No 81: Free Academic Labour and Cargo-Cults
Tldr
A reflection on “free” academic work, essay marking and the learning process. Some mild ranting and hopefully, catharsis.
This week I have been marking some year 1 medical student essays on general practice and a critique of a paper on lifestyle modification. It has been thought provoking.
Firstly, because most of the essays that I have marked have actually been well written and I have been forced to read the abstracts of a few papers I would not have come across otherwise.
Secondly, because it made me realise how much of academic medicine is done for free. More of this to follow.
Thirdly, because some of the less good essays made me think about educational theory. Imitation and cargo-cults.
Free Time, Free Labour and Academic Medicine
I suspect the average person in the street doesn’t give much thought to how academic medicine is done. Nor does the average medical student or junior doctor. I believe most people would be shocked at how much work is done for free. Without payment, and in your “spare” time.
If you come at this from an outsiders perspective, this is really odd.
Some examples:
Marking student essays
Delivering student lectures
Being an academic tutor for students
Being a small group facilitator
Doing research
Writing papers
Attending conferences
Reviewing papers
Editing journals
Disseminating research
Updating guidelines
Changing clinical practice
Now, before anyone points out the obvious, there are many people who are paid to do all of the above. And there are some people who count all of the above as their full time job.
However, there are lots and lots of “junior” doctors and “junior” academics or people who want to be academics who are doing all of this for “free”.
If you are one of those “cynical” people who does not believe in altruism then you will immediately reply with “yes, but they will gain experience, boost their CV, develop a reputation, and no doubt use this experience to get a better job in the future”.
I have no doubt that this “cynical” argument is correct. Most people are not volunteering to mark essays out of altruism. Although, I would just like to say that in this case, I did volunteer this year because I wanted to give back to the medical school that trained me, and this felt like a good way to do my “charity work”.
I would just like to take a few minutes to point out why these system is odd, and possibly out-dated.
Maybe 20 years ago, there were far fewer academics, fewer medical schools, fewer journals, fewer conferences and more of an “old-boys” network.
So, 20 years ago, if you volunteered to do some slave labour for one of the old-boys then no doubt they could put in a good word for you and your next rung up the academic ladder would be secured.
These days, the world is much bigger, the “old-boys” network is supposedly not allowed to help out favourites or “nepo-babies”, and most of these organisations are now run to make a profit.
The universities, medical schools, journals, conferences and other “academic organisations” are now specifically charging large amounts of money for access to their knowledge and networks. Many journals and publishers, such as Elsevier, are making enormous profits. Universities are charging students huge amounts for their education, and conferences are charging ever larges fees for a few days of lectures and networking.
If all of these organisations are making large profits, then why are they being allowed to get away with what is in effect slave labour?
Surely, there would be more people volunteering to mark essays, if it was paid an hourly rate? Probably less than the £25/h that a locum SHO would get paid to cover a medical ward but at least something?
Surely, the quality of peer review would be increased if you were paid to be reviewer? Rather than begged to be a reviewer by random predatory journals, who then make a fortune of the paper you review for free.
Shouldn’t member organisations like Royal Colleges be trying to host annual meetings for the good of their members that are affordable and not only the preserve of the elite?
The last point specifically has made me cross recently. I won’t mentioned which organisation or conference in particular. However, the current academic conference model appears broken to me.
The organisers charge huge fees to attend the conference knowing that most of the people who will eventually attend at either trainees or “academics” who can apply for specific posts of NHS or research funding designated for conference attendance. Anyone who does not have access to those special pots of money is effectively priced out of attending.
If you are a recently qualified GP, working in a small practice, are you really going to spend £600 or more of your own money on the ticket for a 2 day conference? You then have to pay for travel, accommodation and food. You probably also need to book time off work, and if you are not an academic or a trainee then, this will have to be “annual leave”.
I do not for one second believe that writing this blog will make a single iota of difference. It is partially cathartic and lets me blow off some steam before I do my next bit of “free labour”. Another 25 portfolio reflections…
Cargo-Cults and Learning Theory
My last thought for this week, is that reading some essays gave me a really odd feeling. I was reading the words and sentences, and if you took them individually, they were all fine. But when I tried to put them together and understand what the student was trying to say, they just didn’t make any sense to me.
Some people will say this is “uncharitable”, but it felt like being an observer of a cargo-cult ceremony. The student clearly wanted to demonstrate that they knew of the scientific and medical jargon. They wanted to get points for including the “right words”. However, they clearly did not understand what the words actually mean.
Now, I presume that many people who have read my essays, blogs and papers will probably retort the same about my writing! And I have absolutely no defence. Many of my recent MSc essays must have read like a man with a thesaurus, shouting words at a sphinx hoping to say the magic words and avoid being eaten.
It did make me wonder about the stages of learning. I know very little about the theory of learning. I presume that: stage one is becoming aware of a subject; stage 2 might be learning the lingo but getting it wrong; stage 3 is saying it correctly, or imitating others; and the final stage is understanding the jargon and using it correctly?
Maybe stage 6, is understanding the jargon and shibboleths, using it proficiently and then elucidating this knowledge to others (i.e. teaching).
So, if a student is using the words in their essays, but not quite correctly, do you give them points for trying or just mark them down for getting it wrong and writing gibberish?
Last and final point, I now understand why almost every graduate student gets between 60 and 75 marks out of 100. This has always infuriated me. I have always believed that if a mark scheme has 100 marks then it should be possible to right an essay that is 100% correct. However, having now marked two different batches of coursework, I can see that the mark scheme basically doesn’t allow it. Also, most markers don’t want to stand out from their peers. No one wants to be seen as too harsh or too soft. No marker wants to let any student think they were perfect. And so, even an excellent student will find their essay is mark 5/6 for style, 8/10 for referencing, 3 /4 for topic choice, 6/7 for critique and 9/10 for argument. Even the best will not average more than 80%. Infuriating.