Perhaps you have heard the expression, "If you want something done, ask a busy person." Some people are able to get a lot done, and adding one or four more things to the list doesn't slow them down. Let's call this type of person Type W.
Then there are Type X people, and I am going to classify them, for the sake of discussion and Pseudo-Scientific Rigor, as Type X1 and Type X2. Type X people -- in general, with all other factors being equal -- don't get as much done as Type W people.
To explain the difference between X1 and X2, and to compare them with W people, I will use an academic example. I am not thinking of any particular person or people; this is a hypothetical situation. I am not (necessarily) talking about you.
Imagine 3 graduate students at similar stages of their academic program, with similar types of research and similar backgrounds and the same advisor. They are done taking classes and can focus on their research.
A Type W person would get a lot done whether they were funded by a research assistantship (RA), a teaching assistantship (TA), a fellowship, or whatever.
A Type X1 person would only make decent research progress if funded by an RA or fellowship. A TA would consume all of X1's time and energy, not because X1 is more devoted to teaching than W, but because X1 can only focus on one thing at a time.
A Type X2 person would get more done if partially funded by an RA or fellowship and partially by something requiring a bit of structured work -- for example, perhaps teaching one lab or discussion section, or perhaps doing some grading or other work like that. If funded entirely by an RA or fellowship, X2 wouldn't be able to deal effectively with the lack of structure and would waste a lot of time, making very slow progress, even if the advisor set specific goals.
Actually, I can think of one real example of W vs. X, and I have written about this before. Back in days of yore, my own graduate advisor gave an RA to another student instead of to me, saying that I would get a lot done even if I were a TA, whereas the other student would only get work done if an RA.
At the time, I felt like I was being punished for being a Type W person and the other student was being rewarded for being an X. Now, as a grad advisor doling out limited funds within the limited time frame of a grant, I can understand it better. I also want to mention that the other student in question was, and still is, my friend, and that I did not blame him for being an X-person.
Explanatory note about grad funding in my field: Many students are funded by a mixture of types of support over time; some RA, some TA, some fellowship. Advisors make decisions from year to year about the type of support for each student. If we requested 12 months of support for a student on a grant for the entire duration of the grant, the budget would explode, leaving no money for the actual research, so my colleagues and I typically ask for partial support, and make up the rest with TA or other sources of research support, or the student gets a fellowship, etc.
With that in mind, my question now is how (and whether) to distinguish between the X1's and the X2's.
I guess 'whether' is the more first-order question: In cases involving making choices for a particular grant/project, would you -- the advisor -- take into account work habits like the W vs. X scenarios described above when making decisions about support?
And if you do, would you make a distinction, like I did, between X1 and X2? Would you distinguish them by trial-and-error, or is there some magic formula you can use to predict (barring routine and unpredictable research setbacks) how cost effective someone will be? I think not, and I have mostly given up trying to guess.
My current strategy, which is not obviously better than anything else I have ever tried, is to accumulate as much grad support as possible, give students the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, distribute grad support in the way that makes the most sense for research and human resource priorities (what needs to get done when and by whom?), and hope for the best.
Nevertheless, when making some decisions and when trying to understand how people work best, I think it is useful to think about W vs. X, and more vs. less structure, and to explore ways to stretch grant funding to the maximum extent possible to cover as many students as possible for as long as possible. That is the goal. Would you also like to see me pull a rabbit out of a hat? Too bad, I can't do that either, and not just because I have no training or authorization for the use of magical animal subjects in research.
Then there are Type X people, and I am going to classify them, for the sake of discussion and Pseudo-Scientific Rigor, as Type X1 and Type X2. Type X people -- in general, with all other factors being equal -- don't get as much done as Type W people.
To explain the difference between X1 and X2, and to compare them with W people, I will use an academic example. I am not thinking of any particular person or people; this is a hypothetical situation. I am not (necessarily) talking about you.
Imagine 3 graduate students at similar stages of their academic program, with similar types of research and similar backgrounds and the same advisor. They are done taking classes and can focus on their research.
A Type W person would get a lot done whether they were funded by a research assistantship (RA), a teaching assistantship (TA), a fellowship, or whatever.
A Type X1 person would only make decent research progress if funded by an RA or fellowship. A TA would consume all of X1's time and energy, not because X1 is more devoted to teaching than W, but because X1 can only focus on one thing at a time.
A Type X2 person would get more done if partially funded by an RA or fellowship and partially by something requiring a bit of structured work -- for example, perhaps teaching one lab or discussion section, or perhaps doing some grading or other work like that. If funded entirely by an RA or fellowship, X2 wouldn't be able to deal effectively with the lack of structure and would waste a lot of time, making very slow progress, even if the advisor set specific goals.
