If I feel like the quality of education and students in my program is poor, should I leave?

[GuppyPal]

I'm a new master's student this semester. One of our required classes involves a lot of group discussion. I've come to view about 70% of the people in that class (who are all other grad students in my program) as ignorant morons, something I did not anticipate at all going into grad school. My background is in a hard science, and my grad program is a soft science, so I think that might be part of it, but it's just really made me question my involvement in this program. I feel like only one or two other students have anything to offer me academically/intellectually, and the professors don't seem to mind the mindless discussions we have. I honestly feel like I have more stimulating conversations with my friends and former running teammates than I do in graduate school! My adviser is great though, so far anyway.

 

Is this typical at all? What would you do in this situation?

[Chai_latte]

You kind of remind me of myself.  As an undergrad, I liked the fact that science classes emphasized lecture as opposed to discussion.  I found my social science courses to be a profound waste of time (with the never-ending classroom babbling).  With that said, I think you're experiencing culture shock.  Most social science fields are all about discussion.  This is true no matter where you go.  Unless you return to the hard sciences, I'm not sure leaving your current program will accomplish much.  Ultimately, you have to ask yourself if this degree is a necessity for your long-term goals.  If it is, grin-and-bear-it. If not, you may want to consider returning to your undergraduate field.  

May I ask what field you're in?       

[Catria]

Do you think you need a PhD in your new field to do what you want to do? Also, how selective is the program you are in?

[St Andrews Lynx]

I don't think a bad experience in one class is worth quitting the program over. Perhaps a better way of looking at the situation is "Does this program adequately train students for their future careers?" (does the program have good placement/employment rates, are the alumni well-regarded outside of the university, etc). If the program is good at getting its students into the kind of careers that you want to do...I don't think there is anything to worry about. 

 

Try to see the positives in your cohort, instead of categorising them as "ignorant morons" (which doesn't help anyone, and probably won't add much to your overall happiness in the program). Everybody has different strengths: if they aren't good at discussing things, maybe instead they are great at research, or are fun people to hang out with when you don't want to academic talk. 

[lewin]

I just want to pop in to defend the social sciences and dispute this implication that people in the "hard" sciences are smarter so going there would solve the problem.  Group discussions give people the opportunity to open their mouths and possibly look like idiots.  You might think that hard science students are more worthy of your time, but it could just be that in lecture-based classes they're not being given similar chances to demonstrate that many are, indeed, also morons.   [Assuming they're actually morons and we don't have an unskilled and unaware situation going on here...]

 

 

My practical advice is that if your advisor relationship is fine, stick with it and focus your outside-of-class time on the students whose contributions you enjoy. Grad school is more about the research than the classes anyway.

Edited December 1, 2014 by lewin

[Chai_latte]

@lewin- I wasn't saying that one group was smarter than the other.  I asserted that class discussion (as opposed to lecture) can be mind-numbing for students who don't like that format.  I, personally, can't stand it!  Drives me nuts...

That was the "culture shock" I was referring to (not "dumb-ness").  

If my science courses were structured similarly, I'd say the exact same thing.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Chai_latte

[rising_star]

I'm a new master's student this semester. One of our required classes involves a lot of group discussion. I've come to view about 70% of the people in that class (who are all other grad students in my program) as ignorant morons, something I did not anticipate at all going into grad school. My background is in a hard science, and my grad program is a soft science, so I think that might be part of it, but it's just really made me question my involvement in this program. I feel like only one or two other students have anything to offer me academically/intellectually, and the professors don't seem to mind the mindless discussions we have. I honestly feel like I have more stimulating conversations with my friends and former running teammates than I do in graduate school! My adviser is great though, so far anyway.

 

Is this typical at all? What would you do in this situation?

 

Why do you view them as "ignorant morons"? What have they said or done to give you that opinion? And, perhaps more importantly, is it possible that you haven't realized yet that you can or are learning from them in these discussions? My guess is that the discussions are not mindless to the others in class or they wouldn't be occurring. I'd also guess that you might be missing something and not learning as much as you could be because you've closed yourself off to these discussions by labeling them mindless and your classmates morons... That's really inappropriate for you to do.

