Rejected models

I am still involved in a collaboration that dates from my postdoc. This collaboration has been previously referred to as the “doomed project”.

The Doom has reached new depths today.

For the story, this collaboration was a very original one in the whole project since it gathered very diverse teams. However, the work has been hindered by the collaboration’s initiator constant stalling (I’ve stopped counting the number of times I have explained some simple things I do). It was also slowed down by another collaborators business (and lack of research staff). Both these guys are very senior, and whatever happens or doesn’t over the course of this will bear little consequence for them. On the other side there’s me, a not-any-longer postdoc but still-needs -publications, and a researcher who is desperately trying to bring this forward because it’s a big chunk of her thesis. She is the Patient Mediator (PM).

Since about three years now, PM has patiently herded all these people, the most difficult being the senior people. And yet, we still seem to be discussing really basic stuff. “Can stepwise girl present what kind of variables she intends to compute?” (I have done this at least four times, and have other people in the group). And now the other bloke is saying “Yeah, well I don’t really agree with the use of the method used by stepwise girl” - except, I did not use this method this time, as presented in PM’s presentations, and my reports on more than one occasion. He is also poopooing some other methods I used (linking it to a supposedly very poor habit of people in my discipline), but omitting to mention that if we drop that approach, we also drop of whole chunk of info.

I am sick of this crap, but am sticking with it because of PM who needs the thing to get done. But I think these two blokes are setting a very poor example of collaborative work that is always on the tone of opposition and non-constructive criticism. How come it is always PM who needs to propose steps forward? How come we still are wasting every one's time of basic stuff that we discussed? How come we still cannot see whatever will possible here?

A candidate model like I’d love to meet more often

One of the things I’m a trying to do while on the Long Stay Abroad is to talk to as many people as possible, especially Experienced And Sensible People Whom I Can Learn From.

The other day I met with a fantastic lady. I wish I could meet her more often. Where to start?

We are from the same relatively narrow field of study. Not just from the same discipline, not just having similar object of study. No. The same postage stamp of scientific research. OK, maybe in the series “Birds”, we’re different birds, but we were printed on the same page. I don’t nearly often enough meet such people.

We discussed freely more general issues like working with developing countries and transition countries, when one comes from a country that was rather at the other side of the fence for the past century. This is an issue that’s been bugging me, and I think that it is something that does not get discussed enough among scientists. I think especially when it comes to sensitive environmental issues that have a social component… people’s right to self determination could not be over emphasized. Same stands for many many fields of research.

She is a woman who did her PhD in a male dominated environment and did absolutely crazy field work. She is opinionated on the topic (ah! What else would you be in her position), and keen on sharing with hum, little stepwise girl who wants to be an actor in that matter too. I told her how I was sometimes horrified by stuff I hear from people my age, and she told me she thought all things considered, not as much progress as she was hoping had been achieved.

I wish I could meet her more often! I must keep in touch.

Let's be curious! (that's why we're here after all)

Yesterday I went to meet with potential new collaborators. We’re currently investigating various ideas of stuff we could do together, and we’re going to look for funding, and hopefully find somewhere to submit a nice proposal for an innovative interdisciplinary study.

One of the three persons present at the meeting is a lady of respectable age, just one year from retiring and she really gave me a boost. She’s all for trying things and being ambitious and daring. “Especially when one is young like you!”. This was so nice and refreshing to hear. This wasn’t about not being realistic: this was about actually having original ideas and a whish to test them. And about knowing that when you submit something the worst that can happen is to be turned down, which isn’t really serious.

She really gave a nice kick to current gloomy perspectives in terms of possible funding. And she’s probably the top specialist in this possibly somewhat obscure area of research (if not being top of the list of funding agencies of various sorts is a criterion for being obscure). She’s so driven, it’s brilliant! Really inspiring. One year from retirement and still curious! I hope I am like that. I bet curiosity and success are related, obscure field or not.

Reading a thesis chapter

I’m reading a thesis chapter for a friend. It’s taking me sh*tloads of time. This chapter is a clear indication, if any more was necessary, of the poor and light supervision that she got during her thesis. The writing really is tedious, and the structure confused. The English isn’t great but I can cope with that. That’s what happens when a supervisor is happy enough living in close quarters and a small circle of collaborators, with no ambitions to publish or to communicate your work (with which you can get away in this field that is strongly related to aid/development issues). You might think little of publishing peer-review papers, but at least, breaking your teeth on a couple of submissions as a PhD student can help you learn how to write. Obviously, if your thesis is your first chance to write a substantial scientific text, it’s going to be hard. (The supervisor in question has all my respect for imposing herself as a women in the place she did, but none for her human and supervision talent. I would probably include her in the non-candidate models).

