random_soldier1337

I'm not sure what you mean by intimate. I'm talking about graduate level. Some of them are too open especially when they have had a few drinks at a few of our overlapping events. Loose lips, sink ships, as they say. Otherwise, I can see them doing a lot of this as I go about my routine on campus, e.g. at the campus gym. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that their partying isn't regular as in daily. But it does seem regular as in at least once or twice a week. More if we assume they love to have their weekends for this. And all of it doesn't count the formal occasions. I swear I know at least one tenured faculty who is as I have described. They got tenured while they were younger. Busted their butt, lost a lot of sleep. Now they still haven't reached their 40s but have a tenure. It's as if that's all they wanted and now that they have that they don't have to care. Similar to what I hear about a lot of tenured faculty.

I'd like to give them that benefit of the doubt but I'm skeptical when the number of compulsory labs are cut in half or when the number of predetermined assignments reduce to one or two or just one final exam. And it seems like older faculty are better at handling their duties than more contemporary members. Also it comes off as hypocritical from my POV. They want to not give us enough work to learn the subject, it's okay. We can just work it out on our own. OTOH, if we are unable to make a timely submission for some reason for their assessment, we get a poor grade and have not understood the subject and don't deserve to pass. Isn't that a paradox? How about juggle only as many balls as you can to begin with? As I have said, older faculty seem better at this and have some sense of duty/responsibility. The more contemporary ones seem to be too invested in other things. They go to the gym regularly and do competitive weightlifting as well as swimming or whatever other athletic pursuit. They want to have a good drink as well as go to have a party with friends whenever they call them, otherwise they'll be a bad friend or whatever. One of my teachers literally seems skilled in everything, though at the expense of doing the bare minimum and sometimes much less for the post they hold. One of them is literally Dr. Trunchbull and hates children and infants and the idea of settling down and having a family because it will waste time but then they go and drown themself in pets that are just as bad if not worse in many ways. Why would you sign up to do something that you won't try to do properly? I'm sorry for the rant but I just want to say that I am extremely suspicious of the claim that they don't have time. Again the elders seem better in this situation than the young folk.

I can only comment on what I've seen. Where I am, there is very little sense of urgency. Perhaps it is different elsewhere.

I'm in nuclear engineering and it seems fairly laid back. It feels like everyone is a bit of a party animal and faculty doesn't seem to be in a particular rush to get things done.

The point on integrity and ethics in his graduate handbook. Now that I look at it, less of it seems to point towards that.

@hypervalent_iodine I'm going to try and summarize that. Basically: 1. Competency in chosen field(s) 2. Ability to properly do relevant research. 3. Ability to communicate well. 4. High ethical and moral standards.

True but what would be better sooner than later, especially what would be better as an outcome of their doctorate, rather than after it?

I mean apart from the obvious that they'll select some research topic and learn about that.

I don't know. I was just responding to him/her.

How am I supposed to know that? For all I know they like me less for it.

So our group advisor had to move our equipment from one lab to another since the department was moving to another building. Our advisor and us pitched in using uhaul to bring it where it was needed. I MAY choose academia in the future and personally, I would not want my students to have to handle the move themselves. Is there any alternative way to handle it? Is there a good reason to do it the way formerly described, anyway?

I might have caught on wrong or maybe its just a thing in nuclear engineering but from what I understand from some of the answers I've gotten along with mostly what I have seen at the few conferences I have been to, it will entail all that to fair degree, if not completely, which I am personally not too comfortable with. Of course the corollary seems to come then that the networking is purely business and not personal at all which I am even less familiar with and have no idea how comfortable I am with whatever is done in that.

Well seems like I am getting highly varying answers from all the various places that I have asked. Just to be clear, I am not saying I don't talk to anyone who likes to or enjoys speaking to me or that I don't help when asked for. But I really don't feel comfortable going out of my way to go to parties or unnecessarily engage people because all I ever feel is that everybody gets piss drunk or there is simply bland, low level, gossip, respectively or perhaps somewhat overlapping. I think my time would be better spent honing my core skills. Networking seems more chance based than that and I haven't quite gotten a particularly motivational answer to make me seek a more active role in it than what I have described.

