So, you just started your first semester of graduate school, and this week your professors handed out your syllabi. You are feeling shell-shocked. How in the world are you supposed to read 15-25 articles a week across your 3-5 graduate seminars? Not only that, you started reading them, and some seem dense, wordy, or convoluted – some you’re not even sure you can follow. And, you are likely balancing this reading with writing (new blog post coming soon), learning methods, starting a new research or teaching assistantship, or both, adjusting to living in a new city/state/country, and trying to maintain something of a life outside of school. And sleep. Precious sleep.
 
Okay, maybe you don’t feel that way, but I know I did during my first semester of grad school. I remember that some of the readings for my cognitive development class in particular felt as though they were written by people intentionally trying to confuse me.
 
Most of my advice is targeted at students in HDFS or similar social science programs, that predominantly assign journal articles and chapters. I know that other disciplines frequently assign books, and I know that journal articles in physical science disciplines are often substantially shorter than in the social sciences, so advice may differ.
 
Hopefully, you first chose your courses well, so that you are taking courses that suit your future plans. That definitely helps with motivation
 
I recommend reading some other posts on the topic, including Miriam Sweeney, and Sink or Swim in the APA GradPsych Magazine.
 
Based on these two posts, as well as my own experiences and mentoring, I recommend these strategies:

• Plan by the week: Plan out your reading across all courses a week at a time. There are going to be weeks where you have more or less for certain courses. Figuring out the ebb and flow at the start of each week is going to help you manage your time. You don’t want to approach each day thinking, what do I need to read for my family seminar tomorrow? You want a bigger picture.
• Think about the order: Don’t just read the papers in the order they appear on the syllabus for that week. When I teach my grad seminars I try to recommend an order to read things in. Even if your instructor doesn’t do the same, you can get a sense by looking at the readings. Read theory chapters/articles first, then review chapters/articles, and finally any empirical articles. If many empirical papers are assigned, group them either by date (e.g., read older/foundational papers first, newer ones second) or if the week’s readings cover a range of topics, read them by topic (e.g., read the depression articles first, then the anxiety ones).
• Read strategically: Sweeney recommends reading strategically, and I agree with that point at a general level. However, I don’t agree with the order she recommends, where she recommends reading the discussion before the methods and results. I would find that order utterly baffling. I general I think getting an overall sense of the paper by looking at titles, and then reading in order, works best for me. Don’t skip the abstract because it seems redundant – it gives you a great overview of the paper.
• Take notes: I can’t emphasize this point enough. There are many different formats by which you might take notes –annotate a PDF on your computer; open a Word file and take notes there; handwritten notes; post it notes on a print out (does anyone do this anymore?). But whatever you do, take notes as you read. If you find anything confusing, make note of it. Think about things you read that would make good discussion points, so when you go into the class discussion, you already have ideas of things to say. Although I haven’t read for courses in a long time, I can share that when I read for book club, I often think of interesting observations, but if I don’t write them down, they are utterly gone by the time we meet.
• Annotate your notes: Perhaps my most important point. I’ve written about it before, but it bears repeating. When you take notes, make sure you include annotation with citations. If you are taking notes simultaneously from multiple articles, keep annotations throughout (just jot down the source). If you are reading one article at a time, just list the article on the top of the page. But if you do any cutting and pasting, or typing/jotting word for word, put it in quotes so that your future self knows that the words are not your own. Otherwise, you may one day use these notes to write a paper/your comps/a lecture, and not remember the words aren’t your own. I’ve seen this happen. A lot.
• Read critically: Don’t just jot notes on what you read; jot notes on what you think is unclear, or incorrect, or a misinterpretation.
• Make connections: If you see connections to other readings, either from the same week or from prior weeks, definitely make note. These are the kinds of observations that instructors generally love.
• SQ3R: Azar recommends the SQ3R method: survey, question, read, recite, review. I haven’t used this method, though it seems if you have the time for it, it would be useful. I can’t see using it for 10+ readings a week, but there may be a couple key ones where using this technique proves particularly useful.
• Skimming: As a professor I can’t tell you that it’s ever okay to skim a paper instead of reading it thoroughly. But, I can say that skimming is better than not reading it at all. Don’t skim all of the papers for one class, but if you’re in a huge time crunch and need to skim one or two out of a long list, you’ll probably live. Just be strategic about which ones you skim vs. read thoroughly.
• Understanding stats: There are going to be times you don’t understand all of the statistics in an empirical article. There are certainly times I don’t understand all of the statistics in articles I read (or review for journals). It’s okay. See what you can get out of the results section, and read the discussion even more carefully than usual to make sure you understand the findings in general.
• Study groups: If you’re struggling with the content of readings, finding other grad students to discuss papers with in advance of class can be useful. It’s likely you can help each other with things the other doesn’t understand.
• Take breaks: Please take breaks. It will improve your productivity, but also your wellbeing.
  • Take breaks for your eyes every 15 minutes or so, even if it’s just 15 seconds of looking away from the computer screen. Look out a window or close your eyes for a bit. Looking at your phone or Facebook doesn’t count as an eye break.
  • Take breaks for your body every hour or so. If you’re at the lab/office, step away from your computer and go for a walk, even if it’s around the building. If you’re at home, stand up and stretch, do a down dog, figure out something to get out of the same position. I’m very bad at remembering to do so. I’ve worked with people who actually set their time for every hour to remind them to stand up and move. I will now do the same for myself, so I can practice what I preach. Done.
  • Take breaks for your brain. You can take a short break to chat to another student. Make a phone call. Go for a walk outside. Exercise. Make sure that every day you have a longer break to do something you love, so you can return to work refreshed.
• One size doesn’t fit all: Strategies that work for one student might not work well for others. Sometimes, you need some trial and error to sort out your best strategy. 

