Is graduate school so much BS? (rant and questions)

[Genecks]

You know, I've often considered a few things while spending time at the university I attend.

 

One of the main things I've considered is that universities will truly see people as numbers. They'll create class-in-a-can pedagogies, which end up often being set in stone from about ten years ago. Professors don't often take up modern teaching techniques, which causes students to fight for themselves in finding ways to learn and grasp the material.

 

I mean, I even come across professors who still use the word "understand" to say how a person should go about learning the material. That's such bs, folks. If I memorize an aspect of a G-protein receptor, I would know that it helps with signal transduction. I got the function down. I have memorized an aspect of what it does. But that doesn't mean I know every reductionist level of it. Furthermore, as we biologists know, there are downstream biochemicals that a g-protein receptor can tamper with. There is more to this than "understanding."

 

I have even done the social duty of calling professors out whenever they talk this way to me. I'm not some 18-year-old who never worked or hasn't experienced life or the educational system. And let me tell you, the professor gets seriously pissed when in a room of about 200 people, you show up the professor. I quickly learned he wasn't grading me, so he couldn't control me.

 

But you know what, I have never felt guilty about those acts, because the professors are conducting sophistry.

 

Am I suppose to assume someone who has gone through 10+ years of education can't see the faulty aspects of using a word, such as "understanding," and expect to seriously use it to educate masses? And they often screw with using the word "critical thinking" without ever defining it, too.

 

It reminds me of an organic chemistry TA I had once. She eventually broke down when discussing numbers for which you can attempt to determine things on an IR and/or NMR spectrum readout. She finally admitted there is an aspect where you have to "memorize" things. You can't "understand" that. You can maybe memorize stuff, abstract from it, and generate a pattern... but there isn't this "understanding" thing.

 

I no longer really believe there is an "understanding" aspect to much of what I learn these days. There is a language to be learned; and there is a rhetoric to that. And the abstraction of the rhetoric can often involve inventio, a discovery of arguments.

 

I don't believe in the term "understanding" anymore. At least, not in a "feeling" sort of way, because that's utter bs. I don't think the biology nor chemists around me actually grasp that idea. However, whenever I'm talking with psychology professors, they know exactly what I mean. Furthermore, if I talk with a neuroscientist who works mostly with cognition, he gets what I'm on about. I can't help but feel the professors leading my classes and department are inferior tools and idiots, because they can't teach.

 

I can't help but feel that somehow our educational system have been thrown into a time before the greeks. It's as if education hasn't progressed in over 2000 years. Is it that we're now learning about neuroscience and cognitive psychology that we can say, "Oh, now we have a footing to work with"?

 

Whenever a professor uses the word "understanding" with me, I want to smack them. Seriously. I find it insulting that such educated people use a word like that. It's as if they are trying to use a baby word with me. Furthermore, it's not like they ever operationally define it.

 

As we can see, professors can act like idiots and do a poor job of teaching and help people absorb and cognitize the material, which I consider to be memorization and abstraction of materials.

 

With this in mind, I'm wondering if graduate school is the same bullshit.

 

I'm taking a 400-level class at the moment, and it's awfully unorganized, the professors will still use crude spoken language like, "We'll hold a review session, and hopefully after any questions asked are answered, then everyone will get an A."

 

That was supposedly the hardest exam we've had so far.

 

I hate that kind of dialogue, especially when the exam is built to be more difficult than other exams. And it's a 400-level exam. Are they still trying to weed me out at the 400-level? Seriously? There are about 120 people in the class, and the next class will have about 50.

 

What am I getting at?

Well, this 400-level class has access to graduate students.

Graduate students need to get a B in order to remain graduate students.

 

Are they somehow trying to strip out potential graduate students and the ones they already have?

 

But I'm a little annoyed by how they keep seeming to weed people out. They don't offer suggestions as to how to better absorb the material. They don't really interact the class as much. And it's a real pain.

 

I'm taking another 400-level class, which is omg... such bs.. it's unorganized. We've all been trying to collect data for about 3 months, and there has been no data collection. The equipment we're using is subpar, and the professor's stereoscope is much better. I can at least see what I'm doing with his microscope. I have vision problems, but it seems he only needs reading glasses.

 

The equipment is absolute junk in the student lab. As such, I've been trying to use the professor's microscope with his permission. He keeps wondering why we can't see ****. Gee, it's because you've been doing the research with this for over 30+ years, your equipment is better, and I've been working on it 3 months rather than 30+ years. Of course, it's going to take me some time!

