post_id
stringlengths 5
7
| domain
stringclasses 18
values | upvote_ratio
float64 0.5
1
| history
stringlengths 22
39.2k
| c_root_id_A
stringlengths 7
7
| c_root_id_B
stringlengths 7
7
| created_at_utc_A
int64 1.28B
1.67B
| created_at_utc_B
int64 1.28B
1.67B
| score_A
int64 2
43.5k
| score_B
int64 2
43.2k
| human_ref_A
stringlengths 0
10.7k
| human_ref_B
stringlengths 0
10.8k
| labels
int64 0
1
| seconds_difference
float64 0
145M
| score_ratio
float64 1
3.72k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj1eyw2
|
hj1oyu5
| 1,635,875,986 | 1,635,879,846 | 69 | 115 |
I bet it’s an error. I often get asked to confirm ownership of my articles - if I bother to go and check then I seem to remember it gives a long list of papers/stuff by people with my surname and I have to pick out the right ones.
|
SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!!
| 0 | 3,860 | 1.666667 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj1oyu5
|
hj0r1lw
| 1,635,879,846 | 1,635,866,350 | 115 | 48 |
SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!!
|
If they are placed as co-authors in the said article, researchgate automatically detects RG members to check their authorship and let them tag themselves.
| 1 | 13,496 | 2.395833 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj1oyu5
|
hj1jjpx
| 1,635,879,846 | 1,635,877,772 | 115 | 28 |
SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!!
|
If you click on the paper, and then on Edit. There is a button to request a change in the list of authors. This request will be evaluated by someone. Did the person also added their name in the paper itself (if available) or just on RG?
| 1 | 2,074 | 4.107143 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj0r71w
|
hj1oyu5
| 1,635,866,412 | 1,635,879,846 | 16 | 115 |
Do you mean they are not co-authors of the publication?
|
SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!!
| 0 | 13,434 | 7.1875 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj1m19o
|
hj1oyu5
| 1,635,878,727 | 1,635,879,846 | 2 | 115 |
Most likely an error
|
SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!!
| 0 | 1,119 | 57.5 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj0r1lw
|
hj1eyw2
| 1,635,866,350 | 1,635,875,986 | 48 | 69 |
If they are placed as co-authors in the said article, researchgate automatically detects RG members to check their authorship and let them tag themselves.
|
I bet it’s an error. I often get asked to confirm ownership of my articles - if I bother to go and check then I seem to remember it gives a long list of papers/stuff by people with my surname and I have to pick out the right ones.
| 0 | 9,636 | 1.4375 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj1eyw2
|
hj0r71w
| 1,635,875,986 | 1,635,866,412 | 69 | 16 |
I bet it’s an error. I often get asked to confirm ownership of my articles - if I bother to go and check then I seem to remember it gives a long list of papers/stuff by people with my surname and I have to pick out the right ones.
|
Do you mean they are not co-authors of the publication?
| 1 | 9,574 | 4.3125 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj0r71w
|
hj1jjpx
| 1,635,866,412 | 1,635,877,772 | 16 | 28 |
Do you mean they are not co-authors of the publication?
|
If you click on the paper, and then on Edit. There is a button to request a change in the list of authors. This request will be evaluated by someone. Did the person also added their name in the paper itself (if available) or just on RG?
| 0 | 11,360 | 1.75 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj0r71w
|
hj2muqu
| 1,635,866,412 | 1,635,892,983 | 16 | 24 |
Do you mean they are not co-authors of the publication?
|
I added myself as an author on researchgate once to someone's paper. No idea how I did it. Didnt realise until I was contacted by the author. I was highly embarrassed and had to ask how to remove myself. Give them a polite message, I'm sure it's a mix-up.
| 0 | 26,571 | 1.5 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj20c26
|
hj2muqu
| 1,635,884,249 | 1,635,892,983 | 14 | 24 |
Sth similar happened to me. My co-author wasn’t registered on researchgate. Someone with a similar name to my co-author claimed that it’s them and connected our paper to his profile (falsely claimed authorship). The guy even followed me! I just reported it to researchgate support. It was fixed momentarily/ very soon.
|
I added myself as an author on researchgate once to someone's paper. No idea how I did it. Didnt realise until I was contacted by the author. I was highly embarrassed and had to ask how to remove myself. Give them a polite message, I'm sure it's a mix-up.
| 0 | 8,734 | 1.714286 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj1ztau
|
hj2muqu
| 1,635,884,048 | 1,635,892,983 | 8 | 24 |
A year or so ago, research gate automatically added me to a bunch of papers that were not mine. I had to contact them to remove my name from them. I guess I should check to make sure they did!
|
I added myself as an author on researchgate once to someone's paper. No idea how I did it. Didnt realise until I was contacted by the author. I was highly embarrassed and had to ask how to remove myself. Give them a polite message, I'm sure it's a mix-up.
| 0 | 8,935 | 3 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj2muqu
|
hj2m0u8
| 1,635,892,983 | 1,635,892,644 | 24 | 3 |
I added myself as an author on researchgate once to someone's paper. No idea how I did it. Didnt realise until I was contacted by the author. I was highly embarrassed and had to ask how to remove myself. Give them a polite message, I'm sure it's a mix-up.
|
It is so weird you say that. One of my colleagues that doesnt go on very often just got like 20 messages are you an author on these and just clicked yes to all of them without reading them. It doesn’t change the authorship in the journal or H index or anything like that
| 1 | 339 | 8 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj1m19o
|
hj2muqu
| 1,635,878,727 | 1,635,892,983 | 2 | 24 |
Most likely an error
|
I added myself as an author on researchgate once to someone's paper. No idea how I did it. Didnt realise until I was contacted by the author. I was highly embarrassed and had to ask how to remove myself. Give them a polite message, I'm sure it's a mix-up.
| 0 | 14,256 | 12 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj1ztau
|
hj20c26
| 1,635,884,048 | 1,635,884,249 | 8 | 14 |
A year or so ago, research gate automatically added me to a bunch of papers that were not mine. I had to contact them to remove my name from them. I guess I should check to make sure they did!
|
Sth similar happened to me. My co-author wasn’t registered on researchgate. Someone with a similar name to my co-author claimed that it’s them and connected our paper to his profile (falsely claimed authorship). The guy even followed me! I just reported it to researchgate support. It was fixed momentarily/ very soon.
| 0 | 201 | 1.75 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj20c26
|
hj1m19o
| 1,635,884,249 | 1,635,878,727 | 14 | 2 |
Sth similar happened to me. My co-author wasn’t registered on researchgate. Someone with a similar name to my co-author claimed that it’s them and connected our paper to his profile (falsely claimed authorship). The guy even followed me! I just reported it to researchgate support. It was fixed momentarily/ very soon.
|
Most likely an error
| 1 | 5,522 | 7 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj1ztau
|
hj1m19o
| 1,635,884,048 | 1,635,878,727 | 8 | 2 |
A year or so ago, research gate automatically added me to a bunch of papers that were not mine. I had to contact them to remove my name from them. I guess I should check to make sure they did!
|
Most likely an error
| 1 | 5,321 | 4 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj1m19o
|
hj2m0u8
| 1,635,878,727 | 1,635,892,644 | 2 | 3 |
Most likely an error
|
It is so weird you say that. One of my colleagues that doesnt go on very often just got like 20 messages are you an author on these and just clicked yes to all of them without reading them. It doesn’t change the authorship in the journal or H index or anything like that
| 0 | 13,917 | 1.5 |
ql6h8q
|
askacademia_train
| 0.98 |
Someone added themselves as an author to my publication on research gate Has this happened to anyone before?? I don't see an option to remove them as an author or dispute this.
|
hj2s8b4
|
hj1m19o
| 1,635,895,211 | 1,635,878,727 | 3 | 2 |
Rg wanted to add me to papers which I have not co-authored in the past. Probably the same thing happened to this person.
|
Most likely an error
| 1 | 16,484 | 1.5 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
guce5w4
|
guc875e
| 1,618,294,614 | 1,618,289,876 | 98 | 10 |
I think it depends on your area of interest.. I know some disciplines have very active twitter circles that are super fruitful, and it's pretty much expected of you to have one if you're going to be "somebody"
|
No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
| 1 | 4,738 | 9.8 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucncet
|
gucjh2o
| 1,618,303,359 | 1,618,299,431 | 87 | 72 |
Tweeting significantly increases citations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003497520308602
|
I don't use Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn neither privately or professionally and I am doing just fine. (I have Instagram for the cats, though.)
| 1 | 3,928 | 1.208333 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucncet
|
guclpl6
| 1,618,303,359 | 1,618,301,682 | 87 | 55 |
Tweeting significantly increases citations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003497520308602
|
Not necessary, but I've found it incredibly useful. And it's not that it's an "academic" account - it's just my personal Twitter. but almost my entire follow/interaction is with other scientists. It's been a fabulous resource for teaching, in terms of access to all sorts of cool visualsiations and data that people have shared. The earth science Twitter community is largely excellent. Perhaps even better than the teaching resources, my main collaboration which has now been running for ~8 years, and has led to a wealth of great opportunities as well as a job all stemmed from a Twitter interaction. If you go and look at most well-followed academics twitter accounts, actually most of it isn't just tweeting papers. Most of it is discussion with other people, sharing/retweeting relevant stuff, and lots of day-to-day real life things. I think you have something of a mechanical view of networking as a thing you go out and "do". For me, Twitter is a very straightforward way for me to have daily casual interactions with a whole bunch of other scientists in my (and adjoining fields) because it's interesting. If it's not something you want to do, don't do it. Most don't. But there is some phenomenal content out there, and with a little curation the trolls and the shit can *mostly* be straightforward to avoid. All the usual caveats however about women being frequent targets of drive-by arseholery on any internet forum.
| 1 | 1,677 | 1.581818 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucncet
|
gucjxzv
| 1,618,303,359 | 1,618,299,893 | 87 | 18 |
Tweeting significantly increases citations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003497520308602
|
There are some subfields in which Twitter is a really handy networking tool. There are others in which it isn't helpful at all.
| 1 | 3,466 | 4.833333 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucj62l
|
gucncet
| 1,618,299,132 | 1,618,303,359 | 23 | 87 |
It's wack mostly. It's useful to follow for new pubs / books though. Terrible for hot takes about universities, subject matter of ur discipline, and US politics.
|
Tweeting significantly increases citations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003497520308602
| 0 | 4,227 | 3.782609 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucncet
|
guc875e
| 1,618,303,359 | 1,618,289,876 | 87 | 10 |
Tweeting significantly increases citations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003497520308602
|
No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
| 1 | 13,483 | 8.7 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucjh2o
|
gucj62l
| 1,618,299,431 | 1,618,299,132 | 72 | 23 |
I don't use Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn neither privately or professionally and I am doing just fine. (I have Instagram for the cats, though.)
