Is it worth it to accept this PhD scholarship? I got a scholarship offer which requires me to work for a financial institution for three days (24 hours) a week. The scholarship is quite generous (50k AUD per year). Is it worth it to take it if I don't have to take the responsibility of TA and RA? I am just afraid it will influence my academic performance during my PhD life. After all, I take a PhD for making myself have a position in the academia world. If my publication record will be influenced by the three-day work, I'd rather not take this scholarship and turn to self-fund(I don't have any other scholarship). Can someone who has already experienced a PhD life help me estimate the pros and cons of this scholarship?

Taking the scholarship will undoubtedly affect your academic performance. 24 hours a week is no joke, and is easily comparable to the amount of time you will spend on academic work. For obvious reasons if you give up 50% of the time you spend on your PhD, your work will suffer (or you will take longer to graduate).

However 50k AUD a year is a lot of money. It's so much money that if you converted to full-time work at the institution (earning 66% more salary because of the increased hours) you would be earning the average Australian salary. This may not sound spectacular to you, but don't forget that this comparison is vs. Australians as a whole, and you are probably quite young; many of the other people in this statistic have been working longer and so also earn more. Compared to your peer group you are likely to be extremely well paid.

Further, if you take the scholarship, you probably also have an easier time finding a non-academic job after graduating. You might even have one already prepared for you when you graduate, saving you the job search. See also my calculations in this similar question.

I would strongly incline towards taking the scholarship. I would even consider skipping the PhD entirely and immediately joining the workforce. The only exceptions would be if you are determined to become a professor and are not willing to consider a non-academic job after graduating, or if you detest working in finance.


How to handle team member who is unable/unwilling to collaborate Okay, this is a problem I am really scared of lately. I am always willing to learn something exciting whenever I do any coursework. However, this adventurous mind of mine is risky and can often put my grades in jeopardy. Now, the problem is, there are "unfortunate" times where I have to collaborate with other students. It then becomes a serious issue of ego clash, when my classmate wants an easy way out, while I want to be all out conqueror (which I think should be the goal, since I am spending my time at college to learn something new, not to respect and elongate my comfort zone). So, it often happens that this internal squabble is very detrimental to the overall group performance and at the end of the semester the overall outcome results in a hodgepodge. Moreover, I end up having a bitter relationship with my classmates.

So, my question is how can I motivate my project partners to do something interesting and challenging, without distracting them to think that the project is hard(which it ultimately can be).

P.S: Thanks  for pointing out my mistakes, I will be more careful with my attitude.

I am always willing to learn something exciting whenever I do any coursework

Great.

  However, this adventurous mind of mine is risky and can often put my grades in jeopardy.

Less great.  I am concerned that you are setting up a false dichotomy.  Being ambitious in coursework does not have to involve risk of poor grades.  It is part of being a mature student and researcher to learn how to reach for the stars in such a way that not attaining your full expectations does not result in complete failure but in work which is itself still valuable.  (This is admittedly an "advanced lesson": I have known people who have made it to the tenure-track without learning it...sometimes with grave consequences.)

It sounds like you are getting an assignment -- let's say a coding assignment since I see you are a computer science student -- and planning something much more ambitious than is actually asked of you, even to the degree that the chance that you will not be able to pull it off gives you a bit of a thrill.  But you don't need to work in this way.  With planning -- and applying some insight early on; it's not all grunt work -- you can design a project in which you first complete what is asked of you and then move on to the more ambitious aspects that you are (happily) more interested in.  Coding work in particular is best done incrementally.  If you work on code over a long period of time, it is much more useful for everyone if some of the code that you write can be used (and tested, responded to...) right away than if you write things in a way so that you have nothing that works until the very end.

So far this advice is just for your own work.  In collaborative work I think you should be clear about (i) what you are definitely going to do -- i.e., what your collaborators can count on you doing -- and (ii) what you would like to aim for in your remaining time (which if you are talented and hardworking, you will almost certainly have).  Also, if you are actually more talented/quicker/have more time to put in, then it is reasonable to use at least some of your leftover time to try to help your collaborators with their projects.  That will certainly go a long way to getting your collaborators on your side and avoiding bitterness.

In general, when you are working with other people you should stop every so often and really try to view things from their perspective.  This sounds almost condescending, but it is not meant to be and it is really a skill: some people are good at putting themselves in others' shoes and others just can't let go of their own perspective; the former are much more valuable team players.  One tip here: would your classmates describe themselves as wanting "an easy way out"?  Or do they have goals which are just different from yours in some way?  Moreover, do they see your flirtation with failure that, in your own words, can often put your grades in jeopardy and think, "Gosh, I wonder whether whoknows is going to come through with what we agreed he would do or come back proud of the fact that he bit off more than he could chew?"


Entering Economics Ph D from M Sc Behavioural Science I am an Economics undergraduate from India and I wish to at the end become a researcher in Economics after having a Ph. D. in Economics itself.
But given my interest in Behavioural Economics, I applied for and received an offer of admission for an M. Sc. in Behavioural Science (the institute is ranked in top 20 for both Economics and Behavioural Science globally by several organisations), so that I get a better view of the psychological side of things as well.
But I am worried if this temporary detour can negatively affect my prospects for getting admitted into a well ranked Ph. D. programme in Economics. In particular, I have heard that mostly candidates from extremely math heavy backgrounds are preferred for Economics Ph. D. courses and M. Sc. Behavioural Science may not be counted as a particularly math heavy programme, although the programme does include a fair amount of both Economics and Statistics.
Are my concerns valid? Will a master's in Behavioural Science seriously negatively affect my prospects? Should I go ahead with my plan or not?

I certainly don't see a MS in Behavioral Science as a negative, and I don't think any econ PhD program that does research in behavioral economics will either.  The reason you're interested in it is the same reason it applies well to that subfield.  That said:

You may make yourself more competitive in a program that emphasizes behavioral econ, at the opportunity cost of making yourself less competitive in a more traditional econ program, so make sure this is the field you really want to focus on.
You will still need the math.  So if you've studied multivariable calculus, differential equations, and real analysis anyway, then you've probably cleared many of the important bars.  If this MS you're considering would come at the cost of taking those core econ PhD pre-reqs, then that would be a problem.  Not necessarily an insurmountable one, however, if you can figure out how to fit those classes in.


Co-authoring a paper with a persona non grata Suppose Researcher A did some joint work with Researcher B. While the work was still in progress, or the manuscript was in preparation, researcher B became persona non grata in Academia, due to wrongdoing. I don't think the exact nature of wrongdoing is relevant here, but let's say it is serious, as in for example:

faking research results (the research with A was not faked)
severely breaching research ethics (the research with A was not affected)
sexual misconduct towards subordinates (that Researcher A was not aware of during joint work)

What's Researcher A to do? I see four options, all of which have their ethical and practical drawbacks.

publish the result jointly with B as planned. The ethical drawback is that it can be perceived as siding with B in the scandal/breaching a boycott, and the  practical one is that Researcher A's career might suffer from association with the scandal.
not publish at all. The practical drawback is that Researcher's A CV suffers, and the ethical drawbacks are obvious: not publishing a worthy research funded by taxpayers is a waste of their money; it may hinder further progress of the field, and, for example, in Maths, if results have been announced or communicated to the community, then codes of conduct explicitly require that the details are published soon.
withdraw Researcher A's name. The practical drawback is as above, and the ethical drawback is that generally nobody should receive full credit for the work that was in fact joint, and even less so as a "reward" for the misconduct.
ask/pressure Researcher B to withdraw their name. The practical concern is that Researcher B may not agree, and the ethical one is that, again, Researcher A should not get more credit than their contribution to the work, and wrongdoing should not disqualify B from getting their share of credit where it is due.

So, what is the right course of action for A, ethically and practically?

I expand on a comment by Buffy where this was hinted at:
It is a very different issue whether the misconduct was on the scientific level, which would cast doubt on the results, or on the social/moral level.
In the first case, it is difficult to trust the results if B is on the author list. Here, we have a serious dilemma. Probably OP might want to consider to cut their (and everybody's losses). Perhaps there is a way to publish it that makes it explicitly clear that this work has not been tainted by misconduct (editors note etc.).
To the second point:
Reiser's filesystem, Bieberbach's or Teichmüller's achievements are not devalued by their personal moral failings.
In this case, the research is done. It should be published. I do not know how important or impactful it is, but in principle, it's always a service to science and humanity, not just the respective taxpayer. Ultimately it's the OP's decision whether they are prepared to accept possible flak for their step. The research is separate from the authors behaviour. It's their detractors that would be trying to mix science and mores.
The only exception I can imagine for research to be suppressed for moral failures would be if the data were obtained in a clearly unethical way. The purpose of this is to discourage incentives for future breaking of ethical rules for obtaining it.


How should I write an email asking about the status of my PhD application? I applied for a PhD position. As part of the admission process, the professor requested two letters of recommendation, which have been sent. I was then asked to wait a week, but now two weeks have passed and I have not heard from the professor yet. So, I would like to ask about the status of my PhD application. I have no clue how to write it. Please help!!!

