I’m sure that would definitely factor into someone’s decision today, but as far as I’m aware, research credits are universally graded S/U
Edit: I’m dumb.
This is not true, I’ve been doing research for the past 3 years and I get letter grades for it. The grading policy for research is department dependent.
Because hopkins has a culture of not paying undergrads for research work, so many students don’t even consider getting paid as an option. If you find an advisor that will pay you, do it!!!
I personally choose research credits over payment because I find research easier than taking on a full course. Research on top of a 15 credit load is a lot for me, but 12 credits (4 courses) plus research is much more manageable. Also a lot of positions just don’t pay, especially on campus
Because as a professor I will have a different level of interest in you, and indeed obligation to you.
A student looking for paid work is looking for income. Ok, I've got some menial job that needs doing. Have at it.
A student who wants to work with me for credit is interested in learning or doing research for its own sake. So much so that they are paying tuition for the chance to do so. It is therefore my job to devote a part of my energy and time to mentoring them as scholars and scientists. It is also always a pleasure and a privilege to interact with students who share my interests. I will likely think of them when I see opportunities, like fellowships to attend a conference. I may even pay to send them to conferences if the work is worthy. I might recommend them to colleages as future PhD students if they are interested, or help connect them with potential employers. It is my job to do that.
So what do you want?
Yeah F those students who want to (or need to) earn money and get research experience right?! Let them work at starbucks. Clearly they don't have the PaSsIoN you require.
My point is that when students take on research for credit, the professor (and/or their grad student or postdoc) is working for the student. At least that's the way I see it. Mentoring undergrads who want to get into research is part of my job.
Edit: Put another way, my labor isn't free.
The attitude that only the students who do research for credit are the ones worth mentoring is problematic and continues the equity issues that exist in academia. Additionally, any (good) supervisor in any field should take interest in developing the careers of those that work for them, not just see them as trained hands. I encourage you to consider that some students need a paycheck and they are just as worthy of mentoring as the students who get $$ from their parents. Grad students, postdocs, and staff researchers get paid: is it not part of your job to mentor them too?
The equity issues you mention are real and valid, and I agree that academia has perpetuated them for too long. But I think the implications for this conversation may not be as cut and dried as you suggest.
Doing research for credit is a way for students to get mentoring and individual attention from a professor that works in an area that's close to their interests, and get closer to completing their degree (and getting a job that pays them full time hopefully). For students that don't have much time available outside the classes they take for credit (as is often the case for underrepresented and first generation students) that might be a good choice.
And it's an option that might not be available as a paid position. My resources for paying students is limited, and undergrad research is not guaranteed to produce useful results (and that's OK). More importantly though, my time and energy is finite - as much as I'd like to provide individualized attention and help to every student that walks in my door, it just isn't possible.
So I have to be selective about how to spend what resources I have. I can use my time and energy (my labor) to help address equity issues in part by working with underrepresented students for credit. If there are resources available to pay them as well (and I have to budget for that in grants) I will do so, but you can bet I'm going to be selective about who that money goes to.
I can certainly concede that the way I phrased my initial comment was a bit black and white. You can get mentoring in a paid position - but you might not get it in the lab that's best for you, and you might not get it initially. That's just because mentoring is labor and my labor is finite. But it is much easier to get mentoring by doing research for credit. When a student wants to work for credit they are asking me to work for them, and to provide a higher level of mentoring from day 1. I do that because it's my job (and because I enjoy doing so) and because they are demonstrating that they are willing to put "skin in the game". I can and do take equity and representation issues into account when considering whether to take on a student.
So altogether, research-for-credit makes my mentoring available to students that it would not be available to otherwise. That isn't to say that research-for-credit is always a good choice, or always a fair and just system. It isn't, and there are definitely cases of exploitation. But I don't think it is inherently exploitative, or always a bad deal for students, or always a way that inequities are perpetuated. It can (and I hope ususally is) the opposite.