|
It's wack mostly. It's useful to follow for new pubs / books though. Terrible for hot takes about universities, subject matter of ur discipline, and US politics.
| 1 | 299 | 3.130435 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
guc875e
|
gucjh2o
| 1,618,289,876 | 1,618,299,431 | 10 | 72 |
No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
|
I don't use Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn neither privately or professionally and I am doing just fine. (I have Instagram for the cats, though.)
| 0 | 9,555 | 7.2 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
guclpl6
|
gucp37w
| 1,618,301,682 | 1,618,305,173 | 55 | 62 |
Not necessary, but I've found it incredibly useful. And it's not that it's an "academic" account - it's just my personal Twitter. but almost my entire follow/interaction is with other scientists. It's been a fabulous resource for teaching, in terms of access to all sorts of cool visualsiations and data that people have shared. The earth science Twitter community is largely excellent. Perhaps even better than the teaching resources, my main collaboration which has now been running for ~8 years, and has led to a wealth of great opportunities as well as a job all stemmed from a Twitter interaction. If you go and look at most well-followed academics twitter accounts, actually most of it isn't just tweeting papers. Most of it is discussion with other people, sharing/retweeting relevant stuff, and lots of day-to-day real life things. I think you have something of a mechanical view of networking as a thing you go out and "do". For me, Twitter is a very straightforward way for me to have daily casual interactions with a whole bunch of other scientists in my (and adjoining fields) because it's interesting. If it's not something you want to do, don't do it. Most don't. But there is some phenomenal content out there, and with a little curation the trolls and the shit can *mostly* be straightforward to avoid. All the usual caveats however about women being frequent targets of drive-by arseholery on any internet forum.
|
Reading tweets by professors outside their area of expertise comes in slightly below "headbutting my way through 6 feet of concrete" in my own heirarchy of fun. But when they actually know what they're talking about, it can be pretty interesting.
| 0 | 3,491 | 1.127273 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucjxzv
|
gucp37w
| 1,618,299,893 | 1,618,305,173 | 18 | 62 |
There are some subfields in which Twitter is a really handy networking tool. There are others in which it isn't helpful at all.
|
Reading tweets by professors outside their area of expertise comes in slightly below "headbutting my way through 6 feet of concrete" in my own heirarchy of fun. But when they actually know what they're talking about, it can be pretty interesting.
| 0 | 5,280 | 3.444444 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucj62l
|
gucp37w
| 1,618,299,132 | 1,618,305,173 | 23 | 62 |
It's wack mostly. It's useful to follow for new pubs / books though. Terrible for hot takes about universities, subject matter of ur discipline, and US politics.
|
Reading tweets by professors outside their area of expertise comes in slightly below "headbutting my way through 6 feet of concrete" in my own heirarchy of fun. But when they actually know what they're talking about, it can be pretty interesting.
| 0 | 6,041 | 2.695652 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucp37w
|
guc875e
| 1,618,305,173 | 1,618,289,876 | 62 | 10 |
Reading tweets by professors outside their area of expertise comes in slightly below "headbutting my way through 6 feet of concrete" in my own heirarchy of fun. But when they actually know what they're talking about, it can be pretty interesting.
|
No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
| 1 | 15,297 | 6.2 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
guclpl6
|
gucqwmc
| 1,618,301,682 | 1,618,307,051 | 55 | 60 |
Not necessary, but I've found it incredibly useful. And it's not that it's an "academic" account - it's just my personal Twitter. but almost my entire follow/interaction is with other scientists. It's been a fabulous resource for teaching, in terms of access to all sorts of cool visualsiations and data that people have shared. The earth science Twitter community is largely excellent. Perhaps even better than the teaching resources, my main collaboration which has now been running for ~8 years, and has led to a wealth of great opportunities as well as a job all stemmed from a Twitter interaction. If you go and look at most well-followed academics twitter accounts, actually most of it isn't just tweeting papers. Most of it is discussion with other people, sharing/retweeting relevant stuff, and lots of day-to-day real life things. I think you have something of a mechanical view of networking as a thing you go out and "do". For me, Twitter is a very straightforward way for me to have daily casual interactions with a whole bunch of other scientists in my (and adjoining fields) because it's interesting. If it's not something you want to do, don't do it. Most don't. But there is some phenomenal content out there, and with a little curation the trolls and the shit can *mostly* be straightforward to avoid. All the usual caveats however about women being frequent targets of drive-by arseholery on any internet forum.
|
I was set to have two conference presentations all due to Twitter connections before covid fucked with everything.
| 0 | 5,369 | 1.090909 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucqwmc
|
gucjxzv
| 1,618,307,051 | 1,618,299,893 | 60 | 18 |
I was set to have two conference presentations all due to Twitter connections before covid fucked with everything.
|
There are some subfields in which Twitter is a really handy networking tool. There are others in which it isn't helpful at all.
| 1 | 7,158 | 3.333333 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucj62l
|
gucqwmc
| 1,618,299,132 | 1,618,307,051 | 23 | 60 |
It's wack mostly. It's useful to follow for new pubs / books though. Terrible for hot takes about universities, subject matter of ur discipline, and US politics.
|
I was set to have two conference presentations all due to Twitter connections before covid fucked with everything.
| 0 | 7,919 | 2.608696 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucqwmc
|
guc875e
| 1,618,307,051 | 1,618,289,876 | 60 | 10 |
I was set to have two conference presentations all due to Twitter connections before covid fucked with everything.
|
No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
| 1 | 17,175 | 6 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
guclpl6
|
gucjxzv
| 1,618,301,682 | 1,618,299,893 | 55 | 18 |
Not necessary, but I've found it incredibly useful. And it's not that it's an "academic" account - it's just my personal Twitter. but almost my entire follow/interaction is with other scientists. It's been a fabulous resource for teaching, in terms of access to all sorts of cool visualsiations and data that people have shared. The earth science Twitter community is largely excellent. Perhaps even better than the teaching resources, my main collaboration which has now been running for ~8 years, and has led to a wealth of great opportunities as well as a job all stemmed from a Twitter interaction. If you go and look at most well-followed academics twitter accounts, actually most of it isn't just tweeting papers. Most of it is discussion with other people, sharing/retweeting relevant stuff, and lots of day-to-day real life things. I think you have something of a mechanical view of networking as a thing you go out and "do". For me, Twitter is a very straightforward way for me to have daily casual interactions with a whole bunch of other scientists in my (and adjoining fields) because it's interesting. If it's not something you want to do, don't do it. Most don't. But there is some phenomenal content out there, and with a little curation the trolls and the shit can *mostly* be straightforward to avoid. All the usual caveats however about women being frequent targets of drive-by arseholery on any internet forum.
|
There are some subfields in which Twitter is a really handy networking tool. There are others in which it isn't helpful at all.
| 1 | 1,789 | 3.055556 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucj62l
|
guclpl6
| 1,618,299,132 | 1,618,301,682 | 23 | 55 |
It's wack mostly. It's useful to follow for new pubs / books though. Terrible for hot takes about universities, subject matter of ur discipline, and US politics.
|
Not necessary, but I've found it incredibly useful. And it's not that it's an "academic" account - it's just my personal Twitter. but almost my entire follow/interaction is with other scientists. It's been a fabulous resource for teaching, in terms of access to all sorts of cool visualsiations and data that people have shared. The earth science Twitter community is largely excellent. Perhaps even better than the teaching resources, my main collaboration which has now been running for ~8 years, and has led to a wealth of great opportunities as well as a job all stemmed from a Twitter interaction. If you go and look at most well-followed academics twitter accounts, actually most of it isn't just tweeting papers. Most of it is discussion with other people, sharing/retweeting relevant stuff, and lots of day-to-day real life things. I think you have something of a mechanical view of networking as a thing you go out and "do". For me, Twitter is a very straightforward way for me to have daily casual interactions with a whole bunch of other scientists in my (and adjoining fields) because it's interesting. If it's not something you want to do, don't do it. Most don't. But there is some phenomenal content out there, and with a little curation the trolls and the shit can *mostly* be straightforward to avoid. All the usual caveats however about women being frequent targets of drive-by arseholery on any internet forum.
| 0 | 2,550 | 2.391304 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
guclpl6
|
guc875e
| 1,618,301,682 | 1,618,289,876 | 55 | 10 |
Not necessary, but I've found it incredibly useful. And it's not that it's an "academic" account - it's just my personal Twitter. but almost my entire follow/interaction is with other scientists. It's been a fabulous resource for teaching, in terms of access to all sorts of cool visualsiations and data that people have shared. The earth science Twitter community is largely excellent. Perhaps even better than the teaching resources, my main collaboration which has now been running for ~8 years, and has led to a wealth of great opportunities as well as a job all stemmed from a Twitter interaction. If you go and look at most well-followed academics twitter accounts, actually most of it isn't just tweeting papers. Most of it is discussion with other people, sharing/retweeting relevant stuff, and lots of day-to-day real life things. I think you have something of a mechanical view of networking as a thing you go out and "do". For me, Twitter is a very straightforward way for me to have daily casual interactions with a whole bunch of other scientists in my (and adjoining fields) because it's interesting. If it's not something you want to do, don't do it. Most don't. But there is some phenomenal content out there, and with a little curation the trolls and the shit can *mostly* be straightforward to avoid. All the usual caveats however about women being frequent targets of drive-by arseholery on any internet forum.
|
No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
| 1 | 11,806 | 5.5 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
guc875e
|
gucjxzv
| 1,618,289,876 | 1,618,299,893 | 10 | 18 |
No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
|
There are some subfields in which Twitter is a really handy networking tool. There are others in which it isn't helpful at all.
| 0 | 10,017 | 1.8 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
guc875e
|
gucj62l
| 1,618,289,876 | 1,618,299,132 | 10 | 23 |
No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
|
It's wack mostly. It's useful to follow for new pubs / books though. Terrible for hot takes about universities, subject matter of ur discipline, and US politics.
| 0 | 9,256 | 2.3 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucvqvd
|
gucs2o1
| 1,618,311,548 | 1,618,308,223 | 12 | 8 |
Personally, I've avoided having a Twitter account. I'm not fan of the platform anyway (I dont find that reading short messages is informative). Most importantly, I like to keep my professional and personal lives distinct. There's been a trend in the last few years where indeed academics blend their personal and professional lives through Twitter, notably by making stances related to political matters. If this makes them happy, then fine. However, there is a social expectation that is created in my field (interdisciplinary social sciences) where you must try to engage with public matters through Twitter. It is viewed as the role of a researcher to do knowledge translation in the public sphere. I'm not comfortable with that, especially with the underlying cancel culture, because I have some personal opinions that could clash with dominant discourses in my field and in the public area. I'm quite preoccupied by the self-censorship that results from this cancel culture. I prefer to do knowledge translation through other conventional means (KT projects, open letters in newspapers). Therefore, I prefer not to have a Twitter account even if I've been told that it could be useful for networking. I find other ways to network and it's working great.