Thank you in advance.

I wouldn't make too much fuss about it. A simple short and polite email which states that the current state of affairs (letters were sent, you were asked to wait for a week) and inquires whether there were some problems with your application and what its status is.

On the side note, a week waiting is not at all alarming in academia, unless some explicit deadlines are in place. I would wait for at least another 10 days before contacting the professor.

I also agree with RoboKaren, it is highly unusual to apply to a professor. Therefore, another cultural/professional practices may apply in your case. However, a polite email is almost always acceptable (whether or not it is ignored is another question...).


Can you add nouns/adjectives/articles in a direct quotation in Chicago MoS keeping the message intact? I need to quote something from an author.

  ... during an economic downturn, it is no easier to find a job in a region with lower prevailing unemployment than in one with a higher unemployment rate.

As you can see, the sentence is a bit awkward as it does not have a parallel structure. I am wondering if in my quotation, I can edit it without changing the meaning. Are the following additions acceptable? See the following edit.

  "... during an economic downturn, it is no easier to find a job in a region with a lower prevailing unemployment rate than in one with a higher prevailing unemployment rate."

Mine has a parallel structure. My guide, the Chicago Manual of Style does not say anything about putting in such words to improve clarity. It does however allow changing spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.

You are allowed to add parenthetic words to a quote, so long as your additions are consistent with what the original author was trying to say.  The standard method is to use square parentheses to show an addition or replacement you have made to the quote.  Thus, you can write your altered quote like this:

  "... during an economic downturn, it is no easier to find a job in a region with [a] lower prevailing unemployment [rate] than in one with a higher [prevailing] unemployment rate."

By putting the additional words in square parentheses you indicate that you have added them to the original quote.  The reader will see that the original author only referred to "unemployment" rather than the "unemployment rate" in the first instance, you have added the additional word.

I tend to agree with other commentators here that this addition is probably unnecessary.  If you particularly want to frame things differently than the quotation, I would recommend paraphrasing here, instead of quotation.  In any case, the above is how you make additions/alterations to a quote if you want to do that.


US PhD to Developing Country Professorship So I was listening to this story on The Moth about a woman who earned a degree in Egypt and then an advanced degree in England and then went back to Zimbabwe to be a professor at local university: http://themoth.org/posts/stories/grandma-mahembes-farm

Would it be possible for a US citizen to do something similar and, after earning a PhD in the US, then pursue a professorship in a developing country? Is there any stigma against this as well? Should US citizens be expected to leave such opportunities the peoples of those countries? I know that the NSF has some bridge programs to bring people from developing countries to he US, but are there programs that do the reverse: that is, programs targeted at sending US PhDs to developing countries?

While I'm not aware of specific programs for international professorship opportunities (other than direct ads in regard to open positions), I compiled the following list of international-focused research and teaching programs, which might very well be what you're looking for. Keep in mind that the list below is not exhaustive, as there are various other programs (especially field-specific, i.e., biomedical, complex biological systems, social sciences, etc.), but IMHO contains the most well-known and/or important programs on the topic. Hope this helps.

The Fullbright U.S. Scholar Program - also see potentially relevant information on the related website of Institute of International Education;
NSF International Research Fellowship Program - the program no longer receives proposals, see next program instead;
International Postdoctoral Research Fellowships - the information specifies individual NSF programs that allow international component.


How do people peer-review many papers? I am an Assistant Professor of Chemistry. I try to be an active peer-reviewer but on average it takes a few hours to review a manuscript (reading, some searches in the literature, checking some relevant reference, and finally writing the report).

I review 2-3 papers per month and I need to spend some time outside my working hours. In various blogs, articles, websites like publons.com, I see it is not uncommon to review 10-20 papers per month.

Then, I came to the conclusion that I am doing something wrong. Because by my calculations, it is impossible to peer-review many papers along with various tasks of an academic.

I don't think people who review 10–20 papers per month are likely to be doing a good job.  They are probably just reading a paper once and writing a couple paragraphs (at most) based on superficial impressions.  I've certainly gotten reports on my own papers that seemed to be produced that way; and they were both frustrating and not very useful.
I personally review about 3–6 papers each month, and that is by far the most of anyone in my department; I have also received outstanding referee rewards from multiple journals, mostly just recognizing my high levels of work.  (This also represents a big part of the professional service work that is expected of me as a faculty member.)  It would certainly be possible for me to referee five times as many papers (although I would have to contact a lot of editors to volunteer my services), but that would turn refereeing into a the largest component portion of my total workload.  It would not be possible to do those reports properly and still be a productive researcher.


Is a "textbook" considered to be an academic work? A question (mostly) for the tenured ones: Does writing a textbook count as an academic publication? I teach history, and also languages for historians. I was offered to publish a textbook of Serbian for historians with a relatively new press (Vernon Press). Is it considered to be an academic publication that may be presented to a tenure committee?

A textbook, if published by a reputable publisher, is certainly an academic publication.

How much a specific textbook is considered by a selection committee depends on the field, the textbook, the country and the selection committee. Thus, we cannot tell you if it's worth writing it just for the purpose of strengthening your application.

It might be worth noting that in the humanities, as far as I know (I'm from STEM), books are frequently a more common form of academic publication with respect to journal papers.


Pros and cons of double majoring vs a Master's I've looked into double majoring at my university and it seems that, as is apparently common, it's very likely that if I go down this track I will not graduate in 4 years, but probably in 5 or 6. This makes me wonder: what are the implications for a career in either industry or academia of a double major, as opposed to doing a single major, graduating in 4 years, and using the next 2 years to study for a Master's degree instead?

In general (and from the perspective of academia) I would say many undergraduate students overrate the value of double majoring and misunderstand its importance. Having two majors does not make you an expert in two fields. Moreover, depending on the fields in question, it doesn't aid your ability to go onto graduate school.

All things being equal a masters degree is

more useful for employment (I've never seen a job that explicitly requires a dual major but some jobs list a masters degree as a qualification).
a better indication of academic ability in a field
a more impressive credential than a dual major.

But there are several things that could make things unequal.

First, there are cases where showing a background in two fields is valuable, because a job bridges two skill sets. As aparente001 suggests in a comment, majoring in administration and art might better show an aptitude for managing a gallery than just one or the other. (Another example: a patent attorney often has a degree in science).

Second, there are cases where a graduate field requires knowledge (or some competency) in multiple underlying fields such as materials science (chemistry and engineering).

Third, if for personal reasons you desperately want to study both because you believe you will never be able to study the other after you go to graduate school, then it might be worth it to someone to spend 1 or 2 years to do that.

While there may be other special circumstances that make sense of it, I would say it's unlikely that the value towards academia of getting a second major is worth two years that could have been spent on an MA.

(For the record, I did two majors and don't regret it -- but I finished both in the usual 4 years).


Peer-correction / evaluation of homework Many MOOCs have a system where enrolled students get points for submitting homework, and for grading a fixed number of their peers' homework (On a MOOC i took earlier, each student had to evaluate at least three other randomly selected submissions).

I'm wondering if anyone has used this approach in a physical classroom with handwritten homework submissions. Apparently this is legal in the US, but I'd like to know if anyone has first hand experience with managing the logistics.

I'd keep a dedicated 'tutorial' hour for this where I could solve and discuss the homework problems on the board, and students would grade problems. Perhaps the most selfish benefit is that I am spared the drudgery of grading an scoring a stack of homework.

Peer evaluation (offline) is common in many universities and schools.

It is beneficial for students to see what their peers have written and to learn from their own and their peer's mistakes and strengths.

However, a well-formulated evaluation matrix would be necessary for objective evaluation.

In my University, short papers are almost always evaluated by students themselves. There is blinding and we even attempted three independent, blinded evaluations and awarded the maximum marks obtained if and only if all the three evaluations were within 15% difference range.

Hope this helps.


If an author does not intend to make much revenue from a book, why not make it open-access? Many authors do not intend to make much revenue from books (textbooks or research books) they contribute to, yet they don't make it open access. Why?

There are a number of reasons why not to, and they stem from the reasons one might want to publish a book, even if you aren't making much if any money:

The prestige of the publisher matters. For many tenure committees, professional organizations, etc. "A Book from BigDeal University Press" > "Some Markdown Files on Github" or what have you in terms of evaluation. In effect, you are getting paid, but in prestige and reputation rather than money.
Publishers take care of a number of things that, if you're self-publishing an open access book you have to do yourself, including copy-editing, layout, and most importantly, finding peer reviewers.
Seeing a book adopted widely (another part of the whole prestige aspect) will likely be more difficult for an open-access book, at least at present, where they are fairly common. Who is going to do the marketing? Has it actually been properly peer reviewed? Are there nice, hard-bound copies available (some of us like reading things on paper), etc.

That is not to say that there are not some very successful efforts in my field to do open access books. Hernan and Robins causal inference book, for example, has drafts and code available online: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/miguel-hernan/causal-inference-book/

But neither one of those authors is in the position to need much benefit from a book publication, and it's still being placed in a traditional press when it's finished.