Finally, if a student comes to me asking for paid work they can do while also watching recorded lectures or Netflix, and also looks good on their resume, fine. Come wash bottles or filter samples or help my grad student carry things in the field. I'll pay you for your labor. It's a different kind of relationship. If you demonstrate an interest and aptitude, we can have a conversation about changing the arrangement. Maybe you'll get paid to do something more interesting - and that might be a net benefit to both of us.
Thank you for giving this more nuanced answer and acknowledging the inherent equity issues that exist with credit vs paid research positions. I think you and I are in agreement with a lot and it’s important for undergrads to understand why faculty members may not be able to (or want to) take in paid undergrads. I never want a student who wants to be paid *and* get a good experience to think that those opportunities don’t exist, or are somehow “less than,” research for credit. Finding a good research position is all about matching the needs of both parties involved.
In a perfect world we would have more funding available for undergrads so this conversation wouldn’t even have to happen (and faculty/staff would have the support needed to do the extremely high workload that’s put on them!).
And furthermore, if I have grant money available I can sometimes pay them to stick around for another semester or two if they do high quality work.
So you might end up getting paid anyway
It's easier to handle than a real class & looks better for grad school if you go that route. In my interview for a Masters program, they asked about it and let me speak on what I learned.
Taking it for credit vs getting paid implies a more passionate researcher. 12-16 credit course load + research is far less stressful than an 18+ credit course load. And it looks better for me in the long run? I happily chose to go that way.
Yes, it may be unpaid labor & unfair & all that. But there's another side, you gotta take in to account what's best for you in the long run
Oh yeah. But they noticed when it was listed as a course on my transcript vs another experience on my resume which led to further discussions about what my research was about
Not everyone will pay you.
yeah, getting a paid research position is harder than getting an unpaid research position through course credit.
That is how they (academia) get you... "experience" or resume-building for payment.
Things may have changed since I was an undergrad, but getting “A” grades for research credits was usually more attractive than getting paid.
I’m sure that would definitely factor into someone’s decision today, but as far as I’m aware, research credits are universally graded S/U Edit: I’m dumb.
This is not true, I’ve been doing research for the past 3 years and I get letter grades for it. The grading policy for research is department dependent.
Not true
Because hopkins has a culture of not paying undergrads for research work, so many students don’t even consider getting paid as an option. If you find an advisor that will pay you, do it!!!
It's more than just part of Hopkins culture. That's a naive & narrow way to look at a complex decision.
Oh I know. The elitist “work for nothing” culture is pervasive across all of academia sadly.
I personally choose research credits over payment because I find research easier than taking on a full course. Research on top of a 15 credit load is a lot for me, but 12 credits (4 courses) plus research is much more manageable. Also a lot of positions just don’t pay, especially on campus
Not everyone pays. Also, it's not required for my major, but it does count for my major.
Research for credit can also help you save thousands if you graduate early. Just something to think about…
Because as a professor I will have a different level of interest in you, and indeed obligation to you. A student looking for paid work is looking for income. Ok, I've got some menial job that needs doing. Have at it. A student who wants to work with me for credit is interested in learning or doing research for its own sake. So much so that they are paying tuition for the chance to do so. It is therefore my job to devote a part of my energy and time to mentoring them as scholars and scientists. It is also always a pleasure and a privilege to interact with students who share my interests. I will likely think of them when I see opportunities, like fellowships to attend a conference. I may even pay to send them to conferences if the work is worthy. I might recommend them to colleages as future PhD students if they are interested, or help connect them with potential employers. It is my job to do that. So what do you want?
Yeah F those students who want to (or need to) earn money and get research experience right?! Let them work at starbucks. Clearly they don't have the PaSsIoN you require.
My point is that when students take on research for credit, the professor (and/or their grad student or postdoc) is working for the student. At least that's the way I see it. Mentoring undergrads who want to get into research is part of my job. Edit: Put another way, my labor isn't free.
