On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess

In her post Dr. Free-Ride discusses the consequences of a PI regularly articulating his expectations to his lab group, noting:

Undoubtedly, there are PIs out there now who are reasonably open about their expectations and fairly hands-on in interactions with trainees around their shared scientific inquiries. My sense, though, is that they are rare enough that students may find themselves asking, in the presence of such mentors, "He says he wants X, Y, and Z from me, but what does he really want? Will X, Y, and Z be enough, or is there some extra thing that I'm supposed to be smart enough to figure out that he wants, too?"

To be honest, I'm having trouble understanding what possible kinds of "secret" or "mysterious" expectations there could possibly be. Trainees need to (1) learn the relevant literature, (2) learn to be experimentally productive, (3) learn to give decent presentations of their work, (4) learn to write decently (grants and manuscripts), (5) learn to design experiments, (6) learn to be creative and originate new ideas, (7) learn to effectively mentor less-experienced trainees, (8) learn to communicate effectively on an informal basis with other trainees in the lab and with the PI.

Different trainees exhibit different capacities for mastering these different aspects of becoming a scientist, and I'm sure there are some things I have missed. But I am having a really difficult time thinking of what "secret" or "mysterious" expectations there could be.

Reading this, I thought to myself "hells yes!" These are precisely the mad skillz one needs to acquire before offering their grad mentor one final salute, grabbing their PhD, and being sure not to let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

[I was going to Photoshop some hilarious picture to put here, but when you Google "door hit ass" you basically get 2,600,000 pictures of G.W. Bush.]

However, the fact that Ambivalent Academic says the following tells me all parties are not in agreement:

All the ones you mention make good sense and are pretty obvious even if not explicitly stated. No problems there. But then even when you're on top of those (and asking for feedback to be sure you've not dropped the ball) and it is still clear that you have disappointed teh mentorz, for reasons unspecified, it seems the only logical conclusion is that you were expected to do...something else?

I think this reflects a major source of strife between mentors and trainees -- what exactly are the criteria by which one is evaluated and how does one succeed in graduate school?

Figure 1:  What the fuck does he expect me to do with this? And why isn't he on time for our afternoon meeting?

The major difference between undergraduate and graduate education is the mode of evaluation and I think this makes some students very uncomfortable.  At most universities as an undergraduate one is solely primarily fed information and then evaluated via formal written exams on their ability to recall said information.  Passing these exams leads to passing a course, which leads to acquiring credits, which can be amassed and then traded in for a degree.

In contrast, graduate students are evaluated more subjectively. The point of graduate school is not simply to amass scientific knowledge, but to learn to be an independently-thinking scientist and it is this that a committee evaluates. One can say that a skill one must acquire to be an independent scientist is the ability to give an effective presentation.  So, how does one prepare to be evaluated based on their ability to give a presentation?   That is exactly the wrong attitude to approach graduate study with.  If you're still thinking that way (ie, what do I need to do to pass the next test versus what skills can I acquire and who can I learn from to be a better scientist?), knock it off.  Right now.

Rather than focusing on how to prepare for evaluation, one should instead appreciate graduate school for what it is -- a golden opportunity to learn professional skills from different people at different stages in their careers with potentially very different perspectives.  You might see four different faculty members give a presentation and see things in each that you felt were effective and incorporate them into your own.     

So, how the heck do you succeed in graduate school and how do achieve the goals PhysioProf outlines?  Well, first you have to achieve the goal Dr. Isis outlines.  You've gotta learn to investigate the ways those around you are succeeding and assimilate their best qualities.  Do it because it will make you successful, not because you're worried about passing a qualifying exam or a defense.  This means not simply relying on your primary mentor/PI to give you every piece of information you want/need.  This doesn't mean that your mentor shouldn't be guiding you, but it does mean that you should not rely entirely on your mentor, completely missing opportunities to learn from others.   It's important for  mentors and trainees to have an understanding  of the other's needs, but the most important skill learned in graduate school is the ability to seek out information from multiple available sources.

Figure 2: An ineffective strategy for success in graduate school