|
I'm in machine learning and I've found that many professors like to tweet a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot. 90% of this is crap but the retweets and tweets of papers I find through these isn't bad.
| 1 | 3,325 | 1.5 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucvqvd
|
guc875e
| 1,618,311,548 | 1,618,289,876 | 12 | 10 |
Personally, I've avoided having a Twitter account. I'm not fan of the platform anyway (I dont find that reading short messages is informative). Most importantly, I like to keep my professional and personal lives distinct. There's been a trend in the last few years where indeed academics blend their personal and professional lives through Twitter, notably by making stances related to political matters. If this makes them happy, then fine. However, there is a social expectation that is created in my field (interdisciplinary social sciences) where you must try to engage with public matters through Twitter. It is viewed as the role of a researcher to do knowledge translation in the public sphere. I'm not comfortable with that, especially with the underlying cancel culture, because I have some personal opinions that could clash with dominant discourses in my field and in the public area. I'm quite preoccupied by the self-censorship that results from this cancel culture. I prefer to do knowledge translation through other conventional means (KT projects, open letters in newspapers). Therefore, I prefer not to have a Twitter account even if I've been told that it could be useful for networking. I find other ways to network and it's working great.
|
No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
| 1 | 21,672 | 1.2 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucvqvd
|
gucut35
| 1,618,311,548 | 1,618,310,755 | 12 | 7 |
Personally, I've avoided having a Twitter account. I'm not fan of the platform anyway (I dont find that reading short messages is informative). Most importantly, I like to keep my professional and personal lives distinct. There's been a trend in the last few years where indeed academics blend their personal and professional lives through Twitter, notably by making stances related to political matters. If this makes them happy, then fine. However, there is a social expectation that is created in my field (interdisciplinary social sciences) where you must try to engage with public matters through Twitter. It is viewed as the role of a researcher to do knowledge translation in the public sphere. I'm not comfortable with that, especially with the underlying cancel culture, because I have some personal opinions that could clash with dominant discourses in my field and in the public area. I'm quite preoccupied by the self-censorship that results from this cancel culture. I prefer to do knowledge translation through other conventional means (KT projects, open letters in newspapers). Therefore, I prefer not to have a Twitter account even if I've been told that it could be useful for networking. I find other ways to network and it's working great.
|
I don't have a twitter account but I also refuse to academize my social media accounts. I'm doing science all day, when I go online I might enjoy a few nerdy things but I mostly want non-academic content.
| 1 | 793 | 1.714286 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucvqvd
|
gucspa4
| 1,618,311,548 | 1,618,308,834 | 12 | 7 |
Personally, I've avoided having a Twitter account. I'm not fan of the platform anyway (I dont find that reading short messages is informative). Most importantly, I like to keep my professional and personal lives distinct. There's been a trend in the last few years where indeed academics blend their personal and professional lives through Twitter, notably by making stances related to political matters. If this makes them happy, then fine. However, there is a social expectation that is created in my field (interdisciplinary social sciences) where you must try to engage with public matters through Twitter. It is viewed as the role of a researcher to do knowledge translation in the public sphere. I'm not comfortable with that, especially with the underlying cancel culture, because I have some personal opinions that could clash with dominant discourses in my field and in the public area. I'm quite preoccupied by the self-censorship that results from this cancel culture. I prefer to do knowledge translation through other conventional means (KT projects, open letters in newspapers). Therefore, I prefer not to have a Twitter account even if I've been told that it could be useful for networking. I find other ways to network and it's working great.
|
I have zero social media accounts and don't plan on changing that, finishing my PhD next year I absolutely do not like twitter, Instagram or anything of the like. if I'd have to have one, it would be using 100% fake information
| 1 | 2,714 | 1.714286 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucsdv5
|
gucvqvd
| 1,618,308,521 | 1,618,311,548 | 3 | 12 |
Great for networking, but be careful what you tweet as they *love* to pile on
|
Personally, I've avoided having a Twitter account. I'm not fan of the platform anyway (I dont find that reading short messages is informative). Most importantly, I like to keep my professional and personal lives distinct. There's been a trend in the last few years where indeed academics blend their personal and professional lives through Twitter, notably by making stances related to political matters. If this makes them happy, then fine. However, there is a social expectation that is created in my field (interdisciplinary social sciences) where you must try to engage with public matters through Twitter. It is viewed as the role of a researcher to do knowledge translation in the public sphere. I'm not comfortable with that, especially with the underlying cancel culture, because I have some personal opinions that could clash with dominant discourses in my field and in the public area. I'm quite preoccupied by the self-censorship that results from this cancel culture. I prefer to do knowledge translation through other conventional means (KT projects, open letters in newspapers). Therefore, I prefer not to have a Twitter account even if I've been told that it could be useful for networking. I find other ways to network and it's working great.
| 0 | 3,027 | 4 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucs2o1
|
gud11yu
| 1,618,308,223 | 1,618,315,478 | 8 | 12 |
I'm in machine learning and I've found that many professors like to tweet a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot. 90% of this is crap but the retweets and tweets of papers I find through these isn't bad.
|
PhD in the Humanities in the U.K. here. I don’t like using Twitter nor Facebook and don’t get me started about live-tweeting during conferences... but, I’ll say this, in the humanities at least, social media appear now to be, for better or worse, the MAIN way of finding out about new conferences and CFPs. If you don’t maintain those methods of communication you can easily miss out on a lot of CFPs in your field. I find this horrible but it’s the way it is, especially now. Hope that helps and all the best,
| 0 | 7,255 | 1.5 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
guc875e
|
gud11yu
| 1,618,289,876 | 1,618,315,478 | 10 | 12 |
No, not necessary. If you like it, do it.
|
PhD in the Humanities in the U.K. here. I don’t like using Twitter nor Facebook and don’t get me started about live-tweeting during conferences... but, I’ll say this, in the humanities at least, social media appear now to be, for better or worse, the MAIN way of finding out about new conferences and CFPs. If you don’t maintain those methods of communication you can easily miss out on a lot of CFPs in your field. I find this horrible but it’s the way it is, especially now. Hope that helps and all the best,
| 0 | 25,602 | 1.2 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucut35
|
gud11yu
| 1,618,310,755 | 1,618,315,478 | 7 | 12 |
I don't have a twitter account but I also refuse to academize my social media accounts. I'm doing science all day, when I go online I might enjoy a few nerdy things but I mostly want non-academic content.
|
PhD in the Humanities in the U.K. here. I don’t like using Twitter nor Facebook and don’t get me started about live-tweeting during conferences... but, I’ll say this, in the humanities at least, social media appear now to be, for better or worse, the MAIN way of finding out about new conferences and CFPs. If you don’t maintain those methods of communication you can easily miss out on a lot of CFPs in your field. I find this horrible but it’s the way it is, especially now. Hope that helps and all the best,
| 0 | 4,723 | 1.714286 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucspa4
|
gud11yu
| 1,618,308,834 | 1,618,315,478 | 7 | 12 |
I have zero social media accounts and don't plan on changing that, finishing my PhD next year I absolutely do not like twitter, Instagram or anything of the like. if I'd have to have one, it would be using 100% fake information
|
PhD in the Humanities in the U.K. here. I don’t like using Twitter nor Facebook and don’t get me started about live-tweeting during conferences... but, I’ll say this, in the humanities at least, social media appear now to be, for better or worse, the MAIN way of finding out about new conferences and CFPs. If you don’t maintain those methods of communication you can easily miss out on a lot of CFPs in your field. I find this horrible but it’s the way it is, especially now. Hope that helps and all the best,
| 0 | 6,644 | 1.714286 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucsdv5
|
gud11yu
| 1,618,308,521 | 1,618,315,478 | 3 | 12 |
Great for networking, but be careful what you tweet as they *love* to pile on
|
PhD in the Humanities in the U.K. here. I don’t like using Twitter nor Facebook and don’t get me started about live-tweeting during conferences... but, I’ll say this, in the humanities at least, social media appear now to be, for better or worse, the MAIN way of finding out about new conferences and CFPs. If you don’t maintain those methods of communication you can easily miss out on a lot of CFPs in your field. I find this horrible but it’s the way it is, especially now. Hope that helps and all the best,
| 0 | 6,957 | 4 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucz8en
|
gud11yu
| 1,618,314,223 | 1,618,315,478 | 3 | 12 |
Prof here. I've come across a lot of useful tools on Twitter for research, lit review, teaching, zooming...I found really interesting webinars, announcements, journal clubs. I think it's really great. I don't engage except to post pics of my cats or retweet smarter people. I think it's worth it.
|
PhD in the Humanities in the U.K. here. I don’t like using Twitter nor Facebook and don’t get me started about live-tweeting during conferences... but, I’ll say this, in the humanities at least, social media appear now to be, for better or worse, the MAIN way of finding out about new conferences and CFPs. If you don’t maintain those methods of communication you can easily miss out on a lot of CFPs in your field. I find this horrible but it’s the way it is, especially now. Hope that helps and all the best,
| 0 | 1,255 | 4 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucut35
|
gudmftc
| 1,618,310,755 | 1,618,326,486 | 7 | 8 |
I don't have a twitter account but I also refuse to academize my social media accounts. I'm doing science all day, when I go online I might enjoy a few nerdy things but I mostly want non-academic content.
|
I hope not, because I really hate twitter. I have an academic twitter which I check occasionally, but it just stresses me out because all you see is people boasting about how bloody brilliant they are
| 0 | 15,731 | 1.142857 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucsdv5
|
gucut35
| 1,618,308,521 | 1,618,310,755 | 3 | 7 |
Great for networking, but be careful what you tweet as they *love* to pile on
|
I don't have a twitter account but I also refuse to academize my social media accounts. I'm doing science all day, when I go online I might enjoy a few nerdy things but I mostly want non-academic content.
| 0 | 2,234 | 2.333333 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudmftc
|
gucspa4
| 1,618,326,486 | 1,618,308,834 | 8 | 7 |
I hope not, because I really hate twitter. I have an academic twitter which I check occasionally, but it just stresses me out because all you see is people boasting about how bloody brilliant they are
|
I have zero social media accounts and don't plan on changing that, finishing my PhD next year I absolutely do not like twitter, Instagram or anything of the like. if I'd have to have one, it would be using 100% fake information
| 1 | 17,652 | 1.142857 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudmftc
|
gud3zga
| 1,618,326,486 | 1,618,317,315 | 8 | 4 |
I hope not, because I really hate twitter. I have an academic twitter which I check occasionally, but it just stresses me out because all you see is people boasting about how bloody brilliant they are
|
One big plus is actually when you need to recruit students. I have a low follower count but my "need a PhD student" tweet got over 15000 views! Got a lot of quality applicants from that. No trolls.
