This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There's a lot that could be said about how exactly the graduate school ecosystem works, but I'll quickly note a few things that you may not know if you've never been a STEM graduate student that may change your read on the situation (I don't have time to offer anything more substantial):
The 20 hour a week contract you sign is a complete fiction and joke. If you are operating as a teaching assistant in grad school, that will take up at least twenty hours a week in-between classtime, grading, office hours, etc. and more realistically closer to thirty hours. This is on top of all of the research you are already doing; my organic lab had a minimum of 55 hours of research a week as the expectation and other synthetic labs I knew were worse. This is on top of any coursework you may also be taking, which will require you to go to classes and read papers and do homework and prepare for cumes and ... I had many, many weeks in graduate school of working 80+ hours where I'd get in close to 7 AM, go home for dinner and to see my kids, and then go back into the lab and work until 11 PM. The 20 hour a week contract is a complete lie. No graduate student I know in STEM worked anywhere near that.
The tuition waiver seems like a useful benefit to also consider as compensation (a decade or so back I remember congress was contemplating taxing it like other employer benefits), but it's similarly fictitious. It's not at all clear what you would be paying tuition for. After your first year, you aren't taking classes (you might be teaching them). You're doing research. Research space is not paid for by the university, neither is research equipment, neither is chemical inventory ... you pay for all of that using grant money! Graduate students shouldn't be charged tuition at all in my mind; they're operating much more as employees for the university rather than educational charges. Even your stipend, largely, is being paid for with grant money. I haven't the faintest idea what on earth the tuition is for ... except no, wait, I do, it's so the university can pocket a few extra thousand dollars of grant money from each lab every semester.
Graduate students in STEM are hilariously overworked and underpaid. I guess you get an (increasingly worthless) degree at the end and a job market flooded with competitors from all the other idiots who listened to college counsellors?
Don't go to grad school, kids.
According to ACOUP it is worse in humanities as you will not be even employable after going through this.
(...)
(...)
(...)
(...)
That doesn't mean you should be paid more for doing it. It means you shouldn't do it.
I agree that both can apply, and that in case of humanities less people should be doing this (I got convinced by lack of useful output and repeated calls to discriminate my ethnical group - and guess what, I am against racism, especially against myself)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wholly agree. I got out about 6 months ago and have been much happier working a regular job
More options
Context Copy link
"The US outlawed slavery, except against prisoners and grad students."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link