Should universities give extra time or related accommodations for students with mental illnesses? Based on this question: Is it unethical to accept extra time on exams when I still do well?

To my knowledge, I don't think my university or home department has a policy on extended time exams or a "disability office". In my entire stay in the university, I have heard of only three people with mental illnesses. Two graduated. One is still in the university, but I have not yet asked her. It seems like she is entitled to have extra time on exams or homework or something that evens the playing field.

Are there any legitimate reasons a university may have for not allowing extra time or something for mentally ill students, assuming of course that the student can prove mental illness? It seems that they ought to give extra time or something to be fair to students.

Relevant links: this comment, this answer, this answer.

In answering this question, I think that it is important to consider the distinction between mental illness and learning disabilities.  While there is a spectrum of different and complex effects, for the purposes of making policies it may be useful to consider these two "prototypical" classes of challenge:

Many specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia or speech impairment, have a rather focused affect on perception and action, rather than more generally impairing cognition.  In many cases, relatively simple interventions (such as giving a dyslexic student more time) can have a big impact on educational success by mitigating the impact of the disability.  I think of this as little different than the intervention of glasses in mitigating the impact of my poor eyesight.
Mental illness such as depression or bipolar disorder, on the other hand, is much more subtle and difficult to deal with, since it strikes at "core" aspects of an individual such as motivation, interpretation of the world, and outlook on life.  Even when an intervention is plausible, the ethical boundaries are much less clear, particularly given the difficulty in balancing the need for consent against the likely harms from a possibly distorted mental state.

For an educational institution, then, the approaches to supporting students with mental illness and specific learning disabilities are likely to want to be very different, and the type of support that is needed is likely to be different for different types of challenges.  Giving a dyslexic student more time on an exam makes a lot of sense; it's like letting a student who is hard of hearing sit up in the front of the lecture hall.  Giving a highly depressed individual extra time on an exam is not likely to be a meaningful intervention; letting them take time off without penalty and return in another semester with a clean slate is more likely to be effective.

A good institution should then try to figure out the needs of each student, and how far they can reasonably go to satisfy them given the institution's resource constraints.


As an instructor, how to show my appreciation for my TAs' hard work? As an instructor, I have been fortunate to have had some great TAs, who went above and beyond what was expected of them, and put in a lot of effort to ensure students' learning.

I would really like to do more than just say "Thank you." How can I show my appreciation to them after the class ends?

(The situation may also be slightly complicated by the fact that some of the TAs I'm thinking of aren't physically located near me. I'm in the US, but I also teach as a "remote" instructor for a university in Europe, and I get TAs there. So I would like answers addressing both local and non-local TAs, if it matters.)

For TAs located physically close, the well-established way of showing appreciation around here is by inviting them to a joint informal dinner with good food and plenty of (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) beverages, usually with a joint pub crawl afterwards. This would typically happen at the end of the semester, optimally directly after finals, and provide a nice finishing mark on a semester of hard work and (maybe) some fun and camaraderie. These events would typically last to the early morning, leading to extremely empty offices the day after.

I am lucky to work in an university which happily picks up the bill for such events, but in previous places we have had all instructors throw money into a hat to finance this. It is not a celebration if the TAs have to pay for themselves.

Note that the celebrations are: (1) entirely voluntary (nobody needs to come, nobody needs to stay), and (2) as informal as possible.

Edit: that being said, I think the more interesting part about your question is how to show appreciation to remote TAs, and I have no good answer for this.


As an undergrad, how to leave a research group that I told them I will do my PhD there I am a 4th-year undergraduate student and have been working in two joint research groups (voluntarily, no credit from a course, no pay) for more than a year. I have applied to some Master's and PhD programs but while I was doing that I have talked with PIs of the research groups and they said that they want me to stay in that university to do my Master's and PhD there. At that time, I was getting rejected from some of the PhD programs and I feared that I will get into any program, so I told them that I will stay (I didn't lie, that was my actual intention at that time).

But, now I have been accepted to the PhD program that I wanted most and accepted the offer directly.

Since I have started working with them, they have been great advisors, very generous, kind and they definitely have changed my entire life, let alone my academic career. The research environment and the post-docs have been also quite good and we have even published an article which I am also a coauthor.

Given that I have (prematurely) told them I will stay there (at that time, the applications hadn't even started) and now will go elsewhere, I feel like I am cheating them and thing that this will "burn the bridges", which I definitely don't want.

Question:

Given the situation, how to approach my PIs and tell them I will not stay there for my graduate studies? They even asked me how I was doing in this epidemic multiple times, so I cannot simply write a cold, professional email.

Note that, the field I have been working in there and the one I will work during my PhD are quite close, so we (me and my advisors) could possibly collaborate in the future, and in fact I would love to be in contact with them and help in any way if I can (my expertise on the field is limited but I am learning new things every day).

Pick out the one that you have the best relationship with and just say that you have a fantastic offer elsewhere and think it is time to move on. Thank them for all they have done, but note that you think you want and need a broader perspective. This is true, in fact. You may have already learned about everything that your current faculty has to offer and a fresh perspective would benefit you.

But be upfront about it. And be honest that your intentions were sincere at the time, but new opportunities have caused you to reevaluate your situation.

You want to walk away with best wishes and great letters of recommendation.

Maybe do this with both (all) PIs together. And this is best done face to face, though it is difficult now, of course. But email is a bit impersonal for this type of thing. Video chat of some kind, perhaps.


Have American universities cut back on H1-B visa sponsorship of new international faculty and F-1 student visa sponsorship for PhD students? Concerning industry, I've read that Google and Amazon have cut back significantly on its H1-B visa sponsorship of new candidates (though it's unclear what the renewal rate is for currently sponsored employees.)

Is the same sort of thing happening in academia?  Are American universities cutting back its H1-B sponsorship of new, international faculty candidates and student visa programs for its international PhD applicants?

The current ban was stopped by court,
we are waiting if supreme  court of USA will take complaint from Trump administration but that will likely not happen because of the composition of a court.
Regarding American universities, occupations that are related to academia (post-doctoral fellow, research fellow, etc.). You can check referenced link and put desired profession name in search menu and compare rates of awarding H1B by the universities.
Conclusion is honestly that university never awarded so much H1B in a first place, and it is a noticeable trend of declining H1B sponsored by academic institutions ( institutes, universities, hospitals... etc..)
website myvisajobs.com give you opportunity to search and compare different occupation and employees.


Is it a bad sign, if reviews are completed very early? My manuscript was sent to the reviewers of an Elsevier journal around 10 days ago. Today, I logged into EES and saw that the status has changed to Required Reviews Completed. I couldn’t believe it. My impression is that my manuscript is likely to have been rejected by the reviewers. Am I right about this?

Required reviews completed means required reviews completed! Nothing more and nothing less.

There are particular seasonal patterns for the journals, to be flooded with a lot of manuscripts at some times (lets say this time ~ May-June), while Sept-Oct are less hectic months. Likewise, referees, who are generally faculty members at universities, are less likely to review fast in the middle of the semester, and more likely in the period when they are free and not away for visits or conferences. It is possible that you sent your manuscript at an opportune moment. Another possibility is that the editor of the journal may himself have chosen to be a reviewer. Another possibility is, you used a method which was pretty bread and butter for the reviewer, so he didn't have to waste time trying to understand what you did.

I can sense your surprise over the time period of just 10 days, but no need to panic here. (especially until the editor reaches out to you.) Nothing more can be said till then, reviewing over in 10 days may mean instant rejection, but it may also mean an acceptance if the reviewer was very well familiar and saw no issues. Nothing can be conclusively said until the referee reaches out to you.

Hope that helps :)


Is it standard for graduate students to get gifts for their advisors? Is it standard for graduate students to give their advisors gifts around Christmas, like chocolates or bottles of wine?  What about other important people, such as their thesis committee members, or department secretaries?

No not standard (at least in Canada) and depends upon the tradition, it may actually seem as an odd thing. If there is a social gathering before Christmas then I believe that is fine to bring chocolates or whatever to all of attendees.
I would be very cautious to give my advisor gift every christmas. A verbal saying before the holiday starts is normal and acceptable;  nothing more nothing less.


How to cite the US Federal Register in Harvard referencing style? Please advise how I should cite the US Federal Register in Harvard Reference style.

As an example, I have seen this part of the Federal Register referenced as:

  2012 Planning Rule (77 Fed. Reg. 21161)

However that's not in Harvard style. How do I reference this within the text (author, year), and in the reference list?