 

If you're really that concerned with it, discuss your concerns with your advisor or with the professor for the class. 

[victorydance]

I've met a few people like you in my years at university. The funny thing is people who so much as think they are smarter than everyone actually often don't end up doing the best in the class. 

 

Honestly man, get over yourself. You want to debate me in my specific area of study? I'll probably talk circles around you. That doesn't mean I don't have a lot to learn and pale in comparison to others in other subjects, or even my own. 

 

Part of being an academic is learning to be humble. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. The smartest people in the room are the ones who are aware of their weaknesses and try to become better. 

Edited December 2, 2014 by victorydance

[Between Fields]

This is what I've come to view as First-Semester Master's Student Syndrome. I probably had it when I was one. I saw it in the incoming cohort when I was a second year MA. I see it now in the MA students as a PhD. Basically, it boils down to you thinking that the undergrad diploma that you just got (or maybe distantly in the past got) make you an expert in the field in which you're coming to the university to get your advanced degree in, and/or going through the first few weeks of class has made you an expert of the material of the course. This isn't an accusation, just an observation of similar behavior. (Though, the fact that you're labeling your field a 'soft science' belies a self-positioning of superiority over not just your classmates but the field itself.)

 

The point of a discussion isn't to prove you read the books or to demonstrate your mastery of the topic, rather it's a chance for you to learn from and with your peers. If people are saying things you thing are incorrect, why aren't you challenging them (tactfully, of course)? Lecture has its place. Discussion also has its place, though, and it's often unsettling for students in my discussion-based class when they realize that -they- have to be the source of knowledge, not just the professor.

[juilletmercredi]

My thoughts were the same as rising_star's - that you are actually missing something, probably because you have already decided that you have nothing to learn from your colleagues and have closed yourself off to the discussion.

 

But I agree with Between Fields.  If you think that the conversation is so mindless, participate and push it forward.  Ask questions of your classmates and/or your professor; don't be hostile, but try to understand where they are coming from.

 

Also, I'm not sure why but the assumption that it's because you're coming from a "hard science" into a "soft science" rubbed me the wrong way a bit.  Not the hard vs. soft rhetoric, but because I took it to mean that you believed that your hard science background put you above 70% of the students in your class.  But honestly, that line is what made me think you are missing something, rather than you simply being smarter than everyone else.  I came from a lab-based social science in which "theory" meant "We did about a thousand experiments and they all point to this."  My PhD program was a social science program that had more anthropological and sociological theory.  If you're not trying, from the outside it sounds like meaningless mumbo-jumbo - they even make up their own words!  I'm sure a biologist or an experimental psychologist listening in would think it was nuts.

 

But once I concentrated and read, delved into discussions, and talked to my classmates it became clear that really I was just missing it.  The theory's important; it forms the foundation and underpinning of the field.  It's also actually really hard to understand - harder, I think, than a lot of laboratory scientists would expect (and, IMO, much harder than running an experiment or doing statistical analysis.  That's easy, to me.)  Better yet, the theory turned up over and over again later into my doctoral career - including in my dissertation.

 

So it may be something like that - something that sounds meaningless because you aren't used to thinking that way.

[wildviolet]

I have an undergrad degree in a "hard" science, and I'm pursuing my PhD in Education (probably the least prestigious of any of the social sciences for historical and cultural reasons).

 

We have a lot of discussions--they can be good, bad, or downright ugly (pardon the cliche). As others have mentioned, the purpose of a discussion isn't to show what you know. Instead, it's to listen carefully to others and try to learn and grow in-the-moment. I have to admit--it's not always easy to do, and it depends a lot on the students present in the class and the skill of the professor in moderating/shaping the discussion. Sometimes I've left class feeling frustrated. Sometimes I've chosen not to talk as an act of rebellion (weird, I know, don't get me started). And sometimes I've left class feeling invigorated because everything clicked.

 

Taking a broader perspective, I would say that class discussions have been the least important part of grad school for me. Teaching, doing research, presenting at conferences, reading, and writing have all been more productive in terms of learning how to become a scholar and educator. I find one-on-one or small group discussions more helpful usually than whole-class discussions, so I intentionally seek out other grad students for academic coffee dates.

