4 ms·

This is very unlike my experience (PhD Computational optimization) where aggressive criticism was too be expected and anticipated during a presentation. I remem

This is very unlike my experience (PhD Computational optimization) where aggressive criticism was too be expected and anticipated during a presentation. I remember running "pre-mortems" before talks with my supervisor to prepare for as much criticism as we could possibly predict.

periheli0n 4y ago
Engaging with critique is an invaluable skill that is relevant way beyond academia. They key is to never take it personal, otherwise one has lost the debate already. Understanding the main angle of critique on the spot is hard enough, coming up with a rebuttal even harder, especially when the critique comes from a senior researcher. Accepting points of critique that are valid as opportunities to improve the research, or at least as limitations to the generality of the findings reported is highly valued. I always tended to think that a PhD is awarded for the ability to accept and counter critique towards work that one has spent years of their life with.
- glial 4y ago
  It seems like academic criticism can be binned into a few categories: 1. legit criticism, e.g. you missed something or did something incorrectly 2. reveals an opportunity to communicate better on your part 3. self-promotion by the criticizer 1 and 2 are directly valuable. Distinguishing between 1, 2, and 3 is a skill, especially since 3 is so common.
mistrial9 4y ago
lots of places still do hazing, even at the high levels.. honestly
- michael_j_x 4y ago
  but I found this approach quite fitting to the environment. The math didn't care about my emotions, or how much effort I put into the work. The criticism was (most of the time) mathematically valid, and was delivered extremely efficiently in its brutality. We could argue (politely) but without worrying about hurting egos. It forced me to learn to become emotionally detached from my specific work, allowing me to accept mistakes and take corrective actions.
- dekhn 4y ago
  There is a difference between hazing and aggressive questioning. Hazing is done entirely to maintain power structures through humiliation, while aggressive questioning is done to improve the field by reducing the impact of emotion on rationality.
yummypaint 4y ago
I never encountered the mentality described in the article during my physics PhD, either. Though it was stressful at the time, having committee members who were known for asking tough questions was invaluable as a motivator to learn more about underlying theory. It's of course very important that the process be conducted respectfully and constructively, and I had the fortune of being in a department with a healthy culture in that regard. All the people I know who were not so fortunate experienced unduly harsh, personalized, and non-constructive criticism. I'm not sure whether or not that's worse than never being critical, but they are kind of equivalent in that they create barriers to students engaging with the science. What is described in the article is not at all ubiquitous as some commenters are implying, and afaik is essentially unknown in the hard sciences and math.

periheli0n 4y ago

Engaging with critique is an invaluable skill that is relevant way beyond academia. They key is to never take it personal, otherwise one has lost the debate already. Understanding the main angle of critique on the spot is hard enough, coming up with a rebuttal even harder, especially when the critique comes from a senior researcher. Accepting points of critique that are valid as opportunities to improve the research, or at least as limitations to the generality of the findings reported is highly valued. I always tended to think that a PhD is awarded for the ability to accept and counter critique towards work that one has spent years of their life with.

glial 4y ago
It seems like academic criticism can be binned into a few categories: 1. legit criticism, e.g. you missed something or did something incorrectly 2. reveals an opportunity to communicate better on your part 3. self-promotion by the criticizer 1 and 2 are directly valuable. Distinguishing between 1, 2, and 3 is a skill, especially since 3 is so common.

mistrial9 4y ago

lots of places still do hazing, even at the high levels.. honestly

michael_j_x 4y ago
but I found this approach quite fitting to the environment. The math didn't care about my emotions, or how much effort I put into the work. The criticism was (most of the time) mathematically valid, and was delivered extremely efficiently in its brutality. We could argue (politely) but without worrying about hurting egos. It forced me to learn to become emotionally detached from my specific work, allowing me to accept mistakes and take corrective actions.
dekhn 4y ago
There is a difference between hazing and aggressive questioning. Hazing is done entirely to maintain power structures through humiliation, while aggressive questioning is done to improve the field by reducing the impact of emotion on rationality.

yummypaint 4y ago

I never encountered the mentality described in the article during my physics PhD, either. Though it was stressful at the time, having committee members who were known for asking tough questions was invaluable as a motivator to learn more about underlying theory. It's of course very important that the process be conducted respectfully and constructively, and I had the fortune of being in a department with a healthy culture in that regard. All the people I know who were not so fortunate experienced unduly harsh, personalized, and non-constructive criticism. I'm not sure whether or not that's worse than never being critical, but they are kind of equivalent in that they create barriers to students engaging with the science. What is described in the article is not at all ubiquitous as some commenters are implying, and afaik is essentially unknown in the hard sciences and math.