I think about this a lot. My grad program was maximally unstructured and where I loved that, I really loved it. When I hated it, it was not because of the lack of structure but because that lack opened you up to serious threats from bad professors. I did one field with a professor who just handed me a list of things to read, didn't want to meet or talk about it ever, had no seminar I could join, and who was then profoundly hostile to me during my qualifying oral because in my written exam I challenged some of his pet theories. (I still thought that open debate and critical thinking was the point.) That's on me for being naive but in a more structured situation I might have seen it coming earlier and wised up before being in danger that way. I think generally that's what structure ought to be: guardrails at cliffs and hazards, but otherwise, make study a big old off-road paradise where you go where you want.
Agree with the general sentiment, my grad experience was very unstructured and its for that exact quality that I'll always treasure the experience.
But it was also very recent! My impression was that the amount of structure was very determined by the PI - some profs created intense internal structures for their group, and others were laissez-faire. Prospective students would arrive, meet with the profs, and attempt to self-sort by their inclination. I could see a lot of my peers benefiting from structured research programs, that it gave them more confidence, whereas others clearly felt stifled and unhappy. The best reform imo was therefore to give students more freedom to change research groups early on without any implication that they had 'failed to make it work' with their first PI.
Though there are ways that I would have benefited from a bit more structure at times, the sorts of structure that Faculty Center Workshop Enthusiasts would prefer probably would not have been my cup of tea.
You make a very good point about personality types and the evolving structure of academia. I think we're getting more and more people whose ideal might be summarized as "We need Best Practices to systematically produce more creative out-of-the-box ideas! Is there a rubric and structure that will ensure greater diversity of original ideas?" Because they don't get irony.
(Sadly, even some Gen X types fall for this crap, despite our love of irony.)
I’m the same personality type that you are, so it makes sense that I had the same experiences with undergrad vs. grad school. The only advantage I can imagine I would have had with more structure in grad school is that I might have finished a bit faster because someone might have stopped me from going down a couple of unproductive rabbit holes that ended up using a lot of time without contributing much to my final thesis.
I kind of agree with the general thrust of your post, but you also seem to be using the concept of structure rather broadly/vaguely. Perhaps you could be more, um, structured about your usage? :-) For example, there is the issue of structure on homework assignments versus structure on summative assessments, about which bio instructor Jayme Dyer has a nice post trying to find her way through the more-structure/less-structure paradox. Let's see if I'm allowed to leave a link.... https://www.jaymedyer.com/blog/redesigning-intro-bio-part-5-grading.
I'm being a little vague about things because I'm trying not to be obviously venting about specific things at work that have bugged me; that too easily veers into being really inappropriate. Regarding that post, I'll say that while I have a lot of sympathy for the idea (and have, in the past, used a standards-based grading scheme that did some of the same things), that specific scheme is WAYYYYY too much. There's a limit to the amount of logistical hassle I'm willing to deal with no matter how noble the goal.
I think at least some of the arguments for more structure are (as Jayme writes) solidly rooted in equity issues. In biology, we often tell students that to succeed on tests they'll need to "think critically" and "solve problems," so they shouldn't just memorize everything... But then we do a poor job showing them what that means and how to prepare. Students without the family background that you and I have, or the confidence or time to go to office hours, etc. may be less successful in figuring out what a prof's expectations are. Here I think extra structure can do important work leveling the playing field. (And if you google "Test Question Templates," you'll find thousands of additional words of verbiage from me on that topic...)
I think about this a lot. My grad program was maximally unstructured and where I loved that, I really loved it. When I hated it, it was not because of the lack of structure but because that lack opened you up to serious threats from bad professors. I did one field with a professor who just handed me a list of things to read, didn't want to meet or talk about it ever, had no seminar I could join, and who was then profoundly hostile to me during my qualifying oral because in my written exam I challenged some of his pet theories. (I still thought that open debate and critical thinking was the point.) That's on me for being naive but in a more structured situation I might have seen it coming earlier and wised up before being in danger that way. I think generally that's what structure ought to be: guardrails at cliffs and hazards, but otherwise, make study a big old off-road paradise where you go where you want.
Agree with the general sentiment, my grad experience was very unstructured and its for that exact quality that I'll always treasure the experience.
But it was also very recent! My impression was that the amount of structure was very determined by the PI - some profs created intense internal structures for their group, and others were laissez-faire. Prospective students would arrive, meet with the profs, and attempt to self-sort by their inclination. I could see a lot of my peers benefiting from structured research programs, that it gave them more confidence, whereas others clearly felt stifled and unhappy. The best reform imo was therefore to give students more freedom to change research groups early on without any implication that they had 'failed to make it work' with their first PI.
Though there are ways that I would have benefited from a bit more structure at times, the sorts of structure that Faculty Center Workshop Enthusiasts would prefer probably would not have been my cup of tea.
You make a very good point about personality types and the evolving structure of academia. I think we're getting more and more people whose ideal might be summarized as "We need Best Practices to systematically produce more creative out-of-the-box ideas! Is there a rubric and structure that will ensure greater diversity of original ideas?" Because they don't get irony.
(Sadly, even some Gen X types fall for this crap, despite our love of irony.)
Off-topic (TAN:), but it's making my day to see you and Paul cross over in my feed. Clearly your best common feature is knowing me...
I’m the same personality type that you are, so it makes sense that I had the same experiences with undergrad vs. grad school. The only advantage I can imagine I would have had with more structure in grad school is that I might have finished a bit faster because someone might have stopped me from going down a couple of unproductive rabbit holes that ended up using a lot of time without contributing much to my final thesis.
I kind of agree with the general thrust of your post, but you also seem to be using the concept of structure rather broadly/vaguely. Perhaps you could be more, um, structured about your usage? :-) For example, there is the issue of structure on homework assignments versus structure on summative assessments, about which bio instructor Jayme Dyer has a nice post trying to find her way through the more-structure/less-structure paradox. Let's see if I'm allowed to leave a link.... https://www.jaymedyer.com/blog/redesigning-intro-bio-part-5-grading.
I'm being a little vague about things because I'm trying not to be obviously venting about specific things at work that have bugged me; that too easily veers into being really inappropriate. Regarding that post, I'll say that while I have a lot of sympathy for the idea (and have, in the past, used a standards-based grading scheme that did some of the same things), that specific scheme is WAYYYYY too much. There's a limit to the amount of logistical hassle I'm willing to deal with no matter how noble the goal.
I think at least some of the arguments for more structure are (as Jayme writes) solidly rooted in equity issues. In biology, we often tell students that to succeed on tests they'll need to "think critically" and "solve problems," so they shouldn't just memorize everything... But then we do a poor job showing them what that means and how to prepare. Students without the family background that you and I have, or the confidence or time to go to office hours, etc. may be less successful in figuring out what a prof's expectations are. Here I think extra structure can do important work leveling the playing field. (And if you google "Test Question Templates," you'll find thousands of additional words of verbiage from me on that topic...)