Did You Work Outside of Academia Before Becoming a FT or PT Faculty?

[secundem_artem]

My point was that, as I indicated upthread, if an employer needs workers with "soft skills", such as "oral and written communication", do you think an English graduate with a C has good written communication skills? Not likely.

I wonder how much time you've actually spent in front of the classroom, Marshy.

There are many reasons students get Cs and Ds as well as As and Bs.

I have given very good writers Cs on their work because, frankly, they don't care all that much to do the hard work.  They are perfectly good communicators, and will do fine in the working world, but they simply want the piece of paper and don't particularly care what grades they get; their focus is the job they will get down the line.  On the other hand, I have givens Cs to people who are overcoming personal issues, cultural issues (such as poverty or abusive households growing up), who were poorly trained in the secondary schooling, who have a learning disability diagnosed or not diagnosed, or some combination of all of these----most of these people have taken advantage of rewriting options on my syllabus, my help during office hours, and writing centers to work up to A and B-level work. 

And sure, sometimes one gets the student who really should be looking for some other pathway in life.  Seldom are the "poor communicators" English majors in my experience; these are people who read and like to write.  In fact, I am generally overjoyed when I get an English major in one of my classes.

You're just puffing stereotypes that don't really exist, Marshy.

Word.  I had trouble adjusting to college my Freshman year and spent my Sophomore year drunk.  I flunked O-chem, got a D in calculus and was ranked 2nd (last) in my class.  My undergrad experience (at a university usually ranked in the top 25 worldwide) was horrible.  Faculty simply saw students as an impediment to their research careers.  Teaching assistants nearly universally spoke with heavy accents that were difficult to understand.  The uni clearly did not give a flying fvck about me and to this day, I do not give a flying fvck about it.  Dear Alma Mater can kiss my Royal Canadian Buttocks.

I eventually got my sh!t together, and finished my undergrad in the upper half of my class.  After talking my way in, I did well in both my master's and doctoral programs and am now a tenured full with an endowed chair.  Had a classmate in my doctoral program who had a 4.0 for her entire undergrad career.  But in grad school, could not find her own ass with a map and a set of instructions.

If nothing else, I've learned that grades are not predictive of much.  They are just a lazy man's way to rank or winnow down a list of candidates - whether for a job or grad school.  And as they say in law schools, A students graduate to work for C students.

[Tee_Bee]

I worked in state government jobs, including for a governor, for five years. Interesting, although the first two years were really boring until the people I worked for saw what I could do. But after five years, I realized it was no or never on the PhD. So I did academia, and never looked back. All the people I worked with who had PhDs (about five or so of them) all told me how awful academia was, which made me nervous, until I realized that there was, perhaps, some systematic bias in that sample.....

[Juvenal]

I spent four summers as a kind of tech in a paper mill.  It told me that mixing great vats of sodium hydroxide solution, having made it to the vat-site on my bicycle at 3 a.m. on a humid Florida summer night...  Told me... Well, yes, other things seemed (somehow) more attractive.

[the_geneticist]

I worked summer jobs at a food both, as an office assistant, and a petsitter during late high school and early college.  In college, I worked in the college dining hall (started as a dishwasher, ended as a shift manager) and then as a paid student researcher.  I was pretty lucky that I didn't have to get other jobs during my undergrad years.

I have to say that the soft skills from being a manager have been REALLY helpful as a scientist (organization,  multitasking, putting out fires- sometimes actual flames, managing people, problem solving in a crisis, etc.)

[mamselle]

I'm amused by all the dishwashers...

You know you're in good company, right?

George Orwell was a plongeur in Paris....

M.

[mahagonny]

I'm amused by all the dishwashers...

You know you're in good company, right?

George Orwell was a plongeur in Paris....

M.

The experience of working in the restaurant was a little like my early days being an adjunct. The left hand didn't always know what the right hand was doing. Most of the help were Puerto Rican so they were talking in Spanish among each other. I was trained for part of the job but not all of it. The Puerto Ricans had a kind of machismo about the job, the pace and workload. Their attitude was, bring it on, no matter how frenzied it gets, I handle it, and so well, I might even take a cigarette break just to show how fast I am. Safety hazards were everywhere. I was too shy to ask for help. I felt like the ugly duckling. I was so ashamed of myself I would work an extra 30-40 minutes after punching out so the next guy wouldn't have a mess to clean up. Everyone was astonished.
One day about 2 a.m. the waitress's husband, who didn't even work there, was stopping off to hang out, noticed the dishes weren't coming out on time. He went back in to the kitchen, watched me for a minute, and said 'may I show you something?' After he was done I had the right method. Instead of saying 'you don't know what you're doing do you' he said 'this way, it'll go a little faster and you'll have more time for yourself.' A real gentleman. Of course that had a downside. When things were slow the boss would ask you to scrub the walls.
I quit that restaurant and went to work at an upscale one with a day shift where my girlfriend worked. Everyone said 'holy shit, did you see that new guy? He's fast.'
Working class hero.