Actually, I can think of one real example of W vs. X, and I have written about this before. Back in days of yore, my own graduate advisor gave an RA to another student instead of to me, saying that I would get a lot done even if I were a TA, whereas the other student would only get work done if an RA.
At the time, I felt like I was being punished for being a Type W person and the other student was being rewarded for being an X. Now, as a grad advisor doling out limited funds within the limited time frame of a grant, I can understand it better. I also want to mention that the other student in question was, and still is, my friend, and that I did not blame him for being an X-person.
Explanatory note about grad funding in my field: Many students are funded by a mixture of types of support over time; some RA, some TA, some fellowship. Advisors make decisions from year to year about the type of support for each student. If we requested 12 months of support for a student on a grant for the entire duration of the grant, the budget would explode, leaving no money for the actual research, so my colleagues and I typically ask for partial support, and make up the rest with TA or other sources of research support, or the student gets a fellowship, etc.
With that in mind, my question now is how (and whether) to distinguish between the X1's and the X2's.
I guess 'whether' is the more first-order question: In cases involving making choices for a particular grant/project, would you -- the advisor -- take into account work habits like the W vs. X scenarios described above when making decisions about support?
And if you do, would you make a distinction, like I did, between X1 and X2? Would you distinguish them by trial-and-error, or is there some magic formula you can use to predict (barring routine and unpredictable research setbacks) how cost effective someone will be? I think not, and I have mostly given up trying to guess.
My current strategy, which is not obviously better than anything else I have ever tried, is to accumulate as much grad support as possible, give students the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, distribute grad support in the way that makes the most sense for research and human resource priorities (what needs to get done when and by whom?), and hope for the best.
Nevertheless, when making some decisions and when trying to understand how people work best, I think it is useful to think about W vs. X, and more vs. less structure, and to explore ways to stretch grant funding to the maximum extent possible to cover as many students as possible for as long as possible. That is the goal. Would you also like to see me pull a rabbit out of a hat? Too bad, I can't do that either, and not just because I have no training or authorization for the use of magical animal subjects in research.
21 comments:
Good post. Given me ways to deal with getting too much service
I have a feeling my grad advisor saw me as a W, as I was on a TA the whole time and the other grad student an RA. Regardless, my advisor lied to me when I asked her about it (and this I know from following up with what she told me). So, whatever the decision, the least an advisor can do is be honest with a student if he/she asks about the decision made.
That's just because it's virtually impossible to get anything through IMACUC (Institutional Magical Animal Care and Use Committee).
I am definitely a type x2! And I have learned to build in some structure during those times when I am blissfully free to just work. As for supervising the ws and xs all I can say is good luck, no, I mean, the only thing I can think of is to discuss this very issue with the grad students. Some might be self aware enough to help in the decision making and at the very least you have gotten them thinking about their work style which might help them in the future.
I wonder: are you talking about putting your X1-s on fellowship or RA-only, because the Ws are the only ones who can manage to both teach/proctor *and* be productive researchers? You'd probably get more research out of your team that way, but if I were a W, I'd start to resent that my productivity was being rewarded with an unequal share of the teaching responsibilities. So, a productive lab, but not a happy one.
(And my apologies if I've misunderstood your point here.)
Thanks for bringing this up, since I am an extreme case of X. Especially when I am doing work that involves heavy learning, even the slightest distraction can throw me off track. On the other hand, I like to throw in some teaching or tutoring now and then, but I can do that outside the work environment, when I have some free time and managable workload.
I can only thrive in a space where I can develop my own ideas. Budget-restrictions are good, intellectual ones or predetermined ways of _how_ to do it are not so much.
I'm amazed that you have that much flexibility in choosing who gets what funding. Since grants are given for specific projects, and my students are all on different ones, I really don't have this luxury. The only real decision I can make is whether to put someone on a TA to allow the grant funding to extend a bit longer, but that only applies if the situation is getting desperate. Even then, the choice is between TA now vs TA later, if we're really out of $$. And who works on what is driven more by the science fit and timing of student availability.
I was an X2 graduate student and became a W postdoc. Please folks have faith in people, you never know!
Do you think there are gender differences here? I'm asking - not really sure - but curious about your thoughts. This is an impression based on a limited sample size but in grad program did a survey of labs and found that more men than women were getting RA positions and so female grad students were typically TAing an average of 1 year more in grad school. This didn't affect time to graduation so (presumably) the female grad students were doing more with less time for research. Is this typical or are the Ws and Xs distributed evenly across genders?
Being a W sounds magical. It seems like conservation of time/energy don't apply to them, but I understand that they have "excess" capacity.