My approach would be to give an in-text citation as:

Federal Register (2012)

The end-of-paper reference could be given in one of two ways:

Federal Register (2012) National Forest System Land Management Planning. Federal Register Vol.77 No.68, 21161-21276. Washington D.C.

or....you could cite the online pdf version as follows:

Federal Register (2012) National Forest System Land Management Planning, Federal Register Vol.77 No.68, 21161-21276 [pdf] Washington D.C.: Forest Service. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-09/pdf/2012-7502.pdf [Accessed 27 June 2018].

I think it's important to remember that the purpose of a citation is to help the reader to be able to access the document in question.  In my examples above, even if there may be potential disagreement over authorship (is it the Federal Register, US Govt. or Forest Service?) or location of publication, the reader can easily find the document you are referring to (especially the second option, which takes them directly to the online pdf).


Low math GRE subect test scores, but high scores on Major Field Test: Should I mention this in my letters of intent? I'm an senior math major in undergraduate planning on applying to around a dozen school's PhD programs in math. I think the rest of my application (grades, advanced classes, research experience, letters of recommendation, general GRE scores) is fine, but I am concerned somewhat with my subject test scores. Due to financial and time constraints, I was only able to take the test once, and I got a score in the 31st percentile.

Is this something that's worth mentioning in my letters of intent? Specifically, I was thinking of mentioning that when I took the MFT (major field test) in mathematics as part of the capstone course at my university, I scored in the 96th percentile, so it's not that I'm bad at university mathematics, I just had test anxiety concerning the subject test.

Also, for what it's worth, I thought the MFT was similar in content to the math subject test, but not as difficult.

Another option might be just to mention the high MFT scores on my CV that I send in with my applications, leaving out any mention of that in my letters of intent, and just hoping that helps my case with the admissions committees.

Unfortunately, whether it's better to address it or ignore it largely depends on who is reading your application materials.  Some may want an explanation, others (on the more cynical side, and they do exist) may view any explanation as simply making excuses.

If you can get one of your reference writers to say something about it, it may carry more weight.  Of course this may not be possible depending on how well they really know you, but it's something to consider.

There's also the possibility that addressing it may not even matter since the school could have an unadvertised minimum GRE subject test score, where any application with less than that score gets tossed out.  Or such an application could go in the "maybe" pile, in which case an explanation could help.

My point with the waffling is it's impossible to say what would be better in general.  FWIW it sounds like you have a very strong application otherwise, so I probably wouldn't stress too much over it.

I strongly recommend this as your next step:  Seek advice from professors in your department who have served on admissions committees.


GPA for PhD application I am applying for PhD programs in mathematics and statistics for the next fall semester, and I am really concerned about my GPA for this fall semester.

My GPA is solid before this semester, and I have done quite well in all upper-division undergrad classes and 1 graduate class (complex analysis).

As everything was going really well, I decided to take two graduate classes (algebra and real analysis) this fall semester, along with 4 other classes. It didn't go well for me. I got B's for both of the graduate classes (A for everything else).

There were not really any special circumstances. It was me getting overwhelmed by the sheer number of tasks from classes and grad-school application and a bit of complacency from doing well in the beginning of the semester.

At this point, I don't believe there is much I can do, but I still would like to know how much damage these two B's will do to my application(math programs and statistics programs separately). (Maybe rate it from a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being "no effect" and 10 being "this will ruin my application and deny my entrance to anywhere".)

Two Bs in significantly harder, graduate level classes will not harm your chances of admission much if at all. Your GPA will only take a very slight dip from them (assuming your other marks are high) and, really, you did fine for your level. Remember that you are a whole package, not a just GPA. Write a good statement of purpose, work on doing well on the GREs if you are talking about the US, and do some volunteer research assistance to pad your CV. You're fine!


What are the steps for republishing imagery held in archives? I want to reuse, in a new work, some period drawings and paintings that are held in various libraries and archives. Presumably this means paying for their time spent helping me. To make the process go as smoothly as possible, what is the correct process for obtaining high-quality copies of these materials and permission to republish them? Will I need to already be working with a publisher before acquiring the artwork? Will I need to sign a terms-of-use contract with each archive? Will I be allowed to crop and adjust color levels to improve print quality? Is there anything in particular to watch out for?

Before requesting publication rights for images it is best to have an arrangement with a publisher, as most institutions require you to provide details about the publication venue, the type of publication (print or digital or both), the print run and so forth when you are requesting the images. Then you have to make a request to the image holder (provided the copyright is not an issue for your, as you indicated in a comment to another answer) either using a web form or by email (in most cases you should be able to figure out from their website who the contact persons for such requests is. They will inform you about the costs, and then you can decide if you go on with signing an agreement (yes, you have to sign a contract with each institution providing images even in the rare cases when the images are provided for free), and they are expected to provide you with high resolution images after the payment (if they charge a fee, as most such institutions do, at least in my field). You surely can crop and process the images as required for the production of your publication. Keep in mind that in the worst case, the process can take months, so it is best to start it as soon as you reach an agreement with the publisher.


Why don't some papers with proposed prototype have any user study ? How did some papers with proposed prototype can make it through publication without conducting user study ?

This paper for example
Reflex HMD to compensate lag and correction of derivative deformation, it came up with experimental stage, evaluation, and conclusion based on their experiment result. How did they even get the evaluation data and came up with the conclusion without conducting user study ?

Even if they did evaluation by themselves, wouldn't the result be doubtful then ? Just how important is it to include user study in your publication ?

Producing a prototype that solves an interesting problem constitutes a research contribution. Hence, it isn't necessary to conduct a user study. This still holds true when several solutions are known. As more solutions emerge, the original problem becomes less interesting and merely producing another prototype is insufficient to make progress. Hence, it becomes necessary to distinguish new prototypes from previous prototypes. User studies are one way to distinguish new prototypes.


Undergraduate, graduate or post-graduate student — is that Bachelor/Master/PhD or Bachelor/Master+PhD/postdoc? I received an invitation to nominate students for an award that could be for an undergraduate, a graduate or a post-graduate student. I've seen those terms used before, but never been sure what they mean. I know Bachelor student, Master student, PhD student and post-doc.

The timeline:

Being a Bachelor student → Getting the Bachelor degree → Being a Master student → Getting the Master degree → Being a PhD student → Getting the PhD degree → Being a post-doc → ...

Then what do undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate students refer to? Are undergraduate students exclusively students studying to get a Bachelor degree, or can it also refer to students studying to get a Master degree? After all, that's a graduation that they don't have yet. Literally speaking, it could also be "under" the PhD degree, but that's surely never used as such.

And a graduate student, is that then someone studying for the Master degree, er is it used only for people studying for the PhD degree?

But then what is a post-graduate student? Is this a post-doc? But post-docs aren't students anymore, so then it could only refer to PhD students. Or are post-docs considered students, too?

I am almost certain that post doc is not what is meant.

In English speaking systems outside of North America, and especially referring to Europe under the Bologna accords, an undergraduate refers to someone who is studying for, but has yet to receive, his first post-secondary education degree. Typically this degree is some equivalent of Bachelors, but in some cases students maybe enrolled in accelerated programs with a longer term of study that leads directly to (the equivalent of) a Masters degree.

A graduate student can, but not necessarily, refer to someone who is studying for a graduate diploma. In many countries having a Bachelors (or equivalent) is not sufficient in itself to qualify one for starting a postgraduate degree. One often requires a "good enough" Bachelors degree (such as one with honors). The graduate diploma is an intermediate step in which a student who has already received his first post-secondary degree studies further in order to qualify to enroll in a masters (or sometimes doctorate? I am not sure about this) degree program.

A postgraduate student refers to someone who has already obtained a first degree, and is now pursuing a second, third, or Nth degree beyond it. See, e.g. this Wikipedia entry.

A postdoctoral researcher is generally not considered as a student.

In English speaking North America, an undergraduate typically refers to someone studying for a bachelors, since almost all (if not all) degree programs go through that stage in North America. And a graduate student refers to any student studying for any degree beyond that of the bachelors (so that would be typically the masters or the doctorate).


Hobby during PhD studies has taken its toll, how do I recover? In the first two years of my PhD I made a big mistake by spending a large amount and passion on a hobby (making video games). In this hobby, I saw an opportunity to make this into a career, either by being a full developer or by finding a way of fusing game development with my scientific work.
Looking back at this, I feel guilty for the amount of time and passion spent on this side project, and I understand now that my career ambitions were poorly researched and far from reality.

