classes and study. Go to grad school if you want a job for which the degree is necessary or beneficial. It's not that being passionate is a bad thing, it's great- but you should also have a practical reason for wanting to work in the field, like you can and will get a job from it. 

[bsharpe269]

Maybe being in a STEM field has biased me, but I don't think we should be favoring graduate students who are "passionate" and consumed by their work and want to stay in academia over those who are competent, solid researchers but do not find their work all consuming, and may or may not want to stay in the field their whole lives.

 

I think that bakalamba's comment it getting taken a bit more to the extreme than it was meant. No one here thinks that someone should let their work be all consuming. No one is suggesting that students should stop seeing family, replace their shower time with extra studying, etc.

 

In my program, there is a definite distriction between the students who truely care, read extra for fun and have tons of knowedge to contribute to discussion vs those who sit in the back and skim by with Bs on the tests. I wish that all of these students could be replaced by people who actually care and love the subject. The students who do care suffer because of the slacker students. By asking good questions in class and discussing papers, I help these students learn more yet they continbute nothing to my education. I do believe that these sorts of students lower the quality of programs. I also think that it will be hard for these students to ever be top researchers. In order to be a great researcher you have to read and think about tons of different ideas, not only a small number of them that were forced on you. I believe that you more articles you read and more interesting discussions you have, the greater the chance that a new, great idea with spark. Obviously, PhD programs want students who will become great researchers and lead to greater recognition for their programs. Because of this, I think that it makes perfect sense for programs to seek out passionate students.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I think that bakalamba's comment it getting taken a bit more to the extreme than it was meant. No one here thinks that someone should let their work be all consuming. No one is suggesting that students should stop seeing family, replace their shower time with extra studying, etc.

 

In my program, there is a definite distriction between the students who truely care, read extra for fun and have tons of knowedge to contribute to discussion vs those who sit in the back and skim by with Bs on the tests. I wish that all of these students could be replaced by people who actually care and love the subject. The students who do care suffer because of the slacker students. By asking good questions in class and discussing papers, I help these students learn more yet they continbute nothing to my education. I do believe that these sorts of students lower the quality of programs. I also think that it will be hard for these students to ever be top researchers. In order to be a great researcher you have to read and think about tons of different ideas, not only a small number of them that were forced on you. I believe that you more articles you read and more interesting discussions you have, the greater the chance that a new, great idea with spark. Obviously, PhD programs want students who will become great researchers and lead to greater recognition for their programs. Because of this, I think that it makes perfect sense for programs to seek out passionate students.

It's your opinion but I just can't really agree with a lot of it. A few things I'll point out: 

 

1) You mention reading extra "for fun". I assume you mean in your free time. From what I've heard, you don't get much free time in grad school. The little free time you do get, I would hope you would dedicate to something entirely different from your school work, such as going to the gym, taking a cooking class, doing yoga, painting, or whatever else you to do maintain your sanity. I think a balanced life is healthier than one consumed by your research. 

 

2) You mention how those students who "don't care" are happy to skate by with B's. So I assume you think any student who truly cares gets nothing but A's. I can't really agree with this. Just because you care, doesn't mean your best effort is better than someone else's half-ass effort. Not all people are created equal. Some people don't need to dedicate all their time to something to do well at it. And other people can dedicate all their time to something and never be that great at it. 

 

3) You also mentioned that these students do nothing to contribute to your education. Why should they be concerned with contributing to your education? People have different goals. It's great to learn from your peers, but not all of them are there to make your life better. Some people just want to get their degree and get on with their life, not be there to boost the morale of their classmates. 

[bsharpe269]

It's your opinion but I just can't really agree with a lot of it. A few things I'll point out: 

 

1) You mention reading extra "for fun". I assume you mean in your free time. From what I've heard, you don't get much free time in grad school. The little free time you do get, I would hope you would dedicate to something entirely different from your school work, such as going to the gym, taking a cooking class, doing yoga, painting, or whatever else you to do maintain your sanity. I think a balanced life is healthier than one consumed by your research. 