The hiring process for a postdoc position in the US I need a piece of advice.
I found an interesting postdoc position one month ago. I applied all required documents (CV and cover letter) and 4-5 days later I was interviewed by the group (including head). A few days later I was asked to prepare the research highlights and I did that. One week later they asked me to apply for the position via the university website if I am interested in the position, and also requested recommendation letters from possible referees. All letters were provided as I know, and they are positive. Moreover, I know I well match to that position. Of course, I do not exclude other possible existing candidates for the position and I can be not the first among them, of course. So, one month passed from the interview.
I haven't experience in the application process for a postdoc position in the US and this is for the first time for me. Thus, the evaluation and hiring process for a postdoc position is a bit unclear for me. I am not sure that a direct request to the lab head for clarifying the situation is a good idea because in this case, I can look like a hysteric or in need person, and I don't want that due to obvious reasons. I do not exclude that they must prepare for the position a justification or something like and this also needs time.
In accordance with the above, I need a piece of advice. What should I do? Is the situation normal or I'm screwed? What should I choose as a strategy (wait or write)?

The academic decision clock can run very slowly. If you don't have other options then I'd suggest some patience. There may be a number of interviews they need to have with others and there may be issues about scheduling decision meetings. Lots of things can slow it down.
If you have a specific need to know about the decision then you can be a bit more aggressive in asking, but otherwise, a request for an update after a couple of weeks is probably acceptable. The most information you are likely to get, however, is that you are or are not, still in the running. You can ask whether they can give you an "estimated decision date" and they might answer, but  don't expect it to be especially accurate.
But don't pass up other opportunities as you wait.
I doubt that very many places will tell you that you aren't the first choice and if others are ahead of you they will wait for a decision from one of those before telling others they won't get the position. But don't read too much into a delay, and don't panic. There are too many possibilities.


Is it possible for an academic to successfully claim their Google knowledge panel with an institution-hosted webpage and a Google Scholar account? Edit: I rewrote the question based on the associated discussion on meta.
Context
Google created a "knowledge panel" about me which appears when my name is searched in Google. It consists mostly of a link to my Google Scholar profile, a couple of my publications and a picture of a person who has the same name as me. I want to replace the erroneous picture so I claimed the panel, and this involves an apparently strict identity verification process.
In particular, this verification process requires the person to prove that they can edit the content of at least two of the profiles which appear in the search results for their name.
Problem
I provided proof that I can edit my professional webpage hosted by my institution and my Google Scholar account, but my claim was rejected (after 3 months). When I asked for clarifications I was told that:

the login screens to your web profiles that you submitted in your verification application did not match with the social web profiles that appear on the first few pages of search results next to your knowledge panel.

I don't understand what this answer means, as my institution-hosted webpage and my Google Scholar scholar profile appear as first and third link in the search results. The issue seems to be about the definition of "social web profiles":

acceptable web profiles on SRP are Facebook, LinkedIn, Soundcloud, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Official website.

This list doesn't even include Google Scholar, although it's the source of the knowledge panel so to me it wouldn't make sense if they don't count it as a valid profile.
This list includes an "official website", but I suspect that they don't accept an institution-hosted webpage since it's harder and less standard to check a proof of ownership.

Of course I contacted Google support, but so far their answer has been disappointingly vague. They were not even able to answer the simple yes/no questions of whether my academic page or my Scholar profile counts as proof.
I assume that a professional webpage and a Scholar account are probably the two most common types of online "profile" for an academic. I've seen a few other academics' knowledge panels, according to my observations these always include at least another social media profile, such as a twitter account. Since Google employees/contractors themselves cannot explain the rules precisely, I suspect that there is some subjectivity involved. This is why I would like to know if any academic succeeded securing control of their knowledge panel without any social media account.
Question
Is it possible for an academic to successfully claim their Google knowledge panel only with an institution-hosted webpage and a Google Scholar account?
If yes, is there an effective way to prove ownership of the institution-hosted webpage?
My experience tends to show that the answer is no, but I want to check because it looks like their criteria are unclear. In other words, I don't know if they apply the same criteria to everyone, that's why it would be useful for me to know if anybody else succeeded in this way. I might also not have provided the kind of proof that they expect for a professional webpage or misunderstood their (vague) instructions, so I would appreciate any tip from fellow academics who went through this process.
Side notes
I don't have a clue why:

They implement a strict verification process for the knowledge panel which depends entirely on the Scholar account that I already own (and didn't have such a verification process).
Their system picks up a random picture instead of the one on my Scholar account.

Thanks to the people who explained the problem with my original question on meta. In this version I tried to target the specific problem that I have as an academic, I hope it's now clear that I'm looking for other academics' experience with this.

After multiple emails with Google support who didn't seem to understand the problem (or didn't want to), I finally obtained a clear answer: currently their verification process doesn't even consider that showing ownership of the Google Scholar account is a valid proof:

Sorry but you didn't answer the question: is Google Scholar a valid profile for the verification process? yes or no?

In regards to your concern, Google Scholar is not a valid profile for the verification process.

I didn't manage to obtain a clear answer about showing ownership of an institution-hosted webpage, but if even a Scholar account is not considered valid proof (even though it's the source of the knowledge panel), I assume that the institution-hosted webpage is certainly not a valid profile either.
Thus the answer is no, it is not possible for an academic to successfully claim their Google knowledge panel only with an institution-hosted webpage and a Google Scholar account.
Update: my claim was eventually accepted after I submitted my LinkedIn profile as single proof. Normally this is not sufficient according to the instructions, so I'm not sure what was the main reason for the acceptance. It's possible that me repeatedly pointing out the problem by email was a factor.


A seminar about women in STEM fields I'm attending a talk that will be given by a professor that runs a social-cognitive development lab at our school, and the topic will be about his work that attempts to explain why women are less represented in STEM fields and how early in life this occurs.

I suspect that plenty of STEM faculty and students will attend; moreover, I expect there to be uncomfortable topics regarding gender and race.

To what extent should I participate in question and answer with the speaker, if I see my own colleagues in the audience?  I would like to participate actively if I feel I have something interesting to add but that could necessarily be a question about gender and race.

I have been to seminars like that, including ones where large numbers of my colleagues are present.

So long as you have meaningful and productive questions (i.e. don't ask a question for the sake of asking one) and ask them as respectfully as you would any other topic, there isn't a problem.

I will note that choosing not to attend is also sending a message, and in the seminar I was in, a number of colleagues expressed disappointment that the room was nearly entirely women (in this case it was about the status of women in the field).


What to do during summer? So I just finished my 2nd year as an undergrad majoring in mathematics. I plan to continue on to a Ph.D afterwards, but only recently did I realize how behind I was... I haven't done any research, completed any projects or summer programs. I haven't done any outside reading so I don't really know much about any particular subject. Everyone I know in my program has at least something, so I'm worried that I'm really late in preparing for grad school.

I know I should probably consult a professor or advisor, but school's ended already... and admittedly, I've been a little apprehensive when talking with professors since, well, I don't really know anything in the first place, and I know they're very busy, so I eventually just awkwardly ask some questions and leave ASAP having not understood much.

In short, I'm just very confused and don't know what to do from here on out... so any advice would be great.

I haven't done any research, completed any projects or summer
  programs.

That's okay.  You've only just finished your second year of undergraduate studies.

  I haven't done any outside reading so I don't really know much about
  any particular subject.

That can be remedied!  How about taking some summer classes in a community college, in a branch of science that intrigues you?

  I've been a little apprehensive when talking with professors.

You're going to need a bit more chutzpah in order to get your money's worth out of college and graduate studies!  Perhaps you could transition into feeling more comfortable with professors' office hour visits by focusing primarily on visiting the office hours held by grad student teaching assistants for the time being.

It is very common for second year students to be hit hard with an appreciation of how little they know.  Try to ride this storm of self-doubt while reminding yourself of that fact.

It would be great if you could find one or more mentors, either on your own or through a matching-up program.  The mentor might be a faculty member who serves as your undergraduate advisor -- the person who checks your proposed schedule and advises you about what courses to take next year, etc.

Edit 5/20

There are several ways to break the ice.

Ask for some undergraduate advising -- s/he will check your unofficial transcript against your proposed schedule for next semester.  Make sure you have this conversation in this person's office, not over email, because what we want to happen is for the professor's natural mentoring instincts to kick in, so that one thing leads to another.

In the experimental sciences, one can ask for a tour of his/her lab.  You might want to ask your question over at Mathematics Education as well.

Spend some time reading the research descriptions of the faculty in your department, to see whose area intrigues you, then take a look at some of their papers.  When you find one that gets you intellectually excited, make an appointment like this:  Dear Professor So-and-so, I've been reading your "title of paper", and wonder if I could make an appointment to come in and talk with you about this area of research?"  Or something like that.  Researchers love to talk with people about their work.

To get matched up through a formal matching up program, you need to look closely at your department's website, or ask your department administration if there is such a thing.

During the school year, attend lots of seminars.  Be bold about chatting with grad students over cookies afterwards.  If no one is bringing cookies, juice and paper cups, bring some!