 

I talked to another student about this, and despite him trying to be a humble person, he agrees that this professor is unorganized and cannot seem to establish things well. I'm sure the professor is not stupid, but I believe he is overly confident of his student's abilities, especially when they are absolutely new to something. Otherwise, he lacks the ability to communicate with people. I mean, he could have really told me how to do things much differently earlier in the semester to save me a lot of time.

 

However, he didn't bother doing this.

 

And I've met people who have taught me things (I'm in a research group). And the first day with this guy (20-something about to go to med-school), he told me, "I'm going to teach you some things that I didn't know so you can save a lot of time."

 

Are professors really like this in graduate school? Do they expect someone to quickly pick something up in almost the same way someone else has in 30 years?

 

Is there an age effect to where they forget what it's like for someone to startup?

Do they forget how difficult is to get stuff done and accomplished?

Maybe they've gotten to the point of tenure that they no longer know how much pressure students are under?

 

What is the deal? Is this more undergraduate BS?

I'm seriously concerned.

 

Maybe I don't want to go to graduate school anymore, if I keep having to be hazed by educated fools like this. I am a strong-willed person. And I'm sure I have enough will to go through 7 more years of hazing by damn fools, just to have the ability to become a powerful Biology/Neuro Ph.D holder and erase these archaic assholes from the university educational systems across the world by waiting for them to die so that actual learning methods can be employed and more people can move forward. I'm damn sure I've got the ability to help people; but these pricks seem to only work to weed-out people.

 

As someone once told me, getting into graduate school is easy, but staying in is difficult.

Is it because there is still this bullshit?

Is all of this seriously a hazing procedure? Really? Is it?

 

Because I believe I'm going to be very worried for the rest of my life about the educational state of America if this is the best these professors can do in terms of educating people.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Genecks

[CharonY]

I can clearly see the rant, but I fail to figure out meaningful questions that I could answer. At least not in a way that would satisfy you.

[lemur]

You should realize that education is full of people who are not really interesting in intellectualism, knowledge, etc. but are just there because they think if they stick with it long enough, they'll get a prestigious, well-paying job that they like and compliments their lifestyle desires. Such people work in every aspect of education from professors to administrators to support personnel to students. They do focus on creating knowledge that weeds people out instead of stimulating and enlightening them because they basically want people to drop out of the race to compete for their job. The funding of higher education involves, among other things, catering to well-paying parents of students who resist everything except socializing and whatever work they think is absolutely necessary for them to avoid getting rejected from the system. So there has to be a way of challenging these students at a level that weeds out competition, because students are paying to distinguish themselves in some way, which requires weeding people out. At the same time, though, if it was really interesting and enlightening, no one would get weeded out and there would be no elite positions of distinction to claim when you became one of the chosen few who "make the cut."

 

Higher education should really be about knowledge and enlightenment but there are too many people using it primarily as a social machine to sort people into social classes and income levels. If you spread word of this, though, the most socially competitive people will just develop the most convincing act that they're not just in it to attain status and wealth. 'Sincere' interest is for them nothing more than a means to social rewards.

Edited November 11, 2010 by lemur

[Genecks]

I can clearly see the rant, but I fail to figure out meaningful questions that I could answer. At least not in a way that would satisfy you.

 

Are professors this fucking dense at the graduate level?

Are they truly like autistic children who've found a way to the top?

That they can't figure out how to communicate nor empathize with how people "understand" things?

 

Now, surely, I wasn't given a lab manual, told about much of the equipment, and so forth.... but still...

 

So, I'm inside my lab right now (it's 11:05 p.m.), and I came to notice something about an hour ago.

The professor since the beginning of the semester put me and my partner on a microscope with half the magnification power of the other microscopes in the room. I talked to him today, and he said to me, "All of those microscopes are the same."

 

That was such B.S.. I don't think he even realizes that he has been ignorantly causing me to go through a hellish amount of torture for the past 2 or so months dealing with this bullshit microscope. I'm trying to get inside of snail neurons, at the moment. And for the past two months, I've been trying to figure out what the fuck is going on and why I can't see shit.

 

The graduate students (and potential graduate student with his B.S. biology already), have been doing fine.

I've been behind for some odd fucking reason despite putting in shitloads of time.

My main problem: I haven't been able to view these snail, buccal ganglia under the microscope despite how well I make a prep.

 

This guy is a professional. Seriously. He knows his stuff.

The other day, I was talking about how magnification while dissecting was being a pain.

