>> In regards to the 40hr vs 100hr work week for students...
>> Two brief comments:
>> 1) Much of the time I put in would not be "counted" toward my hours
> if I were on a time clock. I'm sure many of you would agree that
> much of the reading and writing that gets done, gets done at home or
> at the library, not in the lab.
Yes, absolutely, and that all goes towards the total! Most of
my time is spent on a computer (NOT as some of you may think
endlessly perusing women-in-bio :-)
> 2) I also feel that it is not the quantity of time spent, but the
> quality. If I can accomplish the same amount of work in 8 hours
> (working straight through and eating my lunch on my feet) that
> someone else takes 12 hours to do ( an hour for lunch, some time to
> chat, numerous 'smoke breaks') who's to say that I am not doing as
> much simply because I'm not in the lab as much?
And quite right you are too. Working longer hours isnt necessary
getting more done if it loses efficiency. The point I was getting to
in my previous post is that it doesnt ALL fit neatly into 40hr/wk
and I include the reading and writing, which is
often at home after lab, as part of the grand total. If you are
in lab 8hrs/day and doing reading at home then you are
certainly working more than 40hrs/wk, QED.
When I was a student I got in the lab quite early in the morning
and left around 6pm. Because I minimized overlap
with the late risers who showed up at noon and stayed till midnight
(with a dinner break), they always acted as though I wasnt working
as hard. It was a pain but I learned to ignore them.
The real measure of whether you are working hard is what you
are getting done.
-- susan, who will probably regret bringing up working hours!
NOTE Don't reply to email address in header!
It's an anti-spam. Use the one below.
S L Forsburg forsburg at salk.edu
The Salk Institute http://flosun.salk.edu/~forsburg
La Jolla, CA