Things that irritate me (but don’t reach status of frosting of shorts) about professional meetings

Why do people feel the need to go out in enormous groups for meals? And then want to sit at a table for 16? or even 10? The wait for a  table is longer. The service takes forever (and at lunch, you are inevitably late the next session). You end up only talking to the 2-3 people right around you. I understand that young ‘uns want to go out with Big  Dogs. I understand that  someone is insecure and needs a crowd. But whatever your goal may be, you will do better in a group of 4.

It is always OK to go up to someone, introduce yourself and ask a question. If they are rude to you, they are not worth knowing, and you can just read their papers. I go to meetings to talk to young scientists.

Why is coffee not always available? We run on coffee.

Why does one BSD always feel that its time to take some poor young student down a  notch? Why does he need to say “It makes me angry when you do what  you did”? why can’t he say “when you go to publish this, consider changing XYZ, it will make the study stronger”? [more on this later, worthy of a whole post]

Do Millenials realize that when they end every statement on a rising pitch that it sounds like they questioning their results, their ability, and everything else they say? Yes, I know that New Zealanders and Canadians talk that way normally, but its not quite the same.

I’m just getting old and grumpy.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Things that irritate me (but don’t reach status of frosting of shorts) about professional meetings

  1. With respect to the dinner question: I don’t think it’s so much that people plan to go out in large groups, but as the day progresses, each of the 3 people who were originally going to go out together invites another one or two out of courtesy (“what are you doing for dinner?” “going out with x and z, you can totally come” “cool, can b come too?”) etc. All of a sudden there are 20 people going out to eat.

  2. RE: Why do people feel the need to go out in enormous groups for meals?
    To add a few more arguments against this godawful convention:
    1 Invariably, the conversation at the other end of the table will be more interesting, or,
    2, if you are seated at the middle of the table, you will be awkwardly positioned between two rival conversations, try to follow both, but ultimately follow neither
    3. The larger your group, the more likely it contains members with diametrically opposed views on bill splitting protocol, and consequently,
    4. the bigger pain in the ass it will be to resolve these differences

  3. “Do Millenials realize that when they end every statement on a rising pitch that it sounds like they questioning their results, their ability, and everything else they say?” This used to piss me off too (and I’m nearly a Millennial), but now I just try not to be ageist. I nonetheless agree they’re not helping themselves.

      • Does it colour how you perceive NZers and Canadians? I ask as a NZer – I often feel that I don’t get the respect my science deserves (but it possibly doesn’t help that I’m a small female who is routinely mistaken for being 10 years younger than I actually am)

      • Not Kiwis because I lived in Australia for two years, and Actually had Kiwi Friends. I think that NZer’s are perceived as so exotic that the upward inflection goes unnoticed.

  4. Pingback: A good thing that happens at one of the annual meetings I attend | Mistress of the Animals

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s