Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971212034321.00963dac@email.rci.rutgers.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 03:43:21 -0500
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
From: wayne brekhus <brekhus@rci.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re:  professional socialization in graduate programs
In-Reply-To: <199712112131.QAA27099@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 04:31 PM 12/11/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>4) the graduate director and the staff person in charge of helping people
>>find grants
>
>Could you tell a bit more about what this person does exactly, and what
>her qualifications are? We have no one who does that.

Sure.  She is a full time "research coordinator" for the Center for Social
Research and Instruction Grant Support Center which is affiliated with the
sociology department.  As I understand it her primary job is to help people
find grants by gathering information for them, helping newer folks (i.e.
grad students) navigate the maze of funding opportunities, write proposals
and the like.  The CSRI helps administer grants and set up websites for a
several of the social sciences and humanities at Rutgers.  And within the
sociology dept. itself this staff person is really there to help graduate
students with finding outside funding sources such as fellowships and small
grants.  This is pretty important here since graduate students, for the
most part, are doing independent projects and thus don't have access to as
many faculty projects to piggyback onto (except in medical sociology and
some economic sociology where there are more collaborative opportunities
available).  
 
>Our mentoring structures are a bit different from Rutgers. Here, every
>student is required to do at least two RAs of at least a semester's
>length with at least two different professors. The advantage over
>Rutger's plan is that students get more varied and intensive contact
>with faculty. The disadvantage re Rutgers is that students work on
>faculty projects rather than their own. Here, students have a good
>shot at a co-authorship in a first-rate journal. At Rutgers, you
>have a better shot at a sole authorship, although cracking a top
>journal is rough for a beginner.

I'm not sure what you mean by more varied contacts, but otherwise I would
largely agree with these relative advantages and disadvantages of the
models.  I would add that the Hopkins model also gives competitive
advantages in methodological sophistication because of the hands on
research training.  Our model, perhaps, provides advantages in developing
one's own individual analytic contribution to their field.  The solo-author
Rutgers model also lends itself well for turning one's dissertation into a
book and developing a trajectory for book writing. The collaboration model
at other places like Hopkins lends itself well to a research trajectory of
getting grants, and producing articles in top-tier journals. These things
aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, of course. 

I'd agree too, that the key is the "institutional structure" which you
mention below.  The exact form on that structure will vary depending on the
ability of department's to fund RA's, the types of methodological and
substantive specialties of the programs and the like. 

>But both approaches suggest that the department has an institutional
>structure that ensures that each student in the program has access
>to mentoring experiences with at least two professors. Seems to me that
>some variant of these plans should be in place at *every* department.
>
>I think the writing seminar is a valuable element of the program. Here,
>it began as a student-run program for the first few years. The faculty
>realized that it was good, and made it a required course, now led by
>a professor. Writing a paper and getting faculty comments is available
>to any grad student anywhere, but the writing seminar serves as a
>kick in the pants for less ambitious and less motivated students.

Yes, and it's also an eye-opener for students who just really haven't
figured out what the game is all about yet.  The key to success in graduate
school is to make the transition from student to scholar. Traditionally,
perhaps, getting the Ph.D. marked this transition.  Now with ratcheting
credentials and all, the full transition to scholar needs to happen much
sooner while one is still in graduate school. A writing seminar geared
towards professional journals and revisions is an explicit message that
it's not about your grades, or meeting degree requirements, or dancing
through institutional hoops, it's having something interesting to say to
the community of scholars outside your university. Some people come in
knowing that message, but those who aren't as knowledgeable about what this
whole acedemia thing is about need the "eye opener" just like less
motivated students benefit from the "kick in the pants."      


>
>But to teach how to format a CV, apply for a job, write a cover letter,
>what the headings are in a journal article and what order they come in--
>this is relatively trivial stuff. I think it's a waste of faculty time
>to have them teaching this kind of thing.

I probably should have said a little more about what goes on at these "town
meetings" where the graduate director and two or three other faculty talk
about these things.  The CV meeting did talk a little about formatting, but
it was a lot more about how 2nd and 3rd year students should be thinking
about what they want their research trajectory to look like. It was about
how to create a cv with both breadth and depth in one's actions so that
when it comes down to actually formatting it, you have something
outstanding to format.  Obviously only learning formatting isn't going to
help much if you don't have "the goods."  Similarly much of the teaching
portfolio meeting centered around how to balance teaching and research.
This may seem minor, but its a critical issue here where students teach
many of theor own classes and the immediate gratification of teaching can
draw people away from the drudgery of research where payoffs may be 1, 2 or
even more years down the road. And just having an atmosphere where 3 or 4
faculty open up questions to students from every cohort (and eventually
older students are answering younger cohorts questions etc.) I think
contributes to a climate of professional socialization which might not be
acheived as fully through everyone simply seeking out such information as
individuals.

I'm willing to grant that these things may seem mundane, but excellence is
often created through multiple mundane practices.  Dan Chambliss'
illustrated this in an article about Olympic Swimmers called "The Mundanity
of Excellence" (basically he showed that the variance between olympic stars
and less accomplished elite swimmers was nothing more than the stars better
training in the mundane skills of becoming a first class swimmer--trivial
stuff like proper technique in pushing off the walls etc..) and the same
probably holds true for creating "championship" scholars so to speak. I
would contend that the variance between a "champion" scholar and someone
who becomes a chronic ABD isn't "talent," it's knowing how to write a grant
proposal, how to manage one's writing time, or how to submit an article to
a journal, and the like.

In any rate, the amount of faculty time for some of these things is not
that much. And faculty do plenty of committee work and other forms of
service that are equally mundane and seemingly a waste of time. Of course
your compromise solutions are a possible alternative if faculty are
unwilling or unable to take on a larger role in the more mundane aspects of
professional socialization. 

Wayne Brekhus
Rutgers