Do I need to add answers to the reviewers’ comments to a conference paper? We submitted a paper to a conference and received a mail containing this clause

  Please see the reviewers’ comments below on your paper. These comments are
  intended to help you to improve your paper for final publication. The listed
  comments should be addressed, as final acceptance is conditional upon
  appropriate response to the requirements and comments. The conference
  committee retains a list of certain critical comments to be addressed by
  authors, and will control that these have been addressed in the camera-ready
  version.

It seemed to me that along with the main camera-ready paper, we need to send a response like this. Can anyone please suggest what should be done? Should we create a response (like the PDF) along with revised paper or should we only send the revised paper according to the suggestions of the reviewers?

It's unclear from these instructions whether a separate response document is required by this program committee or not. However, it's easy to write one, and it will make it very easy for the PC to see that you have addressed the reviewers' comments. You should prepare a short separate document that lists each reviewers' comment and the action (if any) you have taken to address it, referring to pages, sections, or figures that have been modified. Depending on the submission system, you may be able to upload this as a PDF or incorporate it directly into the submission system in a comment to your final submission.

Not every comment will lead to an action on your part, so if you disagree with a comment and made no change based on that comment, you can address why in your response document. Sometimes, you will write your reason for not making a change, realize that your reason could be incorporated as a clarification in the paper itself, and then make that clarification instead (and note it as such in your response to reviewers). Thus, preparing the response document and addressing each comment point-by-point, can help you figure out how to deal with each comment and lead to a better article.

You should prepare at least the outline of this document even if, in the end, there's nowhere to submit it. If you're having trouble finding a place to upload it, you should ask the PC Chair or whoever is shepherding your article whether they want your formal response.


How important are CS courses for a pure mathematics PhD admission? I am a junior majoring in math and I am thinking about doing PhD in pure math, but my transcript got low grades (two Cs) from the two CS courses in hardware systems and programming languages.

How much will these two courses affect my application chances? My general GPA at this point is 3.5, while my math GPA is 3.8. Also, I have research experience with letters of recommendation from my professors.

Other than lowering your GPA, I don't think these two grades will matter much in a pure math PhD application.  After all, many pure math applicants take no CS courses at all, so it is certainly not the case that admissions committees are systematically screening for CS skill.  Moreover, not everyone in pure math values programming ability, skill or experience (not as much as we should, probably) and those who do are probably math-centric enough to believe that an applicant who is mathematically strong could become a good programmer if they put their mind to it.

Anyway, what's done is done.  I wouldn't worry much about it, and in particular I would not feel the need to try to spin / justify these grades in your personal statement.


How much can a one really bad semester destroy my chances for MS in the top US/Canada Schools? Due to some really harsh personal conditions, I had a GPA of 2.1 in my 6th Semester, now overall my CGPA is 3.3. I have a pretty good research experience. 2 Decent LORs, one from a highly esteemed professor, 330 in GRE, an international publication, couple national, an international intern. That semester had some major courses relating to what I am applying in MS(got C's in them). Should I mention why I failed to perform in that particular semester in my SOP? If then how much emphasis should I put on it?

Several points.
First of all - yes. You should definitely mention it. If there is a separate personal statement than that is the place. Often the first cutoff is mostly based on GPA and GRE. So mention it early, be concise, avoid any temptation of trying to gain sympathy (many have some difficulties along the way), and explain how you overcame that personal hardship.

It is what it is and you cannot change it. So chin up and forward march. Try to polish whatever you can polish. I you have a publication in a decent venue and good LOR's, it might cover for GPA issues any way. If your LORs are 'decent' and that is not modesty, I might start from there.

Good luck!


What are the benefits and drawbacks of a professor being interdisciplinary when they seek tenure? Possible benefits: More grant money through other departments

Possible drawbacks: A significant fraction of their research might not be seen as research that benefits the department's standing in the area.

But what about others?

If you've been doing interdisciplinary research for five years, and now approach the tenure process without a clear idea of how to sell your case, consider it failed, and start looking for a job elsewhere, before you are under an immense pressure of finding a good job in a one-year grace period after the end of the world as you know it.

If you were hired specifically for interdisciplinary research, and your offer letter stated that, and your time was split "50% + 1 hour in computer science + 25% in department of Roman languages + 25% in agriculture", with a clear explanation as to how you are to be evaluated by each of the parties involved, then these explanations should have served as the guidelines to build your research program. If you were hired to do the theory of parallel computing, but later decided that it would be cool to do some extra work in Roman languages because you liked their research questions, and thought you could contribute with your data mining algorithms that would uncover nuances of how Latin and French are interconnected (and you did, by their standards); and you proposed some GIS tools for horticulturalists to use that have become the industry standard software -- that's all fun and fine, but if you did not discuss that with your CS chair, this was likely a waste of time, as in terms of parallel computing, this time was as good as playing squash. Your annual reviews in the main department should have indicated so, if your department would ever care to guide you (not all departments do, though).

Spending time in another discipline is very fruitful for finding interesting research problems (as typically most disciplines don't talk to one another, and there's a wealth of problems to be solved using other disciplines' tools), but it also means that you have had less time to spend in your home discipline, which nearly inevitably means a weaker CV: fewer grants, fewer publications, lower quality research. (That's essentially Suresh's last point).


How can a student evaluate themself? For background, I'm a first year PhD student in a mathematics program. Basically, I can't tell if I'm "where I should be".
As an undergrad, I read before class and lecture felt like a nice review. As a grad student, I can read before class, spend an hour or two pouring over a few pages, understanding every sentence, and the professor will breeze over it in 10 minutes. If I don't prepare, I'll be left in the dust, totally lost. Or, he will cover material with so few details it's hard to tell if I understand anything at all. Talking to classmates, I'm not unusual, but I find this very stressful because it's consistent and I'm not used to it. If it's typical to get lost and not understand the lecture, how can I tell if I understand anything at all? Is this just standard?
Reading papers or attending talks is worse. I feel like I get things only at 'handwavey' level, without details or subtlety. I know this is normal so I don't stress much, but some day I will have to be giving talks, writing papers. How can I get there if without a firm basis?
I think my fear is that I could be learning the absolute minimum and barely skating by -- which will bite me when it comes time to take prelims/do my own research -- or I could be doing perfectly fine and just stressing myself out. My question is, how can I tell? How can I gauge if I'm making typical or appropriate progress?
My grades and homework are good, but this seems meaningless. I always receive full marks, even when I find errors in my own work later, and work comes back with no comments. Talking with peers helps a lot, but is hard with distance learning. Asking a professor directly seems like it would be awkward and unprofessional, and also how could they know? They don't grade the homework and we speak for maybe 20 minutes in office hours occasionally. What else could I consider?
I've also read this post, which is relevant, but the answers are directed at the research stage of the PhD. I'm still taking courses, etc. I've also read posts on imposter syndrome and I feel like my issue is distinct. It's not that I feel like an imposter, but more that I feel like I'm untethered and in la la land as Dan writes. I'm interested in ways to feel more tethered, and in understanding how common/typical this untethered feeling is so it doesn't stress me out as much.

I think you’ve hit on a subtle point here that plagues many mathematics students up to and including the advanced graduate level: evaluating yourself without external feedback is very, very difficult.
In fact, it seems to me that the ability to evaluate your own level of understanding (in the context of studying pure math at least) and test when you understand a concept well, versus when you are just deluding yourself into thinking you understand, is a skill in its own right. And it’s a difficult skill at that, one which takes considerable time and experience to acquire. Professional mathematicians have developed all sorts of tricks and heuristics to achieve this: various sanity checks and other “unit tests” that we continuously run while working through new material to test our understanding and make sure we keep our mathematical feet planted firmly on the ground, instead of becoming untethered and flying off to some kind of la la land. At some point this becomes second nature and I would guess that most experienced mathematicians do it essentially at a subconscious level. But as I said, it takes years of practice to get to that point.
What I would suggest is that you do two things: first, put it on your todo list to develop an ability to gauge your own level of understanding and identify misconceptions about material you’re reading or hearing in lecture. It’s an extremely useful skill, and thinking of it as an explicit thing you want to work towards in a deliberate way will surely help you acquire it faster and better.
Second, until you’ve actually developed that skill and have evidence to support that, assume you don’t have it. That is, accept that there will be occasions (which become increasingly rare over time, typically) when you will absolutely have to rely on external feedback to tell you that you’re misunderstanding something, or to confirm that you’re not. I imagine people will be posting other answers here suggesting various tips and tricks for evaluating yourself. That’s all well and good, but don’t let such advice mislead you into thinking you can do without external feedback. You can’t — not yet, not at this point in your studies at least. So don’t be shy, go out and seek that feedback from your professors, peers, stack exchange or wherever else you can get it. And please get rid of the mindset that it’s “unprofessional” to seek feedback - nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion.


Master's Degree Curriculum and its Effects on Teaching Opportunities I have been working as a entry-level web developer for approximately a year now.  I am looking to go back to school to get a Master's Degree in hopes that I will be able to teach programming/development at the community college level (which requires a Master's Degree).  I'm not interested in a PhD because I have to work full-time to support my family and I'm not interested in doing research.  I have narrowed down my options to 2 programs:

Brandeis University has a Master's in Software Engineering, which teaches a lot of very specific, high-level courses (primarily Java programming and development).
Boston University Master's in Computer Science - Web Development, teaches a more holistic approach that spans several domains, but doesn't go into as much detail.

