I know several peers who had nice report cards in school, but their evaluations on the job are absolutely awful.
What’s going on?
Dunno.
I met a guy who was in grad school making substantial progress towards an MLS.
Unfortunately, one 4 hour shift at Dunkin’ Donuts left him completely and totally panic-stricken.
Some kind of anxiety disorder. I still remember liking the guy and trying to explain to him that it was the least threatening job in the world… DONUTS for christ’s sake. And a low-volume store, at that…
That would be me. I am a star when I am in school but not so much in the workplace. Don’t get me wrong, i am a hard worker with great work ethics but I never seem to be able to go that extra mile at work and wow everyone. When I was in school I was a straight A student who always went above and beyond. I have no idea why.
(IMHO) The vast majority of people that are chronic overachievers in the academic world and remain involved in academia well into their thirties do so because they are afraid of the “real world” and are avoiding having to actually get a real job. They often make it to the PHD level without ever so much as having worked a retail job, so they crash and burn in the workplace. Usually, there are “must please mommy/daddy at all costs” issues tied up in the whole thing.
YMMV. 
I can’t get enthused over any job that doesn’t give me summers off, and a three week Hannachriswanzaa/Happy New Year break, and a spring break, and a four day Thanksgiving break, and benefits.
If I had all the Jewish High Holy-Days in New York City Schools off from childhood, I’d have never left the city of my birth.
I suppose you know that actually getting a PhD and then, God willing, a tenure track faculty position is one of the hardest things you can do in the world bar none. I was once in a PhD program and the work was exhausting and crushing (mainly because my adviser was a psycho but lots of them are). The metal challenges weren’t that bad but the research, TA’ing, classes and everything else rolled together was quite hard.
I have no idea why people separate this from this mythical “real world”. It is more brutal than any corporate job I ever had and the work hours were as close to 24/7 as you can physiologically get. When I got my first corporate job after that, it was like I was shot out of a cannon because the workload I was accustomed to was so extreme. Even though I was working 60 hours a week at that time, it felt like a cakewalk and other people just stared in amazement.
Oh yes. As if “must please the boss at all costs” issues are soooo much healthier and more productive.
Damn right. When I was doing my dissertation, as my wife can testify, I got up at 3 am every night to write some more since that was all I thought about. Going to a “real job” where I could go home at night and forget about work was just about a vacation compared to grad school. The first part, where you did research, was cool, though. And my advisor was great. I’d hate to think what it would be like with a psycho one.
I agree with what Shagnasty said. When I was taking classes for my B.S. in computer science, staying up until 4:00 AM to work out the bugs in the software was not unusual. When I had an actual summer job with a computer company, my main challenges came from Minesweeper and Gnibbles.
However, the social aspects may help answer the OP’s question. While in school, you do almost entirely individual work. You write your own papers, write your own code, take your own tests, and you get evaluated according to what you did. Once in the real world, it’s all group work. And significant project involves coordinating with one or more coworkers. Those who “don’t play well with others” can do great in academia, but they’ll flop in the business world.
And even though in Academia you WILL do “group projects” or joint research, it will tend to be structured towards a specific goal with specific results being sought in an area that is of your interest.
Also, in most phases of school (leaving aside upper graduate research), you usually face a structured curriculum with very specific, known-in-advance benchmark criteria for pass/fail and what is good or bad performance. Some people of the “good-at-school, bad-at-business” group may have problems with the not-always clear goals and criteria of success, and the elements of unpredictability, in some areas of work. There are those like in Mr. Slant’s example, for whom this may go all the way into anxiety disorders, and then there are those who just have the bad fortune to pick jobs that are not well-suited to their temperament so it doesn’t let their intellectual capacity shine.
And VCO3, adding “YMMV” and a winkie after heaping contempt and derision on the character of a large segment of the population based on their vocation is NOT how you come across as having made a lighthearted observation
I need a structured schedule. I need deadlines, otherwise I’m just not motivated. I know that in school, I’ll never get fired, my quality of living is not dependent on my performance and if I mess up, it isn’t the end of the world. I think I’d be a very good worker, if I got over my fear of actually working. Forget about retail though - I have people anxiety. Set me in front of a computer and give me something to work on, and I’m happy.
Very often, a totally different set of skills is required between being a good student and doing a particular job.
