Wow, that sucker is big

My thesis. In the required double-spaced format, that thing is 460 pages long. Too big, in fact.

I'm reading through the introduction again, for the first time in over a year, and I like it. I wouldn't say the organization is the best, but the writing flows - something I really pay attention to in others' writing, and try to emulate. And there are a lot of good ideas in there, from:

me, my experiences and thoughts, but all built on the work of others...

(1) the literature on academic speaking (Karen Tracy has done a lot of work on the goals of a colloquium in a communications department, and how conflicts between individual goals and institutional goals clash),

(2) studies of the culture of high-energy physics (Sharon Traweek),

(3) research on beliefs about intelligence (Carol S. Dweck - praising kids, and I think by extension people, for their hard work vs for their smarts, to achieve a score on an exam makes a HUGE difference in how they approach future tests, goals, challenges. Note: Praising for effort is the one you want to concentrate on. Praising for smarts can make them scared of challenges and of trying too hard),

and a lot of other smaller studies. A personal favorite I'd forgotten about is the idea of whether a great scientist is born or made. The beliefs of an academic community about this issue will drive all aspects of graduate student training.

If a great scientist is born, then the grad admissions process is key, because the point is to find the great minds, the future geniuses, and put enough barriers in place to keep out the ones who aren't supposed to make it. Who doesn't make it into or through graduate school is just a measure of who wasn't meant to be a scientist - it is the individual's fitness or lack thereof to blame.

If a great scientist is made, then it is the training that students get once in the program that counts. Are all the skills that one needs to do great science being taught? To all students? Explicitly? What are the official courses in the department? Are writing and speaking (which can make a big deal in hiring decisions) being explicitly taught and mentored, or is this falling to whoever a student's advisor happens to be. If students don't make it, it is the fault of the program.

Yes, those two options are pretty extreme, and there is likely a mixture of causes of student attrition, but I feel like academic departments and their employees often act much more like great scientists are born, and there is a sense that if they become nicer, or give more mentoring on things like how to ask a good question at a talk, or how to navigate the politics of the field, there is a danger of dumbing down the process. Oh my, who might make it through the gauntlet if we told all students everything explicitly?

So I'm sitting here in the middle, ok beginning, of a huge document I've written and forgotten the details of, trying to pull out some things for tomorrow's workshop. Still not sure where to focus, but there is a lot to think about in the next 24+ hours.