I am now in the final year of my PhD in applied maths and I have one paper submitted, another (more ambitious one) in the making. My relationship to my supervisor has been good from the start, however his satisfaction with my work dropped in my second year and he criticised me for somewhat disperse work style and not enough results. He is still supportive but never misses an opportunity to remind to hurry up. But he has remaind supportive throughout.

I reacted to these warning signs, but slowly. Towards the beginning of my third year I realised that my game development efforts (which have a scientific bend) could not provide a full time career and did not provide better solutions to existing science problems either. So I gradually stopped coding games, focusing on my research project 100%. I finished my first paper, gained a feeling of ownership for my research project, got my scientific curiosity back, adopted a get-it-done mentality in terms of writing up results. But still, every day I keep hating myself for having wasted so much time on an ill-thought, ill-planned childish dream.

This affects me. I have had a very good work ethic which got me into top schools. It feels like for the first time, I slipped, and I bet more than I should have on the wrong horse. I think about it every day. I want to avoid this feeling of guilt to slow me down, or make me feel that I am not suited or "don't deserve" this or that postdoc position or fellowship.

How do I recover from this?

There's an obvious simple answer to this, that isn't going to even take two sentences:  your game development stint was research.  Research into whether gaming concepts and/or game-style interfaces were useful for certain kinds of activities, and also a "basic training" for you in core computing concepts that will never be irrelevant in your ongoing pursuit.

Professional coders have MOUNTAINS of code that are discarded, serve no useful ongoing purpose, are total feces, and/or seem to be in a content domain that bears no relevance to their work.

Myself personally:  I have about 10k lines of code growing mold in a drawer somewhere for a dartboard app. It isn't worth spit, but the javascript I write NOW for the biggest banks in the world is quite better because of it.

You also discovered that you like your profession more than you like gaming.  That's NOT AT ALL a trivial result.


How to refer to MOOC on an academic CV? Quick question for the collective.

Is it appropriate to list completion of online courses (eg. Coursera) on your academic CV? I'm in medicine, but want to articulate that I am expanding my skill set by completing work in data science and analytics.
If so, where would you put it in context of your other CV sub-headings?

This answer is based purely on my own experience -

I applied for a job a few months ago, and had recently completed a MOOC relating to an aspect of the project that I did not need to be qualified for, but demonstrated I had an interest in that area.  Rather than add it to my CV, I mentioned it in the covering letter.
Personally, I wouldn't want to clutter the academic CV too much or detract from my main qualifications - I wouldn't put it under the Academic Qualifications section for instance. However, I sometimes include a section at the end of the CV entitled 'Workshops and Classes Attended' which I tailor to include things that are relevant to a particular role, so I might put a MOOC there if it related to a position I was applying for.


As a tutor, how should I handle anxious/avoidant adult math student? I'm a private math tutor, and I have an adult student right now (age 28), who is enrolled in algebra II in a community college. He is both very bright and has a kind of inferiority complex about academics because his siblings were much more successful than him in school and employment. This is his third attempt to pass algebra II.

He seems to struggle with math not because he can't do it, but for two reasons: because that's where he feels most inferior to his siblings, and because he has a hard time concentrating (perhaps has ADD).

The trouble is that when math gets hard for him, or when he's disappointed by a test result, he spends the sessions with me talking about anything but math, changing the topic when I try to bring it back to math. Or if I do manage to get in a couple minutes on math, he starts asking questions on peripheral topics that superficially seem like they are about math, but I think are really another way of avoiding the task at hand.

I've tried different ways of bringing him back to math, starting with using my body language (I'll, say, start writing with my pencil), then verbally suggesting we come back to math, then gently pointing out the pattern so he sees that he has to make a choice, etc.

One thing I don't do is criticize him. He's so vulnerable to shame, and so anxious (his voice trembles sometimes when we do math), that I have a feeling if I'm strict or demanding with him, that will be the end of all tutoring. He'll fire me or become even more intractable.

I've also tried supporting him by pointing out his strengths, and I do it honestly and with integrity : I genuinely see strengths in him and I can point to specific examples, so he knows I'm not flattering him.

As of now, he spends about 50% of our lessons avoiding math entirely like this. There are always other periods in which he learns, and the situation is not completely stuck.

I would like suggestions for how to handle this. Everything from how to more directly suggest or control our session activities, to how to support him in feeling less anxious and inferior so that he would more spontaneously choose himself to put in the effort.

Let me make a suggestion that may or may not target the real reason. I don't have a way to evaluate its relevance.

I've almost never had to give up on a student, but it has happened. The reason wasn't them or me, but just time. I've had students in math who were really terrible at it and didn't really know why. Nothing seemed to work for them.

But in exploring things, I learned that somewhere in their background some teacher (or several) just failed to do their job and let them slide by. In order to help them learn (I think it was) statistics, I would have had to take them back through elementary school math from the beginning. They had never learned to add or multiply properly.

Even worse, no one ever gave them any incentive to learn math, nor any insight into why it might be important. They never had any experience with figuring out how to translate a problem into symbolic form, much less equations.

I had to give up, just because I didn't have the time to teach them ten or more years of things they'd missed.

It is possible, I suppose, that someone has figured out how to short-circuit that process and bring a student up to speed relatively quickly, but at the time, I had no real idea how to do it.

My action suggestion is to give your student a diagnostic test of some sort, even quite informal, to find out if they are just missing so many basics that the new material has no foundation on which to build.

I'll note that in my personal case, I was neglected by one teacher and didn't learn my multiplication tables. I managed to overcome the problem and finally forced myself to learn them - just after I completed my doctorate in mathematics. Now, I can faithfully recite seven times eight = .........


If you no longer have your university email address does your Google Scholar Profile become invalid? Google Scholar requires a university email address for verification. I have not signed up for the service yet. If I leave the university, does my Google Scholar profile become invalid? Or can I still use/update my Google Scholar profile? Can someone post their personal experience about this?

I have a google scholar profile for more than 5 years now and was never asked again to verify my account after the initial verification was completed. I can still edit and update my profile as usual.


Publish the paper without letting know one of authors? I and one of my peers prepared a journal paper out of his master thesis. We submitted it first to one of the well-known conferences of the field and it got accepted and we let the other coauthors know (including his professor, who is a prominent researcher in his field). They seemed to be very satisfied.

Later we decided to extend the paper and I submitted it to a journal. I was not aware that he had not told the others about the submission. The paper was accepted by the journal. This time my peer refuses to make his professor aware.

Now I wonder about proceeding with the publication? Is it ethical? What are the consequences if I finalize the publication, for me?

One must not submit a paper for publication without the consent of all coauthors. In my experience, most submission systems will point this out explicitly, but it remains true regardless of such notice.

It seems that for the first submission to a conference, your coauthors retroactively consented (maybe grudgingly, maybe happily). Nevertheless, you should have asked before -- not just informed, by the way.

You then committed the same infraction again, and submitted to a journal without everyones prior consent. Going ahead with the publication without your coauthors consent would be even worse (drastically so!) than the mere submission, so this is not an option. Your professor coauthor would almost certainly find out.

The appropriate step for damage control is to contact all coauthors immediately, apologize profoundly for your mistake, and ask them whether they want to go ahead with the publication. If everyone agrees, go ahead (and never do this again). If someone disagrees, you need to withdraw your submission and apologize to the editor (and indirectly referees) for wasting their time.


Are IELTS past tests available for students preparing for the exam? I want to know a way to find past IELTS questions. If they are available freely?
Are there good exams for all modules? (Specially Listening)

You may use the books available in which some preparation exams (sample tests and past tests) are published and you can study those exams and sample tests. Some of these books and preparation materials are available in How do I prepare? page on IELTS official website, Cambridge English Exams and IELTS books and books about IELTS by other publishers.

If you are seeking for free online sample exams and studying materials, there are some preparation materials for exam available in different websites over the net, which you can find by a simple search.


Do professors work through all the homework problems they assign to students? I'm wondering if this is case especially for time-consuming work like programming problems in computer science spanning several thousand lines of code.

Or when a professor teaches a new course they are not intimately familiar with e.g. did not take it during undergrad.

For professors that don't do this, how (if at all possible) do they address homework concerns during office hours? Is it recommended for professors to know the ins and outs of all problems they assign?