 
  What other reading strategies do you suggest to new graduate students?
 
“ How to Read for Grad Classes, Pass Classes, and Still Sleep first appeared on Eva Lefkowitz’s blog on August 30, 2018.”

Wesche, R., Claxton, S. E., Lefkowitz, E. S., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (in press). Evaluations and future plans after casual sexual experiences: Differences across partner type. Journal of Sex Research.
 
In this paper we considered multiple types of casual sexual relationships and experiences, including casual dating, friends with benefits, and booty calls/one night stands, and whether they are associated with short-term outcomes.
 
In recent years there has been growing public concern that young adults prioritize casual sex over romantic relationships. In contrast, some scholars consider casual sexual relationships as normative and an opportunity for exploration. Prior research evidence is conflicted, with some suggesting negative outcomes of casual sex, and others suggesting no outcomes or positive outcomes. In this paper, we considered a range of casual relationships in order to tease apart associations based on the type of sexual relationship.
 
Data came from two sources: a Midwestern college sample psychology pool, and Amazon’s MTurk. We considered a range of sexual behaviors: kissing, touching oral sex, sexual intercourse, and anal sex. 
 
Young adults who had sexual experiences with a friends with benefits partner tended to have more negative evaluations of the experience, and to be less oriented toward romantic relationship plans, than young adults who had sexual experiences with casual partners. Young adults who engaged in booty calls/one night stands had less positive evaluations, more negative evaluations, and were less oriented toward romantic relationship plans than young adults who had casual partners.  Plans for future casual sexual experiences did not differ by type of partner.

There was some evidence of gender differences. Specifically, the difference in positive and negative evaluations of booty calls/one night stands compared to casual sexual partners was greater for women than for men. In addition, there were differences by type of behavior, with oral/penetrative sex associated with bigger differences by type of partner than kissing/touching.
 
Overall, findings suggest that there are differences in the short-term outcomes of varied types of casual sexual experiences. That is, it is not simply that casual sex outcomes are worse than relationship sex outcomes, but that there is variation in outcomes within different types of casual sexual partners.
 
“Type of Casual Sex Partner Matters for Short-term Outcomes first appeared on Eva Lefkowitz’s blog on August 28, 2018.”