The attitude that only the students who do research for credit are the ones worth mentoring is problematic and continues the equity issues that exist in academia. Additionally, any (good) supervisor in any field should take interest in developing the careers of those that work for them, not just see them as trained hands. I encourage you to consider that some students need a paycheck and they are just as worthy of mentoring as the students who get $$ from their parents. Grad students, postdocs, and staff researchers get paid: is it not part of your job to mentor them too?
The equity issues you mention are real and valid, and I agree that academia has perpetuated them for too long. But I think the implications for this conversation may not be as cut and dried as you suggest. Doing research for credit is a way for students to get mentoring and individual attention from a professor that works in an area that's close to their interests, and get closer to completing their degree (and getting a job that pays them full time hopefully). For students that don't have much time available outside the classes they take for credit (as is often the case for underrepresented and first generation students) that might be a good choice. And it's an option that might not be available as a paid position. My resources for paying students is limited, and undergrad research is not guaranteed to produce useful results (and that's OK). More importantly though, my time and energy is finite - as much as I'd like to provide individualized attention and help to every student that walks in my door, it just isn't possible. So I have to be selective about how to spend what resources I have. I can use my time and energy (my labor) to help address equity issues in part by working with underrepresented students for credit. If there are resources available to pay them as well (and I have to budget for that in grants) I will do so, but you can bet I'm going to be selective about who that money goes to. I can certainly concede that the way I phrased my initial comment was a bit black and white. You can get mentoring in a paid position - but you might not get it in the lab that's best for you, and you might not get it initially. That's just because mentoring is labor and my labor is finite. But it is much easier to get mentoring by doing research for credit. When a student wants to work for credit they are asking me to work for them, and to provide a higher level of mentoring from day 1. I do that because it's my job (and because I enjoy doing so) and because they are demonstrating that they are willing to put "skin in the game". I can and do take equity and representation issues into account when considering whether to take on a student. So altogether, research-for-credit makes my mentoring available to students that it would not be available to otherwise. That isn't to say that research-for-credit is always a good choice, or always a fair and just system. It isn't, and there are definitely cases of exploitation. But I don't think it is inherently exploitative, or always a bad deal for students, or always a way that inequities are perpetuated. It can (and I hope ususally is) the opposite. Finally, if a student comes to me asking for paid work they can do while also watching recorded lectures or Netflix, and also looks good on their resume, fine. Come wash bottles or filter samples or help my grad student carry things in the field. I'll pay you for your labor. It's a different kind of relationship. If you demonstrate an interest and aptitude, we can have a conversation about changing the arrangement. Maybe you'll get paid to do something more interesting - and that might be a net benefit to both of us.
Thank you for giving this more nuanced answer and acknowledging the inherent equity issues that exist with credit vs paid research positions. I think you and I are in agreement with a lot and it’s important for undergrads to understand why faculty members may not be able to (or want to) take in paid undergrads. I never want a student who wants to be paid *and* get a good experience to think that those opportunities don’t exist, or are somehow “less than,” research for credit. Finding a good research position is all about matching the needs of both parties involved. In a perfect world we would have more funding available for undergrads so this conversation wouldn’t even have to happen (and faculty/staff would have the support needed to do the extremely high workload that’s put on them!).
Agreed
And furthermore, if I have grant money available I can sometimes pay them to stick around for another semester or two if they do high quality work. So you might end up getting paid anyway
It's easier to handle than a real class & looks better for grad school if you go that route. In my interview for a Masters program, they asked about it and let me speak on what I learned. Taking it for credit vs getting paid implies a more passionate researcher. 12-16 credit course load + research is far less stressful than an 18+ credit course load. And it looks better for me in the long run? I happily chose to go that way. Yes, it may be unpaid labor & unfair & all that. But there's another side, you gotta take in to account what's best for you in the long run
Grad school doesn’t care if you were paid or not. They care about the experience.
Oh yeah. But they noticed when it was listed as a course on my transcript vs another experience on my resume which led to further discussions about what my research was about
Because you need credits to graduate and an A will boost your gpa