Do you find that a particular academic background makes one more marketable for teaching at the community college level?  I feel that having a deep mastery of a specific technology is great, but community college courses generally do not get that deep into the material.  I'm also a little nervous that if I take a more general curriculum that introduces me to many topics, my transcripts may not show that I have a deep enough understanding of a specific subject to teach at the college level.

Does anyone have any recommendations/insights or experiences with this type of career transition?

Thank you and have a great day.

...in hopes that I will be able to teach programming/development at the community college level (which requires a Master's Degree)

While this is technically true for many community colleges, it is also true that with a Master's degree vice a PhD, you will be less competitive for positions, as many PhDs also apply to community colleges.  A friend of mine from graduate school worked successfully as a programmer at Microsoft for 20 years, and when he started looking for teaching positions (with his Master's already) at community colleges, he was told that he would not be competitive for available positions.

A further caveat: because community colleges generally do not have research requirements for instructors, they tend to rely on teaching experience as much as a particular degree when hiring instructors.  I would suggest that you consider trying to get some computer science teaching experience as well (if you don't have any).  You might want to see if either of the two schools you mentioned will allow you to TA classes -- you may not be able to get paid, but you could do it for free for the experience.

You might also want to consider approaching the graduate school of education at BU (if you attend there) to see about education courses -- they have a number of teaching classes, and taking one of those would also bolster your resume.  You could also see about trying to get adjunct teaching positions at various community colleges -- teaching a one-off class may be possible, and you'd be able to leverage the experience.

Bottom line: unfortunately, there probably isn't a short path to being competitive for teaching positions at community colleges.  If you are going to go down the MS route, your best bet is to do as well as you can in a program, and to try to get some teaching experience under your belt.


arXiv preprint and final paper differing by sections and appendices Because of the style of a journal, and the space limit, I was asked to remove a section and all appendices.

While I have no problem with that, I want to preserve it in the arXiv preprint.

So:

Is it OK to have different final papers and its arXiv version? (perhaps with the comment, e.g. "Sec 3.4. and Appendices A and B only in the arXiv version")
Is it OK to cite in a paper its own arXiv version? (e.g. derivation of (15) is in [5]?)

There doesn't need to be a strict correlation between an arXiv publication and an actual publication. It's actually common to use arXiv to publish extended/longer version of a published version (which seems exactly what you want to do). So

Yes, it's OK to have a final paper that differs from the arXiv version.
Yes, it's even encouraged to cite the arXiv version to point to appendices/extra material/proofs/detailed examples, etc.

However, the main rule is still that your journal paper must be self-contained, i.e., must be understandable without having to read the arXiv version. In other words, if removing the section implies to remove a definition (for instance), then you must put this definition somewhere else in the paper.


posting photos of my students in classroom Is it legal/ethical to include photos of my students in my classroom online (as in my online portfolio)?

In the US, it would violate FERPA to identify students as having been in your class. I assume other countries have similar laws and I think most would agree it is a violation of their privacy (i.e. unethical) to do so without permission.

Talk to legal counsel at your university and do everything under their guidance, which would probably involve a signed release by each student.


Is it ethical to give (paid) private tutorials for a student in a module I am TA'ing? My TAing mostly involves helping students working on their programming assignments during classes.

A student asked me to give him private, paid, tutorials for the module, being concerned that all 'usual' resources to which he has access for free (book, classes, a bit of time outside of classes with me) won't be enough to cover his starting gap in this course.

Is this ethical? In particular, is it ethical from the point of view of other students in the course? They might think he is getting a privileged treatment, if he doesn't tell them I am being paid for that time. Should I ask him to notify them? Worse, they could think I am giving out solutions to him (I won't, but they might not think that's the case).

Should I speak with the professor of the course myself about this? Or could I ask the student to discuss his difficulties with the professor first, and eventually ask the professor himself if I can private-tutoring him?

Should I speak with the professor of the course myself about this?

I'd recommend telling the student you can't do it, and mentioning to the professor that you were asked but turned it down (to avoid any rumors).  There are massive issues here:

Being paid extra compromises your ability to grade the student's work.  It looks too much like a bribe, and the fact that the student will presumably stop paying you if the tutoring is ineffective (as measured by grades) creates an ongoing incentive to grade leniently or supply inappropriate degrees of help.  Even if you feel you can avoid bias, the apparent conflict of interest is so strong that other students will almost certainly be upset.  Think about it this way.  If the extra money doesn't matter to you and you have enough time, why not help the student for free?  The fact that money is changing hands at all indicates that the money matters to you (as it would for most people), and that is evidence of dangerous incentives.
It could look like you are extorting money from your students.  This is the flip side of the first point: in addition to your incentive to offer too much to those who pay extra, you now have an incentive to offer too little to those who don't hire you as a tutor.  Some students always grumble about how unhelpful their TA is (regardless of the facts), and you really don't want them speculating that your supposed unhelpfulness is intended to pressure them into paying for extra tutoring.
I'd bet this is a major violation of university rules.  Of course you'd have to look into your own case, but I'd be shocked if any university allowed course staff to accept paid tutoring from their students.

I'd be wary of asking the professor whether this is acceptable.  For most questions, asking can't hurt, but here the ethically questionable aspects are so strong that asking whether it is OK could look bad.  If you ask, you should be sure to make your understanding of the ethical issues clear, to avoid giving the impression that you think it's fine and just want to check whether the professor has any objections.

If the student needs a tutor, I'd recommend pointing him towards official university channels.  For example, perhaps your department maintains a list of students who would be willing to offer tutoring.  The important thing is to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest.  Recommending hiring your friend instead of you is better than accepting the job yourself, but it could still look awkward.  (Students might wonder whether you were receiving a commission or kickback from your friend, or whether securing jobs for friends was enough of an incentive to influence your behavior.)


When is it expected to write someone's name correctly? It is generally expected that European names be spelled correctly in academic correspondence and citations. This is expected, even when they use symbols not in the English language, when publishing in English (provided that a modern typesetting system will support it).

For instance, the German name "Müller" is expected to be spelled correctly, even though it could be spelled "Mueller" in the English Alphabet (without loss of information). Similarly, Gaelic names such as "Ó Ceallaigh" would not be Anglicised, despite a long history of this having been done before.

However, this is not the case for Asian languages, even Japanese names where they do not typically have the culture of adopting a nickname in Western Countries. For example, "田中" would be spelled as "Tanaka" to confirm with English language readers, despite Japan having it's own phonetic conventions to give the desired reading (e.g., "タナカ").

For a more comparable example, why is it ok to spell “Tokyo” in English when “Muller” is incorrect. The correct romanisation of 東京 is Tōkyō. Yet this is not used, nor is Toukyou or とうきょう which would both be more accurate. This misspelling occurs for names of people in Asian languages as well as names of places.

It's typically argued that this is because English-speaking audiences could not read Japanese names in their writing system but the same could be said for the umlaut, which is often mispronounced or misused (e.g., Mötley Crüe). With digital typesetting systems, would be entirely possible to spell "田中" correctly in a citation, even by someone who cannot understand the meaning, just as we do for diacritics for European names.

If spelling someone's name correctly is a matter of respect, when is it necessary to do so and why are there exceptions to this?

I think "correctly" is the wrong word to use here, and it will cloud the issue. What's "correct" for a name is somewhat ill-defined (I've known a Risa and a Lisa who both had the same Japanese name. Which of them was incorrect?). The real standard is to spell in accordance with the person's wishes.

As a German person, the blanket assertion "the German name "Müller" is expected to be spelled correctly" is not in my experience true. Rather I would say, as the ease of writing the umlaut electronically increases, the likelihood that someone will be unhappy that you didn't bother to make the minimal effort increases too. There are still plenty of systems that only take ascii characters and people will make do with Mueller or even (sigh) Muller. Japanese people know quite well that you probably couldn't read "田中" nor "タナカ", and they will themselves sign their correspondence to you "Tanaka". They won't expect you to make the effort to learn how to read and type kanji, because they know it's exceptionally more difficult than finding a diacritic. (They will however be quite happy if you do manage.)

For citations, the issue is a little different: it is expected that you cite the authors as written on the paper. If you are citing an English-language paper, it is very likely that you will be citing "Ryouichi Tanaka and Robert Müller", because that's what they called themselves. If you are citing a Japanese manuscript, you are expected to cite "田中良一　ロバート・ミュラー". Maybe as "田中良一　ロバート・ミュラー (Ryouichi Tanaka and Robert Müller)" if you are yourself writing in English.

To sum up:

When is it expected to spell someone's name correctly? Always, but correctly ≠ in the original alphabet, or following some specific romanization rules.
When is it expected to spell someone's name in the original alphabet? When you can reasonably do so without major effort, and it does not hinder communication.