For many professors, undergraduate courses are simple enough that when they go over 1-2 problems, they can grasp them quickly. For others, they go over solution manuals and previous notes to recall and remember how to do them. Some assign office hours to TAs, where the TA deals with students and their homework. Keep in mind that many schools do tell the professors which courses they will teach next semester/year, so they have plenty of time to prepare and develop their notes and slides.

I would be more worried about professors teaching graduate level courses that are not familiar with. It seems that many issues/inconsistencies occur at this level.


What exactly does an "unstructured research problem" mean? I have often read articles describing graduate education talk of "unstructured research problems". What exactly does an "unstructured research problem" mean?

Some context: All that I've read is in the context of computer science and electrical engineering. And I recently graduated with a undergraduate EE degree.

An unstructured problem is one that does not have a direct solution already established: that is, it's not immediately obvious how one gets from the problem statement to a working solution, or even if there is a solution.

This is the standard for most doctoral-level research problems in STEM fields: if the problem is so well-defined that the strategy for solving it is immediately obvious, it is likely unsuitable for doctoral work, and a new (usually more challenging) problem should be selected.


Transfer article to better Physical Review journal I submitted a paper to PRA: Rapid Communications. I was asked to resubmit because my supplemental material was too long and contained material that should be in the main text.
In the meantime, however, I got positive community feedback on the preprint and was reminded of the existence of PRX: Quantum. So I wish to transfer my new submission to PRX: Quantum.
My expectation is that PRX: Quantum will be more selective than PRA: Rapid Communications. Would you expect that a direct transfer of my paper from PRA: Rapid Communications to PRX: Quantum will hurt my chances compared to a direct submission to PRX: Quantum?
Remember, the paper has not yet been reviewed and has not been rejected on any substantial ground.
UPDATE: I explained the situation and the paper was transferred to PRX Quantum and is under review.

Write to the editor and ask for a transfer, explaining the situation. The editor will tell you what the preferred action is. Asking for a transfer, rather than withdrawing and resubmitting on your own will not hurt your chances, rather the opposite, as the editor then knows what is going on - and you don't risk to fall under some rule of the manuscript need to only be submitted to one journal at a time. Since both journals are under the same umbrella, they should have no problem at all with this.


Will my job have a negative impact on my profile as a graduate student applicant? I am a senior undergraduate in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, and I ultimately want to pursue a Master's degree in the field of Embedded Systems. However, my current financial situation prohibits me from paying for this, so I have decided to take a couple years off in order to save money and to apply for loans and scholarships. To that end, I have recently accepted a job in the IT department of a respected bank (I was unable to find a job in the field of Embedded Systems). Since I am not able to work in my target domain, will this time off negatively affect my prospects at top graduate programs?

Masters degrees are often funded not by the university but by an employer.  Generally with the requirement that you continue working during your program, which constrains choice of school geographically (has to be close to the employer), the rate at which you complete a program (part-time, not full load), and only works for the degree most closely associated with the job you do -- companies don't fund you to move on to bigger and better things elsewhere, they invest in making their employees provide more value back to them.

Your job history shouldn't have a lot of impact other than whether it enables you to be employer-funded, and in the case described of working in your field but outside your desired specialization, it pretty much rules out receiving that benefit.

On the other hand, most Masters (MS, MSE, or MEng) in Engineering programs even at highly ranked schools don't have extremely competitive admissions.  So you might focus on trying to find employment (and the necessary visas) compatible with the program you want to enter.


Is this a known/named style guide? I am preparing a paper for publication and the journal requests that it is in the following style for references:

https://tandf.co.uk//journals/authors/style/reference/ref_ujrs.pdf

Is this a known style guide? It does not seem to match Chicago or APA.

The reference style seems to be called "Taylor & Francis Reference Style X Harvard" (TF-X Harvard).  A more detailed guide for it is at https://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/style/reference/tf_X.pdf .


Is there a theoretical-physics masters program that accepts mathematics graduates? I plan to graduate with an honours (four year) degree in philosophy and a general (three year) degree in mathematics. Are there any physics graduate programs that might accept me if I were to apply?

For context: My plan-A is to work in academic philosophy. A physics education might not appear on the resume of most philosophy professors, but I suspect that knowing about physics could improve a philosopher's thinking about a number of questions. Accordingly, it seems worthwhile to study physics during either, a one or two year detour, several years of concurrent distance education, or the summer terms of my philosophy education. Self-study is an option, but I'd prefer to earn a credential in order to improve my future applications to graduate schools and to employers.

People are accepted into a physics program because they prove that they can do well in physics graduate school through their past performance in courses, their personal statement, their letters of recommendation, test scores, undergraduate research experience, etc. If you have a strong mathematics background, you might be able to convince an admissions committee to accept you if you demonstrate an understanding of undergraduate physics outside of course work (like performing well on the physics GRE). If you have not, at least self studied undergraduate physics material (at the very least at a Sophomore/Junior  level), then it is not likely that you would accepted into a physics graduate program (even a masters program). Now if you were exceptional at math (e.g. have published research in a peer reviewed math journal), perhaps its possible that a physics program would accept you, with a very good personal statement explaining why you want to study physics at the graduate level.

But why get a degree in physics? At least part of the answer should be that you enjoy doing physics and are (at least somewhat) good at doing physics. If you aren't 100% certain that you love physics, you shouldn't go to graduate school in physics. Instead, self study physics by reading a book, doing problems and watching online lectures. Once you can determine whether you enjoy doing physics, only then should you go to graduate school in the subject.

In addition you haven't explained why "knowing about physics could improve a philosopher's thinking about a number of questions". At least at the vaguest level, this could be said about nearly any discipline; it doesn't mean you should get a degree in those fields. You can take physics courses while studying philosophy at many universities. If you think you will derive deep satisfaction from this, you should seek out philosophy programs that allow flexibility in your course work so you can pursue an interest in physics.


To continue or quit my PhD in physics after 4yrs？ I am from China, currently a 4th year physics PhD student in Boston. This is a small department with ~10 professors. I am working for one assistant professor now. But I am thinking about leaving this group/school if I have a better choice.

I have a colleague who is also from China and we joined the lab about the same time. At this beginning, we have some advanced experiment instrument to build with the help from the instrument company engineer. My advisor asked us to take a video of the building process so that we can refer to it later if needed. The other guy took the job since he has a video recorder. When the instrument was ready to use, my advisor asked me to write an operation manual and so I needed the videos. The other guy said yes at first, but refused to let me copy any of these or just viewing from his recorder unless I take him to a restaurant!

I was completely shocked by his behavior. My advisor was also there and tried to figure out how to deal with this and asked me if I can do that. I agreed to give that guy a treat nearby but then that guy said it must be a fancy downtown one. That I cannot endure anymore and just said no. Then he attacked my personality and not being grateful to him. My advisor stopped him by saying sometimes you have to work with different people. This is the first time I am in a quarrel with that person. But I still trusted my advisor.

Then similar events like that happens again and again. My advisor failed me every time. When I mentioned this stuff,  he just said he doesn't care and he wasn't there to see what really happened.

When I was working on my project and made some progress, my advisor promised that guy he can use my data to write another paper. My advisor mainly talked to the other guy about data analysis because I had a busy work schedule. One time I need to use the data analysis code they have used, and the other person sent me code with problems. I had to figure out how to write it by myself.

Stuff like that makes me decide to work independently. So I told my advisor I would like to have only me working on my project and wouldn't work on his at all. My advisor agreed, but started assigning all funded projects to that guy. For the entire past year, I have only two months project time working on some random samples.

My advisor rarely comments on my work compared to the other person's work. The rest of time, well, I was mostly following my advisor's guide, doing bunch of data fitting. While he only looked at my result for a minute and asked me to fit again. When finally it was finished, he decided it will not be used in my second paper.

During such time, I was almost driven mad and got into a bad relationship with my advisor. He will also be triggered by some small mistakes of mine and so am I at his. He promised me that I can graduate in 2yrs if I worked really hard but I just lost faith in him.

I had planned to be a pioneer in physics. But after this, I only want to get a decent job in industry and have a chance to stay in US in the future. But I only have limited experience in programming besides my experimental experience. What can I do at this point?

We only have half the story. What you describe seems outrageous (particularly the dinner part!), but I imagine if your professor had described the situation, he would characterize it quite differently (I have one socially-awkward but useful student and one whiny, unproductive student...just as an example, not saying you're actually whiny or unproductive). Given this, I'm going to avoid criticizing any of you.