People consider lots of things when writing journal article or chapter titles. Does it capture the meaning of the paper? Is it catchy enough? Is it clear? Is it succinct enough? But, there’s another issue that people may not frequently consider when writing a title, and I would argue it is the most important consideration, because unlike these other things, it isn’t specific to this paper. It sticks with you forever. And that is, how will this title look on your CV for the rest of your career?
 
It appears I’ve yet to write about strong titles, but I have written about strong first sentences. In that post I argued that your first sentence should be strong, clear, and interesting. All true of your title as well. BUT, your first sentence can actually get away with being catchier than your title, because your first sentence is contained within the manuscript, and does not appear elsewhere. It catches people’s attention in the context of the paper, but nowhere else.
 
In contrast, your title appears on your CV, in your tenure dossier, in people’s literature searches. Yes, it’s the advertisement for the paper, and thus can get people’s attention. But it’s also a reflection of you and your body of research, something that follows you forever, for better or for worse. 
 
For instance, when I was asked to write a chapter about erectile dysfunction, I asked my students if they were interested in first authoring it. When one of my students expressed interest, I asked her to think about having the title “erectile dysfunction” on her CV. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But it would be on her CV forever, and she would want to think about the kinds of institutions where she might want positions, and if that might matter at those institutions. For a lifelong sex researcher it’s probably not a big deal, but it was a consideration.
 
Another issue is cutesy titles. I support clever titles, but there is a fine line between clever and cutesy (or just silly) titles, and unfortunately, different scholars draw that line in different places. I sometimes do a literature search and come across a title that makes me cringe a little, and I confess, it can affect the way I think of the author. I won’t share examples, but I did find this Slate article about clever and gone-too-far journal article titles. So, before you finalize a clever title, ask a few other people what they think of it. If you're early career, make sure some of the people you ask are more senior than you, because they are the group of people who will evaluate your work for things like tenure. Because again, that title will be on your CV forever.  When you study a topic like sexual health, there are a lot of ways you could go clever, and a lot of ways you could go wrong, and I’ve seen both happen.
 
Perhaps I’m lucky that I’m just not very good at clever titles. I think the most I’ve done are these two:
He Said She Said: Gender Differences in Mother-Adolescent Conversations About Sexuality
and
Never been kissed: Correlates of lifetime kissing status in U.S. university students
 
I’m pretty comfortable living with both of those titles, forever.
 
Some questions to ask yourself before finalizing a clever title:

• Will it look silly on my CV 5/10 years from now?
  
• Could someone misinterpret it?
  
• Would everyone think it’s funny, or could it read as offensive?
  
• Will it fit with any job I apply for? For instance, if you look for a job at a religious institution or a government job, could it offend someone?
  

 
It may help to think of article titles like the CV version of tattoos – don’t just think about whether it’s fun in the moment, but think about whether you want to live with it for the rest of your life.
 
“Your Title Will be on Your CV Forever first appeared on Eva Lefkowitz’s blog on August 23, 2018.”

Vasilenko, S. A., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2018). Sexual behavior and daily affect in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 6, 191-199.

As I’ve mentioned recently in other posts, we’ve been trying to consider the benefits of sexual behavior to general wellbeing. In this paper, we examined daily associations between vaginal sex and positive and negative affect.
 
In general, having sex was linked to better daily wellbeing. Specifically, college students reported more positive affect on days they had sex than on days they did not have sex. Negative affect didn’t differ.
 
However, there were situational differences. Specifically, students reported more negative affect on days they had sex with a nondating partner than on other days.
 
In addition, affect was associated with perceived consequences of sex. Specifically, students reported more positive affect on days they had more positive consequences of sex, and more negative affect on days they had more negative consequences of sex.
 
Overall, the study suggests that sexual behavior by young adulthood is linked to better short-term wellbeing. Does go against some of the rhetoric of “sex is bad/harmful,” including this post that I found had recently cited my work.
 
