Read on Twitter
Just occurred to me that maybe I'm working off the wrong definition when I say "hidden curriculum."
When I use this term, I'm referring to the unadvertised and implicit career resources in academia that relatively few students know how to fully use. (thread)
When I use this term, I'm referring to the unadvertised and implicit career resources in academia that relatively few students know how to fully use. (thread)
As an undergrad, I didn't know what doing a PhD actually entailed. I didn't understand the importance of undergraduate research, and I didn't know about fellowships and other opportunities until it was too late to apply for most of them.
And then there's other social aspects of academia that I think many undergrads miss out on, like how to really use office hours, seek out mentorship, or cultivate professional references.
Nobody else in my family does science, so I kinda figured out how to navigate the field on my own. Mostly by talking to my friends whose parents held PhDs, and learning what kinds of career trajectories they needed to take to get there. The gap is palpable, though.
And if that's just my experience, then I guarantee you that 1st-gen college students and students of historically excluded groups are gonna have it much harder getting their professional careers set up.
My response thus far has been to normalize career conversations as a teaching assistant. I ask students about their majors, frequently advertise research opportunities, and use my research/teaching/industry background to give students ideas about where they can go.
But eventually, I want to find a way to tackle this phenomenon on a more systemic level. Because I don't think STEM is ever going to become more equitable until we shrink opportunity gaps, both implicit and explicit.
Anyways, what was my question? Oh yeah! Is "hidden curriculum" the right term for what I'm trying to get at here, or is there something that works better?