 

2) You mention how those students who "don't care" are happy to skate by with B's. So I assume you think any student who truly cares gets nothing but A's. I can't really agree with this. Just because you care, doesn't mean your best effort is better than someone else's half-ass effort. Not all people are created equal. Some people don't need to dedicate all their time to something to do well at it. And other people can dedicate all their time to something and never be that great at it. 

 

3) You also mentioned that these students do nothing to contribute to your education. Why should they be concerned with contributing to your education? People have different goals. It's great to learn from your peers, but not all of them are there to make your life better. Some people just want to get their degree and get on with their life, not be there to boost the morale of their classmates. 

 

I do agree with you that it isnt my classmates job to help me learn. I am really commenting on the fact that others have said that its ok for phd students to not have passion and that to expect that is naive and elitest. I feel like most phd departments admit students who they think are passionate and do expect it. From the department's perspective, I think they would want a class of highly motivated students, who are engaged in the lectures and research, since this will create the best learning environment. I think it makes sense that passion would be one of the criteria used in admission among other things like potential, intelligence, etc.

 

I am definitely not trying to judge students who work hard and get Bs! I just feel frustration with those who dont come to class or care at all, text me to try to get hw help, and then get 80s bc they went out drinking during finals. I am sure that the only reason that I feel so annoyed about this is because it is really ALL around me at my school. Like bakalamba, I am looking forward to leaving after my MS and hopefully finding a more motivated, stimulating learning environment. I dont want to be considered the annoying one in class any more for actually enjoying the material and wanting to discuss it!

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I do agree with you that it isnt my classmates job to help me learn. I am really commenting on the fact that others have said that its ok for phd students to not have passion and that to expect that is naive and elitest. I feel like most phd departments admit students who they think are passionate and do expect it. From the department's perspective, I think they would want a class of highly motivated students, who are engaged in the lectures and research, since this will create the best learning environment. I think it makes sense that passion would be one of the criteria used in admission among other things like potential, intelligence, etc.

 

I am definitely not trying to judge students who work hard and get Bs! I just feel frustration with those who dont come to class or care at all, text me to try to get hw help, and then get 80s bc they went out drinking during finals. I am sure that the only reason that I feel so annoyed about this is because it is really ALL around me at my school. Like bakalamba, I am looking forward to leaving after my MS and hopefully finding a more motivated, stimulating learning environment. I dont want to be considered the annoying one in class any more for actually enjoying the material and wanting to discuss it!

Yeah, I wouldn't really expect that type of behavior from grad students. Definitely from undergrads but not grads. I'm starting a 1-year MS in the Fall. I hope my classmates aren't the boring type who studies every Friday night, but I also hope they care enough about their work to not party the night before a final exam. 

[Eigen]

See, the thing is the original comment said these students were getting the same grades on papers, progressing as fast or faster, and graduating quicker. That doesn't add up with "slacker" to me. It says they've identified how much they need to do it succeed, and aren't doing more than that.

Slacking would, IMO, go hand in hand with underperforming, not doing as well or better than the "passionate" students.

[TakeruK]

I think that bakalamba's comment it getting taken a bit more to the extreme than it was meant. No one here thinks that someone should let their work be all consuming. No one is suggesting that students should stop seeing family, replace their shower time with extra studying, etc.

 

In my program, there is a definite distriction between the students who truely care, read extra for fun and have tons of knowedge to contribute to discussion vs those who sit in the back and skim by with Bs on the tests.

Like Eigen said above, I was responding to the comment that bakalama was "annoyed" that some people just do the minimum to do well (i.e. graduate / get higher grades). I agree that it makes sense to be annoyed at students who are not taking their time in graduate school seriously (i.e. actually slacking off and wasting everyone's time) because well, it's annoying when one's colleagues are being completely unprofessional--grad school isn't a place to just slack off!

 

I don't think Bs are necessarily bad grades unless Bs are a failing grade  in your program. If Bs are acceptable grades to continue in the program, then there should be nothing wrong with a student who chooses to spend their time such that they get Bs even though they could have tried harder and got an A.