In any case, the current situation is clearly untenable. A couple of options:

Talk to your advisor. Send an e-mail asking for a formal meeting to discuss your status. In the meeting, you might start by saying something nice about finding his work interesting and regretting that things haven't gone as well as you would like. Then, ask him when he sees you graduating and whether he will give you interesting work going forward. If you can smooth things over and make a good plan going forward to work independently, maybe you can finish out your last two years. If not, better to find out now so you can cut your losses.
Get a new advisor. In a small group of ~10 professors, this may be difficult. I would start by talking to the department chair or a trusted professor
Transfer to a new university. I realize this may be difficult with your visa restrictions.
Leave with an MS, if this is possible. If you are OK going into industry, an MS is not so bad (and you can always apply to PhD programs after leaving with an MS).


Can I patent work after I have published a paper about it? I've published my scientific results one year ago, but I didn't apply for patent at that time. Can I still patent it?

No.

You can only patent material that has not been publicly disseminated, and publication certainly counts as public dissemination.  In many jurisdictions, you lose the ability to patent immediately after doing so.  In other jurisdictions, like the United States, there is a one-year grace period, but it sounds like that has elapsed for you as well.


How can corresponding authors protect themselves from academic spam? Almost immediately after becoming a corresponding author, my academic email account quickly become inundated with unsolicited communications from predatory open access journals and “conferences.” My spam filter does a fairly good job, catching maybe 50-75% of these messages. But now that I will be using a new academic email address, I’ve thought about what I can do to prevent this problem from recurring. My idea is to publish the following text in the corresponding author field:

  Email: myname9@university.edu (remove digit “9” for correct email address)

Will journal editors let me do this? To my surprise, I’ve never seen another author try something similar. I’m confident that no one has (or will ever have) the “fake” email address indicated above, so there is no risk that the spam will go to an innocent third party.

Previous questions on Stack Exchange relate to email forwarding; none addresses the spam issue.

We all deal with this curse. Sad as it is, I suspect that your only option is to endure it -- my take is that papers ask you to provide an email address of record in some sort of official way, and playing games like the one you suggest would look inappropriate in this context.


Implications of being accepted without funding to a computer science PhD in the United States? I was accepted into Ohio State University CS PhD without funding.

I have heard that people who can show their capability may get funding after getting into the program. Is this understanding correct?

Is being accepted without funding a dangerous sign? Does this means that the faculty doesn't care about you?

My answer applies exclusively to CS in the United States, or other scenarios in which the standard PhD offer comes with guaranteed funding.
Implication #1: How the department feels about you
First, I will quote from an answer by JeffE (who is a member of the admissions committee at a top CS department in the US) to another question (also about CS PhD offers in the US):

A typical PhD offer from a strong department includes guaranteed funding in some form.

That may come in the form of guaranteed RA/TA work, or something else, but whatever it is will be promised at acceptance. Therefore, the main implication of a PhD offer without funding is that (as you have intuited), the department does not consider you a top candidate for their program. As JeffE remarks in the same answer:

Do not accept a PhD admission offer without funding. If they really want you, they'll pay for you.

You asked: "I have heard that people who can show their capability may get funding after getting into the program. Is this understanding correct?"
It's not impossible to get funding after beginning the program (e.g., if you really hit it off with a potential PhD advisor who has grant money to spare).
But this depends very much on luck and circumstance, not just on merit; so unless you like living dangerously, it's not an advisable strategy.
Implication #2: How it will affect your future prospects
Having said that, if you somehow manage to support yourself while doing a PhD, it probably won't matter to anyone that you were self-funded. Per Suresh's answer to another question:

There's nothing on your CV that needs to indicate exactly how you were supported during your Ph.D.


If I accept an offer of admission to MSc in UK, can I later decline to accept another offer? I have applied for a MSc in a UK university for the academic year 2017/18. I was offered an unconditional offer and I have to make a decision on it within 4 weeks and now two weeks have passed. But as I have not yet heard from other universities, I would like to take more time before accepting the offer. When I requested for more time to consider my decision the university informed me that it is better to accept the offer as I can always decline it.

But I would like to know whether there are any rules which state like I have an obligation to study at the university if I have accepted a place because if I get a place at another university which I am interested in, then I may drop this offer. Would the process allow me to decline the offer after accepting it, should I need to, and accept the offer at some other university?

I am not a student from UK, so if anyone can provide me guidance on this it would be helpful.

In some education systems there is something called the 'census date'. It is the date on which you would be considered committed to a course or program. Before the census date you can pull out with no strings attached. Call the Program Advisor, she or he will know the details, and you will not look bad for asking.


How to approach research on an unproven theory for academic submission? I'd like to look more into the Fermi Paradox for research purposes and possibly submit it as an academic paper.

The Fermi Paradox is a theory proposed by a scientist that has some very interesting and factual points based on our current knowledge of space and technology advancements.

My only concerns are the entire theory is based on speculation while it's not possible to disprove it's also not possible to prove.

Is it acceptable to research from one stand point either against or for the theory. Or is it better to approach it from a non bias stand point and show the evidence and the possible counter evidence?

Lots of interesting things in science are not proven, so I don't think there's any special privilege for unproven theories vs. other types of subject.  The real question is this: what do you have to contribute to the intellectual discussion? It doesn't really matter whether you start from a perspective of aiming to prove, aiming to disprove, or just aiming to clarify (in fact, you might well change your perspective multiple times during your investigations). What really matters is that you will need to gather novel evidence that advances the state of knowledge with regards to the subject.


Should biomedical engineering/ biotech academics aim to start businesses? in my relatively short academic career, I've gathered that academic engineering seems to be more about creating ideas than actually iteratively improving a product using engineering methods. In my field, biomedical engineering, I worry that this is not enough because many biomedical ideas require immense funding that usually comes from large companies willing to wait a decade for profits, and thus good ideas are shelved (obviously many layers to this).

Many questions address how academics could make money, or start up companies, but my question is whether it is actually our responsibility to do so in the biomedical and biotech fields?

edit:
my assumption is that starting a business is the only way to get a product to customers. Answers that provide alternative strategies to achieve this ultimate goal are welcome :)

The NIH seems to take the opposite view of you. The NIH provides funding for the training of a large number of biomedical engineers. The individual NRSA mechanism (F31 and F32) provides some of the most prestigious funding for PhD students and post docs. This funding comes with a pay back obligation such if you leave academia for industry within a few years of receiving NRSA funding, you can be required to pay back the funding. The NIH is in essence saying "do not leave academia" to the best biomedical engineers it trains. If the NIH thought more people should be starting up companies, I believe it would drastically increase the funding to the SBIR mechanism and rework the pay back mechanism to encourage individuals to leave instead of stay.


PhD in the US with an MSc from another country: coursework exemption? I'm currently studying for an MSc in theoretical particle physics in Israel. After I finish it I would like to study for a PhD abroad.

In the UK it seems that a PhD degree does not generally require taking any courses. In the US, on the other hand, all of the PhD programs I checked require at least one or two years of coursework as part of the PhD studies, and the actual research only starts after that.

My question is: do you know whether universities in the US allow students with an MSc degree, who have already done most or all of the graduate courses as part of that degree (and got good grades), to begin research immediately instead of taking the courses again? I really don't want to repeat the courses and waste two years.

It depends on the department. I have been looking at various applied mathematics departments in the USA and all of them want PhD students to go through the coursework and obtain an MS, even if they already did a masters degree before.

I think in general, there is no chance to skip coursework. This is probably because different universities have different standards and syllabuses for the same course. And they want to ensure everyone is up to the same standard and have taken the same syllabus.

But do check with the department, there are always exceptions.

P.S.

However, it doesn't have to be a "waste" of two years. The level of the course might be higher and you are probably able to choose different courses to get broader experiences. If all else fails and you are able to ace all the courses with no problem, you can always spend the extra time looking for a thesis adviser or find research collaborators.


After submitting a revised manuscript (moderate revision was requested), what are the steps followed? I have submitted a manuscript to a reputed journal. After 2 months of peer review process, the response was “moderate revision has been requested” and they told me that the new version is required within 1 month.
After making the necessary adjustments, I have resubmitted the revised manuscript back on the 14th of October 2017. On the 21st of October the status changed from “with editor” to “under review”. To date (16th December) the status is “under review”.
In fact, I had made some readings about late reviews, I found that reviews are normally due 14 days after the invitation is accepted by the reviewer.
Should I worry about manuscript rejection?
Thanks in advance for your help

You may ask the editor in charge. I.e., send an email to the editor in charge of your manuscript. If you don't know who that is, send an email to the Managing Editor.