Is it acceptable practice to list solitary courses on an academic CV? I took some solitary graduate-level courses as a non-degree student at some US schools and plan to take further modules in England. These courses relate to my other degrees and certificates, but are from more elite institutions and provide more advanced, specialized training not easily found elsewhere. Is it acceptable practice to list solitary courses on an academic CV? What section and in what format might this appear in?

Acceptable?  Sure.  Useful?  Probably not.

If you're applying to graduate programs, then listing these courses would be appropriate.  On the other hand (at least for US schools), you need to submit official transcripts for those courses anyway.  Also, if you expect those courses to play a significant role in your admission, you need to make that case in your application statement.

If you're applying to an academic position that is primarily teaching, then listing the courses might be appropriate to show that you have at least taken courses on the topics you intend to teach.  But if you expect those courses to play a significant role in your hiring, you need to make that case in your application statements.

If you're applying to an academic position that is primarily research (including most postdocs and tenure-track faculty positions), there's no point in listing what courses you've taken.  With rare exceptions, your research record (as listed in your CV, described in your research statement, and judged in your letters) is essentially the only thing that matters for such positions.  Teaching experience might play a role, but classes that you've merely taken won't.  If you think specific courses significantly strengthen your case—making you one of those rare exceptions—you need to to make that case in your application statements.


Proper "notice period" for resigning a tenure track position? My apologies in advance if this is a duplicate. I did search a bit about this before posting here.

This is related to my previous posts so, briefly: I want to leave my current position and I have another offer that I will eventually accept (not finished negotiating). I won't be able to "officially" drop the hammer for at least 1-2 weeks (negotiating, getting the offer, signing it, etc.). I teach one absolutely essential course in the fall (a core course in a graduate program) and no one else is qualified to teach it but me.

My question: In a tenure track position, what is the minimal notice period for leaving? This is not a question about "what my department would like" or how to optimize my standing with the department after leaving. This is a question about professionalism-- specifically what is the minimal notice period where the department members couldn't justifiably go around calling my conduct unprofessional. (I couldn't create a "professionalism" tag, so I tagged this with "etiquette")

Clearly, leaving one week before the semester is too late. Giving 2 years notice is probably more than enough. The answer must be somewhere in between. In my own case, I am contemplating delivering the news in around two weeks (so, over three months before classes begin).

Edit: (1) This is related to a previous question I asked

I want to leave my tenure track position before fall. I have great prospects but no new position "locked up": when should I break the news?

But I think it is still distinct. That question raised the issue of whether to inform my department before having a definite offer, in the interest of giving them enough time to plan. This question is about the standards of professionalism in resignation notice (analogous to the conventional two weeks in many non-academic jobs).

(2) Our contracts are year-to-year (August through April) with guaranteed renewal before tenure review. There are no specific terms written there about resignation periods. I could just fail to renew my contract (this issue would arise in about two months) but, still, the question is whether this is meets the standards of professionalism in academia, not whether it's "legal".

Hiring an adjunct or borrowing someone from another department for one course is about the least bad thing that can happen in this world. Giving the kind of notice (9 months?) that would have allowed them to do a full candidate search is impossible for folks who move laterally out of a department. This is pretty common and departments simply have to manage it. Everyone knows that offers are being locked in during the April-May time frame, and sometimes you lose someone key. It would not be unprofessional if you chose to avoid delaying your career by staying for an extra semester in order to make your current department's process painless.

Nobody wants to see you go, but you're working within the system to the best of your abilities. You're not screwing them, and it's not unprofessional to wait to give notice until the new offer is accepted.


How long should you wait to email journal editor about a submitted revision of a manuscript? It has been 10 weeks since I submitted my revised manuscript for minor revisions. The status of the article is "revision submitted to journal" since 6th Sept (and it is now 14th Nov). I am applying for a grant and really want to include this article in my CV, is it rude to write to the editor to find out what is going on? I am worried that my article has somehow gone under the radar and the editor has completely forgotten about it. Just wondering do they get alerts if they haven't responded to a submission for too long?

It is not rude and it is a normal practice to remind editorial staff about your submission.

The editors recollect about your paper when they etheir obtain it from you (with minor/major revisions) or obtain the reviewers' feedback.

Your present situation means that the paper has been sent to the reviewer and that person has not responded yet for whatever reason.


Choice of personal pronoun in single-author papers Which personal pronoun is appropriate in single-author papers - 'I' or 'we'? Could the use of 'I' be considered egotistical? Or will the use of 'we' be considered to be grammatically incorrect?

Very rarely is 'I' used in scholarly writing (at least in math and the sciences).  A much more common choice is 'we', as in "the author and the reader".  For example: "We examine the case when..."
One exception to this rule is if you're writing a memoir or some other sort of "personal piece" for which the identity of the author is particularly relevant.
Now let me quote Paul Halmos (Section 12 of "How to Write Mathematics"):

One aspect of expository style that frequently bothers beginning authors is the use of the editorial "we", as opposed to the singular "I", or the neutral "one". It is in matters like this that common sense is most important.  For what it's worth, I present here my recommendation.
Since the best expository style is the least obtrusive one, I tend nowadays to prefer the neutral approach.  That does not mean using "one" often, or ever; sentences like "one has thus proved that..." are awful. It does mean the complete avoidance of the first person pronouns in either singular or plural. "Since p, it follows that q." "This implies p." "An application of p to q yields r." Most (all ?) mathematical writing is (should be ?) factual; simple declarative statements are the best for communicating facts.
A frequently effective time-saving device is the use of the imperative. "To find p, multiply q by r." "Given p, put q equal to r."...
There is nothing wrong with the editorial "we", but if you like it, do not misuse it.  Let "we" mean "the author and the reader" (or "the lecturer and the audience").  Thus, it is fine to say "Using Lemma 2 we can generalize Theorem 1", or "Lemma 3 gives us a technique for proving Theorem 4".  It is not good to say "Our work on this result was done in 1969" (unless the voice is that of two authors, or more, speaking in unison), and "We thank our wife for her help with the typing" is always bad.
The use of "I", and especially its overuse, sometimes has a repellent effect, as arrogance or ex-cathedra preaching, and, for that reason, I like to avoid it whenever possible.  In short notes, obviously in personal historical remarks, and perhaps, in essays such as this, it has its place.

You can download the pdf of Halmos' complete essay.


German language for Phd courses in Germany Can PhD students study in universities in Germany, in engineering courses, without knowing the German language?  Can they research and live without any problems?

Does applying to these universities require knowledge of the German language?

I know programs in other fields where the official graduate school language is English (e.g., my undergraduate alma mater - over 20 years back even), but am not personally familiar with engineering in Germany. You need to check the online program description for the universities you're interested in. They certainly exist - here is one example. The entire page is in English. It's an interview with international students about their experiences in the program, so it might be helpful, or at least interesting as well.

I had an Israeli professor who didn't speak German. He was tenured, taught in English even at the undergraduate level, and still managed to be probably the most popular teacher. While Germans generally speak some English, you just face a somewhat restricted social life, and should learn German while in the program to enjoy your time in a PhD more.


Copyright issue regarding creating an image by using other images taken from a website I need to use images related to "cricket umpire signals" in my paper. I want to create a new image by putting some of these small images together along with graphs and comments next to them. But my concern is the copyright issue when i take those small images from websites.

I found the images on many websites such as BBC or WordPress blogs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/rules_and_equipment/6135798.stm
https://paulsaekiblog.wordpress.com/umpire-signals/

But BBC says that they don't own all of the images on their website, and they don't reply back fast. and on other websites, there is nothing specifically said regarding the copyright license.

Also, i asked someone who has used such images in his paper about the issue, and he replied back "they are in the public domain and a permission is not required" along with the following link.
http://123coolpictures.com/cricket+umpires+signals.
But I'm not sure how acceptable/reliable is his answer regarding this issue.

I'm writing the paper for an ECML/PKDD workshop (computer science) in europe and I live in Germany.

Any image is copyrighted unless the author releases it into public domain or some special circumstance apply (author dead long ago, image below threshold of originality, etc.). You can't reuse the image or make a derivative work from it without consent of copyright options.

As far as I can see you have three options:

Ask the copyright holders to give you permission to use the images. First you would need to identify who are the copyright owners.
Look for an equivalent image already released under a free license - free enough for your intended use - and abide to the license (that may include acknowledge author, release under similar license or refrain from commercial use). Wikipedia Commons may be a good place to search for such image.
Create your own version of those images. Images are not free but information is. You can adopt the positions depicted in the images and ask a friend to photograph you. This way you (and your friend) will be the copyright holders and you can do whatever you want with the image.

In some academic settings, you could use an image and cite it, but I'm not sure about something different than citing (and reproducing) and image from an academic journal in another academic journal.

And of course, I must admit people very often copy images in the Internet without abiding to copyright and nothing happens, but I wouldn't do it in a paper. In fact, I doubt any editor would let you to do so.

In summary, taking in account how easy would be to create equivalent images (by drawing or by photograph) I would create new images unless I could find free equivalent ones.