[Amelorn]

This reminds me of a few master's seminars in my day doing an international relations/poli sci MA (social science).  

 

I find it difficult to issue a wholesale condemnation of a programme.  There are academics, students, and admins involved that all factor into the front-of-house product the student sees.  

 

You note that some of the students are "ignorant morons".  You're probably right on at least few of them.  I really hope that the number is 70%, but it could be.  Admission qualifications are heavily influenced (read: dictated) by admin looking to increase enrolment.  That leads to students from fluffy degrees/weak undergrad programmes sitting next to much stronger.  A senior academic confessed to me that were it up to the academics, admission standards would be markedly higher.  

 

If the academics don't seem to mind, it's a mixture of being purely jaded and "the better ones will learn in time".  

[ashiepoo72]

My program is structured so that there are roughly three branches of students that enter--I'd say about 1/2 are teachers hoping to raise their pay grade, 1/4 are professionals who have since retired and now want to study their "passion," and 1/4 are so-called "serious" students of history who want PhDs. That isn't to say that the best students in the class are in the third branch--some of the most intelligent people I know come from the other two branches that, on face value, are less academically driven. I place no value judgment on why individuals chose to attend my program--some people are total trolls, others will never get it and some become stars when initially they seemed lackluster. When I started, I felt like I didn't belong in the program at all! Now I'm one of the stronger students and feel like my department is a second home.

 

In Master's programs, you're going to get your fair share of people who have no idea what they're doing. This should be expected--a Master's is training! A lot of people come from very different backgrounds and don't know the lay of the land yet. I've always been a history major, so when the new cohort comes in I can spot someone who did another undergrad major a mile away. In time, most of these people figure it out and there is no difference between who got what major when we all graduate (this is discounting the people who don't give a shit about the program and have a specific agenda--they never, ever learn anything of value in the field because they never wanted to anyway).

 

Because of my own experiences, I feel that you are missing something in your discussions. You don't know enough about this field to be so arrogant about the intelligence of your classmates. In fact, the strongest people in my program are great at what they do because they listen with open ears, take everything in and use even the weakest of arguments/discussion to hone their strength at disproving such things by grounding their opposition in air-tight facts and analysis. I'm a firm believer that "you get what you put in." Instead of pooh-poohing your cohort, maybe you should consider doing something productive like that instead.

[spunky]

i'm not sure why having these classes would be considered a hindrance. i also have a BSc in a 'hard science' and moved to psychology/education. if i go to a class/discussion where it feels like the level is gonna be low i immediately think "hellooooo GPA booster!" plus you know it's the one class where you don't actually have to do much to ace it and allocate that time to do research or play minecraft or just do something else. if you feel you're not getting much from the discussion, then just use that time to do more research yourself. you'll be amazed at what you can accomplish when you're getting credit for a graduate class that requires minimal effort!

[EliaEmmers]

I tend to refer to this problem as dividing programs/subjects/areas of study in “everybody-can-have-an-opinion” ones VS “only-the-experts-can-have-an-opinion” with two similar courses I’ve taken.  During my first year as a computer science grad it was mandatory for us to take an ethics course in the Philosophy Department with a focus towards computer science (I guess they wanted to prevent us from becoming black hat hackers or something). Everybody in my cohort dreaded that course and I didn’t know why, but I tried to go in with an open mind. Gosh… WHAT.A.WASTE.OF.TIME. The course was mostly split around 15-20% CompSci students and 80-85% social science/humanities/business students. There was no formal structure to it (with the professor encouraging ‘discussion’ among students) and all I can say was that a lot of yapping was going on, with people mostly talking about their life experiences with file sharing networks and social media. Every now and then somebody would make a tangentially relevant point but it was mostly just 4 months of incessant yapping. What I found was, of course, that the material of the course was something everybody could relate to so you didn’t actually need to know anything about philosophy or ethics or computer science to have an opinion about it. You just needed to have used a computer at some point in your lifetime.