However, I don't think there's anything to worry about in this case: the change in status doesn't mean it is going to be rejected. It simply means they got your revision and now (sub-)reviewing it again.


How do you address holders of non-Ph.D. doctorates such as an Ed.D. or Sc.D. etc.? It is customary to call Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) holders by the prefix "Dr.", but I wonder whether the same holds for other doctorates, such as Doctor of Science (Sc.D.) or Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)? Does it make sense to say "Dr. Name" to such people?

Logically I think the answer should be yes, but I do not know if it is appropriate and/or common to do so.

(If it is country-dependent, let's take the United States as an example.)

Traditionally, you would also address these people as "Doctor", as the distinction into different types of PhDs is mainly a naming thing.

As an example, look at Britain. Oxford University confers "DPhil." degrees, while Cambridge University confers "Ph.D." degrees. If you look at academic web pages of lecturers of British universities, they will be listed as "Dr" regardless of where they get the DPhil or PhD from. This is the same for other variants of the PhD as well.

Note that it can be that a person with such a degree does not call himself/herself "doctor" (which can be the cause of such a confusion). This can be due to legal requirements in using the Doctoral degree as part of your name or as a prefix to it. As an example, in Germany, if you got a PhD from a US university, you will typically not put a "Dr." in front of your name, as legally, you are only allowed to do so if you got a PhD degree from an accredited institution in a country with which Germany has a contract about seeing the degrees as equivalent. It is however fine to put a ", PhD (University name)" behind your name in this case. And there is no obligation to correct somebody if he/she calls you "Doctor" if you only have such a degree.


How to email Graduate Director that I will not attend (F1 student) I have made some wrong decisions during my PhD studies in a US university (let's call it University X). One year ago, I got another admit(let consider this University Y)  when I got admit to University X. I didn't have fund to join university Y, thats why I got accepted the offer from university X.

Now university Y offered me admission plus funds  and I accepted it, even the admission procedure has been completed. I have not transferred my sevis  no yet.

After a lot of thinking I have decided that I will not transfer to another university, rather I will complete my PhD here.

How can I email to the graduate director of University Y that I want to cancel my admission there and I do not want to join their program?

Agree - you have to tell Y. I agree with the above but add capitals to Admissions Committed.

Dear Professor X

Thank you very much for the offer of funding to complete my PhD with [name of uni]/your Faculty/Department [match to the Director's level of appointment].    After some thought, I have decided, respectfully, not to accept the offer.

I remain though very grateful for your consideration and I would like, through you, to convey my thanks to the Admissions Committee for their support.

With kind regards,
Sincerely,
ZZ


Is it ethical to require student work in exchange for letter of recommendation Is it ethical for a psychology professor to expect volunteer work in the lab in exchange for a letter of recommendation? The rationale is that they are unable to judge a student's suitability for graduate school without evaluating their lab abilities. I can see the point, but it's difficult for a working student to volunteer for an entire four month long semester on the professor's schedule, which varies considerably.

Yes. It would be unethical to trade lab work for a guaranteed good letter of recommendation, but I see nothing wrong with your scenario. I think it's acceptable for a professor to only write letters for students they've worked with if they has open lab positions. I also think it's good to require a student commit to at least one month of research at minimum.

It can be hard for many students to juggle/balance life, school, and work. Doubly so for those who need to work through college. But research is the backbone of many grad programs and it's important to get as much experience as possible. The research requirement can get in the way of everything else, but it's also a way for you to try research before applying to grad school.

EDIT: Another way of thinking about it: Would it be an issue if a professor required a student to take their course (or do research) before writing them a letter of recommendation? Of course not! Wanting a letter from such a professor would require you to spend time going to lecture and doing the course work. The only difference here is that one month of research is probably more beneficial and less work than taking a class.


Drawbacks of participating in a conference boycott There is a petition going round at the moment regarding not attending US conferences. It has been signed by many academics. In theory I would like to sign, but doesn't doing so shoot the academic in the foot by not contributing to conferences and therefore their field [in the case that the conference cannot be relocated]?

I include the link below for the interest of others who may want to:

Link

Yes, participating in such a boycott can come at a personal cost.  That is true for any boycott; the existence of this cost is what makes the boycott worthwhile in the first place.  If there was no cost at signing such a pledge, it would be much less impressive if many people sign.

However, again as with any boycott, as O. R. Mapper says, the marginal cost of participating drops if more academics participate.  Indeed, if a very large number of academics participate in a boycott, organisers may relocate or cancel the event, which brings your cost of boycotting, compared to people who chose not to boycott, to zero.


Still waiting for comments on my draft - what to do? Some weeks ago I completed the first draft a paper. I then decided to approach one of the experts in the field, who is working at the same school as I. She seemed interested and were willing to read the draft.  However I sent her the draft ~ 5 weeks ago, and I have not heard from her since then.

I am now wondering if this is normal? Can I send her an e-mail and ask if she has looked at it yet (or is that considered inappropriate?).

I am getting quite stressed about this, the reason being that my advisor expects a draft of a new paper soon, and it would be valuable to have her comments before I talk to my own supervisor (who knows less about the subject I am writing my paper about).

After 5 weeks, I think you can safely assume that she has forgotten about it. You can either accept that you will not hear back from her, or send a polite reminder.

Most people do not mind a friendly reminder about tasks that they have committed to but forgotten about. It is definitely not inappropriate. However, it is of course possible that she simply has no time after all, but then the right thing for her to do is to just tell you.


How to cite an updated report? Research reports published on the webpage of the home institution are sometimes updated during the revision process. Suppose a first version was published in 2013, and the update came in 2014, and suppose the first version is not available anymore. The web page may say something like "XYZ, 2013. Revised 2014". Which date to use for citation?

Argument for

"2013":
This may please the sensitive among the authors.

"2014":
This is factually correct as I'm citing the content of this version which is also currently online. But what if they update again?

"2013. Revised 2014":
This has its obvious benefits, but is probably too cumbersome to be consistently implemented.

I think the main problem here is the use of the term "published" just because it is posted on the web page. If a report is under revision, it is strictly speaking not published. Once published it should be fixed in terms of its content or it should carry some form of revision marking such as "Second Edition" or "version 2" in which case the different editions or versions must be continually available.

If you find some information in the 2013 draft which is later dropped, it means the authors no longer support that point for one or another reason. Hence it would be potentially bad to attribute such a point the authors.

So from this perspective I do not support any of your forms for referencing. It appears you should view the work as unpublished and only rely on the latest version as a source for information.


Long distance collaboration with a professor – wrote manuscript, getting ignored. What to do next? This summer I was involved in a long distance collaboration with a researcher at an institution for clinical research. I was essentially CC'd to this person via an old colleague who currently works with this professor as a faculty member when the professor I collaborated with apparently expressed to my colleague that they needed more manpower to finish writing a manuscript given their busy schedule.

Anyways, this researcher had me conduct a literature review for a series of rare, clinically related human disorders to serve as the base of a case report for a series of patients who presented at this institution for a clinical trial, as well as some basic statistical analyses. I essentially typed what would be the base of this paper. This institution is a top 20 NIH funded institution and my old colleague is very trustworthy, so I was very ecstatic to work on this project during the summer.  This researcher even speculated on specific journals we should target for publication. The researcher and I had good interactions via e-mail and after I was finished with "baking the cake" so to speak with the review, the researcher praised my work and said all that they had to do was pull up the patient demographics and specific presentations of the patients to input. I do not have access to that sensitive information as I am not affiliated with that institution, so I was dependent upon them for that.

The researcher did not reply for what was around a month, so I sent an update e-mail kindly inquiring on the status of the project, thanking the researcher for allowing me to work with them, saying I learned a lot conducting the literature review, etc.

Ignored for another month. At this point I am frustrated because at the time I did all this work in about 3 days with very, very little sleep knowing I had personal familial commitments to attend to and I would be away from a computer for an extended period of time (around a week or two) and I thought this researcher was adamant about needing the "manpower" as per my old colleague.