He looked through it and then said, "Oh, let me find a microscope with a 20x lens."

 

That was his lab, inside his office/lab where he does research..

 

Inside the student lab, he's been familiar with checking everyone's microscope. He can see through them to the best degree. He should have damn well known that my microscope didn't have 20x ocular lenses, and that I've been having a shitload of problems ever since.

 

Truth be, if he is truly being ignorant and unaware, I could truly steal these 20x ocular lenses, sell them on ebay, buy 10x ocular lenses, and replace them at the end of the semester; and he wouldn't know any better. I could easily cash in on this stupid asshole.

 

Maybe he's not being stupid, though.

Maybe he's actually being an asshole.

 

So, I can't help but think... is he stupid? Or is he being an asshole?

 

I can't decide.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Genecks

[CharonY]

Did the possibility that part of it may be on your end ever cross your mind?

[Genecks]

To clarify the last post, I noticed that my scope out of all the other scopes had a 10x ocular lens rather than the 20x that everyone else has had since the start. And that has been causing my teammate and I a hell of a lot of problems.

 

Imagine working hard everyday, attempting to do your work, and the professor himself often looks through your same stereoscope and never claims there is a problem. What is this guy's deal?

 

Did the possibility that part of it may be on your end ever cross your mind?

 

I'm a hard worker. I attempt to be responsible for as much as I can possibly be. I care about doing my work, doing well, and coming out with more professional knowledge and a good grade.

 

Has it crossed my mind?

 

Yes, it's crossed my mind in the sense that I'm responsible for me, my partner, and doing well in the class. But I can be only held responsible for so much. I'm not familiar with the equipment, chemicals, nor procedures. No lab manuals were made (the only one was a dissection manual; but nothing ever really covered the details of the scopes we're using), and I had no fucking clue until I started looking up the prices of things how expensive the equipment I'm working with is.

 

I've not been trained to pay specific attention to what equipment I'm using at any time during any lab at my time at this university. If I am to pay attention, it's because the procedure calls for it: something or someone has described it to me.

 

Anything they want you to know about the equipment, they train you to know.

 

It's fascinating that there are two professors and an electrophysiology TA in there, and none of them fucking realized that the ocular lens I was using was half the magnification of the other ocular lenses people were using. That's some serious bullshit. The TA and both professors have taught that class multiple times before.

 

After everyone was out of the lab for the day, I grabbed the $1500 stereoscope picked it up out of the rig, and moved it onto a table. I was going to swap it with the one from my rig for the time being.

 

It wasn't until I did that did I consider to look at the oculars. Because I thought to myself, "What the fuck is it about these stereoscopes that makes this one better than the other? They're aligned exactly the same. It's the fucking oculars. Son of a bitch. That mother fucking professor. How dare he claim all along these are the same."

 

I'm not even familiar with how all the optics work. I know how some magnification aspects work, and I figured it was a really shitty stereoscope setup. But I didn't know any better.

 

THESE PEOPLE DID AND COULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.

 

My job is to do the work. Their job is to provide the pre-requisite tools for me to do the said work.

 

I know my research project eventually calls for me to use suction electrodes.. I know that. As such, I have to eventually request that. That's MY PART. But I shouldn't have to request a pre-requisite material that everyone is suppose to have.

 

Furthermore, the professors pretty much showed their irresponsibility by allowing a new transfer student (a junior, though) into the class when she had not yet fulfilled pre-reqs. The class would have shut down otherwise for lack of enough people. She's been having a hell of a time herself. She's responsible for her duties, I'm responsible for mine, and as a team in that lab, we try to do well for each other.

 

If something tipped me off to the bullshit that was going on, it was the fact that the professor actually brought one of his undergraduate research assistants into the teaching lab (and he's not suppose to do that, really), put her on the rig I was using (I had a prep right there), and then allowed her to use it rather than me.

 

I couldn't help but think, "WTF? The other rig is open; go use that."

 

Now both of those rigs at the time had 20x oculars. Mine still had 10x.

 

It wasn't until the past week I started remembering something my microbiology professor taught me before I left my community college: Steal shit and use it; but bring it back.

 

 

Serious bullshit, folks.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Genecks

[CharonY]

So you worked on half of the magnification as the others and did not notice it? That is all? One difference in grad school is that you are self-responsible for all the equipment you intend to use. This includes a basic understanding of how a microscope works and what the setup of the one you use is.

 

I've not been trained to pay specific attention to what equipment I'm using at any time during any lab at my time at this university. If I am to pay attention, it's because the procedure calls for it: something or someone has described it to me.

