I enjoyed the story, though maybe it's just me, but I just don't understand the source of tension between the researchers and the author. I interpreted the story as: i) the author volunteers to join research project => ii) a professor on the project sends the project proposal => iii) the author reads the proposal, then asks another researcher on the project why there was verbal discussion on using virtual reality devices, when the written project proposal doesn't mention it => iv) ??? => v) the author loses the research position offer, and the VR club no longer has to be evicted from the room where the research project would take place.
I don't understand why the author's remark that the project proposal lacked a VR mention would have such large consequences. Would it have been against the rules to expand the project beyond what was proposed? Even if so, why did the VR club keep the space, when I expected them to still lose the space for the researchers to conduct the non-VR segments of the project? (Upon further thought, maybe the issue was more that they would lose the VR equipment, rather than the space.)
I also didn't understand the researchers' hostile behavior towards the author. If the professor forwarded the proposal so freely, wouldn't multiple people have noticed? Furthermore, the author just mentioned the omission in a verbal conversation as a point of curiosity, rather than accusing them of wrongdoing. I believe the story happened, but I just don't understand why the people acted the way they did.
I don't see evidence of hostile behaviour. Could just be awkward interactions. The framing set by the title is also kind of funny, I don't see how this person did anything to change anything in this context. Did I miss something?
The professor withdrew the offer to the author to have a research internship with the lab (seemingly as a result of the conversation), then both researchers avoided discussing project details with him.
Near the conclusion: "From then on, both Alphonse and Beckham were very tight-lipped about the project. They consistently needed to leave for a meeting right when I came to talk to them after class, and would say that the project was "undergoing some changes." I managed to corner Professor Alphonse and one of his grad students towards the end of the semester to ask whether I would still have my research assistantship for the Summer. He, very politely, told me, "I would say that the position is...tentative. I'd recommend that you take any other opportunities instead of waiting on this one." As I was about to explain that I did not have any other opportunities, he had a meeting to get to and hurried off, interrupting me when I tried to speak."
This is from the author's perspective, which just feels wrong. It doesn't feel natural. I cannot believe anyone would feel 'caught out' by the student-professor exchange. The scope of the project was a little vague, and the research team would just shape it as it went along.
The 'gotcha' moment just doesn't exist here; the awkwardness sounds like something that was artificially perceived on the student's side. In any usual situation, the professor would say... "sure, but we're going to do it anyway" or "sure, but we'll expand scope" or, more likely yet, "sure, but we'll work it out as we go along".
With respect to the retraction of the offer, it is more likely to be because either: 1) the research team failed to organise bits and pieces in time, shifting priorities, or just didn't fully commit to the project in the first place; or, and I hate to say this, 2) the exchange revealed that the student was a little socially awkward, which they took as a red flag.
Same here, they make a big deal about the VR part not being part of the proposal, which shows a big misunderstanding of the grant writing and collaboration process. If the grant was a colla orative project, clearly both researchers would have read it, it might have just been the case that both had some funding and decided to work together on a broader project.
I also find it interesting that the author thinks that a multimillion dollar facility being used for a student club to play VR games over it being used for research is a good thing and that it was somehow amoral by the professor to ask for that space
Re: The author's opinions on the VR club using that space.
I got the impression from reading it that he honestly didn't care if the VR club lived or died - he event pointed out in the story that "I had managed to hear about the VR club's impending dissolution from some gossip around the computer science labs as well as other staff at the Center and I...didn't care about any of this"
Additionally, he absolutely jumped at the opportunity to join the research project that would've used the space in order to get an internship and only ended up saving the VR club by accidentally mentioning something to a professor who had different impressions of how the research was supposed to work.
My understanding from reading this is that the author possibly introduced some tension into the research group by letting it slip to the VR-oriented professor that he didn't see anything VR related in the proposal, and it is likely this professor then went to the other professor (the one who pitched the proposal) and asked why it wasn't there.
It feels like because of this, maybe the two professors were unsure if they could trust the student any more and just basically froze them out (hence the awkward interactions)
Edit: Alternatively the resulting issues from the one professor's project not being within the proposal caused it to stall out or have to be re-pitched, which in the academic world could likely cause a delay or cause issues with the funding, and that would also result in the professors not being overly thrilled with that student.
Everyone is an unreliable narrator - they often don't notice the problems they themselves bring (if they did, they might try not to). That also means they don't remember those details/problems or think them relevant. So although the author remembers it as being a point of curiosity, it wasn't necessarily as clear as that.
But also, on the flip-side, it's quite possible for a non-malicious comment to seem like (via rumour/hearsay) an intent to undermine others, especially if it concerns information considered to be private.
8 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 31.4 ms ] threadI don't understand why the author's remark that the project proposal lacked a VR mention would have such large consequences. Would it have been against the rules to expand the project beyond what was proposed? Even if so, why did the VR club keep the space, when I expected them to still lose the space for the researchers to conduct the non-VR segments of the project? (Upon further thought, maybe the issue was more that they would lose the VR equipment, rather than the space.)
I also didn't understand the researchers' hostile behavior towards the author. If the professor forwarded the proposal so freely, wouldn't multiple people have noticed? Furthermore, the author just mentioned the omission in a verbal conversation as a point of curiosity, rather than accusing them of wrongdoing. I believe the story happened, but I just don't understand why the people acted the way they did.
Near the conclusion: "From then on, both Alphonse and Beckham were very tight-lipped about the project. They consistently needed to leave for a meeting right when I came to talk to them after class, and would say that the project was "undergoing some changes." I managed to corner Professor Alphonse and one of his grad students towards the end of the semester to ask whether I would still have my research assistantship for the Summer. He, very politely, told me, "I would say that the position is...tentative. I'd recommend that you take any other opportunities instead of waiting on this one." As I was about to explain that I did not have any other opportunities, he had a meeting to get to and hurried off, interrupting me when I tried to speak."
The 'gotcha' moment just doesn't exist here; the awkwardness sounds like something that was artificially perceived on the student's side. In any usual situation, the professor would say... "sure, but we're going to do it anyway" or "sure, but we'll expand scope" or, more likely yet, "sure, but we'll work it out as we go along".
With respect to the retraction of the offer, it is more likely to be because either: 1) the research team failed to organise bits and pieces in time, shifting priorities, or just didn't fully commit to the project in the first place; or, and I hate to say this, 2) the exchange revealed that the student was a little socially awkward, which they took as a red flag.
I also find it interesting that the author thinks that a multimillion dollar facility being used for a student club to play VR games over it being used for research is a good thing and that it was somehow amoral by the professor to ask for that space
I got the impression from reading it that he honestly didn't care if the VR club lived or died - he event pointed out in the story that "I had managed to hear about the VR club's impending dissolution from some gossip around the computer science labs as well as other staff at the Center and I...didn't care about any of this"
Additionally, he absolutely jumped at the opportunity to join the research project that would've used the space in order to get an internship and only ended up saving the VR club by accidentally mentioning something to a professor who had different impressions of how the research was supposed to work.
It feels like because of this, maybe the two professors were unsure if they could trust the student any more and just basically froze them out (hence the awkward interactions)
Edit: Alternatively the resulting issues from the one professor's project not being within the proposal caused it to stall out or have to be re-pitched, which in the academic world could likely cause a delay or cause issues with the funding, and that would also result in the professors not being overly thrilled with that student.
But also, on the flip-side, it's quite possible for a non-malicious comment to seem like (via rumour/hearsay) an intent to undermine others, especially if it concerns information considered to be private.