Here’s just a couple of examples off the top of my head:
You might see a good student with double major in Computer Science and Marketing. He looks like a great candidate to do sofware sales. However, none of that will mean much if he doesn’t have the persuasive people skills to close a sale. That requires a basic personality that doesn’t get evaluated or improved during college classes.
A music education major could be a hard worker, a good musician, get good grades, and be highly motivated. Now put her in a bandroom with 75 junior high kids and give her the task of running a successful band program. Now the basic task has shifted from “do a good job” to “get 75 junior high to do a good job”. Having a personality that motivates kids is more important than the grades received in music theory and history.
Charles Knight, who painted all those wonderful illustrations of prehistoric creatures at the American Museum of Natural History (and at the Field Museum, and elsewhere) reportedly didn’t function really well off the canvas. His wife used to give him his lunch money, and other folks handled his business affairs. Absolutely brilliant in his work at reconstruction and illustration, but apparently not other things. Fortunately, he had a good support structure to fall back on.
I could tell you stories, dear og, could I tell you stories. There’s the one where my advisor stole my research proposal and passed it off as her own, because I had to go to a family wedding in Toronto two days before the deadline. Then there’s the time that she accused me of being an alcoholic, and reduced me to fits of tears. Want me to carry on? Luckily, she left, and my current advisor is amazing.
As for academics insulating themselves from the ‘real world’, what Shagnasty said.
I had a boss who was a perpetual student. I don’t know where it falls apart, but he was useless in the business world, yet outstanding in his thesis writing and choosing new classes to attend. I predict the family business will move into someone else’s control because he really only has a passing interest in it.
I pretty much kicked butt in college — surrounded by folks trying to blend in and fit in and suffice, I was lauded for standing out. The other students would essentially do a book report on the assigned text and the lectures, while I would rip some subset of the authors a new one, dismantling their viewpoint with perspectives developed from other authors and/or from views disseminated in the lectures. Or sometimes I’d even kick off from the lecturer’s perspective, opposing myself to it, categorizing various authors of assigned text as either in the lecturer’s camp or in my camp. They loved this when I was an undergrad, less so when I was a grad student (but still sufficiently that I cut a decent swath).
The workforce is mostly not geared towards employees glancing around and criticizing policies, business practices, and procedures, and departing from the “do this, and do it this way” with more than a modicum of initiative.
I lucked out — found an aptitude at doing something in data management where for the most part the bossfolks were in no position to tell me how to do things, and have gotten away with backtalking at times regarding what to do, inserting myself into the control of the overall workflow, using the excuse of “I need to understand it fully in order to optimize the user-friendliness of the database” to observe and then make changes (“This is a nonsystem here, a dependable reliable continuity needs to be implemented” / “This is redundant, the workers here at this earlier stage record this data in THIS fashion, that should initiate this process, not having these clerical folks HERE type this up based on this. So tell them to quit that entirely, rely on what’s in this field…”)
Most “real world” work, especially at the entry level, is incredibly boring and totally removed from any actual interests the workers may have. This might well be a problem for someone from academia.
The business world is different from the academic world in a very important way. In academia, your entire evaluation is based on your ability to complete a series of assigned tasks, projects and tests. In the business world, you also have to complete your work but you are also judged in the manner in which you complete it.
Relationships are also much more important in business. You can’t be in an ivory tower (at least not until you are the boss) where you can just work and study quietly with likeminded individuals.
Also, most work processes are set up so they don’t require a genius to perform them.
Become a management consultant.
I’ve definitely observed this as a troubling phenomenon in academia vs. business. Someone I know worked under a professor who did amazing, brilliant research, but was a totally lousy boss. He freaked out and yelled at his employees about insignificant problems, was unclear about his expectations and then blamed his employees for not living up to them, and didn’t keep track of his finances until one day when he suddenly realized he didn’t have enough money to pay all the people he was employing, and had to have some sudden layoffs. People in business tend to be promoted to managerial positions because of inherent “managerial skills” (this is a tendency, not a rule, of course). Or if they’re promoted and totally lack managerial skills, it will catch up with them eventually. People in academia tend to be hired as professors because of their research interests and publications, and their ability to teach, manage, or work well with others is totally irrelevant. Especially after they get tenure. I also have professors in the family and their stories about dysfunctional colleagues often amaze me. I think would make a lot more sense to separate the job of “professor” into several different jobs–researcher, administrator, and teacher–and hire accordingly. Keep the brilliant folks in the back room researching and keep the awesome teachers out front lecturing and working with students.