 

I don't really see a problem with only doing the "minimum" to get by, because unlike undergrad, PhD program "minimums" are still pretty high. From my experience, I have not encountered or heard about any PhD program that allows its students to slack off and still achieve the minimum to proceed further. PhD students are very expensive and departments/advisors have a lot of interest in making sure they are getting their money's worth on their investment in us! Since the "minimum" effort in a PhD program really means "satisfactory progress", I don't see why students have to achieve more than that if they don't want to! 

[overworkedta]

I think sometimes the best thing you can do is learn when "enough" really is good enough.  You can't let it take over your entire effing life, IMO.  There are people who do this and people who do not.  I've been on both sides.  At this point I think I know what I am and am not willing to sacrifice and I've gotten to the point where there is no time in the middle of the day to binge on Netflix if I want to get regular sleep and finish my work so that I can exercise or go see the BF's family.  It took awhile to learn that and it took comps to really show me what could be done.

 

What gets me are some nasty comments because the assumption is that if you aren't at the edge of your rope, you aren't doing it right.  That differs between cohorts.  Most of us balance it okay but there is one cohort (the largest one) that just will not stop overachieving in the most POINTLESS manner.  I refuse to play that game.  I really hope they learn to let it go.  They will start studying for comps soon and I would hate to see it eat them alive.  Comps were the worst thing I've ever faced academically.  I have OCD and worry about EVERYTHING.  I needed a lot of assistance from meds and therapy to make it but because I hide it well, there were people in the cohort behind me that claimed I would fail because I wasn't committed.  My advisor was REALLY helpful in telling me to take time off for myself and my family, which was the way to go.

 

The entire process taught me that I was really much better when scheduled and that being stressed out didn't improve my work.  Although, I've never been a procrastinator so I've had people tell me I don't really know what it's like to be a grad student. That's a really harmful assumption.  You don't get bonus points for being totally off your head with worry all the effing time and no one is going to give me extra credit for being manic.

Edited May 6, 2014 by overworkedta

[TakeruK]

I think sometimes the best thing you can do is learn when "enough" really is good enough.  You can't let it take over your entire effing life, IMO.  There are people who do this and people who do not.  I've been on both sides.  At this point I think I know what I am and am not willing to sacrifice and I've gotten to the point where there is no time in the middle of the day to binge on Netflix if I want to get regular sleep and finish my work so that I can exercise or go see the BF's family.  It took awhile to learn that and it took comps to really show me what could be done.

 

This reflects my experience with my version of quals/comps too (we only have one major exam). In the weeks leading up to the exam, I knew how much time+effort I was willing to put into my PhD and I gave it just that. The way I viewed the exam was that if the department didn't think my maximum was good enough, then it would be better for both me and them that I did not continue. 

 

What gets me are some nasty comments because the assumption is that if you aren't at the edge of your rope, you aren't doing it right.  That differs between cohorts.  Most of us balance it okay but there is one cohort (the largest one) that just will not stop overachieving in the most POINTLESS manner.  I refuse to play that game.  I really hope they learn to let it go.  They will start studying for comps soon and I would hate to see it eat them alive.  Comps were the worst thing I've ever faced academically.  I have OCD and worry about EVERYTHING.  I needed a lot of assistance from meds and therapy to make it but because I hide it well, there were people in the cohort behind me that claimed I would fail because I wasn't committed.  My advisor was REALLY helpful in telling me to take time off for myself and my family, which was the way to go.

 

This also resonates with me. Luckily, I feel that the majority of my colleagues understand this too and we know that grad school/life isn't a contest about who is busier or who is more passionate or who put more effort in or who is the first one to get in the office or who is the last one to leave, etc. It's a job like any other, and while we might not clock in at 9 and clock out at 5, everyone knows their limits of what they are willing to work and we don't judge each other for it. As you said, there is no "bonus points" or "extra credit" for stressing out more and/or caring more.

 

The comments that have been posted in this thread which imply that if you don't meet [arbitrary standards set by other students], then you don't deserve to be in grad school / aren't doing it right also bother me, which was why I wrote what I wrote above. Ultimately, whether or not a student is successful in grad school is a matter of whether or not the student got what they wanted out of the program (whether it's a postdoc, an industry job, whatever). Grad school is already hard enough without your peers/colleagues judging you too!