 

This generally falls under common sense. Just because you are in lab, it does not mean that you are allowed to turn off your brain.

 

My job is to do the work. Their job is to provide the pre-requisite tools for me to do the said work.

If you think of it that way, you missed the point of doing a class.

Edited November 12, 2010 by CharonY

[StringJunky]

I thought the general idea of going higher up the educational chain was that you learn to become pedagogically autonomous...it seems you still have some adapting to do. One of the hardest things in life to accept is the way the world is and not the way one thinks it should be. If you really want to change the system though....be the system.

 

Aside: I like to read a good rant like this one occasionally.

[pioneer]

I went to engineering grad school. Engineering is a little different since it is about applied science. What that means is you not only need to understand the core principles in depth, but you also need to understand it well enough to extrapolate that understanding into unknown areas of applications. The professors were experts in various areas of the whole, who could explain and extrapolate, pulling you along faster than you could go.

 

Memory was less important than understanding, with most tests open book. The important thing was applying the knowledge to solve problems, not to clutter your little brain with data. The theory and data were the tools you could find in any tool box. You needed to learn how to swing the hammer and use the level to build the any type of house.

 

The philosophy of engineering can get you into a pickle with empirical science, since your training tends to stray off memory path, into the unknown using understanding of how their hammer works. Sometimes a hammer also makes a good pry tool if used in conjunction with a block of wood. This is not exactly blind experimentation, since you are trained to extrapolate and you have a feel for how the house is suppose to look before starting.

[Genecks]

So you worked on half of the magnification as the others and did not notice it? That is all? One difference in grad school is that you are self-responsible for all the equipment you intend to use. This includes a basic understanding of how a microscope works and what the setup of the one you use is.

 

This generally falls under common sense. Just because you are in lab, it does not mean that you are allowed to turn off your brain.

 

If you think of it that way, you missed the point of doing a class.

 

I would not say I turned off my brain, as I found an eventual truth that was not discussed. I've used my brain a lot to understand the cellular physiology and anatomy of the various things I've been working with.

 

Now I know these things about the lab equipment and being in a class, for sure.

 

I had never been told these things nor discussed.

If part of my brain was turned off, I surely think someone did not give me the light bulb to turn on.

 

I am a bit of a determinist, as I've said before.

 

It's pretty pathetic, because it causes a lot of worker inefficiency, especially since I'm helping with his research in this 400-level class.

 

I have attempted to understand what I see; but I cannot know all nor always perceive all.

I surely know I'm responsible for turning the knobs, using the equipment, not breaking the equipment. I'm responsible for getting my own equipment. But now I know that I am also responsible for knowing what equipment I could somewhat get unauthorized access to is like, and how exactly that is different than mine. Had the thought of using someone else's equipment when I have my own crossed my mind? Not necessarily.

 

Yes, I know there is a difference between how the world "is" and how the world "should be."

 

Lesson learned: The world is filled with ignorant assholes.

 

That's about it, then. I'm going to have to agree with Lemur.

 

I don't like the idea of considering that people are inevitably selfish, ignorant assholes in the end.

 

That's the way it is.

 

Common sense is not so common. I shouldn't have to quip that Voltaire quote.

 

And I've also discussed on this SFN forum that I don't believe that most graduate students learn most things themselves. I believe their parents and other higher-ups spoon-feed them the information, which allows them to succeed. People are primed. The statistics are there. I'm highly doubting they have a neurophysiology that makes them very deviated from other humans in the world's population by working much more efficiently. Otherwise, there might be something to aristocracy, racism, and so forth.

 

I try not to ask for too much help, because I want to experience for myself all the guildish bullshit that really exists. I like testing myself until I decide that there is too much bullshit, and I begin to decide that the people surrounding me have inside information, which is and has been the factor that makes them succeed.

 

I really want to know what all the bullshit is, so I can then actually be able to explain to people why things are actually so screwed up. I definitely see this as somewhat of a social duty as being a transhumanist. This is often an implicit aspect of me in my actions to better understand things. Otherwise, I'd probably just drop out and say fuck school, those old people, and I don't need their medicine: I'm going to join an indian reserve.

 

Most things I've learned from graduate school came from my community college professors. They told me about their graduate school experiences, and I learned from that. I'm glad I learned that "steal but bring it back" philosophy. It's what allowed me to actually further analyze the situation I am in.