“College Students Are Happier on Days They Have Sex first appeared on Eva Lefkowitz’s blog on August 21, 2018.”

*Note: now at 80.
*9/1 Note: now over 120.

It’s early for post doc applications, but somehow I have post docs on the mind, perhaps because one of my former students recently started a new postdoctoral position.
 
Recently I wrote about different types of post docs, and prior to that I discussed whether you should do a post doc. Let’s say that you’ve decided to do a post doc and don’t know where to begin to look. I’ve got you covered.
 
I have created a list of postdoctoral positions relevant to HDFS graduate students that I have shared with Penn State students (when I was grad director there) and more recently UConn students as department head. I’ve maintained and updated that list for a few years (with the help of a couple of grad students here). I thought it might be useful to a wider audience so today I share it with you.
 
It is a broad list, so not all positions will be relevant for any individual (much like the field of HDFS in general). It includes postdocs related to child development, adulthood and aging, family, prevention, policy, social science methods, diversity, demography, health (e.g., substance use, HIV, cancer, nutrition), education, and sexuality. It includes different types of postdocs, including ones sponsored by NIH or other agencies at a particular university, ones sponsored by a particular university, and some individual postdocs (e.g., Fulbright, SRCD). It does NOT include onetime postdocs supported by specific grants or research labs. We do our best to keep it up to date, but sometimes things have probably disappeared and we’ve lost track. In fact, we marked in yellow ones that we don’t think still exist, but we are not certain.
 
I make no claims that any information, including information about citizenship requirements, is accurate.
 
Even with all of those caveats, I hope that you find this spreadsheet useful. I generally recommend that students check out different postdoctoral positions a couple of years before they are ready to apply for them, so they have a sense of what is out there, and what their record might need to look like when they are ready to apply. So, even if you are not on the market this year, you may want to take a few minutes and look at what's on the list (good, productive procrastination activity).
 
It was at 50 when I wrote this post. Hopefully it is even longer by the time you are reading it.
 
If you know of any others, please share them with me and I will add them.

FIND IT HERE.
 
“50+ postdoctoral positions related to Human Development and Family Studies first appeared on Eva Lefkowitz’s blog on August 16, 2018.”

Lefkowitz, E. S., Wesche, R., & Leavitt, C. E. (2018). Never been kissed: Correlates of lifetime kissing status in U. S. university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1283-1293.
 
I just realized I am finally writing about papers published in 2018.  That was a lot of catch up.
 
Do you remember your first kiss? How old were you? 12? 14? Sweet sixteen and finally been kissed? For many, the first kiss experience is very positive and generally linked to wellbeing. I recently became interested in studying kissing because of my interest in normative sexuality development. Most adolescents spend a lot more time kissing than having penetrative sex, yet almost all of our research is on penetrative sex.
 
While writing this paper we informally called it the “Kissing Virgins” paper. In this paper we considered college students who had never kissed a partner by the first semester of college, and the personal, contextual, and adjustment/health predictors of this delayed onset of kissing. Although by the start of college it is normative to either have or have not ever engaged in vaginal sex, students who have never kissed a partner at the start of college are off-time from their peers.
 
We found that by Fall of first year of university, about 14% of students had never kissed a partner – most (95%) of these students had never engaged in any other sexual behaviors (touching, oral sex, vaginal sex) either.
 
Demographic factors: Asian American students were less likely to have kissed partners than other students (28% of Asian Americans never kissed a partner compared to 7-11% of students from other ethnic/racial backgrounds). Only 1% of students in current romantic relationships, compared to 22% of students not in relationships, had never kissed a partner.
 
Personal characteristics: More extraverted students were more likely to have kissed a partner than less extraverted students. Although in the bivariate model, more neurotic students were less likely to have kissed a partner than less neurotic students, this result did not hold when all of the predictors were in one model.
 
Contextual characteristics: 32% of students in the honors college, vs. 13% of other students, had never kissed a partner. In the bivariate model, having a mother more facilitative of independence was associated with a higher likelihood of kissing a partner, although this result did not hold when all of the predictors were in one model.
 