| 1 | 9,171 | 2 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudjpic
|
gudmftc
| 1,618,325,259 | 1,618,326,486 | 4 | 8 |
Of course not. Twitter is stupid.
|
I hope not, because I really hate twitter. I have an academic twitter which I check occasionally, but it just stresses me out because all you see is people boasting about how bloody brilliant they are
| 0 | 1,227 | 2 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucsdv5
|
gudmftc
| 1,618,308,521 | 1,618,326,486 | 3 | 8 |
Great for networking, but be careful what you tweet as they *love* to pile on
|
I hope not, because I really hate twitter. I have an academic twitter which I check occasionally, but it just stresses me out because all you see is people boasting about how bloody brilliant they are
| 0 | 17,965 | 2.666667 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudmftc
|
gucz8en
| 1,618,326,486 | 1,618,314,223 | 8 | 3 |
I hope not, because I really hate twitter. I have an academic twitter which I check occasionally, but it just stresses me out because all you see is people boasting about how bloody brilliant they are
|
Prof here. I've come across a lot of useful tools on Twitter for research, lit review, teaching, zooming...I found really interesting webinars, announcements, journal clubs. I think it's really great. I don't engage except to post pics of my cats or retweet smarter people. I think it's worth it.
| 1 | 12,263 | 2.666667 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudigto
|
gudmftc
| 1,618,324,696 | 1,618,326,486 | 3 | 8 |
It definitely seems to be an expectation in my field, and it's one of the reasons (drop in the bucket, to be fair) I'm not remotely interested in pursuing TT positions in academia when I finish my phd. I can't accurately express how much I would hate having to maintain an "online presence" just to promote my work. I hate doing that already *without* introducing social media to the mix. No thanks.
|
I hope not, because I really hate twitter. I have an academic twitter which I check occasionally, but it just stresses me out because all you see is people boasting about how bloody brilliant they are
| 0 | 1,790 | 2.666667 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudmftc
|
gudfllp
| 1,618,326,486 | 1,618,323,380 | 8 | 2 |
I hope not, because I really hate twitter. I have an academic twitter which I check occasionally, but it just stresses me out because all you see is people boasting about how bloody brilliant they are
|
Due to its non-anonymity, Twitter usage has lots of risk to go with the rewards. Safest bet is to mostly just lurk and only post to promote your work, and steer clear of anything remotely controversial.
| 1 | 3,106 | 4 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucspa4
|
gucsdv5
| 1,618,308,834 | 1,618,308,521 | 7 | 3 |
I have zero social media accounts and don't plan on changing that, finishing my PhD next year I absolutely do not like twitter, Instagram or anything of the like. if I'd have to have one, it would be using 100% fake information
|
Great for networking, but be careful what you tweet as they *love* to pile on
| 1 | 313 | 2.333333 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gud3zga
|
gudpf2c
| 1,618,317,315 | 1,618,327,805 | 4 | 5 |
One big plus is actually when you need to recruit students. I have a low follower count but my "need a PhD student" tweet got over 15000 views! Got a lot of quality applicants from that. No trolls.
|
I think it’s ridiculous to share research on a platform where you can’t even type beyond a few hundred characters. And on a platform where the default is negativity and argumentation. People get on Twitter to fight, not to learn or read research. You cannot have dialogue, debate, or conversation on that platform. Scientists and researchers should ask themselves why they are using the platform. If one wants to share research why would you not build your own website, develop user-friendly content, and actually build something that shares your research in a unique way? There’s already a gap in the masses understanding research, Twitter is not going to help. There are professional platforms built for networking. Twitter is not the place imo. Most people saying trolling is not as bad as you think might be an echo chamber. Which is another reason I don’t use the platform anymore.
| 0 | 10,490 | 1.25 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudpf2c
|
gudjpic
| 1,618,327,805 | 1,618,325,259 | 5 | 4 |
I think it’s ridiculous to share research on a platform where you can’t even type beyond a few hundred characters. And on a platform where the default is negativity and argumentation. People get on Twitter to fight, not to learn or read research. You cannot have dialogue, debate, or conversation on that platform. Scientists and researchers should ask themselves why they are using the platform. If one wants to share research why would you not build your own website, develop user-friendly content, and actually build something that shares your research in a unique way? There’s already a gap in the masses understanding research, Twitter is not going to help. There are professional platforms built for networking. Twitter is not the place imo. Most people saying trolling is not as bad as you think might be an echo chamber. Which is another reason I don’t use the platform anymore.
|
Of course not. Twitter is stupid.
| 1 | 2,546 | 1.25 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucsdv5
|
gudpf2c
| 1,618,308,521 | 1,618,327,805 | 3 | 5 |
Great for networking, but be careful what you tweet as they *love* to pile on
|
I think it’s ridiculous to share research on a platform where you can’t even type beyond a few hundred characters. And on a platform where the default is negativity and argumentation. People get on Twitter to fight, not to learn or read research. You cannot have dialogue, debate, or conversation on that platform. Scientists and researchers should ask themselves why they are using the platform. If one wants to share research why would you not build your own website, develop user-friendly content, and actually build something that shares your research in a unique way? There’s already a gap in the masses understanding research, Twitter is not going to help. There are professional platforms built for networking. Twitter is not the place imo. Most people saying trolling is not as bad as you think might be an echo chamber. Which is another reason I don’t use the platform anymore.
| 0 | 19,284 | 1.666667 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudpf2c
|
gucz8en
| 1,618,327,805 | 1,618,314,223 | 5 | 3 |
I think it’s ridiculous to share research on a platform where you can’t even type beyond a few hundred characters. And on a platform where the default is negativity and argumentation. People get on Twitter to fight, not to learn or read research. You cannot have dialogue, debate, or conversation on that platform. Scientists and researchers should ask themselves why they are using the platform. If one wants to share research why would you not build your own website, develop user-friendly content, and actually build something that shares your research in a unique way? There’s already a gap in the masses understanding research, Twitter is not going to help. There are professional platforms built for networking. Twitter is not the place imo. Most people saying trolling is not as bad as you think might be an echo chamber. Which is another reason I don’t use the platform anymore.
|
Prof here. I've come across a lot of useful tools on Twitter for research, lit review, teaching, zooming...I found really interesting webinars, announcements, journal clubs. I think it's really great. I don't engage except to post pics of my cats or retweet smarter people. I think it's worth it.
| 1 | 13,582 | 1.666667 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudpf2c
|
gudigto
| 1,618,327,805 | 1,618,324,696 | 5 | 3 |
I think it’s ridiculous to share research on a platform where you can’t even type beyond a few hundred characters. And on a platform where the default is negativity and argumentation. People get on Twitter to fight, not to learn or read research. You cannot have dialogue, debate, or conversation on that platform. Scientists and researchers should ask themselves why they are using the platform. If one wants to share research why would you not build your own website, develop user-friendly content, and actually build something that shares your research in a unique way? There’s already a gap in the masses understanding research, Twitter is not going to help. There are professional platforms built for networking. Twitter is not the place imo. Most people saying trolling is not as bad as you think might be an echo chamber. Which is another reason I don’t use the platform anymore.
|
It definitely seems to be an expectation in my field, and it's one of the reasons (drop in the bucket, to be fair) I'm not remotely interested in pursuing TT positions in academia when I finish my phd. I can't accurately express how much I would hate having to maintain an "online presence" just to promote my work. I hate doing that already *without* introducing social media to the mix. No thanks.
| 1 | 3,109 | 1.666667 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudfllp
|
gudpf2c
| 1,618,323,380 | 1,618,327,805 | 2 | 5 |
Due to its non-anonymity, Twitter usage has lots of risk to go with the rewards. Safest bet is to mostly just lurk and only post to promote your work, and steer clear of anything remotely controversial.
|
I think it’s ridiculous to share research on a platform where you can’t even type beyond a few hundred characters. And on a platform where the default is negativity and argumentation. People get on Twitter to fight, not to learn or read research. You cannot have dialogue, debate, or conversation on that platform. Scientists and researchers should ask themselves why they are using the platform. If one wants to share research why would you not build your own website, develop user-friendly content, and actually build something that shares your research in a unique way? There’s already a gap in the masses understanding research, Twitter is not going to help. There are professional platforms built for networking. Twitter is not the place imo. Most people saying trolling is not as bad as you think might be an echo chamber. Which is another reason I don’t use the platform anymore.
| 0 | 4,425 | 2.5 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gud3zga
|
gucsdv5
| 1,618,317,315 | 1,618,308,521 | 4 | 3 |
One big plus is actually when you need to recruit students. I have a low follower count but my "need a PhD student" tweet got over 15000 views! Got a lot of quality applicants from that. No trolls.
|
Great for networking, but be careful what you tweet as they *love* to pile on
| 1 | 8,794 | 1.333333 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gucz8en
|
gud3zga
| 1,618,314,223 | 1,618,317,315 | 3 | 4 |
Prof here. I've come across a lot of useful tools on Twitter for research, lit review, teaching, zooming...I found really interesting webinars, announcements, journal clubs. I think it's really great. I don't engage except to post pics of my cats or retweet smarter people. I think it's worth it.
|
One big plus is actually when you need to recruit students. I have a low follower count but my "need a PhD student" tweet got over 15000 views! Got a lot of quality applicants from that. No trolls.
| 0 | 3,092 | 1.333333 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudjpic
|
gucsdv5
| 1,618,325,259 | 1,618,308,521 | 4 | 3 |
Of course not. Twitter is stupid.
|
Great for networking, but be careful what you tweet as they *love* to pile on
| 1 | 16,738 | 1.333333 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudjpic
|
gucz8en
| 1,618,325,259 | 1,618,314,223 | 4 | 3 |
Of course not. Twitter is stupid.
|
Prof here. I've come across a lot of useful tools on Twitter for research, lit review, teaching, zooming...I found really interesting webinars, announcements, journal clubs. I think it's really great. I don't engage except to post pics of my cats or retweet smarter people. I think it's worth it.
| 1 | 11,036 | 1.333333 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudjpic
|
gudigto
| 1,618,325,259 | 1,618,324,696 | 4 | 3 |
Of course not. Twitter is stupid.
|
It definitely seems to be an expectation in my field, and it's one of the reasons (drop in the bucket, to be fair) I'm not remotely interested in pursuing TT positions in academia when I finish my phd. I can't accurately express how much I would hate having to maintain an "online presence" just to promote my work. I hate doing that already *without* introducing social media to the mix. No thanks.