 

Furthermore, this school seems to fail in educating people to actually examine all of the equipment they are using. That microbiology class I took was a brilliant example of this. There were plenty of resources to be used and understood, but no one ever really went around telling people to further analyze things.

 

I'm sure of the many tools I use, I've examined them. I knew I was working on a stereoscope, but I wasn't very sure of what others were using. And personally, I've often been told to worry about myself, my work, and how I do rather than undergo social comparison to attempt to understand others and how they are working and what they are doing. I'm sure I've done a lot of social comparison to succeed, but it would appear that getting by in these upper-level aspects requires social comparison, deviancy, and getting into the mind of your competitor more and more.

 

But schools don't really teach that, because I'm sure it would be unethical for them to say, "You are competing against each other. Attempt to actively get into each others' heads without letting the other know. If you can take advantage of someone else without giving back, do it."

 

Apparently, there are issues.

 

I did a social experiment with the graduate students the past day, though. I swapped the equipment to see if they would notice and get any results. They have plenty of data, they're fine.

 

They didn't get jack that day, and they had a hard time. Gee, I wonder why. I think if the graduate students had the experiences I've just had, they'd notice something was fishy and look for a better lens.

 

I swapped it back before I left though. I only did this for one day.

 

Surely, it would be great to do more unethical studies like this in real life to really see what the truth of the matter is in people being "self-responsible."

Edited November 16, 2010 by Genecks

[timo]

I think you should leave academia and not go to grad school. Both, for the sake of your nerves, and those of your colleagues whose experiments you sabotage.

[swansont]

There are bad professors. No doubt about this. If you are at a university and the professor is doing research, s/he may have been hired with the emphasis primarily on research and teaching is something done on the side. And it's quite likely that the professor never had any training at all on how to teach. So they adopt a method that you were exposed to, and what worked for them. But that's not going to work for everyone. No one method ever will. How many people are in a class a professor teaches — 20? 40? 100? Every student can have a different misconception. There isn't enough time to go through each one of them. So as a teacher you address the common ones, and try to figure out the uncommon ones by the questions that are asked. Here's a tip, though: "I don't understand" gives the teacher absolutely nothing to go on.

 

I TA-ed labs in grad school, after having been trained to teach, And I had some students who complained about the equipment, in particular one whiny engineering student who once asked what grade he would get if he only did the first half of the lab. (He didn't like the answer of "5," but I figured half-lab equals half-grade). One lab he was complaining about his oscilloscope being old and sucky, and in the few minutes I could spare (with a dozen lab groups asking questions) I didn't immediately see what the problem was — everything had checked out earlier. Turns out someone had unlocked the calibration knobs, which gave a gain other than 1 to the signal. IIRC locking the knobs was part of the instruction set on how to use the scope, so it was his own fault, but I'm sure he thought I was an incompetent asshole for not magically diagnosing the problem.

 

The point is that professors running a lab get a lot of complaints like this, and most of the time it's user error. That's the default. If you knew what the specific problem was, you needed to point that out instead of a generic "my equipment is crap." You call him ignorant, but it does not appear you attempted to fix that ignorance.

 

Like I said, the professor could be incompetent. But from what you've said, I can't conclude that for sure, because it's the same kind of criticism I heard about for years in reading not only my own but others' student evaluations. When 95% of the class is neutral or positive about something, your own observation concurs (we had periodic monitoring of all teachers when I was in the navy) but you get one or two complaints, it's not something that the teacher is likely going to try and fix, because it works for the large majority of the class. So something that doesn't work for you does not automatically, or even usually, equate to incompetence.

[lemur]

When 95% of the class is neutral or positive about something, your own observation concurs (we had periodic monitoring of all teachers when I was in the navy) but you get one or two complaints, it's not something that the teacher is likely going to try and fix, because it works for the large majority of the class. So something that doesn't work for you does not automatically, or even usually, equate to incompetence.

Interestingly, the fact that someone has a very unique style of learning or understanding could lead to them working hard to make sense of the material in their own terms. As a consequence, such a person could develop a unique and independent approach to the knowledge that could result in special research strength upon mastery of the basics.

[swansont]

Interestingly, the fact that someone has a very unique style of learning or understanding could lead to them working hard to make sense of the material in their own terms. As a consequence, such a person could develop a unique and independent approach to the knowledge that could result in special research strength upon mastery of the basics.

 

That's true. Feynman discusses something similar in one of his books.