[marshwiggle]

If nothing else, I've learned that grades are not predictive of much.  They are just a lazy man's way to rank or winnow down a list of candidates - whether for a job or grad school.  And as they say in law schools, A students graduate to work for C students.

I'm curious; does this apply to your own courses as well? Is a student who gets a C in your course more capable than one who gets an A?

[fishbrains]

I worked in foodservice--mostly kitchen management--for over 15 years before I caught this CC full-time teaching gig.

I miss clocking out, going home, and not thinking much about the job until the next day. With teaching, there is always something to grade, classes to prep for, committee work, club work, etc. I don't feel I'm ever "off" until the end of the semester. I also miss just being able to tell someone to just shut the f*ck up without worrying about the politics (and I miss being told to shut the f*ck up when I'm being an idiot). I also kind of miss being able to fire incompetent a$$holes. There was genuine diversity in restaurants as well. We could also solve most problems without paperwork or forming a committee.

Things to like about this gig: healthcare, dental care, longevity pay, sick days I can actually use, air conditioning, the calendar work year of a schoolchild, an office door that shuts, not having any drunk dishwashers throwing knives at everyone, not having to work a double shift because someone quit without notice again, a general feeling of safety, nice students (mostly), tenure, etc.

About once a year I wax nostalgic about the restaurant days, but no. Just no.

[csguy]

Worked part time (full time summers) at a large corporation while a grad student. It was OK. Applied for a job with a different company and if they had met my salary demands I probably would have quit academia. Of course that company is long gone now ...

[secundem_artem]

If nothing else, I've learned that grades are not predictive of much.  They are just a lazy man's way to rank or winnow down a list of candidates - whether for a job or grad school.  And as they say in law schools, A students graduate to work for C students.

I'm curious; does this apply to your own courses as well? Is a student who gets a C in your course more capable than one who gets an A?

Capable of doing what?  I'm in an allied health field.  Students need to learn a combination of factual knowledge and be able to apply it to human beings.  Faculty outside my department emphasize and test on the factual bits.  I do the more human pieces since most of the factual bits now fit on a student's phone.  A student who gets As in the factual bits and a student who gets As in the human bits both get As (or Bs or Cs).  But their skill sets are not necessarily comparable.

[Caracal]

If nothing else, I've learned that grades are not predictive of much.  They are just a lazy man's way to rank or winnow down a list of candidates - whether for a job or grad school. 

It isn't that grades don't show something about someone's ability and work ethic, its just that I doubt it they usually help to differentiate how good someone is going to be at something from other candidates. If you are examining a bunch of applications to actuarial school, I'm guessing you're going to see a lot of people who majored in math, or something related, and got good grades in their major. Are those people, on average, better suited to going to actuarial school than people who got Cs in their math classes? Well, sure, but not many of those C students are probably planning on an actuarial career. If they are, then it might be more a case like secundem's and a school would probably be particularly interested in what the recs have to say.

[marshwiggle]

If nothing else, I've learned that grades are not predictive of much.  They are just a lazy man's way to rank or winnow down a list of candidates - whether for a job or grad school.  And as they say in law schools, A students graduate to work for C students.

I'm curious; does this apply to your own courses as well? Is a student who gets a C in your course more capable than one who gets an A?

Capable of doing what?  I'm in an allied health field.  Students need to learn a combination of factual knowledge and be able to apply it to human beings.  Faculty outside my department emphasize and test on the factual bits.  I do the more human pieces since most of the factual bits now fit on a student's phone. A student who gets As in the factual bits and a student who gets As in the human bits both get As (or Bs or Cs).  But their skill sets are not necessarily comparable.

But if they have to have both, then to get an A students must have at least a decent grasp of both of those things. On the other hand, a C student would presumably have a poor grasp of at least one of them. So while it may be that a C student could be slightly superior in one to an A student, the C student would be way worse at the other.  If a student can get an A while tanking one area completely, it seems to me the grading system is off. (If there are many areas, then it's more plausible that defieciencies in one could be offset by being brilliant in all of the others, but with just two that doesn't make sense.)

[Kron3007]

If nothing else, I've learned that grades are not predictive of much.  They are just a lazy man's way to rank or winnow down a list of candidates - whether for a job or grad school.  And as they say in law schools, A students graduate to work for C students.

I'm curious; does this apply to your own courses as well? Is a student who gets a C in your course more capable than one who gets an A?

Capable of doing what?  I'm in an allied health field.  Students need to learn a combination of factual knowledge and be able to apply it to human beings.  Faculty outside my department emphasize and test on the factual bits.  I do the more human pieces since most of the factual bits now fit on a student's phone. A student who gets As in the factual bits and a student who gets As in the human bits both get As (or Bs or Cs).  But their skill sets are not necessarily comparable.