 

 But there was this one time where I took a course with a catchy name like “Modern Practice of Bioinformatics” or something that promised it would touch upon issues like genetics, bioengineering, GMOs, etc. It attracted a similar split of students (with the CompSci people being in the minority) but the course had so much emphasis on the technical details of computing that it effectively cut the yapping that was going on. Only people who knew their stuff  and had something relevant to contribute dared rise their hand and say something, and this ‘something’ was usually very relevant.

 

For better or worse, I think most areas of the soft sciences are easier to relate to which means a lot of people who are not experts can think they are experts and say stuff just for the sake of saying stuff. The hard sciences, on the other hand, are more difficult to relate to because your usual everyday life experiences are not very relevant to, say optimizing an algorithm or solving an integral. And if your everyday life experiences cannot help you make an argument or say something in a class discussion, you're forced to rely on your knowledge of the material, effectively filtering-out the opinions of people who don't understand the material. 

 

In any case, it’s always up to you to make the best you want from your degree.

[EliaEmmers]

 play minecraft 

 

GUILTY OF DOING THIS IN CLASS! 

[lewin]

"everybody-can-have-an-opinion” ones VS “only-the-experts-can-have-an-opinion” 

 

I really encourage anybody in a medicine or mental health area to read this classic article "Why I don't attend case conferences" by Paul Meehl. It's a typology of dumb comments that occur when meetings are too much of the "everybody talks" variety. (Though set aside some time; it's 70+ pages.)

 

 

 

For better or worse, I think most areas of the soft sciences are easier to relate to which means a lot of people who are not experts can think they are experts and say stuff just for the sake of saying stuff. The hard sciences, on the other hand, are more difficult to relate to because your usual everyday life experiences are not very relevant to, say optimizing an algorithm or solving an integral. And if your everyday life experiences cannot help you make an argument or say something in a class discussion, you're forced to rely on your knowledge of the material, effectively filtering-out the opinions of people who don't understand the material. 

 

I think you're exactly right. Nobody pontificates on gravity just because they have experience dropping objects, yet they do it all the time psychology etc..  When I teach I drill it into students over and over: Many lay theories of human behaviour are wrong and I hope it sticks.

[dr. t]

I really encourage anybody in a medicine or mental health area to read this classic article "Why I don't attend case conferences" by Paul Meehl. It's a typology of dumb comments that occur when meetings are too much of the "everybody talks" variety. (Though set aside some time; it's 70+ pages.

 

 

Oh, man. This is epic.

 

 

10. Asking pointless questions. Participants in a case conference frequently ask questions the answers to which make no conceivable difference, or only the most negligible difference, to the handling of the case. I have often thought that the clinician in charge of the case conference should emulate a professor of law from whom I took a course in equitable remedies, David Bryden. When a law student advanced a stupid argument about the case being discussed, he would respond with a blank stare and the question “And therefore?” This would usuauy elicit some further response from the student (attempting to present the next link in an argumentative chain), but this shoring-up job would in turn be greeted by the same blank stare, the same inquisitorial “And therefore?” I daresay Professor Bryden made the law students nervous; but he also forced them to think. I suspect that one who persisted in asking the question “And therefore?” every time somebody made a half-baked contribution to the case conference would wreak havoc, but it might be an educational experience for all concerned. 

[TMP]

I used to get frustrated with my class discussions as well.  I don't think it's a case of changing fields/disciplines.  So many factors are at play: personalities, interests, life experiences, level of preparation, and present moods.  

 

I've had my fair share of great and "meh" classes at grad level.  The best class I've ever taken at my present university was a history class that had students from all over the campus, different ethnic groups, degree-level, and life experiences.  The professor was very open and had the right moderating style.  The worst class had (mostly) first years straight out of college who touted their anti-patriarchy reading of the texts and the professor generally supported their participation when I wanted to focus on other aspects (I still have nightmares of it).  In both cases, I was a second year PhD student with a MA in hand.

 

Unless the master's program is part of the department's PhD program or in a well-ranked university, you just aren't necessarily going to get the same level of rigor.  Like college degrees, master's degrees mileage vary.