| 1 | 563 | 1.333333 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudjpic
|
gudfllp
| 1,618,325,259 | 1,618,323,380 | 4 | 2 |
Of course not. Twitter is stupid.
|
Due to its non-anonymity, Twitter usage has lots of risk to go with the rewards. Safest bet is to mostly just lurk and only post to promote your work, and steer clear of anything remotely controversial.
| 1 | 1,879 | 2 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudfllp
|
gudtbek
| 1,618,323,380 | 1,618,329,526 | 2 | 3 |
Due to its non-anonymity, Twitter usage has lots of risk to go with the rewards. Safest bet is to mostly just lurk and only post to promote your work, and steer clear of anything remotely controversial.
|
I've decided that it would be a net negative for me to have a twitter account. Useful in some respects, and extremely detrimental in other.
| 0 | 6,146 | 1.5 |
mpvf4u
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Is it necessary to have an academic twitter account? Today I saw some crazy nuts trolling under a tweet of a simple PhD recruitment ad. I know in general twitter is a very toxic environment but I didn't expect ppl can troll under sth unrelated with them at all. I know a lot of profs have twitter accounts with their full name and affiliation, and most of their tweets are new papers published/conference announcement, and they retweet paper they are interested in or tweets by ppl they know, and it looks like a causal way of networking. I wonder how necessary this is. I have an account using fake name just for collecting info and I never tweet. Personally I extremely hate seeing trolls so I quit a lot of social medias already. I want to do networking for opportunities of collaboration and jobs, and I am wondering whether twitter plays a major part in networking nowadays in academia.
|
gudfllp
|
gudigto
| 1,618,323,380 | 1,618,324,696 | 2 | 3 |
Due to its non-anonymity, Twitter usage has lots of risk to go with the rewards. Safest bet is to mostly just lurk and only post to promote your work, and steer clear of anything remotely controversial.
|
It definitely seems to be an expectation in my field, and it's one of the reasons (drop in the bucket, to be fair) I'm not remotely interested in pursuing TT positions in academia when I finish my phd. I can't accurately express how much I would hate having to maintain an "online presence" just to promote my work. I hate doing that already *without* introducing social media to the mix. No thanks.
| 0 | 1,316 | 1.5 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax64ew
|
iax9tf0
| 1,654,183,222 | 1,654,184,812 | 93 | 232 |
Someone once told me that the difference between the Ivy League and everyone else is access. If you don't go to the Ivy League, you go through the process. If you did go to the Ivy League, you ignore the process, pick up the phone, and call your friend.
|
Went to MIT, which isn't a traditional Ivy, but close. Some of the comments are partially right that these schools get access to a much better candidate pools, so even the lower grade students are still pretty good (I was below average there, but got the highest grades in all my PhD classes at a lower ranking university). However, this is changing recently. When I got in, back in 2008, acceptance rate was about 16%. And the super bright students usually went to top schools. These days acceptance rates for MIT and other similar schools is about 4%. So many universities are filled with super bright kids (maybe you can distinguish the top 20% of an applicant pool, but after that you might as well setup a lottery to select the top 4%). So I expect the traditional top schools will slowly lose some of their shine, when companies realize that their great candidates are coming from all schools. The other note about quality of teaching is also partially true only. While these institutes will have generally smaller class sizes and easier to choose classes (at MIT I almost never had to worry about a class filling up or me not being able to get into one I wanted/needed), however the quality of teachers is not likely any better at any other school. And that's because none of your actual professors are hired, evaluated, or compensated for teaching. They are hired, promoted, evaluated, and retained for their research. To most of them teaching is a nuisance. So they get it done/out of the way with minimal effort required not to bomb their evals. One last thing that isn't mentioned is that the cutting edge research being done at top rank schools is actually a very good reason to attend them. I worked in labs for 3 out of my 4 undergrad years. And the amount of resources these labs have is immense. So a great part of my education, which is how to conduct research and plan/execute experiments would have not been the same at a much lower ranked university.
| 0 | 1,590 | 2.494624 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax9gp0
|
iax9tf0
| 1,654,184,658 | 1,654,184,812 | 72 | 232 |
Speaking as someone who did undergrad at a pretty good state school and PhD/postdoc in biomedical sciences at an Ivy: In general, courses are similar at both large state schools and Ivy - both bad. Professors at these research universities are there to perform world-class research, not teach. Some professors do care about teaching, but it's hit or miss. It might be different at more teaching-oriented Ivy like Brown. In terms of research, the research-intensive Ivy universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc) have a lot more resources compared to average universities. But obviously, there are state schools like Berkeley, Michigan, and UCSD that have better research output than Ivy schools like Dartmouth or Brown. As for the caliber of students: this is obviously a generalization, but I think that the middle and lower 90% are the same between state school and Ivy. But the top 10% at an Ivy (at least my Ivy) were exceptional - and they clearly stand out above the rest. In addition, the undergrads at an Ivy seem to care a lot more about extracurriculars than coursework. And many of them o very very cool stuff, and the university provides a lot of resource for them. This was not the case at my state school. So I guess it depends on what you mean "education."
|
Went to MIT, which isn't a traditional Ivy, but close. Some of the comments are partially right that these schools get access to a much better candidate pools, so even the lower grade students are still pretty good (I was below average there, but got the highest grades in all my PhD classes at a lower ranking university). However, this is changing recently. When I got in, back in 2008, acceptance rate was about 16%. And the super bright students usually went to top schools. These days acceptance rates for MIT and other similar schools is about 4%. So many universities are filled with super bright kids (maybe you can distinguish the top 20% of an applicant pool, but after that you might as well setup a lottery to select the top 4%). So I expect the traditional top schools will slowly lose some of their shine, when companies realize that their great candidates are coming from all schools. The other note about quality of teaching is also partially true only. While these institutes will have generally smaller class sizes and easier to choose classes (at MIT I almost never had to worry about a class filling up or me not being able to get into one I wanted/needed), however the quality of teachers is not likely any better at any other school. And that's because none of your actual professors are hired, evaluated, or compensated for teaching. They are hired, promoted, evaluated, and retained for their research. To most of them teaching is a nuisance. So they get it done/out of the way with minimal effort required not to bomb their evals. One last thing that isn't mentioned is that the cutting edge research being done at top rank schools is actually a very good reason to attend them. I worked in labs for 3 out of my 4 undergrad years. And the amount of resources these labs have is immense. So a great part of my education, which is how to conduct research and plan/execute experiments would have not been the same at a much lower ranked university.
| 0 | 154 | 3.222222 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax1xjs
|
iax9tf0
| 1,654,181,394 | 1,654,184,812 | 60 | 232 |
The top three benefits of attending an “elite” institution, in descending order: 1. Peer group will be full of bright, hard-working people with good learning habits. Even the bottom decile will be competent, which is not the case at most universities. 2. The name recognition and alumni network post-graduation. This is less important than it used to be, but it’s still big. 3. Quality of instruction. There is a huge draw for talent at elite institutions, and while some are useless muppets who only do research, there are many who really shine. Obligatory caveat: these benefits (especially 1 & 3) can be found at many institutions, and I’m a strong believer that institutional fit and intellectual match to major are many times more important for success than institutional prestige.
|
Went to MIT, which isn't a traditional Ivy, but close. Some of the comments are partially right that these schools get access to a much better candidate pools, so even the lower grade students are still pretty good (I was below average there, but got the highest grades in all my PhD classes at a lower ranking university). However, this is changing recently. When I got in, back in 2008, acceptance rate was about 16%. And the super bright students usually went to top schools. These days acceptance rates for MIT and other similar schools is about 4%. So many universities are filled with super bright kids (maybe you can distinguish the top 20% of an applicant pool, but after that you might as well setup a lottery to select the top 4%). So I expect the traditional top schools will slowly lose some of their shine, when companies realize that their great candidates are coming from all schools. The other note about quality of teaching is also partially true only. While these institutes will have generally smaller class sizes and easier to choose classes (at MIT I almost never had to worry about a class filling up or me not being able to get into one I wanted/needed), however the quality of teachers is not likely any better at any other school. And that's because none of your actual professors are hired, evaluated, or compensated for teaching. They are hired, promoted, evaluated, and retained for their research. To most of them teaching is a nuisance. So they get it done/out of the way with minimal effort required not to bomb their evals. One last thing that isn't mentioned is that the cutting edge research being done at top rank schools is actually a very good reason to attend them. I worked in labs for 3 out of my 4 undergrad years. And the amount of resources these labs have is immense. So a great part of my education, which is how to conduct research and plan/execute experiments would have not been the same at a much lower ranked university.
| 0 | 3,418 | 3.866667 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax3vka
|
iax9tf0
| 1,654,182,253 | 1,654,184,812 | 38 | 232 |
From an instructional point of view, the Ivies with smaller undergraduate programs (Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Brown, Dartmouth) have teaching expectations that are night and day different from large state universities. Here's some concrete reasons: - lower teaching loads, often 33-50% less than a large state institution. Which means faculty have substantially more attention to pay to each class - smaller class sizes, so each student gets more attention, and fewer cases of them "falling through the cracks." Each undergraduate student has faculty advisors to give them encouragement and advice when they're struggling, and advocate on their behalf - more resources per class: faculty can hire more teaching assistants, getting a ratio of 6:1 students per TA or 8:1 students per TA. So students almost always have someone to go to for help. Classes can invite and pay for travel for the best guest speakers, hold more office hours, have assignments that cost more to run. There's also resources for faculty to learn how to teach better, usually called teaching centers - teaching as part of faculty tenure cases: at state R1s, it's mainly research and funding that get you tenure, and while that's still largely true at Ivies, the mentoring and teaching aspects are also strongly considered. Overall there's more of a culture than values good teaching Edit: sounds like people are downvoting because it goes against the internet narrative about academia that: teaching is the same everywhere, only research matters, it's all just elitism. If anyone else has been faculty at both Ivy League schools, and state institutions, I'd like to hear why you disagree
|
Went to MIT, which isn't a traditional Ivy, but close. Some of the comments are partially right that these schools get access to a much better candidate pools, so even the lower grade students are still pretty good (I was below average there, but got the highest grades in all my PhD classes at a lower ranking university). However, this is changing recently. When I got in, back in 2008, acceptance rate was about 16%. And the super bright students usually went to top schools. These days acceptance rates for MIT and other similar schools is about 4%. So many universities are filled with super bright kids (maybe you can distinguish the top 20% of an applicant pool, but after that you might as well setup a lottery to select the top 4%). So I expect the traditional top schools will slowly lose some of their shine, when companies realize that their great candidates are coming from all schools. The other note about quality of teaching is also partially true only. While these institutes will have generally smaller class sizes and easier to choose classes (at MIT I almost never had to worry about a class filling up or me not being able to get into one I wanted/needed), however the quality of teachers is not likely any better at any other school. And that's because none of your actual professors are hired, evaluated, or compensated for teaching. They are hired, promoted, evaluated, and retained for their research. To most of them teaching is a nuisance. So they get it done/out of the way with minimal effort required not to bomb their evals. One last thing that isn't mentioned is that the cutting edge research being done at top rank schools is actually a very good reason to attend them. I worked in labs for 3 out of my 4 undergrad years. And the amount of resources these labs have is immense. So a great part of my education, which is how to conduct research and plan/execute experiments would have not been the same at a much lower ranked university.
