I have heard a growing number of astronomers saying that undergrads need to have a published paper to be seriously considered for graduate school. If true, I find this pathetic, elitist, and prejudicial. 1/n
First, not every undergrad has access to research opportunities, particularly in astronomy. We're a small field, and so requiring that grad applicants be coming from an institution with an astronomy research presence is extraordinarily limiting. 2/n
Second, putting that pressure on an undergrad -- you must have published a paper to apply to grad school -- is a horrible burden to put on a student, considering that they dont control that outcome. 3/n
Third, it's complete bullshit that you have to have a published paper to be considered for graduate programs. It's not true of ours. It's not true of many others. 4/n
If your program requires applicants to have published a paper, you should at least have the decency to state that upfront on your website so that the many, strong undergrad students who didnt have an opportunity to do so know not to bother with your elitist institution. 5/n
And if that's not a publicly stated requirement for your program but you are applying that criterion anyway, then you are a predatory program that is just taking in application fees to make money. 6/n
The damage this does is not only limited to the affected students, but also to undergrad research programs in general. I am starting to see students asking me whether or not working with me will lead to a published paper. 7/n
How should I know? It's research. A boatload of my research ideas never see the light of day. And I like to try out new ideas with undergrads, it's a good way to see if a new idea has legs -- have a student do some preliminary work. 8/n
But it may not pan out. Or it may. And either way, the student (and I) could have a really strong research experience, even if it never gets published. But if a student needs a "publishable" research plan, I can't guarantee that. 9/n
Many of my students *do* publish papers, but not all. The ones that don't are often just as good as the ones that do, it's just that the project didn't pan out. 10/n
I am now sensing that some students are making research choices based on whether or not their prospective advisor tells them they will get a published paper out of it. They wont get such a statement out of me, because I just don't know. 11/n
So while I have a lot of research ideas that undergrads could be involved in, and do well with (and *have* done well with), their growing fear that they need a published paper to have a chance at grad school makes them hesitate to work with me. 12/n
While that's no particular skin off my nose, it limits their options. And that's bad. 13/n
So again, my dear colleagues, if you feel that a published paper is a requirement for your grad school applicants, you are not only being elitist and cementing privilege in our field, you are damaging research opportunities for undergrad students in general. 14/n
And if you are implementing this criterion in your grad review process without explicitly stating it, you are being doubly evil. The grad application process is opaque and stressful enough as it is, so adding this as a hidden requirement makes things so much worse. 15/n
We should be better than that. We control the gates to graduate education, and we should make them swing open to welcome a wide range of student experiences, not slam shut because of a narrowly focused and often unattainable criterion. 16/n