I would love to be W, but I believe I am an X1. Can X1s get tenure-track jobs? I think I'd be a good manager, but I have a hard time compartmentalizing (e.g., thinking deeply about science when I also have to prepare a lecture on a rusty topic). That said, I'm very efficient with anything related to admin, communication, and logistics.
I recently had a student type "Y". He would get much more done with a light TA assignment (an advanced lab with only a few students), than on a full RA. A full RA was too overwhelming for him, and he was much more productive overall if he devoted some time to teaching. Giving him a full RA was the worst investment I did with my startup package. I only assumed that the more time for research the better, but I guess some students are not there yet.
I wonder, are there any faculty members that are X1? Seems difficult to me...
I've always thought of me as W, but lately I've been feeling X2.
As a W, I'd been starting to resent the extra work continually dumped on me. I did talk to my advisor about it once I really started feeling taken advantage of, and the explanation (similar to the one by FSP) helped. The successive reduction in extraneous tasks I've been asked to do has helped even more.
Anon 11:53: I don't have a lot of flexibility, but I could decide between, for example, between funding someone completely on an RA vs. partially RA/partially TA. Partially RA/TA might make sense for someone who is an X2 person, as defined in this post.
Anon 12:56: I think your Y = X2.
It would be very interesting to know how people are mis-typed. That is, are some people who feel like X1s or X2s more apt to be seen as Ws by their advisers? As an X1, I think I can still get a lot done, but I know that distractions are costly.
Anon 12:56 - When you say some students are 'not there yet', do you mean that there is an ideal of being able to focus only on research all the time? Does it really matter what type of person you are as long as you find what works for you and get your work done?
Alternatively - am I reading too much into the comment?
I am a W married to an extreme X1. I have a mixture of Ws, X1s, and X2s in my group. The student who's the deepest thinker is an X1, but he's really slow for practical purposes; he wants to be faculty, but I fear the necessity to always do stuff in series and with perfect focus will help him there.
As a W, I think being a W is an extreme version of X2, in that I know when I have lots on my plate that helps me be efficient, focuses me better, and prevents procrastination. I think I perhaps have a bit of ADD; I work best when I have a work load that most people find too heavy.
I don't think people should be penalized for efficiency. Even Ws should not be forced to TA the entire time. In my group, everyone will TA at some point but mostly be on RA. I do take personalities into account when, for instance, I have 3 students taking prelims and classes, and only 2 RA's; that semester, W will likely have to TA, because chances are he/she will be able to survive the load, but the other two will have to TA prior or later when they have schedules that won't crush them.
I'm a type W - or rather I used to be. It was working out great until I started experiencing some issues in my personal life and couldn't keep up with the expectations anymore. Not to put too fine a point on it, I ended up in a psychiatric hospital.
Today I'm fine, have changed labs and make a conscious effort not to be quite so efficient anymore (although I still get lots of stuff done), but it was a long journey. I'm not blaming anyone (I'm a grown-up and should have learnt to say no), but I'm absolutely certain that my workload was the factor that tipped me over the edge.
In any case, I think it is worth keeping in mind that for some people, the best thing a boss can do is not to motivate them to do more work, but to teach them how to relax. Just because someone is able to juggle a lot of things at once, doesn't mean that it's in their (or your) best interest to always be pushed to the max.
I'm not sure how fixed these types are. There was a time when I was an X1. However, I found that I could become an X2 or even a W if I was careful about the time of day that I did each type of task. I'm better at doing small, annoying tasks in the mornings, and bigger, thought-intensive tasks in the evenings. In the afternoon, I let necessity rather than style dictate my tasks.
Interestingly, I remember my advisor telling me that I should TA for a quarter, not because of my work style, but because one day at lunch we had a big discussion of some area of physics unrelated to our research. He said that it would be good for me to teach more. It wasn't meant as an insult, and I didn't take it as such, though in retrospect I guess it could be taken as such.
The thing that turned me into a W in grad school was the summer that I had REU students working under me. The pressure to be a role model made me become a W.
I agree with Alex. This is a continuous space. I'm surprised that people are suggesting that X1's can't be TT faculty. I feel like I'm an X1 -- when I'm teaching, I get zero research done. That's why we have students and postdocs to take over our research program. The system is built so that X1's can succeed. Granted, I'm W-ish enough to be able to work in the service stuff.
I feel that an adviser should be careful not to underestimate the importance of training. It's part of their job to mentor these students, and that means teaching them best practices for working too.
Pushing the Xs to get more accomplished, through learning how to prioritize, and work more efficiently, seems like a better solution than just giving more work to the person who already knows how to do these things. By pushing these students out of their comfort zone you will be helping them in the long run. Most jobs reward those individuals who can multitask. (not just academia)
Post a Comment