| 0 | 2,559 | 6.105263 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax8c7f
|
iax9tf0
| 1,654,184,178 | 1,654,184,812 | 7 | 232 |
I’m highly skeptical that there is more student learning at an ivy compared to an elite small liberal arts college. Ivy professors may or may not care about their grad students but they definitely don’t care about the undergrads (with exceptions of course). There are networking and reputation advantages for Ivy League though.
|
Went to MIT, which isn't a traditional Ivy, but close. Some of the comments are partially right that these schools get access to a much better candidate pools, so even the lower grade students are still pretty good (I was below average there, but got the highest grades in all my PhD classes at a lower ranking university). However, this is changing recently. When I got in, back in 2008, acceptance rate was about 16%. And the super bright students usually went to top schools. These days acceptance rates for MIT and other similar schools is about 4%. So many universities are filled with super bright kids (maybe you can distinguish the top 20% of an applicant pool, but after that you might as well setup a lottery to select the top 4%). So I expect the traditional top schools will slowly lose some of their shine, when companies realize that their great candidates are coming from all schools. The other note about quality of teaching is also partially true only. While these institutes will have generally smaller class sizes and easier to choose classes (at MIT I almost never had to worry about a class filling up or me not being able to get into one I wanted/needed), however the quality of teachers is not likely any better at any other school. And that's because none of your actual professors are hired, evaluated, or compensated for teaching. They are hired, promoted, evaluated, and retained for their research. To most of them teaching is a nuisance. So they get it done/out of the way with minimal effort required not to bomb their evals. One last thing that isn't mentioned is that the cutting edge research being done at top rank schools is actually a very good reason to attend them. I worked in labs for 3 out of my 4 undergrad years. And the amount of resources these labs have is immense. So a great part of my education, which is how to conduct research and plan/execute experiments would have not been the same at a much lower ranked university.
| 0 | 634 | 33.142857 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax9tf0
|
iax9bwe
| 1,654,184,812 | 1,654,184,601 | 232 | 4 |
Went to MIT, which isn't a traditional Ivy, but close. Some of the comments are partially right that these schools get access to a much better candidate pools, so even the lower grade students are still pretty good (I was below average there, but got the highest grades in all my PhD classes at a lower ranking university). However, this is changing recently. When I got in, back in 2008, acceptance rate was about 16%. And the super bright students usually went to top schools. These days acceptance rates for MIT and other similar schools is about 4%. So many universities are filled with super bright kids (maybe you can distinguish the top 20% of an applicant pool, but after that you might as well setup a lottery to select the top 4%). So I expect the traditional top schools will slowly lose some of their shine, when companies realize that their great candidates are coming from all schools. The other note about quality of teaching is also partially true only. While these institutes will have generally smaller class sizes and easier to choose classes (at MIT I almost never had to worry about a class filling up or me not being able to get into one I wanted/needed), however the quality of teachers is not likely any better at any other school. And that's because none of your actual professors are hired, evaluated, or compensated for teaching. They are hired, promoted, evaluated, and retained for their research. To most of them teaching is a nuisance. So they get it done/out of the way with minimal effort required not to bomb their evals. One last thing that isn't mentioned is that the cutting edge research being done at top rank schools is actually a very good reason to attend them. I worked in labs for 3 out of my 4 undergrad years. And the amount of resources these labs have is immense. So a great part of my education, which is how to conduct research and plan/execute experiments would have not been the same at a much lower ranked university.
|
My grad school program in stem did not accept ugrads from ivy's. They showed up as victims of grade inflation. The program accepted students from big r1s only with lab experience and a good letter from their lab research supervisor. Mostly mit, u mich, u wisc Madison, Penn State, ut... Anyone who got through those schools with good grades had survived a Darwinian process that Princeton and Harvard undergrads had been protected from. (Unless they had a paper or lots of lab experience.). This was a long time ago, but I suspect there's still a deal where undergrads from big schools and can't cut it get weeded out, while ugrads from certain Ivys are passed along with B's
| 1 | 211 | 58 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax64ew
|
iaxajk5
| 1,654,183,222 | 1,654,185,123 | 93 | 116 |
Someone once told me that the difference between the Ivy League and everyone else is access. If you don't go to the Ivy League, you go through the process. If you did go to the Ivy League, you ignore the process, pick up the phone, and call your friend.
|
Did not go to an Ivy but definitely went to an “elite” institution for undergrad. One thing about all of these schools that I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that they have absurd amounts of money per student compared to other schools, and that directly translates into resources: more paid research opportunities, more equipment access, and more faculty and staff per student which leads to a wider array of classes available. It’s not true that multivariable calculus at Harvard is the same as at Random State University. Harvard will almost certainly offer one calculus class that’s similar— but it will also offer a proof-based version, one focused on engineering applications, one that’s combined with a linear algebra curriculum, etc. At Harvard you aren’t guaranteed to graduate having learned any more than at another school, but you’ve certainly had many opportunities to. This is ESPECIALLY true for specialty upper-level classes.
| 0 | 1,901 | 1.247312 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax9gp0
|
iaxajk5
| 1,654,184,658 | 1,654,185,123 | 72 | 116 |
Speaking as someone who did undergrad at a pretty good state school and PhD/postdoc in biomedical sciences at an Ivy: In general, courses are similar at both large state schools and Ivy - both bad. Professors at these research universities are there to perform world-class research, not teach. Some professors do care about teaching, but it's hit or miss. It might be different at more teaching-oriented Ivy like Brown. In terms of research, the research-intensive Ivy universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc) have a lot more resources compared to average universities. But obviously, there are state schools like Berkeley, Michigan, and UCSD that have better research output than Ivy schools like Dartmouth or Brown. As for the caliber of students: this is obviously a generalization, but I think that the middle and lower 90% are the same between state school and Ivy. But the top 10% at an Ivy (at least my Ivy) were exceptional - and they clearly stand out above the rest. In addition, the undergrads at an Ivy seem to care a lot more about extracurriculars than coursework. And many of them o very very cool stuff, and the university provides a lot of resource for them. This was not the case at my state school. So I guess it depends on what you mean "education."
|
Did not go to an Ivy but definitely went to an “elite” institution for undergrad. One thing about all of these schools that I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that they have absurd amounts of money per student compared to other schools, and that directly translates into resources: more paid research opportunities, more equipment access, and more faculty and staff per student which leads to a wider array of classes available. It’s not true that multivariable calculus at Harvard is the same as at Random State University. Harvard will almost certainly offer one calculus class that’s similar— but it will also offer a proof-based version, one focused on engineering applications, one that’s combined with a linear algebra curriculum, etc. At Harvard you aren’t guaranteed to graduate having learned any more than at another school, but you’ve certainly had many opportunities to. This is ESPECIALLY true for specialty upper-level classes.
| 0 | 465 | 1.611111 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iaxajk5
|
iax1xjs
| 1,654,185,123 | 1,654,181,394 | 116 | 60 |
Did not go to an Ivy but definitely went to an “elite” institution for undergrad. One thing about all of these schools that I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that they have absurd amounts of money per student compared to other schools, and that directly translates into resources: more paid research opportunities, more equipment access, and more faculty and staff per student which leads to a wider array of classes available. It’s not true that multivariable calculus at Harvard is the same as at Random State University. Harvard will almost certainly offer one calculus class that’s similar— but it will also offer a proof-based version, one focused on engineering applications, one that’s combined with a linear algebra curriculum, etc. At Harvard you aren’t guaranteed to graduate having learned any more than at another school, but you’ve certainly had many opportunities to. This is ESPECIALLY true for specialty upper-level classes.
|
The top three benefits of attending an “elite” institution, in descending order: 1. Peer group will be full of bright, hard-working people with good learning habits. Even the bottom decile will be competent, which is not the case at most universities. 2. The name recognition and alumni network post-graduation. This is less important than it used to be, but it’s still big. 3. Quality of instruction. There is a huge draw for talent at elite institutions, and while some are useless muppets who only do research, there are many who really shine. Obligatory caveat: these benefits (especially 1 & 3) can be found at many institutions, and I’m a strong believer that institutional fit and intellectual match to major are many times more important for success than institutional prestige.
| 1 | 3,729 | 1.933333 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iaxajk5
|
iax3vka
| 1,654,185,123 | 1,654,182,253 | 116 | 38 |
Did not go to an Ivy but definitely went to an “elite” institution for undergrad. One thing about all of these schools that I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that they have absurd amounts of money per student compared to other schools, and that directly translates into resources: more paid research opportunities, more equipment access, and more faculty and staff per student which leads to a wider array of classes available. It’s not true that multivariable calculus at Harvard is the same as at Random State University. Harvard will almost certainly offer one calculus class that’s similar— but it will also offer a proof-based version, one focused on engineering applications, one that’s combined with a linear algebra curriculum, etc. At Harvard you aren’t guaranteed to graduate having learned any more than at another school, but you’ve certainly had many opportunities to. This is ESPECIALLY true for specialty upper-level classes.