But if they have to have both, then to get an A students must have at least a decent grasp of both of those things. On the other hand, a C student would presumably have a poor grasp of at least one of them. So while it may be that a C student could be slightly superior in one to an A student, the C student would be way worse at the other.  If a student can get an A while tanking one area completely, it seems to me the grading system is off. (If there are many areas, then it's more plausible that defieciencies in one could be offset by being brilliant in all of the others, but with just two that doesn't make sense.)

If I had two students to choose from, one with an A and one with a C, and nothing else to consider I would definitely choose the A student.  Obviously grades mean something or else we would not assign them.

However, there are many other situations that could contribute to these grades other than aptitude or understanding of the material and if you have these pieces of information it should be considered.  For example, were they both working through University?  Did they both have full course loads?  Was the C student tending to their aging parents health needs?  Are they on a farm helping with all the regular activities while in school (I get this quite a bit due to my university/location)?   Grades partially reflect a student's understanding or mastery of a subject, but depending on the rubrics can just as easily reflect the amount of time they could dedicate to the class and some people simply have fewer other things distracting them from academics than others. 

From my experience, there are C students that are the better choice for some jobs/projects than some A students and vice versa, which is why I dont put too much stock in them (not to say I dont consider them, especially since they are critical for students to get major scholarships).  I have seen this many times so it is not a theoretical activity, it is hard learned lessons about employee/student performance.     

 

[marshwiggle]

If I had two students to choose from, one with an A and one with a C, and nothing else to consider I would definitely choose the A student.  Obviously grades mean something or else we would not assign them.

That's what I would have thought. That's why I find comments like this to be kind of surprising:

If nothing else, I've learned that grades are not predictive of much.  They are just a lazy man's way to rank or winnow down a list of candidates - whether for a job or grad school.  And as they say in law schools, A students graduate to work for C students.

As you say, the amount of effort each of us makes in assigning grades suggests that we feel it has significant merit.

However, there are many other situations that could contribute to these grades other than aptitude or understanding of the material and if you have these pieces of information it should be considered.  For example, were they both working through University?  Did they both have full course loads?  Was the C student tending to their aging parents health needs?  Are they on a farm helping with all the regular activities while in school (I get this quite a bit due to my university/location)?   Grades partially reflect a student's understanding or mastery of a subject, but depending on the rubrics can just as easily reflect the amount of time they could dedicate to the class and some people simply have fewer other things distracting them from academics than others. 

From my experience, there are C students that are the better choice for some jobs/projects than some A students and vice versa, which is why I dont put too much stock in them (not to say I dont consider them, especially since they are critical for students to get major scholarships).  I have seen this many times so it is not a theoretical activity, it is hard learned lessons about employee/student performance.     

In my experience, the "underperforming geniuses" are pretty thin on the ground. I can think of specific students that fit that bill precisely because they are relatively rare, maybe 1% of my students.

Here's what I can say about students who get A's in my courses:

• If there are instructions, they try to follow them.
• If there are deadlines and/or requirements, they try to meet them.

The problem with the "underperforming geniuses" (UG) is that how well they do on something depends very greatly on how much it interests them. If it does, they can knock it out of the park; if it doesn't, they may do absolutely nothing. Most jobs have parts that are not fun for anyone, but have to get done. And often, with specific deadlines. The A students can be counted on for these, even if in some creative aspects of the job the UG will do better.

When I hire TAs, I want them to have great insights. However, I need them to grade consistently, hand in grades correctly and return things to students on time. Those are exactly the things I can't count on the UGs for.

(As an aside, many students think themselves to be UGs. The vast majority aren't geniuses; their best work is just average, and they're mostly just lazy and/or disorganized. I blame it on high schools giving them an inflated sense of how brilliant they are.)

[Kron3007]

I'm not necessarily talking about underperforming geniuses.  Most projects/jobs do not need genius, they need smart enough with a strong work ethic.  For my TAs I may lean your way, but for grad students it is very important that they have a good enough understanding of the theory but it is equally important that they are willing to grind through the often tedious work that research often is.  In my field, experiments and procedure often don't go exactly as planned and I need people who can figure it out on the fly and make things work as best as possible.  I find this is an attribute that is not reflected in grades.

I just had a student complete their MSc.  They were a B/C student that barely made it in to the program, but they put in the work and with some guidance they did a great job in completing the program.  This student grew up helping with the family business and while they are academically not the strongest student, they made up for it through hard work, resourcefulness, and dedication.   

I have a current student that came in with an A average and is really struggling with the day to day reality of research.  While they like classes and theory (hence the As), it seems that doing the actual work required in grad school is not their cup of tea.  While they are academically very good, I dont know that they will put in the hands on work that is needed to complete the degree, or at least will not take full advantage of the opportunities presented. 

  Of course, I also have A students that are great all around and C students that dont work out, but I dont find that performance in grad school or on the job is well reflected by transcripts.