Adjustment/health correlates: Students who drank more were more likely to have kissed a partner than students who drank less. In the bivariate model, students with better self-esteem were more likely to have kissed a partner than students with worse self-esteem, although this result did not hold when all of the predictors were in one model.
 
Religiosity was not associated with likelihood of kissing, suggesting that internalization of religious motives against sexual behavior does not transfer to a prohibition against kissing.
 
Overall, findings suggest that never having kissed a partner is associated with characteristics indicative of a lack of exploration – both in terms of having a non-exploratory personality, and less exploration in other domains like alcohol use. It is possible that this decreased experimentation provides fewer opportunities for identity exploration. Overall, findings suggest that not kissing a partner provides some possibly protective factors, and some indicators of worse adjustment.
 
“What Predicts Never Having Kissed by the Start of College? first appeared on Eva Lefkowitz’s blog on August 14, 2018.”

A couple of years ago I wrote about whether you should do a post doc or not before looking for a more permanent job. Today I wanted to describe the different types of post docs that exist.
 
Let me start with a giant disclaimer, and one that I end up repeating a lot when we discuss these options in my professional development graduate seminar. If you are an international student looking for a post doc in the United States, your options are relatively limited, as you won’t be able to do an individual or institutional post doc funded by NIH (or a number of other governmental agencies). You cannot, unfortunately, be as picky in this situation. I always feel the need in class to say “I’m sorry” to international students as I discuss options more generally. Though since it’s not my fault, maybe I shouldn’t apologize…
 
So, I would say at least in my discipline, there are five different types of post docs (I started with four but added a fifth as I was writing):
 
1. Institutional training grants. This category includes T31’s from National Institutes of Health, which are relatively common in my discipline. There are several advantages to institutional post docs. You do not have to plan for them a year in advance – you can apply on a regular application cycle (often late fall or early spring for a fall start date). They usually come with protected time for writing/getting your own research done. And, they usually come with a fair bit of professional development training – activities such as support for writing papers, support for writing and submitting grants, and support for going on the job market. When the PI’s apply to renew the T32, they usually have to report on the current status of all of their alumni, which makes the team of mentors highly invested in their post docs’ success.
 
2. Individual training grants. For these training grants, you apply to do a specific research project with a training program, and if you get funded, receive a stipend as well as some research funds to carry out the project. Generally, doing such a post doc involves a relatively involved application, and you have to identify a mentor before applying, often a year or more in advance. An obvious advantage of this type of post doc is that you’ve identified your own project and training – so, if you want additional skills in neuroscience/statistics/prevention/whatever, you can identify a specific team of mentors, training site, and research project to carry out that project. The disadvantage is that you have to apply so early, that you often have to identify the site and mentors up to two years in advance to be able to write the application so far in advance with the training team. In addition to F32 applications through NIH, some other common ones related to our discipline include:
NSF SBE Postdoctoral Fellowship
Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship
AAUW’s American Fellowship
Fulbright (International project)
Ford Foundation Fellowship Program
 
3. Individual fellowships outside of academia: I do not know of as many of these, but they would include things like the SRCD social policy fellows program, where you go to Washington DC and use developmental science to inform public policy in the congressional or executive branch. These are great for individuals who want to either find work outside of a university setting, or are interested in more translational research and want to get a sense of how to make an impact with that research.
 
4. Post doc position on specific research grant. Sometimes, faculty advertise for a postdoctoral position where they pay a full time PhD to work on a specific research grant. One advantage of such a position is it is generally an option for international scholars – that is, there aren’t the same citizenship restrictions. Another option is that if there is a specific researcher you want to work with, and if he has funding, it provides an opportunity to do so. The disadvantage is that, because you are paid off of a specific grant, you will be working on that grant and may have less freedom to work on other projects or to publish your work from earlier grad school projects. A lot depends on the PI you work for. In some cases, the PI really wants a project manager and you may end up doing a lot of participant recruitment, organization, running participants, and/or data management. In other cases, the PI really may need someone to analyze and write up data, so you may actually have an opportunity to build your CV and get publications out. It’s really important to get a very clear sense of what the PI will expect from you before you accept this type of position.
 