Edited May 6, 2014 by TakeruK

[MakeYourself]

I am not sure why people like this are "annoying", but maybe you might consider me one of "those people" (although I would not identify with many of the traits you list there). In general, the world is not designed to reward those who are more passionate or care more about their work or field. So, to me, I don't think there is a problem at all if a student who cares very little about their field manages to do well.

 

Personally, I do care about my field and I am interested in my work. But I don't consider my field my true/sole/main passion in life. Rather, I have many other passions which I would also like to explore and for now, being a PhD student in my field is currently the best way to achieve what I want in life. I see my career as a means to get what I want out of life (gotta pay the bills). Again, my field does interest me so I do work hard at it, but I also consider the PhD as a goal and ultimately, something that will help me gain employment doing a job that I want. I don't care if my eventual career is in my field or in academia or even if it's in science. My two main career goals is to find something that stimulates me (i.e. utilizes my skill, not just my labour) and to find something that can support my other passions in life.

 

So I do think statements that academia should only be for people who are truly passionate about their field and their main goal should be to further human knowledge is both naive and a little elitist. Obviously, those who are driven to succeed will likely do better and that's fine. But if you are doing well and also don't have any passion at all about your field, then that should be fine too (but in general, I'd say it's rare to find someone who is willing to work in academia that isn't somewhat passionate about what they do).

 

I'm sorry, but to me, scholarly work is my passion just like music is a passion to a musician or writing is a passion to a poet. It bothers me that people view academia as a business or as a means to an end. Some of us view it as our craft, and just like many musicians would be annoyed at a sellout artists who use music as a means to get rich, academics have a right to be annoyed with people who treat scholarly work as a means to get a PhD.

 

I should note, though, that grad school doesn't necessarily = scholarly work, meaning that there are a lot of people in applied fields that don't aim to become scholars, and in that situation, I am more understanding of the whole 'means to an end' argument. But for those attending grad school who want to become academics, I stand by my statements.

Edited May 6, 2014 by randomness

[Eigen]

I think you're generalizing academics to what you would like/hope they should be. Not what they are. And honestly, the "ivory tower" view of academia is a pretty archaic view from when academia was in the purview of the privileged elite that could afford not having to support themselves in pursuit of their dream. 

 

Research is a job, just like many others. Academia is a business, and getting a degree is a means to an end. You can like your job- in fact, it's a good thing if you like your job. It's rarely a good thing if your job consumes your life. 

 

Passion is fine, but an all consuming passion is in no way, shape or form necessary to be a top-rate scholar or academic. 

 

It's great if scholarly work is your all consuming passion. More power to you. But it's a pretty narrow view to impose that requirement on all of the people around you. 

[MakeYourself]

I think you're generalizing academics to what you would like/hope they should be. Not what they are. And honestly, the "ivory tower" view of academia is a pretty archaic view from when academia was in the purview of the privileged elite that could afford not having to support themselves in pursuit of their dream. 

 

Research is a job, just like many others. Academia is a business, and getting a degree is a means to an end. You can like your job- in fact, it's a good thing if you like your job. It's rarely a good thing if your job consumes your life. 

 

Passion is fine, but an all consuming passion is in no way, shape or form necessary to be a top-rate scholar or academic. 

 

It's great if scholarly work is your all consuming passion. More power to you. But it's a pretty narrow view to impose that requirement on all of the people around you. 

 

Nobody is imposing anything on anyone. Or saying that everyone should be one way. This thread is about people we find annoying in grad school. I am saying that grad students who are wanting to become academics just for the sake of getting a PhD annoy me.

Edited May 6, 2014 by randomness

[TakeruK]

I'm sorry, but to me, scholarly work is my passion just like music is a passion to a musician or writing is a passion to a poet. It bothers me that people view academia as a business or as a means to an end. Some of us view it as our craft, and just like many musicians would be annoyed at a sellout artists who use music as a means to get rich, academics have a right to be annoyed with people who treat scholarly work as a means to get a PhD.