What do I do now? I'm assuming there's nothing much I can do. I live pretty far from this institution so it's not like I can drive up there for a meeting. Moreover, to walk in unannounced sounds very vulgar. I can't tattletale to my old colleague because why would I drag him into something he isn't a part of? I wanted to get this project to completion because I am looking to apply to this same exact institution for a fellowship later on in my career and am looking at this specific department. Moreover, I was genuinely passionate about the project and felt like authorship in that field would boost my morale. I also thought developing rapport with faculty would help my prospective academic career. I tried looking at my e-mails and even had friends look through my e-mails to see if I had inadvertently wrote something that could be interpreted aggressive, rude, or accidentally offensive (like calling them Mr./Ms. instead of Dr.) but I found nothing.

Since email isn't working, I see two alternatives. The simple one is to contact the person who originally got you involved to see if they know what the problem might be. Presumably this person knows both of you and may know the other person better than you do.

The only other solution with a positive outcome is to contact the other party in person. Your question is "How shall we proceed?" not "What is the problem here?". There might be any number of things in the way, but you have no way to  know with a passive approach.

It's not impossible that you are being used and therefore ignored. But you shouldn't conclude that without more information.


Transitioning from a PhD to Postdoc. Is it acceptable to stay with the PhD advisor for 6 months to a year after graduating? My PhD advisor has offered me a postdoc position in her group with specific projects and duties post graduation. However, she has time and again advised me to do a postdoc from somewhere else as according to her, doing postdoc from PhD university is not seen in a positive sense in academia.

I on the other hand want to stay for 6 to 12 months in the same group as I have lot of additional projects to complete which would be impossible to attend to in a new environment. Also, my PhD research was in a modeling technique which was far away from my advisors expertise. And, I want to learn the new modeling technique and work in a project for which my advisor is known for. So, that way I can get the direct expertise of my advisor.

Also, I love the city I am currently in. I am not ready to leave it for someplace else.

What do you think I should do?

(Here, I have made an assumption that I will surely be getting a good postdoc position somewhere soon).

In mathematics and in Northern Europe I have seen more than a few people do this. A grace period after graduation is not rare. But it is expected that you spend time elsewhere, preferably abroad, either employed or on long and frequent visits, or that you are very good. (Even if you are very good, there are probably other very good people seeking employment, so travelling is still a good idea.)

More importantly, going elsewhere gives you perspective:

New ways of teaching.
New fields and problems to solve and methods for solving them.
New contacts and collaborators.
If going abroad, usually a new language and a more-or-less new culture, depending on how far you go.

In most life situations, it is easier to travel now then later, even if you intend to come back. So if your situation allows, consider seeking for positions elsewhere. Current co-operators of your current research group would be especially useful, since that would probably allow you to contribute to the ongoing projects in some way, too.

Also, unless you specifically aim for it, you will never not have unfinished projects going on, though this is probably field- and personality-specific.


Improving work conditions of student assistants, PhDs, Postdocs etc I have been following threads on this website for a few months now. However it's my first time posting. I am a postdoctoral researcher from a Western European country who has done reasonably well since my PhD a few years ago in terms of attracting funding, publishing, teaching etc. My professional situation for the next 2-3 years is secure (I have won a competitive European grant) and I am very happy with what I am doing research-wise. To be clear, this is not a rant & it isn't about me specifically.

I have recently completed a three-year postdoc in Austria in a humanities subject. What I have witnessed there has greatly upset me: I saw careers being shattered, research being stifled or appropriated, young researchers being exploited with promises of jobs that never came or work conditions that were so bad that they never finished their degrees, students 'bound' to their supervisors in ways that I would not have imagined possible in the 21st century, etc. In short, an incredible waste of talent and resources...

Now I am moving to another European country but I still feel very strongly about my experience in Austria and I wish I could do something about it. I know that what I have witnessed isn't unique to Austria, although things are perhaps worse there than anywhere else in Europe. In Austria I felt a sense of hopelessness I had never experienced before - people were just afraid to speak out and lose their jobs; in fact it was so bad that several co-workers turned to me for advice and support, despite my own situation being precarious.

At the time I realized that we had no-one to turn to for help. Works' committees were mostly for people with permanent jobs in the institute - not for students or people like me on short-term contracts. So here is my question: do you know any young researchers' professional associations or unions, perhaps at European level, with whom I could share my concerns? Surely the sort of problems described here are common in academia and there must be structures to represent us?

As mentioned in my comment, I am in full agreement that working conditions for young scientists tend to be somewhere between precarious to downright terrible, but I do not share your impression that this is an Austrian, or even a European, problem. Still, I agree that the situation is dire and needs improvement, independently of whether it is the same or worse than elsewhere.

I have by now moved to Sweden and my impression is that working conditions for young scientists here are quite good, much better than in most countries. What seems to help are the following:

Flat management structures and a fairly consequent implementation of the "many eyes" principle. Unlike in Austria, where people tend to be at the mercy of a single chair or full professor, a young scientist in Sweden tends to work with many different faculty members, both in research and teaching. PhD committees have multiple internal members, all of which meet regularly with the student, providing realistic ways to escalate issues with the main supervisor.
Part of this are also yearly one-on-one meetings of all students with the head of the PhD school as well as with the head of the division, where problems can be raised (really, it is expected that issues are raised here, and this is not seen as an attack against the main supervisor, as it may be in Austria).
Fairly generous paid vacations on all levels, and an expectation that this vacation is indeed taken yearly.
Clear rules for hiring. There are no vague promises of jobs - all positions need to be announced and run through a hiring process in which HR is involved. This is quite transparent, and internal hires are rare to start with.
Explicit support for mental health. Our university has a contract with a mental healthcare provider, which all employees can consult if they feel stressed or depressed. Usage of this provider is anonymous and encouraged by senior faculty.

It helps that the faculty/student ratio here is much lower than what I have seen in Austria (about 1:2 in my division, versus about 1:20 in the group where I did my PhD), and that the Scandinavian culture tends to de-emphasize hierarchy to begin with.

  what can we do as young researchers/academics against an oppressive system when we are not even being represented in works' councils? Who to turn to for help and support? Are there pan-European research associations that we can become involved in to take up these issues?

Realistically, what will be needed to substantially improve working conditions will be to break up the chair structure. As long as a single professor is the sole authority over a student or postdoc, mistreatment will happen and continue to happen.

I am afraid, neither external associations nor students can do much to make this change happen - it will need to come from within. Short-term, the only thing that students and employees can and should do is vote with their feet - don't go to universities and groups that have a history of treating their employees badly, and warn others from going there if you feel you have been mistreated.


What to put in "affiliation" field when submitting paper without affiliation? Recently my paper is reviewed (by a professor from independent third party) and accepted by a journal. But, my employer allows me to publish this paper only without its name there.

Publishing house is expecting affiliation for each author, i.e. I can not leave affiliation as blank.

What should I write as the affiliation?

As noted by @mankoff in a comment on Does one need to be affiliated with a university to publish papers?, you can use "Independent Scholar":

  Here is a recent paper published by someone affiliated as "Independent Scholar": dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00171.1


Examples/anatomy of good tenure track recommendation letters I'm wondering if anyone has a link to some (obviously anonymized) tenure-track recommendation letters.  I'm in the processing of putting together some applications and I've been curious to know what a good letter looks like versus a bad letter.  There have been a few relevant questions asked here, such as this one, but it seems like for the most part I'm just seeing categorical philosophy about letters.  I would be interested in reading a "great" letter and a "mediocre" letter, just to get a feel for what the difference looks like.

While I do have sample TT recommendation letters, I'm not at liberty to share them, even anonymized (sorry!).  However, I've just re-read a few, and there are a couple commonalities I'll share below.

First, all made a strong case for the applicant having already impacted their field (for the record, all applicants completed a post-doc; none were straight out of graduate school).  This is noteworthy, because recommendation letters for tenure seek to establish that person's real, significant contribution to the field.  It is perhaps not surprising that the letter for a TT position has a similar flavour.

Second, all made a case that the work was likely to be funded. One of these had never previously received funding, the others were supported by post-doctoral fellowship or as some kind of co-PI on larger grant.

Third, all but one seemed to make an effort to highlight the 'departmental fit' in terms of research interest, both directly and complimentary.

I'm not sure how to answer your question about a 'great' letter vs a 'mediocre' one, but I did get the sense that the most compelling letters, in my opinion, had an air of 'obviousness'. What I mean by this is that the authors wrote as if 'obviously you must know this work' or 'undoubtedly you're familiar with...'.  I can't be sure if that was actually true or whether it was a marketing ploy, but it seems to have worked.