5. Teaching post doc. Some universities now have teaching post doc positions. These often require that you teach a certain number of courses for 1-2 years. Sometimes they also include dedicated time for your own research writing. For students who want a career as faculty at a smaller liberal arts college, but who are graduating without much teaching experience, such a post doc can be a good experience. However, you often also have to have a decent publication record to get the job. It’s rare that top liberal arts colleges will hire faculty without a publication record, even if they have a strong teaching record. So, think about your goals, and your record, as you decide what you need during this period before going on the academic job market.
 
I haven’t even discussed all of the personal situations that might limit your options, particularly in terms of geographic mobility and partner issues. Basically, there is no one right type of postdoctoral position. It’s important to figure out both what your career goals are, what your constraints are, and what each specific post doc option looks like, and then find the best fit for you.
 
“What type of post doc should you do? first appeared on Eva Lefkowitz’s blog on August 9, 2018.”

Leavitt, C. E., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2018). Erectile dysfunction. In Bornstein, M. (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Lifespan Human Development (pp. 766-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Waterman, E. A., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2018). Sexuality. In Bornstein, M. (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Lifespan Human Development (pp. 1984-1988). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
 
About three years ago I was invited to write a couple of chapters for this encyclopedia. Two of my students expressed interest in taking the lead on the entries, so we went ahead with them. Although I’ve written book chapters before, this may have been my first experience with encyclopedia entries. They were fun to (co-)write in that they were less technical and more summarizing than the average journal article or chapter. I think that encyclopedia entries could be a good opportunity for a student, particularly a student around the time of comprehensive exams. They require you to be relatively comprehensive with an area of literature, but also to be able to write about it in a clear, straightforward, succinct way.
 
One strange component (in stark contrast to comprehensive exams) was that we were not allowed to include citations. After a career of carefully citing every point and teaching students to do the same, it was strange not to do so in the entries. We had a further reading section, but no references for specific points. Another challenge was to write only 9 pages of text on all of sexuality across the lifespan for one entry. I think Emily did an excellent job with this entry. She covered childhood through later adulthood, and touched on a number of important topics in the process.
 
The other chapter was 6 pages, but on such a specific topic, erectile dysfunction, that it was relatively easy for Chelom to cover the relevant material. It serves a very different purpose than the overarching sexuality one, but could serve as a good resource for people looking for a summary of what is known on this topic. 
 
We enjoyed writing both of these chapters. My only regret is that I just saw the huge price tag on the encyclopedia. I hope that some people will have access to the chapters through their university libraries, because I can’t imagine any individuals being able to afford the full set.
 
“Our Entries in the Encyclopedia of Lifespan Human Development first appeared on Eva Lefkowitz’s blog on August 7, 2018.”

I recently described my Supermom/A Student syndrome. That’s a characteristic I have always had. That is, I’ve always felt the need to do the hardest/additional work if offered. Extra credit? Check. Take the harder level class? Check. Join the Honors Society? Check.
 
I have one child who takes after me in this respect. Do music practice every day because you are supposed to? Check. Do extra credit for elementary school classes? Check. Pick the hardest of three options for the 4th grade math project? Check. Do the PA reading challenge and read every book on the K – 3 and the 3 – 6 grade lists because you’re in 3rd grade? Check, and must be first in the school to finish. This past year, this child participated in the National History Day Competition because, in the child’s words, “It was clear from the teachers’ presentation about it that it’s what the smart kids do.” The same kid, in kindergarten, was in a study where they had to push a button to earn some kind of food reward. The kid wouldn’t stop pushing the button and finally had to be cut off due to time constraints [oh look, I found the published paper].
 