What does the path to professorship in maths and computer science look like? I have a BS in math and a BS in computer science.  I attempted to get into a math PhD program right out of undergrad, but I was not prepared for the GRE subject test, so my applications did not go well.  I had to find a job while I thought up a new plan, and I have now been accepted to computer science PhD programs.

My ultimate goal is to be a professor and spend my life researching math topics in computer science, or just math.  I have a couple questions about getting to that point.  Should I get a PhD in math after getting one in computer science?  I read that math PhDs find faculty positions much more easily than any other kind of PhD.  Should I pursue a postdoc position at some point?  I don't want to be a "permadoc," as I've heard them called.  I also read that computer science PhDs often go to the private sector, but I don't think I'm interested in that.  What advice do you have to help me get where I want to be?

My ultimate goal is to be a professor and spend my life researching math topics in computer science, or just math.

Not really. That is, it seems you are not seriously committed to any kind of research, you just like the idea of you being a professor. That is not good enough of a motivation. Don't presume to become a professional life-long researcher before you've done some significant research first. And you won't get such research done before you find a particular research subject (or a few subjects) which fascinates you, which is important to you enough emotionally that you want to spend a large chunk of your life exploring it.

When you tell us that you "want to research X. Or maybe Y"." - what I hear is: "I'm not particularly attached to any research problems."

So - your question is premature right now.


PhD Scholarship Top-up If I receive a large scholarship (i.e. greater than $20,000), should my supervisor top up the award? If so, do I simply ask my supervisor, or is a top-up seen as a "gift"?

This really depends on the graduate department.

At a minimum, however, you should not expect to come up "short" on funding because you brought in an external fellowship. Someone should offer up additional money to bring your total package up to the standard level given to your colleagues in your department. Whether or not the funds come from your supervisor or from the department is for them to decide.

The exact mechanism also varies by department. For instance, in the departments I applied to as a graduate student, one gave a sizable bonus for bringing in an external fellowship (an extra $8,000 per year), while others "topped off" the stipend up to 110% of the stipend of students' normal stipend.


Writing a recommendation letter for a senior colleague A good colleague of mine from a previous life is applying for outside professorships at both pre-and-post tenure Associate levels. I was flattered when they reached out asking for a letter from me, and am happy to help.  The only thing is, they are a few more years more senior than me; I am a new, young, relatively no-name junior professor, and I worked under this person a few years ago when I was a postdoc. We had a good working relationship, the only thing is that I'm not totally familiar with the idea of writing letter for a senior colleague. My understanding of this kind of letter in general is that you get top names in your field to vouch for you. Assuming that my colleague is already recruiting top names alongside mine, what do I have to contribute that they don't; how should I approach the letter? Am I just writing a character reference, or do I wax about their potential to transform the field? Is it on me to be explicit about what I do and don't feel credible to claim about this person, or my vision for how the information in my recommendation should complement that from the other letters; or can I trust any readers to gather that info for themselves?

Because norms differ so much by discipline, please include your own field in your answer. I'm in information science.

The fact you are more junior does not mean you can't write a helpful letter.

Write a letter that describes what you observed, e.g., in his lectures and in his interactions with students and colleagues, and in his research.  Try to be specific.  Instead of simply saying he was a great lecturer, describe the techniques you observed, e.g., that he mixed PowerPoint and whiteboard effectively, answered students' questions really well, how he's mentored and taught you, etc.

After you've outlined the facts that might support it, offer your opinion, that this is an individual who would be perfect for the position.

I'm a lecturer in CS at University of Michigan.  I've written lots of LORs for both students and colleagues.  They're very formulaic.  You can do this.


Does work experience help in (US) graduate admissions? I have around 8 years of work experience. At this stage, the possible step is to go along management track. But, I am neither interested nor does it appeal to me. Thinking more on this, I have decided to go back to school, preferably for a PhD or, in the worst case, a master's degree.

My GRE and GPA are not so strong: 1100 GRE with 770 in math and 3.0 GPA (out of 4.0).
My experience includes companies like Amazon and Zynga, but I have no research experience whatsoever.

Am I a good candidate for PhD or master's with research? My primary interests are in computer graphics or applied mathematics in simulation/visualization. What do you  suggest I do? I am aiming for top 20 schools, but not sure if it will be right thing to do.

I would strongly recommend sitting in on, or somehow actually enrolling in, some upper level class at a local university. Treat it as if you were actually enrolled, and ask (beg) the professor to grade your homework and exams. And be sure to sign up for something brutally hard.

This will let you test your chops, and if you excel, then you can ask the professor to write a letter of recommendation.

Please keep in mind that top 20 programs are extremely competitive, and reject very many good people. Your competitors will have letters of recommendation from professors specifically familiar with the requirements of Top 20 programs, confidently saying that they are prepared to handle it.

An alternative would be to try to get into a master's program at a lower-tier university. If you prove yourself to be head and shoulders above everyone else, you can ask your professors to support transfer applications to better programs.

Your work experience is likely to count for very little, or perhaps even against you, since you have been out of school for so long. Sorry -- that's just how it is.

This is a hard road, I have at least sort of walked it myself. Good luck to you!


Join a research group at a university I do not attend I work as a data scientist and many of the problems I am presented with require a non-trivial amount of research to solve, and so, a portion of my work week consist of reading relevant literature.

I throughly enjoy doing this, and in doing so, wonder if there is a contribution I could make to a local research group.  More specifically, would it be completely out of place to write a local university and ask to join a research group or is this something that is frowned upon?

In my head I envision this as an interesting symbiotic partnership where students could be exposed to methods from the private sector and I get to scratch my academic itch, but I certainly don’t want to step on any toes or have the appearance of taking someone’s place.

EDIT:

By "join a research group" I mean finding a lab that is working on a problem I am interested in, going to said lab, meet the members, help solve a problem in anyway I can (writing code, discussing ideas, etc...).

Also for context, I am in the US.

This will depend on the field. In my area (in computer science), research groups frequently work with external collaborators from industry. From the perspective of a research group, such collaborations can be very desirable, since practical motivations or, even better, applications can improve their research. There are even conferences with a specialized "industry" track, where perspectives of practitioners are sought explicitly.

Teaching-wise, this will depend on the country as well. In Germany, it's not unheard of that people from industry are employed on a part-time contract to give a lecture with a practical focus.

I think you should directly contact a suitable research group (professors and maybe post-docs), rather than the university, since employees of the university administration might be unaware of those specifics.


Merging ArXiv paper and conference paper on Google Scholar In my Google Scholar profile, I have a paper which I uploaded to ArXiv a while ago, which has a few citations. Since then, that same paper has been accepted for a peer-reviewed conference. It was only uploaded to ArXiv to bridge the gap between the paper submission date, and the release of the official conference paper after the conference.

How can I merge citations for my ArXiv paper and my conference paper, such that there is only one entry in my Google Scholar profile, where that entry is listed as the conference paper rather than the ArXiv paper?

"My citations", then tick the square boxes next to the papers you want to merge, then click on the "merge" button that just appeared.


What are characteristics of "high quality" graduate research as viewed by a hiring committee? When discussing the ability for a faculty candidate to find a job, SE users often say that the quality of graduate research overshadows the prestige of the school at which they received a graduate degree. As viewed by a a hiring committee, what are characteristics of "high quality" research?

Ultimately quality is a judgement call that every reader gets to make.

For example, a paper in mathematics might be considered to be "high quality" to half a dozen people worldwide who happen to be interested in the main result of the paper (or other work). Especially if the question has been open for a while. But other mathematicians may just say "meh" because that result neither interests them specifically, nor advances their own studies.

Reviewers at journals and conferences need to be able to make such judgements and, generally, they do a good job and we respect those judgments when we find published papers. But not everything that is published is of high quality.

But, some of the criteria that reviewers and others will use are as follows.

Is the solution correct? And reproducible?

Is the problem long standing? Or does it break new ground?

Does it open new areas of research?

Is it novel in some sense? Or just an easy derivation from what is already known?

Could I have done this easily? Or does it surprise me in some way?

Is the result widely helpful to either researchers or society as a whole?

Note that all of the above are judgement calls and all imply some scale with, not interesting at one end and very interesting at the other.

But I think the real intent of what you have read, is that it is more important what you do in your research than the general reputation of the place in which you do it. Reputation is based on many things, not all of which are directly relevant to the quality of research. In particular some places that seem quiet generally may be hotbeds of ideas in some niche of some field.

And note that hiring committees may rely on the judgements of others, such as the work being published. They might also rely on just the judgements of writers of letters of recommendations if those writers themselves are in a position both to know and to be honest. But they might also, in some cases, rely on their own judgement. "Well, yes, this is interesting, but not interesting to us at this time."


Is it ethical to use someone else's research as an illustrative case? I have developed a framework for describing a phenomenon in organizations and would like to illustrate its use by referring to a case study published by another author. In other words, I would be fitting another study's descriptions to my own framework.

The paper will be published in conference proceedings.

So, is it fair game to use another person's study to illustrate my framework?

I have my own field work that I would like to use alongside the other study, so the other author's case study is complementary and... illustrative.