A second element that does not help in the flow is that my friend is very obviously sick of the whole thing. So although I am not super happy about having spent most of my Sunday (and all my weekend work time, hum) on it, I guess I won’t be mad at her for it. At this stage, I just hope she doesn’t just drop the whole thing. Will have to present things in an encouraging light when I send it back to her. I suspect she underestimates how much work will still be necessary.

Better get back to it, still 10 pages to go.

You’ll see when you’re 50.

You’ll see that :
-no undergrad gives a shit;
-that they cannot remember anything;
-that they are all obnoxious;
-you’ll hate them all and have good reason for it.

I summarize, but this is what someone told me today. How great a way to motivate people is that?

Is everybody that bitter when they’re 50? Are ALL undergrads obnoxious and not worth our effort? Should we ignore EVERYTHING they say? There are assholes everywhere, so I don’t see why students would be an exception. But everyone everywhere has to deal with SOME assholes. It does not mean they consider EVERYBODY to be assholes, is it? How can you be a good educator if you consider the people you’re speaking too in that way? And why wanting to have a more nuanced view should be stamped as naïve?

We can all be frustrated when dealing with assholes, but it’s just too fucking easy to tell people “you’re too young, you don’t know. You’ll see” and then to go on with such statements on *undergrads*.

Not what I want to be

Candidate models can also indicate what you DON'T want to be.

A teaching colleague has had many rough words about the students recently.

I deal with that same group and have had some issues with them too (see here and here for examples, but we recently dealt also with "sorry I don't think I will be able to give back my report because my computer crashed. I am now discouraged". They also motivated this thought). They are a large groups with some motivated and hard working students, a group of students who zigzag between "doing fine" and "I don't give a sh*t, and a bunch of students who give the impression that they really couldn't care less.

It's tough teaching them sometimes because the last group sucks up all your energy, whereas you'd rather spend it on the first and second group.

But this colleague seems to have now put them all, with no distinction, in the last group. I met her on her way to class last week and she really seemed like she was going to eat them all raw, and to show them that she does not care either.

Apart from the fact that this person maybe has other issues with life generally, I felt really sorry for the majority of these students, who actually don't deserve to be treated that way, and anyway those whom one might argue do probably were not at the lecture anyway.

I hope I always manage to focus on the students who are motivated, interested and working, whether they are bright or less bright. I hope I don't let mediocrity win by considering nobody cares and they're all useless.

I think I did get polluted by that kind of thoughts a little bit, but I was reminded that it shouldn't be so (and especially when in your first year!). Communicating your passion to the student is a great achievement one can get, as FSP indicated recently.

A reference letter

I have to write a reference letter for my PhD supervisor.

Eheh.

He has applied to a new position and has negotiated to get tenure, since he has already. So they are doing a sort of retrospective tenure assessment and are contacting his previous PhD students, and asking them for letters assessing our experience with him, his supervising qualities, his teaching, whether he trained us well, including at other things than research etc.

It’s quite a funny situation really, to have to do that. I have asked him for so many reference letters, now it’s my turn to write one.

But I am happy to do it. He is a great supervisor. He’s still an important mentor for me, actually. In his field he is one of the best currently, he’s really good with details but also with the general view of the field and of specific problem that one often lacks as a PhD student, because it requires a fair bit of experience. But also he taught me all sort of other things like write reports, speak at conferences and meetings, apply for grants and positions,… When I look around me I see that many supervisors do not bother teaching these things. I wonder why ? they don’t think of it ? they don’t think they’d get any benefit from it ? (whereas actually, if their students are successful later in their career, they’ll look (and feel ?) good too ?)

Since this year, he has also advised me more than once in issues related to administration or teaching. (I am still in the same place, yes)

If he gets/takes the other position, I will be really happy for him. On the professional level, it would be a huge change in terms of working conditions (funding, other academics in the department, probably admin hassle). But I will miss him in work!

In any case, I want to write a letter that will be interpreted as I wish to: I find him a great colleague and supervisor. The position is in the US, and he has told me once, when I applied there somewhere, that the style for reference letters is quite different than here.

Has anyone got tips for me?