This may only be my perception but I have found the case more often to be I'm trying to be nice and help out whenever I can but I cannot be afforded the least bit of courtesy let alone be helped when I ask for it. Maybe its a perception difference. Maybe its a person to person thing. Actually I do. That description sounds like someone who is anti-social. I don't think hard worker and anti-social are the same. However, if some seldom have anything to say to me while I am going out of my way to speak to them and communicate with them, I don't think I should waste my time with them. Often from what I have found, I try to go out of my way, speak to people, even adopt mannerisms that they seem to be generally comfortable and entertained with, yet it works more to sour the relation.

How would I find the balance?

Seems like a cynical view but given what I have experienced thus far, something I am more inclined to agree with. Though with that said, and especially if such a view is true, I don't see why my time would not be better spent improving my skills than going to parties and networking, seeing as currently I am more a student than someone in the field.

I mean I invest in them, help them out when they ask for it and when I ask them for something they run off. I understand your point but that is what I was referring to in my original post. I have made a mindset of solving things on my own, perhaps to a detriment at this point. Need to talk to someone? Reflect and contemplate in peace and solitude. Need to move a table? Thankfully I'm strong enough to do it solo. I get that I can't do everything on my own but things have gotten to a point where it is difficult to change from my previous attitude. I'm not really very social. I've tried but I find it very difficult. It feels like I am going out of my way and someone else always seems to be the life of the party. Also most of the things being spoken of sound so vapid. All the same old gossip of 'he said, she said, he did, she did'. I personally don't really care how cool you are because you had public bathroom sex. And yes I am serious that that actually came up and the person in question did not hide it.

Isn't the business card thing obnoxious? If so is there a better alternative? Also how does one identify these parties? Are they like the occasional business parties that are held? Or is someone important there, that's why? How can I know the person whom I am trying to network with will support me? As for my brand, so far what I can say is that it some of it entails hard work to the point of eschewing contact with others unless needed. Now this is contrary to networking. Thus part of if not all of my dilemma.

I'm not sure I understood but I would like to clarify, in case, by disagreeable I meant malicious behavior such as spreading untrue rumors behind my back about me.

I've talked to a few people and I think I get the basic gist that you talk to a bunch of people in your field, some outside, make friends and then you have a 'network' of people with certain skills you can fall back on when you need it and your own ability in that area is insufficient and vice versa when they need you. However, practically, for some reason, I just can't fathom it. Or maybe I don't want to. I don't know. Maybe it's my background/upbringing. I haven't thought about it too much. All I know is that it's important and the few people I have asked about it, I couldn't fully understand the concept. Like who do I do it with? Why is it really that important? How do I do it? And is it really worth it if I find the person disagreeable in some way?

I recall a point made by that by Kurzgesagt in one of their videos, for what it's worth. While we do have advanced science now, the brains of early civilization or pre-civilization humans, I think, were a lot more powerful for the sheer fact that they had to do, learn and remember so much just to survive. Also, an interesting concept you brought up of survivalism. What does everybody make of this?

I think about that sometimes. Even among my peers, its the things that bring you some sort of high that are valued a lot.

I think I knew the answer in my heart. I just needed somebody else to speak it to me and do justice to it through their words.

I'm not sure about IQ dependence since I personally haven't looked much into the relation and its debated a fair bit from what I hear. Though with your suggestion, wouldn't it be best to maintain mastery/focus in one specific area and keep minor tabs on the other related areas, just enough to know or get a basic idea of what is going on if those ever come up in your work? If you are very dedicated and spend your time on this then maybe you could build your understanding in the peripheral areas to the point of knowing what is going on unless its very specific/high level.

Well more like when I ask these vague, open ended questions someone says something very interesting like this, maybe more so than my original premise and then I follow up on that. Anyway, I feel like I should I ask, is it possible to branch out just a bit while maintaining focus/mastery of a specific area? If so to what extent?