The entire point of publication is to get your work out there for other people to use as a basis for further work. (The whole "standing on the shoulders of giants" thing.)

If a researcher is going to be upset about someone else taking their work and using it as a basis of further work, then they shouldn't be publishing it in the first place. (E.g. many companies keep research results "trade secret", which they use internally and never publish.)

In the fields I'm familiar with, it's perfectly acceptable to take published results and re-analyze them or use them as a basis for further work.

That said, there are some caveats. Among these (but not a comprehensive list): Be sure to give appropriate citations and credit as to the origin of the work at every reasonable opportunity - avoid implying that this is your data, even by omission. Be careful about copyright - verbatim copying of text and figures without explicit permission is usually proscribed, but using the underlying data (facts, numbers, general ideas) is normally not. Be sure to conform to the particular norms in your field, if any, about re-use of datasets - in some fields there's norms about data re-use, as data collection may be laborious and researchers who spend a lot of effort making datasets don't want to be "scooped" on follow-up work by people who swoop in  with a quick re-analysis.

But generally speaking, if the data are available from a published source, you're not breaking copyright, and you're not doing anything that's going to prevent the original authors from publishing additional work, you should be able to use the published data in your paper. (With appropriate citation, of course.)


Withdrawing a journal article after acceptance? I'm a college student, and this summer I submitted an article to a non-profit journal, which only accepts submissions from college students. About a week ago I was informed that it was tentatively accepted, pending significant revision.

In that intervening time, I had some very significant personal events come up in my life. I don't feel like I'll be able to truly dedicate myself to the revision process.

Is it ethical to write to the editor and ask to withdraw my paper? Had I known this is how I would feel, I would never have submitted the piece. I feel that it is incredibly unprofessional and risky to ask out at this point... but for my own sake, I feel that it is what I need to do. I don't know if this is something that is ever done, and I would also hate to come across as ungrateful.

Any advice you could share would be greatly appreciated!

Editors are people too. Contact them and explain to them as much of your situation as you feel comfortable sharing. All journals are different, so ask what their policies are on extensions or postponements. Also, ensure that it's not a predatory journal.


How to balance project tasks with finishing old work and how many publications should one have as an early career PostDoc? I recently finished my dissertation, and now have a PostDoc position in a relatively large project for the next two years, with good chances of being extended into the next phase. The position is fairly technical (simulation method development), and I am trying to find time "on the side" to finish publishing the studies that went into my dissertation, in order to demonstrate that I wish to remain in active research, rather than just model development.

I was curious if I could gain some advice or insight on the following problems:

How can I balance new project tasks with finishing old work?
How many papers would be considered "normal" shortly after finishing a PhD?

I'm aware that this question is likely to be difficult to generalize, as publication count and time are very field-specific (I work as a climate modeller), but I'd nevertheless welcome some hints.

I am a researcher in a related field.

Some general answers to your questions, which was advised to me when I was in a very similar situation.

To maintain a balance, it depends if there are 'cross overs' in your prior and current research. If there is very little or none, then you could do what I do, I set some time every alternate weekend and a couple of evenings every so often - depending on what is needed for the research.
One way to tell how many papers would be considered 'normal' - or rather, a representative amount of papers, would be to do a search on Google Scholar or similar - of particular authors in your field, in specific years.


Waitlist Game Theory - am I just overthinking? So, I'm on the dreaded waitlist (PoI says I am "near the very top" of the list) for my top choice PhD program and naturally I've spent the past couple days driving myself nuts trying to game the process out.
As I understand it there are two general approaches a grad adcom might take: 1) making more offers than the program has spots available, expecting a certain yield which will produce the desired cohort size or 2) making as many offers as there are spots, and moving to the waitlist to achieve desired cohort size if necessary.
My intuition tells me that #1 is more common, but in that case I don't quite understand the purpose of a waitlist--it seems that there would have to be an anomalously low yield in a given year for the program to ever have to move to the waitlist. So, do you find that #1 or #2 is more common?
I have two offers in hand, but my heart is really set on this program. Adding to the stress is of course the cascading nature of the PhD waitlist (i.e. someone is probably holding off on declining their offer at my top choice program because they're waitlisted at some other school; the same goes for someone waitlisted at one of the programs I have an offer from, and so on and so on). Basically it seems like we're all waiting for someone to get into their top choice program, and set in motion the chain reaction of declined offers.
Intuition would also tell me that this all basically happens on April 14 or 15 because nobody wants to accept an offer from a program that isn't their top choice until it is absolutely necessary--so the cascade doesn't start until then unless there are a sufficient number of people who have top choice offers who then actually decline other offers in a timely manner.
Am I just overthinking this whole thing? Or is this entire process completely bizarre and up in the air until the last minute? Has anyone gotten off a PhD waitlist well before April 15?

I don’t think you’re overthinking, you’re just... thinking. But basically, you’re thinking about things that are beyond your control, so in that sense any amount of thinking does not benefit you in any practical sense.
For what it’s worth, many departments hold events allowing admitted students to visit the department (virtually, these days) and meet with faculty. My own department’s event is today and tomorrow, and I had a pleasant meeting with several of the visitors. So I expect many students will be making decisions soon after attending such events. Keep in mind they don’t all know ahead of time their precise order of ranking the different programs (unlike what your intuitive “model” seems to assume), but instead go through a due diligence process where after getting admitted to several schools, they find out more information about each one and then make a decision. There is no reason why this can’t happen well ahead of April 15, and I believe it often does.
Good luck!


Is declining an undergraduate award which causes me discomfort appropriate? I have been offered an award to be presented to me at my graduation this summer at an English university. The award is not for academic achievement per se. It's for gaining my science degree despite having suffered significant illness at a crucial point in my degree. The award is for a student who has overcome a significant obstacle (which could be anything) and successfully completed.

Specifically because the cause of my problem was illness, this nomination has made me feel acutely self-conscious (even before I've received it). I've spoken to student friends and family about it. They all give predictable advice - "we understand, but accept the award, it's good for your CV!". Any possible benefit to my "CV" doesn't begin to enter the calculus for me.

This was a significant illness, and I struggled hard to be "normal" again. This award would make it hard to feel that way. I would find an allusion to this episode, particularly on a day such as graduation, rather difficult to handle. I doubt very much that the specific motivation for the award would be stated at the ceremony, but even so...

I realise my academic department are trying to be generous towards me and recognise my efforts with this award. It is a good university and they care about their students. I am going on to postgraduate study at the same university. The award is sponsored by an alumnus who themselves had a significant problem during their studies. Can I decline politely or is this a no-no? Could it be seen as self-indulgent to decline?

Update: I wanted to thank all of the posters here for empathic, thoughtful and surprisingly non-judgemental answers. This is clearly a well-regulated and insightful community.

Many of these answers conflict, and some posters have admonished others, but I wanted you to know that I have read everything carefully, that I am open to seeing this from all perspectives, and that I have found almost all answers and replies helpful.

I suggest a third way:

Write a concise e-mail to whoever is handing out the award that you would prefer to receive it silently for the reasons you cited (not wanting to be reminded of your disease), i.e., without being mentioned at the ceremony, but via mail or similar.

This has several advantages:

You spend at most as much energy on this as declining the award, probably less since you do not have to worry about how to politely decline it, etc.
You avoid what you want to avoid.
You will never face regret for not taking the award and in the future you are completely free to use it or not (for your CV and similar).


My previous supervisor keeps asking me to review her papers. How to deal with this? I am currently a post-doctoral researcher at some institute. My Ph.D. supervisor, from my former institute, keeps asking me to review papers that come to her for review. I am pretty sure that this is because I am good at a particular topic which is not her expertise. She has coauthored papers on the topic but she is not an expert there.

I have two problems with this. First, since I am not her student now, she should stop doing this; I am an independent researcher now. Second, I feel that this takes away credit from me. She could tell the journal that I am a better person to be a reviewer and this will benefit me since I am still young. Currently, I use my skills, time and energy to review papers for which she earns credits and I lose a chance for the same. Should I tell her this or is it normal in academics? If I should, how should I?

No it should not be normal. It is the decision of the editor to pick a specific reviewer. As a reviewer, you are supposed to keep the manuscript confidential. While i would see that this can be argued if you ask somebody working in your organization and reporting/being supervised by you, i think giving material to somebody whom you do not have direct control over in another institution is a pretty bad violation of the usual journal policies.

There are a number of bad situation which could arise from this

You actually having a professional relation to the peroson which you review (without your former professor knowing)
You telling your new boss about this, and he/she deciding to do politics using that knowledge (delaying etc)
You plagiarizing the paper, without the editor being able to track how that ended up there (since nobody knows about it)
You asking for changes to include references to your papers (innocent, since the editor team wont catch it...)

So no, beyond you not getting credit, i think it is a pretty shady thing.

(Added after comment): There are essentially two options, which depend on the mindset of your supervisor.

You explain what I wrote and tell that this makes you uncomfortable - you don't have to tell about her taking credit for your work, so it is less personal.
You inform the editor about the incident, pass your review, and ask the editor to be confidential about it. (I would imagine that they may just remove you former supervisor from their list)