 

I agree that you personally have the right to feel any way you want, including annoyed. But I don't think academics should have the right to feel this way. As Eigen also said, research/academia is a job like any other. If you create an artificial requirement that you must be devoted to it / have it as your main passion, then you are precluding people who are unable to do so from succeeding in academia. If, for example, you say that an academic should not worry that their jobs don't pay very much compared to how much time they have to invest in it (because academics is a passion, not a way to pay the bills), then you are precluding people who need a job as a means to an end.

 

That is, this gives an unfair and unearned advantage to a person who does not have high health costs, dependents to support or other family issues that require a job that can reliably pay the bills etc. This limits academic/scholarly work only to those who are able to treat their scholarly/academic work solely as their passion instead of as a way to pay the bills. And ultimately, this means a less diverse pool of people to think up ideas for research/academics in general. I am referring to all fields of academics/scholarly work, not just the applied ones, by the way. So I would argue that by requiring a scholar to treat his or her work as a passion solely instead of a way to earn money, one would be hurting the pursuit of knowledge in the long run and also create further social inequality. Therefore, I would strongly argue against anyone who makes the claim that academics/scholars should enforce this "passion" requirement on other scholars. As a professional group, academics/scholars do not have the right to discriminate in this way. As a person/private citizen though, you are free to feel whatever you want.

[MakeYourself]

 

I agree that you personally have the right to feel any way you want, including annoyed. But I don't think academics should have the right to feel this way. As Eigen also said, research/academia is a job like any other. If you create an artificial requirement that you must be devoted to it / have it as your main passion, then you are precluding people who are unable to do so from succeeding in academia. If, for example, you say that an academic should not worry that their jobs don't pay very much compared to how much time they have to invest in it (because academics is a passion, not a way to pay the bills), then you are precluding people who need a job as a means to an end.

 

That is, this gives an unfair and unearned advantage to a person who does not have high health costs, dependents to support or other family issues that require a job that can reliably pay the bills etc. This limits academic/scholarly work only to those who are able to treat their scholarly/academic work solely as their passion instead of as a way to pay the bills. And ultimately, this means a less diverse pool of people to think up ideas for research/academics in general. I am referring to all fields of academics/scholarly work, not just the applied ones, by the way. So I would argue that by requiring a scholar to treat his or her work as a passion solely instead of a way to earn money, one would be hurting the pursuit of knowledge in the long run and also create further social inequality. Therefore, I would strongly argue against anyone who makes the claim that academics/scholars should enforce this "passion" requirement on other scholars. As a professional group, academics/scholars do not have the right to discriminate in this way. As a person/private citizen though, you are free to feel whatever you want.

 

Actually, I agree. By no means do I think it should be a requirement to have this passion.

I am just personally annoyed by particular individuals and by the business that academia has become overall. But I know it's not realistic to try to impose such a requirement on everyone.

 

Like I said in my first post, this thread is really a thread about complaining about complaining

But I understand that there are a lot of factors that play into why certain people attend grad school.

[TakeruK]

Cool. For the record, I do agree with what you said in the original post--constant complainers (without good reason) and/or people who are always negative are no fun to be around! I don't find it personally annoying that academia is very businesslike though, and personally, I think it's better to accept it and embrace it because that's the way our world is! But I can still think of some examples of certain instances/people where this is taken to an extreme that would also annoy me. 

 

PS I guess this means my previous posts were me complaining about you complaining about complaining.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

In a related note, even though there's nothing wrong with going to grad school "for the money", is it in one's best interest to fake passion? For example, I'm starting grad school in the fall in a computational field. I got into the computational field because I started looking into jobs over a year ago when I was still doing the non- computational version and the pay was pathetic. So I busted my ass doing math, science and programming the next two years. Is it bad to admit that? I'm sure I'll be asked why I got into the field when I start my program in the fall. Well, that's why. I actually kinda hate technology.

[TakeruK]

In a related note, even though there's nothing wrong with going to grad school "for the money", is it in one's best interest to fake passion? For example, I'm starting grad school in the fall in a computational field. I got into the computational field because I started looking into jobs over a year ago when I was still doing the non- computational version and the pay was pathetic. So I busted my ass doing math, science and programming the next two years. Is it bad to admit that? I'm sure I'll be asked why I got into the field when I start my program in the fall. Well, that's why. I actually kinda hate technology.

