Lex Gómez

This is a sentiment I have heard from graduate advisors. The intent behind this statement is generally positive; it is often meant to be uplifting to graduate students, to let them know that their mentor respects them and that they consider themselves on an even playing field. However, I think statements like this belie an ignorance on the part of the mentor.

Firstly, this kind of statement blatantly disregards the power dynamic in mentor-mentee relationships in academia. One part inherently holds more power than the other--- in particular, decisive job power. A graduate mentor can kick a student out of their lab, colleague or no. A graduate mentor can ignore a student’s wishes and give them a shitty project, colleague or no. 

Secondly, I would argue that, no, in the traditional sense, a mentor and mentee are not colleagues, and that is 100% okay. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of “colleague” is: an associate or coworker typically in a profession or in a civil or ecclesiastical office and often of similar rank or status. The graduate student is not of a similar rank or status as the graduate mentor, and that is the whole point. The student is there to learn from a higher-ranked, more experienced individual. 

And, ultimately, it doesn’t matter if you (the mentor) consider your graduate students “colleagues” unless they also consider you a colleague. 

“That is, while it does not directly drive muscle specific responses, it plays an invaluable function: it sets the stage for action by making some actions more or less likely. In other words, it influences motor function by potentiating or depotentiating actions.”

This is actually something that, as a young scientist, I worry about a lot. Not only does it make parsing through articles and research difficult (having to constantly wonder if you’re reading something legitimate) but it degrades scientific study as a whole. Is this indeed a crisis? This article (and the associated paper) picks specifically on the “soft” sciences -- psychology, humanities, sociology-- where small sample sizes are fairly normal. Do we have reason to be concerned in other areas, as in the STEM sciences? I would argue yes. The pressure to produce novel and titillating results exists in all fields. Remember the Columbia scandal? Yeah. Still happening. You can get the latest of Nature retractions here. 

The push to “publish or perish” isn’t the only peril faced by researchers, particularly those in academia. Many professors must successfully mentor and produce future scientists. I am talking, of course, about graduate students. Programs are required to set up guidelines and milestones that students must pass in order to matriculate. This should theoretically either a) weed out anyone who is just not cut out for it, and b) instill some sort of rigor in training.

My personal experience and conversations I have had with other students and a few professors tells me that this system is flawed. Students are pushed through programs and are graduated whether or not they truly have gained the skills to be a successful researcher, much less one with integrity. This in and of itself does not bode well for the future of science.  

In my little rant about Lab Rotations a few days ago, I neglected to mention how I was actually getting in touch with people. This may seem like a no-brainer (hehe) but I’d rather post this and maybe help someone out. I’m aware that a lot of people deal with anxiety when it comes to talking to strangers, especially strangers you are trying to impress. 

First of all, email is usually the preferred mode of communication. Almost no professor I know picks up their phone unless they’re expecting a call.