|
From an instructional point of view, the Ivies with smaller undergraduate programs (Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Brown, Dartmouth) have teaching expectations that are night and day different from large state universities. Here's some concrete reasons: - lower teaching loads, often 33-50% less than a large state institution. Which means faculty have substantially more attention to pay to each class - smaller class sizes, so each student gets more attention, and fewer cases of them "falling through the cracks." Each undergraduate student has faculty advisors to give them encouragement and advice when they're struggling, and advocate on their behalf - more resources per class: faculty can hire more teaching assistants, getting a ratio of 6:1 students per TA or 8:1 students per TA. So students almost always have someone to go to for help. Classes can invite and pay for travel for the best guest speakers, hold more office hours, have assignments that cost more to run. There's also resources for faculty to learn how to teach better, usually called teaching centers - teaching as part of faculty tenure cases: at state R1s, it's mainly research and funding that get you tenure, and while that's still largely true at Ivies, the mentoring and teaching aspects are also strongly considered. Overall there's more of a culture than values good teaching Edit: sounds like people are downvoting because it goes against the internet narrative about academia that: teaching is the same everywhere, only research matters, it's all just elitism. If anyone else has been faculty at both Ivy League schools, and state institutions, I'd like to hear why you disagree
| 1 | 2,870 | 3.052632 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iaxajk5
|
iax8c7f
| 1,654,185,123 | 1,654,184,178 | 116 | 7 |
Did not go to an Ivy but definitely went to an “elite” institution for undergrad. One thing about all of these schools that I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that they have absurd amounts of money per student compared to other schools, and that directly translates into resources: more paid research opportunities, more equipment access, and more faculty and staff per student which leads to a wider array of classes available. It’s not true that multivariable calculus at Harvard is the same as at Random State University. Harvard will almost certainly offer one calculus class that’s similar— but it will also offer a proof-based version, one focused on engineering applications, one that’s combined with a linear algebra curriculum, etc. At Harvard you aren’t guaranteed to graduate having learned any more than at another school, but you’ve certainly had many opportunities to. This is ESPECIALLY true for specialty upper-level classes.
|
I’m highly skeptical that there is more student learning at an ivy compared to an elite small liberal arts college. Ivy professors may or may not care about their grad students but they definitely don’t care about the undergrads (with exceptions of course). There are networking and reputation advantages for Ivy League though.
| 1 | 945 | 16.571429 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iaxajk5
|
iax9bwe
| 1,654,185,123 | 1,654,184,601 | 116 | 4 |
Did not go to an Ivy but definitely went to an “elite” institution for undergrad. One thing about all of these schools that I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that they have absurd amounts of money per student compared to other schools, and that directly translates into resources: more paid research opportunities, more equipment access, and more faculty and staff per student which leads to a wider array of classes available. It’s not true that multivariable calculus at Harvard is the same as at Random State University. Harvard will almost certainly offer one calculus class that’s similar— but it will also offer a proof-based version, one focused on engineering applications, one that’s combined with a linear algebra curriculum, etc. At Harvard you aren’t guaranteed to graduate having learned any more than at another school, but you’ve certainly had many opportunities to. This is ESPECIALLY true for specialty upper-level classes.
|
My grad school program in stem did not accept ugrads from ivy's. They showed up as victims of grade inflation. The program accepted students from big r1s only with lab experience and a good letter from their lab research supervisor. Mostly mit, u mich, u wisc Madison, Penn State, ut... Anyone who got through those schools with good grades had survived a Darwinian process that Princeton and Harvard undergrads had been protected from. (Unless they had a paper or lots of lab experience.). This was a long time ago, but I suspect there's still a deal where undergrads from big schools and can't cut it get weeded out, while ugrads from certain Ivys are passed along with B's
| 1 | 522 | 29 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax64ew
|
iax1xjs
| 1,654,183,222 | 1,654,181,394 | 93 | 60 |
Someone once told me that the difference between the Ivy League and everyone else is access. If you don't go to the Ivy League, you go through the process. If you did go to the Ivy League, you ignore the process, pick up the phone, and call your friend.
|
The top three benefits of attending an “elite” institution, in descending order: 1. Peer group will be full of bright, hard-working people with good learning habits. Even the bottom decile will be competent, which is not the case at most universities. 2. The name recognition and alumni network post-graduation. This is less important than it used to be, but it’s still big. 3. Quality of instruction. There is a huge draw for talent at elite institutions, and while some are useless muppets who only do research, there are many who really shine. Obligatory caveat: these benefits (especially 1 & 3) can be found at many institutions, and I’m a strong believer that institutional fit and intellectual match to major are many times more important for success than institutional prestige.
| 1 | 1,828 | 1.55 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax64ew
|
iax3vka
| 1,654,183,222 | 1,654,182,253 | 93 | 38 |
Someone once told me that the difference between the Ivy League and everyone else is access. If you don't go to the Ivy League, you go through the process. If you did go to the Ivy League, you ignore the process, pick up the phone, and call your friend.
|
From an instructional point of view, the Ivies with smaller undergraduate programs (Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Brown, Dartmouth) have teaching expectations that are night and day different from large state universities. Here's some concrete reasons: - lower teaching loads, often 33-50% less than a large state institution. Which means faculty have substantially more attention to pay to each class - smaller class sizes, so each student gets more attention, and fewer cases of them "falling through the cracks." Each undergraduate student has faculty advisors to give them encouragement and advice when they're struggling, and advocate on their behalf - more resources per class: faculty can hire more teaching assistants, getting a ratio of 6:1 students per TA or 8:1 students per TA. So students almost always have someone to go to for help. Classes can invite and pay for travel for the best guest speakers, hold more office hours, have assignments that cost more to run. There's also resources for faculty to learn how to teach better, usually called teaching centers - teaching as part of faculty tenure cases: at state R1s, it's mainly research and funding that get you tenure, and while that's still largely true at Ivies, the mentoring and teaching aspects are also strongly considered. Overall there's more of a culture than values good teaching Edit: sounds like people are downvoting because it goes against the internet narrative about academia that: teaching is the same everywhere, only research matters, it's all just elitism. If anyone else has been faculty at both Ivy League schools, and state institutions, I'd like to hear why you disagree
| 1 | 969 | 2.447368 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax9gp0
|
iax1xjs
| 1,654,184,658 | 1,654,181,394 | 72 | 60 |
Speaking as someone who did undergrad at a pretty good state school and PhD/postdoc in biomedical sciences at an Ivy: In general, courses are similar at both large state schools and Ivy - both bad. Professors at these research universities are there to perform world-class research, not teach. Some professors do care about teaching, but it's hit or miss. It might be different at more teaching-oriented Ivy like Brown. In terms of research, the research-intensive Ivy universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc) have a lot more resources compared to average universities. But obviously, there are state schools like Berkeley, Michigan, and UCSD that have better research output than Ivy schools like Dartmouth or Brown. As for the caliber of students: this is obviously a generalization, but I think that the middle and lower 90% are the same between state school and Ivy. But the top 10% at an Ivy (at least my Ivy) were exceptional - and they clearly stand out above the rest. In addition, the undergrads at an Ivy seem to care a lot more about extracurriculars than coursework. And many of them o very very cool stuff, and the university provides a lot of resource for them. This was not the case at my state school. So I guess it depends on what you mean "education."
|
The top three benefits of attending an “elite” institution, in descending order: 1. Peer group will be full of bright, hard-working people with good learning habits. Even the bottom decile will be competent, which is not the case at most universities. 2. The name recognition and alumni network post-graduation. This is less important than it used to be, but it’s still big. 3. Quality of instruction. There is a huge draw for talent at elite institutions, and while some are useless muppets who only do research, there are many who really shine. Obligatory caveat: these benefits (especially 1 & 3) can be found at many institutions, and I’m a strong believer that institutional fit and intellectual match to major are many times more important for success than institutional prestige.
| 1 | 3,264 | 1.2 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax3vka
|
iax9gp0
| 1,654,182,253 | 1,654,184,658 | 38 | 72 |
From an instructional point of view, the Ivies with smaller undergraduate programs (Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Brown, Dartmouth) have teaching expectations that are night and day different from large state universities. Here's some concrete reasons: - lower teaching loads, often 33-50% less than a large state institution. Which means faculty have substantially more attention to pay to each class - smaller class sizes, so each student gets more attention, and fewer cases of them "falling through the cracks." Each undergraduate student has faculty advisors to give them encouragement and advice when they're struggling, and advocate on their behalf - more resources per class: faculty can hire more teaching assistants, getting a ratio of 6:1 students per TA or 8:1 students per TA. So students almost always have someone to go to for help. Classes can invite and pay for travel for the best guest speakers, hold more office hours, have assignments that cost more to run. There's also resources for faculty to learn how to teach better, usually called teaching centers - teaching as part of faculty tenure cases: at state R1s, it's mainly research and funding that get you tenure, and while that's still largely true at Ivies, the mentoring and teaching aspects are also strongly considered. Overall there's more of a culture than values good teaching Edit: sounds like people are downvoting because it goes against the internet narrative about academia that: teaching is the same everywhere, only research matters, it's all just elitism. If anyone else has been faculty at both Ivy League schools, and state institutions, I'd like to hear why you disagree
|
Speaking as someone who did undergrad at a pretty good state school and PhD/postdoc in biomedical sciences at an Ivy: In general, courses are similar at both large state schools and Ivy - both bad. Professors at these research universities are there to perform world-class research, not teach. Some professors do care about teaching, but it's hit or miss. It might be different at more teaching-oriented Ivy like Brown. In terms of research, the research-intensive Ivy universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc) have a lot more resources compared to average universities. But obviously, there are state schools like Berkeley, Michigan, and UCSD that have better research output than Ivy schools like Dartmouth or Brown. As for the caliber of students: this is obviously a generalization, but I think that the middle and lower 90% are the same between state school and Ivy. But the top 10% at an Ivy (at least my Ivy) were exceptional - and they clearly stand out above the rest. In addition, the undergrads at an Ivy seem to care a lot more about extracurriculars than coursework. And many of them o very very cool stuff, and the university provides a lot of resource for them. This was not the case at my state school. So I guess it depends on what you mean "education."
| 0 | 2,405 | 1.894737 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax8c7f
|
iax9gp0
| 1,654,184,178 | 1,654,184,658 | 7 | 72 |
I’m highly skeptical that there is more student learning at an ivy compared to an elite small liberal arts college. Ivy professors may or may not care about their grad students but they definitely don’t care about the undergrads (with exceptions of course). There are networking and reputation advantages for Ivy League though.
|
Speaking as someone who did undergrad at a pretty good state school and PhD/postdoc in biomedical sciences at an Ivy: In general, courses are similar at both large state schools and Ivy - both bad. Professors at these research universities are there to perform world-class research, not teach. Some professors do care about teaching, but it's hit or miss. It might be different at more teaching-oriented Ivy like Brown. In terms of research, the research-intensive Ivy universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc) have a lot more resources compared to average universities. But obviously, there are state schools like Berkeley, Michigan, and UCSD that have better research output than Ivy schools like Dartmouth or Brown. As for the caliber of students: this is obviously a generalization, but I think that the middle and lower 90% are the same between state school and Ivy. But the top 10% at an Ivy (at least my Ivy) were exceptional - and they clearly stand out above the rest. In addition, the undergrads at an Ivy seem to care a lot more about extracurriculars than coursework. And many of them o very very cool stuff, and the university provides a lot of resource for them. This was not the case at my state school. So I guess it depends on what you mean "education."