 

In general, I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to fake something like passion in order to succeed. Personally, it takes a lot of energy, stress and effort for me to keep up a false front and I just don't think many things are worth it--certainly not grad school. But whether it's a good idea or not probably depends on the person. 

 

In response to your specific scenario, while I personally don't think there is anything wrong with your reasons for getting in the field, there might be others who will view it negatively. The advice I got when I started grad school is to choose a PhD topic that will get me a job later on. That is, try to stay current in the field so that I can effectively judge what kinds of skills/research topics will be "hot" in 5 years. Or, in other words, you don't have to absolutely love (or even like) your PhD dissertation topic--you just need to find something that you at least don't hate. And from my experience in grad school so far and from talking to others, I can totally believe that after 4-5 years, the "honeymoon" stage of a new exciting project is long past. 

 

Also, passion is genuine effort and interest in your work, it's not just having a nice story to tell about "how you got interested in the field". To me, passion is in the way you act, not what you say, so I don't think you need to worry too much about not sounding passionate enough when you are asked why you got into the field. Like I said above, perhaps being so direct (non computational jobs don't pay well) might be viewed negatively by some, but it's up to you whether you care or not. If you do (and that's fine), you can probably think of an answer that isn't really a lie like "I want to work as a computational linguist". I don't think you need to put up an act and pretend that this field is your life's calling etc. if it's not (but it's fine if it is too!)

[themmases]

In a related note, even though there's nothing wrong with going to grad school "for the money", is it in one's best interest to fake passion? For example, I'm starting grad school in the fall in a computational field. I got into the computational field because I started looking into jobs over a year ago when I was still doing the non- computational version and the pay was pathetic. So I busted my ass doing math, science and programming the next two years. Is it bad to admit that? I'm sure I'll be asked why I got into the field when I start my program in the fall. Well, that's why. I actually kinda hate technology.

 

I don't think you really have to fake passion with this background. If you truly want to work in a field, you pick up the skills that will get you there even if they're not all your favorite. Caring about your work doesn't have to mean that you have a passion for the methodology that you're using to answer your one ultimate burning question in the field that resonates with your soul. Sometimes a method is just a method, and you use it because it fits best with what you want to do. The possibility that you will actually get a job and get to spend time on that topic certainly counts as part of "fit".

 

You might turn some people off if you said that the only reason you're in your field instead of the non-computational version is money-- but is that really true? In my experience the money also goes along with other things, like job security and (at least a chance at) autonomy and respect. People who care about a topic and want to spend time on it have to care about those things. And even when it comes to money, most adults who have held a job understand that if an activity doesn't pay, you will have to stop it or curtail it so you can spend time on things that keep a roof over your head. There will always be some people who think that valuing anything connected to your work in addition to the work itself indicates insufficient passion; but they are mistaken, naive, and in the minority.

 

As an aside, we're all witnessing the adjunctification of higher ed and a research model that depends heavily on trainee labor with relatively less meaningful career work for graduates. I don't think it serves any of us well, and certainly not academic researchers as a group, to claim that passion should sustain us and money, respect, and security are beneath us. This expectation is false and it is harmful to our professions.

[Vene]

In a related note, even though there's nothing wrong with going to grad school "for the money", is it in one's best interest to fake passion? For example, I'm starting grad school in the fall in a computational field. I got into the computational field because I started looking into jobs over a year ago when I was still doing the non- computational version and the pay was pathetic. So I busted my ass doing math, science and programming the next two years. Is it bad to admit that? I'm sure I'll be asked why I got into the field when I start my program in the fall. Well, that's why. I actually kinda hate technology.

Personally, I'm doing grad school for career reasons. I have no desire to be an academic, but my experience so far tells me that to move up in the corporate world I need graduate school. At least, if I want to be involved in any sort of research or development role. I like applied science, while basic research is nice, I'd really rather point to some therapy being used in clinics and say I designed that.