The other child, while also smart and creative and motivated in many ways (parent requirement to add this disclaimer here), doesn’t have the same inclination. This child often chose not to do extra credit – for this child, homework involves more breaks to read and stare off into space, so who has time for extra credit? This child only read the books on the PA reading challenge that were in the fantasy category – the child only wanted to read books of interest to the child. Music practice happens, sometimes, with prodding/reminders.
 
It’s my parenting inclination to try to push this child to do every extra thing. No you can’t play Wii if you haven’t done the extra credit assignment (“But Mama, I did all my homework…”). Why wouldn’t you try the National History Day Competition? “Because it just didn’t sound like fun to me and my friend.”
 
And so one day, in fourth grade, I noticed in this child’s homework planner something about bringing in a bean dish for extra credit. The child never raised it again. I asked about it a couple of times, and the child didn’t bite. Finally, I said okay, I’d let it drop. But somehow I couldn’t, so the morning of the sharing beans activity in school (honestly, it was a couple of years ago and I can’t remember the actual lesson plan), I ended up, without prompting, roasting chickpeas before school (an easy recipe that didn’t require a trip to the store). The child was grateful I had done it, but also would have been completely fine if I had not.
 
It’s taken me some time as a parent to recognize that sometimes it’s not my job as a parent to push my children to do things they are not motivated to do, or more specifically, to push my nature on my child. Yes, I should make sure that my child finishes homework – but perhaps extra credit homework should rely on intrinsic motivation and not parental nagging. Honestly, this particular child sometimes doesn’t finish all of the regular homework, and sometimes, that’s okay too.
 
I find it easy to parent the child who is similar to me, at least around issues of school and achievement. It’s more trying to parent the other child because the choices made aren’t always the ones I would make. It’s easy to want to push that child to make the choices I would make. But I’ve definitely worked on not pushing daily music practice if that’s going to make the child miserable or want to quit playing an instrument, or to let the child decide about extra credit work without my forcing the issue.
 
I think parenting this specific child has provided helpful life lessons to me. First, as an advisor -- I don’t always have to push each student to do every possible thing if the student isn’t motivated to do so, but instead, should support the student’s decisions, within reason. And also, for myself, I’ve learned a bit more that I don’t have to say yes to everything just because it’s one more thing I COULD do or because everyone else is doing it. I try to say no to more things at times, so that I am saying yes to the things that are important to me or that I’m passionate about, and so I can do the things that I say yes to better.
 
I think this lesson is important for graduate students as well. There are certain things that graduate students HAVE to do – there are required course and graduate milestones, there’s your dissertation. But beyond that, you don’t have to say yes to things just because someone thinks you should. Instead, you should be strategic about what you want to do. Let’s say you are being pushed to teach a class, because most students do so during their graduate career. If your career goal is to become a faculty member, then it may make sense to do so. But if your career goal has nothing to do with teaching, perhaps teaching isn’t the best use of your time. You do not have to go to every conference that your advisor goes to just because that’s what’s done. The list goes on… think about what is important for your career, and what is valuable to you, and focus on those decisions.
 
Yesterday I bumped into a former colleague who had been invited to be an associate editor. She said that her current colleagues were all telling her that it’s a great opportunity and it is great for her CV, and that she should do it. It seemed pretty obvious in talking to her that she wasn’t motivated to do it –that it wasn’t a task that interests her. I think the message she was receiving was that it would be helpful for going up for full professor. Yes, it’s important to get service to the profession in order to get promoted to full professor. But there are many pathways to get there, and being an associate editor is only one. For some people, editing tasks are really unpleasant, and I wouldn’t recommend someone take on that role unless they are excited about it. Which is what I told her. Don’t just say yes to something because you might be good at it – pick the things that you WANT to do.
 
I still have to fight the Straight A Student tendencies in myself, frequently. Sometimes it helps to have someone remind you that doing everything you COULD do isn’t always the best path for your goals.
  
“Why I roasted chickpeas at 7:30 AM first appeared on Eva Lefkowitz’s blog on August 2, 2018.”