[Genecks]

...work for everyone. No one method ever will. How many people are in a class a professor teaches — 20? 40? 100? Every student can have a different misconception. There isn't enough time to go through each one of them. So as a teacher you address the common ones, and try to figure out the uncommon ones by the questions that are asked. Here's a tip, though: "I don't understand" gives the teacher absolutely nothing to go on.

 

There are only 6 people in this lab. It can usually hold 12.

I think that's plenty of time to go through each person's misconceptions.

 

The university double-booked major required classes, which caused fewer people to be there. The professor didn't tell me that, but the TA explained it to me yet was not suppose to talk about it. These professors surely aren't very open about what's going on. That's why I can't help but think they are fucking with me.

 

There was definitely the ability for the professors and TA to watch us more. I've even sent the professor emails before, and he never emails back. Oh, and he checks his emails, I know he checks his emails. He'll check other people's emails but just ignore mine. He was telling me the other day about emails he received from other people, but he never took the effort to check and reply to me. I had to orally tell him everything in the email until he cut me off.

 

Maybe he was just fucking with me to see if I would actually resay everything I just did in the email? I don't like being tested, so I did present that email in speech I sent to him.

 

My partner and I had explained to him multiple times I could not get a decent visual. He understood that. He didn't bother working on that fact, and instead insisted there was nothing wrong.

 

I TA-ed labs in grad school, after having been trained to teach, And I had some students who complained about the equipment, in particular one whiny engineering student who once asked what grade he would get if he only did the first half of the lab. (He didn't like the answer of "5," but I figured half-lab equals half-grade). One lab he was complaining about his oscilloscope being old and sucky, and in the few minutes I could spare (with a dozen lab groups asking questions) I didn't immediately see what the problem was — everything had checked out earlier. Turns out someone had unlocked the calibration knobs, which gave a gain other than 1 to the signal. IIRC locking the knobs was part of the instruction set on how to use the scope, so it was his own fault, but I'm sure he thought I was an incompetent asshole for not magically diagnosing the problem.

 

The point is that professors running a lab get a lot of complaints like this, and most of the time it's user error. That's the default. If you knew what the specific problem was, you needed to point that out instead of a generic "my equipment is crap." You call him ignorant, but it does not appear you attempted to fix that ignorance.

 

I have barely ever complained. I have only complained about the visual field and magnification I've been given. I've not complained about anything else but besides that. If anything, I've asked for advice on how to do something; but I never complained until recently, because I thought there was something seriously wrong going on. I'm more of a social scientist and a behavior watcher. When I notice the people around me making leaps and bounds while I put in way more effort than them and know that I understand things better than them, then I start to get seriously concerned.

 

And I did go to him yesterday and show to him his ignorance.

The issue didn't get fixed. He didn't give me any oculars.

 

That was some serious negligence on his part.

 

In the end, it appears I just need to either use someone else's rig or else steal from their rig and bring it to mine.

 

With the way things are at the moment, I might as well just not show up to lab during class time and come after people leave in order to get stuff done.

 

swansont, I believe in your issue, the student would have the lab manual, which would have fixed the issues. As such, it was the student's responsibility to read the lab manual. Any issues that came about from ignorance of something that should be read was the student's fault. The student could have corrected his equipment. In my situation, my equipment was as good as it could get for what was there. If anyone reading is wondering why I didn't just bother from the start to work with other people's equipment, it's because that equipment costs thousands of dollars. I had no interest in messing with anyone's equipment except mine in case something went seriously wrong and/or broke.

 

At least you looked into the issue. I believe graduate students are more willing to help students than professors, at least from what I've experienced.

 

My guess is that there is a point where professors become more close-minded and turn off their brains.

 

I don't really feel my professor put in the time to figure out what my issue was. I told him there was an issue, and he insisted there was no issue. I doubt he actually spent the time to tend to my concern. There were only 6 people. This guy is in his late 60s if not 70s (he was drafted for the Vietnam war, so I know he's got to be around 60+), and he has tenure. He's not worried about much, as he's one of the people who built the neuroscience department in the beginning. I believe he seriously decided to ignore my complaints rather than take them seriously and do something about them. My teammate made similar complaints, but she tended to be meek about things. After a while, I become increasingly aggressive.

 

He made an incompetent action. He didn't fix anything. And I'm still behind on doing my research. At least I've learned to have serious mistrust for my higher ups, anything they say, anyway they act, and so forth. I think what pushed me over the edge was that I eventually became skeptical of the professor. I know damn well that people can't be 100% certain about something. And when he started seeming 100%, I arose the thought that he's a fool and he is wrong.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Genecks