| 0 | 480 | 10.285714 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax9bwe
|
iax9gp0
| 1,654,184,601 | 1,654,184,658 | 4 | 72 |
My grad school program in stem did not accept ugrads from ivy's. They showed up as victims of grade inflation. The program accepted students from big r1s only with lab experience and a good letter from their lab research supervisor. Mostly mit, u mich, u wisc Madison, Penn State, ut... Anyone who got through those schools with good grades had survived a Darwinian process that Princeton and Harvard undergrads had been protected from. (Unless they had a paper or lots of lab experience.). This was a long time ago, but I suspect there's still a deal where undergrads from big schools and can't cut it get weeded out, while ugrads from certain Ivys are passed along with B's
|
Speaking as someone who did undergrad at a pretty good state school and PhD/postdoc in biomedical sciences at an Ivy: In general, courses are similar at both large state schools and Ivy - both bad. Professors at these research universities are there to perform world-class research, not teach. Some professors do care about teaching, but it's hit or miss. It might be different at more teaching-oriented Ivy like Brown. In terms of research, the research-intensive Ivy universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc) have a lot more resources compared to average universities. But obviously, there are state schools like Berkeley, Michigan, and UCSD that have better research output than Ivy schools like Dartmouth or Brown. As for the caliber of students: this is obviously a generalization, but I think that the middle and lower 90% are the same between state school and Ivy. But the top 10% at an Ivy (at least my Ivy) were exceptional - and they clearly stand out above the rest. In addition, the undergrads at an Ivy seem to care a lot more about extracurriculars than coursework. And many of them o very very cool stuff, and the university provides a lot of resource for them. This was not the case at my state school. So I guess it depends on what you mean "education."
| 0 | 57 | 18 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax8c7f
|
iaxdegi
| 1,654,184,178 | 1,654,186,348 | 7 | 34 |
I’m highly skeptical that there is more student learning at an ivy compared to an elite small liberal arts college. Ivy professors may or may not care about their grad students but they definitely don’t care about the undergrads (with exceptions of course). There are networking and reputation advantages for Ivy League though.
|
1 -- Your classmates are all smart & engaged in their education. It's a mixed bag at less selective universities. TAs and professors spend a lot more time trying to get the struggling kids up to speed than pushing the top performers further. I was bored a lot in high school for this reason. (Though caveat, this can make for a somewhat miserable pressure pot environment - I've never been more stressed & miserable than undergrad at an elite school) 2 -- There's so much money. I remember so many random clearly expensive events, random funds for any arguably scholarly activity, etc. If you're middle class, your tuition will probably be covered. A lot only charge tuition to the top 20% of household. 3 -- Your faculty will be super well connected and that can be worth its weight in gold in certain career paths. There are also a lot of industries (consulting, banking, etc) that heavily recruit from a very small group of schools.
| 0 | 2,170 | 4.857143 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iaxdegi
|
iax9bwe
| 1,654,186,348 | 1,654,184,601 | 34 | 4 |
1 -- Your classmates are all smart & engaged in their education. It's a mixed bag at less selective universities. TAs and professors spend a lot more time trying to get the struggling kids up to speed than pushing the top performers further. I was bored a lot in high school for this reason. (Though caveat, this can make for a somewhat miserable pressure pot environment - I've never been more stressed & miserable than undergrad at an elite school) 2 -- There's so much money. I remember so many random clearly expensive events, random funds for any arguably scholarly activity, etc. If you're middle class, your tuition will probably be covered. A lot only charge tuition to the top 20% of household. 3 -- Your faculty will be super well connected and that can be worth its weight in gold in certain career paths. There are also a lot of industries (consulting, banking, etc) that heavily recruit from a very small group of schools.
|
My grad school program in stem did not accept ugrads from ivy's. They showed up as victims of grade inflation. The program accepted students from big r1s only with lab experience and a good letter from their lab research supervisor. Mostly mit, u mich, u wisc Madison, Penn State, ut... Anyone who got through those schools with good grades had survived a Darwinian process that Princeton and Harvard undergrads had been protected from. (Unless they had a paper or lots of lab experience.). This was a long time ago, but I suspect there's still a deal where undergrads from big schools and can't cut it get weeded out, while ugrads from certain Ivys are passed along with B's
| 1 | 1,747 | 8.5 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iaxb1mi
|
iaxdegi
| 1,654,185,335 | 1,654,186,348 | 5 | 34 |
Lots of good comments already about strong peers. One more factor is the access to world-class research opportunities. Most faculty are the leading or lead scholars in their field. Doing cutting-edge science with them is as easy as writing an email and asking, 'Hi I'm an undergrad in your class and found your research interesting. Can I work with you?'
|
1 -- Your classmates are all smart & engaged in their education. It's a mixed bag at less selective universities. TAs and professors spend a lot more time trying to get the struggling kids up to speed than pushing the top performers further. I was bored a lot in high school for this reason. (Though caveat, this can make for a somewhat miserable pressure pot environment - I've never been more stressed & miserable than undergrad at an elite school) 2 -- There's so much money. I remember so many random clearly expensive events, random funds for any arguably scholarly activity, etc. If you're middle class, your tuition will probably be covered. A lot only charge tuition to the top 20% of household. 3 -- Your faculty will be super well connected and that can be worth its weight in gold in certain career paths. There are also a lot of industries (consulting, banking, etc) that heavily recruit from a very small group of schools.
| 0 | 1,013 | 6.8 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iax8c7f
|
iaxujww
| 1,654,184,178 | 1,654,193,544 | 7 | 17 |
I’m highly skeptical that there is more student learning at an ivy compared to an elite small liberal arts college. Ivy professors may or may not care about their grad students but they definitely don’t care about the undergrads (with exceptions of course). There are networking and reputation advantages for Ivy League though.
|
I'm doing my PhD in an ivy league. Here are some thoughts: - The competition for admission is off the chart. Your peers are brilliant and there's a creative momentum about the campus. - The classes are roughly the same as they were at my state institution. - Money. The ratio of support staff to faculty blows my mind. The administrative capabilities far surpass my former state school's. - *Most importantly,* for better or for worse, the prestige of your institution matters while finding funding.
| 0 | 9,366 | 2.428571 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iaxujww
|
iax9bwe
| 1,654,193,544 | 1,654,184,601 | 17 | 4 |
I'm doing my PhD in an ivy league. Here are some thoughts: - The competition for admission is off the chart. Your peers are brilliant and there's a creative momentum about the campus. - The classes are roughly the same as they were at my state institution. - Money. The ratio of support staff to faculty blows my mind. The administrative capabilities far surpass my former state school's. - *Most importantly,* for better or for worse, the prestige of your institution matters while finding funding.
|
My grad school program in stem did not accept ugrads from ivy's. They showed up as victims of grade inflation. The program accepted students from big r1s only with lab experience and a good letter from their lab research supervisor. Mostly mit, u mich, u wisc Madison, Penn State, ut... Anyone who got through those schools with good grades had survived a Darwinian process that Princeton and Harvard undergrads had been protected from. (Unless they had a paper or lots of lab experience.). This was a long time ago, but I suspect there's still a deal where undergrads from big schools and can't cut it get weeded out, while ugrads from certain Ivys are passed along with B's
| 1 | 8,943 | 4.25 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iaxujww
|
iaxb1mi
| 1,654,193,544 | 1,654,185,335 | 17 | 5 |
I'm doing my PhD in an ivy league. Here are some thoughts: - The competition for admission is off the chart. Your peers are brilliant and there's a creative momentum about the campus. - The classes are roughly the same as they were at my state institution. - Money. The ratio of support staff to faculty blows my mind. The administrative capabilities far surpass my former state school's. - *Most importantly,* for better or for worse, the prestige of your institution matters while finding funding.
|
Lots of good comments already about strong peers. One more factor is the access to world-class research opportunities. Most faculty are the leading or lead scholars in their field. Doing cutting-edge science with them is as easy as writing an email and asking, 'Hi I'm an undergrad in your class and found your research interesting. Can I work with you?'
| 1 | 8,209 | 3.4 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iaxt697
|
iaxujww
| 1,654,192,952 | 1,654,193,544 | 3 | 17 |
I really don't know. I went to a state college that has a good reputation, and was very successful in graduate school. However, I worked hard and dedicated much of my free time to writing - I focused on philosophy as an undergrad, which was relevant to my graduate studies and eventual career. Most people in internships and professional settings had never heard of the college I went to, but were impressed when I described my experience there. I was accepted to one of the most prestigious internships in my field, but that was primarily due to my passion for and engagement in my work, as the schools I went to are not really that well known outside of niche cultures here and there. I'm not sure what Ivy League is like, but if you have the opportunity to attend, you're probably better off doing so, if not for quality of education, then for reputation. In terms of education, I really think what matters is your passion for the subject. There are dumbasses everywhere.
|
I'm doing my PhD in an ivy league. Here are some thoughts: - The competition for admission is off the chart. Your peers are brilliant and there's a creative momentum about the campus. - The classes are roughly the same as they were at my state institution. - Money. The ratio of support staff to faculty blows my mind. The administrative capabilities far surpass my former state school's. - *Most importantly,* for better or for worse, the prestige of your institution matters while finding funding.
| 0 | 592 | 5.666667 |
v3a2k8
|
askacademia_train
| 0.95 |
Are Ivy league universities worth it? Do they have that much higher quality education than less famous universities? Does the reputation do justice to these uni's education or the main reason they are famous is because of their history? *What* makes their education high quality, what is high education in general?
|
iaykbnh
|
iax8c7f
| 1,654,204,756 | 1,654,184,178 | 15 | 7 |
I know of no parent who, if they had the means, wouldn't wish to send their child to an elite institution. So there's something. Historically, the benefits of the Ivy League (and other elite institutions--MIT, Caltech, Stanford, etc.) were peer group, connections, name recognition, perceived level of rigor, quality of academic research programs, and the not-so-insignificant fact that the socioeconomic status of students tended toward the wealthy end of the spectrum, which would have been a strong guarantor of success even if you were to control for quality of schools. Today, several factors skew the Ivy League and other elite schools away from a being a strict meritocracy. With acceptance rates in the sub-10% range, they're little more than a lottery for most applicants. It's extremely common to hear of students with perfect GPAs, perfect test scores, tons of extracurriculars, national awards, standout athlete and musician statuses, and genuine academic research... who are summarily turned down to every Ivy League school to which they apply. They apparently didn't satisfy some set of nebulous, "holistic" admissions criteria that nobody can define nor convincingly defend. That said, the "elite institution" education has been criticized of late and some have argued that it squanders the potential of some of our best minds, turning them into middling options traders or management consultants.
|
I’m highly skeptical that there is more student learning at an ivy compared to an elite small liberal arts college. Ivy professors may or may not care about their grad students but they definitely don’t care about the undergrads (with exceptions of course). There are networking and reputation advantages for Ivy League though.
| 1 | 20,578 | 2.142857 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.