Hope that helps, and good luck!


Is there examples of mathematicians who had to lose years Is there examples of mathematicians who had to lose years before proving themselves in the field? I'm asking since in most of the cases I noticed a steady career path for most of the mathematicians.

Vladimir Berkovich, as he writes "I finished studying in 1976 and got a Ph.D. a year later. Getting an academic position would be too much luck, and the best thing I could hope for was the job of a computer programmer at a factory of agricultural machines... As a result, I practically stopped doing mathematics." The context here being the he was Jewish in the Soviet Union and made trouble for him. He did not really start working on non-archimedean analytic geometry until 1985 and then did not really return to academia until 1987 when he was able to emigrate to Isreal.

The quote is from his introduction to: "p-Adic Geometry: Lectures from the 2007 Arizona Winter School" published by the AMS.


My ex employer wants me to draft my own reference letter to the MSc program, is it unethical? I submitted my application for a MSc program and one of my referees was declined this week by the department. Because this was so sudden from the department and I had to find someone who is willing to write me a reference letter in 3 days notice, I asked my previous employer to write me one.
My employer told me to simply draft my own letter and send it back to him so he can upload it !

is it unethical? the rejection of my initial referee was sudden and none of my old professors would remotely agree to write me a letter in two days notice. I don't want to commit anything wrong that could compromise my candidancy.

No, it is not. Your employer will get the letter and "tweak" it. When he uploads that letter, it means that he agrees with its content.

I had seen multiple professors do this to some colleagues of mine and there is nothing unethical about it.


Whether to quit PhD in psychology: overbearing post-doc, lack of passion for topic, not wanting to enter academia, lack of statistical support I'm over half way into my PhD in psychology and neuroscience in the UK. I think that leaving the programme is the best decision but I'm unsure whether my reasons are good enough. I have gained some valuable experience: computer programming, applying basic mathematics, addressing software and hardware issues etc.

I approached my supervisor and the director of research 4 months ago about quitting and I was encouraged to continue, but these 4 big issues with the project have persisted, which are sufficient to make me think quitting the programme is the right decision:

1) Before starting, I was not aware how involved the post-doc would be in my project, who is overbearing and has been very difficult to work with from the very beginning. The post-doc is more concerned about being right and getting his own way than being helpful. This hinders my progress because I have to wrestle with what their idea of what my PhD should be. If I had known this, I would not have applied for this PhD. However, I think it's too late to point out this problem and my supervisor would probably think I'm using it as a scapegoat for my own problems.  For now, I'm treating it as a 'training exercise' because you can never choose your colleagues in the real world - but this is a bad reason for staying on with a PhD.

2) My passion for the subject is gone and I have no intention of carrying on in academia afterwards. I don't think my PhD has a use in the real world, so I will definitely be applying for jobs in in the real world. However, if I quit prospective employers will think I'm 'a quitter' and will be put off employing me, but carrying on comes at the expense of experience in the real world, which I think is more valuable.

3) I have found the PhD experience very alienating and I find what I do for a living embarrassing. I'm reluctant to talk to new people because what you do for a living inevitably comes up and I like to avoid talking about it.

4) There is a some mathematics that I have to teach myself (I'm ok with this in principle), with no support from the department, leading to uncertainty as to whether I'm doing it right or whether I'm qualified enough for my position. This combined with reason 1 is slowing down my progress and I'm afraid I won't get enough done and fail the programme.

Do these reasons seem sufficient or should I bite the bullet and carry on?

Thanks.

I agree with you that, regarding 1) - difficult co-workers - you very well might quit and have just as overbearing a boss outside academia.  Although it is difficult, that shouldn't be a key driver in your decision.
(Note that pride is strongest within academia, so working with people who always think they're right is pretty normal!)

However, reasons #2) & 3) - having no passion because you don't think your work is useful to anyone, and being embarrassed about what you do - are very good reasons to seriously consider changing jobs.  This would probably be true in or out of the academic world.

Reason 4) - the fact that you have to learn something difficult all by yourself - may be pretty normal for many different research fields.  However, the thing that often propels people through these difficulties is a passion for what they're doing, either because it's enjoyable or because it feels like it'll be really useful later (to yourself or others).  If you don't feel either of those, then learning the new topics might be quite painful.

Depending on your situation, another option may exist - assuming you, at some point, were really excited about starting research in this field, perhaps  changing projects (or changing the particular aspect of your project that you pursue) could reinvigorate you?

It should be noted that just about every PhD goes through a time similar to what you're experiencing - the end not in sight, too many hurdles, just want it over, along with the constant fear that you're underperforming.  For me, I realized that at least I could say I loved my daily work, and thought it was really cool.  If I hadn't had that passion for what I was doing I wouldn't have been able to make it through the slump(s).


Balancing location with school/department for PhD study I am due to start a PhD in January in a school that has a very good department for my chosen area, but unfortunately is close to my home (2 hours commute by train) and to my previous university (also 2 hours by train).
Unfortunately, I am starting to be incredibly exasperated with living in this country (UK incidentally) and in cities. It feels very incompatible with me (I like mountain climbing, forest hiking and forest wildlife, and skiing and feel I would like these to be a much bigger component of my life, rather than relegated to the occasional 2 week holiday). I also really would like to learn another language and experience different cultures.
I feel like it is taboo at this stage to say that these things are important to me, and I don't know whether I should 'suck it up' and stay with the position I have been offered, or look for PhDs where, outside of PhD work, I would get the kind of cultural and personal enrichment that is important to me.
So my question is: to what extent (and specifically at the PhD stage) should someone choose where they do their PhD based on factors like being able to experience new cultures, spend weekends hiking/in the mountains/forest/[insert your preferred environment here], learning a new language etc, rather than just look at the department and academic resources it offers.
While trying to decide what to do in my personal situation, I found myself with very conflicting messages. Some sources were advising that undergraduate is the stage at which you can go abroad for cultural enrichment, but at PhD level it shouldn't really be much of a consideration. Others suggesting that it is a high priority to go where you would feel happy, because a PhD is psychologically draining.
I guess I ask this because there are convincing arguments in either direction, and I no longer know what is valid justification (to me or anyone else) were I to choose to re-apply to different PhD programs.

I chose to do my Ph.D. in a major American city eight hours away by train from my rural hometown. My adviser is great. I have started to hate the city and pine for the wilderness every day. Yet I know a bad adviser elsewhere could make my life perhaps even more miserable, and might even make me hate my work. Somehow, you should try to balance your need for nature, learning other languages, etc. with the benefits of the institution and advising. I can't say there's any solution to this dilemma. Maybe just try to get through the five years and be sure to choose a better location after graduation.


Are summarized reviewer comments a thing? I recently got a rejection from an Elsevier journal. What struck me as odd was that each reviewer comment was three sentences each. To me they look clearly summarized, possibly by the editor. This is also suggested by the wording ("[...] from reviewer (sic!) pointy (sic!) of view [...]"). Colleagues argue that this might just be the way some people review papers.

Is it common that the editorial office summarizes the reviewer comments?
Would I have received more complete feedback in case of a conditional acceptance?
How can it be justified that Elsevier doesn't pass on the feedback to the authors? Personally, I review papers ''for the love of science'', not to support a listed corporation.

Additional information: Three reviews/summaries in total, one of them enthusiastically positive.

Is it common that the editorial office summarizes the reviewer comments?

Yes, in addition to the actual reviewer feedback. It basically never happens that the actual reviewer feedback is hidden from the authors, and I don't see a point for doing so. If that happened to you, it's possible that there is a mistake, and you should ask the editor about that.

  Would I have received more complete feedback in case of a conditional acceptance?

Rejection letters are often short, because the reviewers might have particular high-level concerns that make a more detailed assessment of the paper pointless, for example, if the manuscript is either poorly written or out of the scope of the journal. (A good editor would desk-reject such a paper, but that's a different story.)

  How can it be justified that Elsevier doesn't pass on the feedback to the authors? Personally, I review papers ''for the love of science'', not to support a listed corporation.

If your assumption is true, I don't see a point for that. However, take into account that the editor is typically not a representative of Elsevier.


Is there any scholarship or fellowship award for part-time PhD students in Deep Learning? Is there any fellowship awards for part-time Ph.D. Students?

I have a full-time job in the relevant field. While searching for options, I have seen a few from Facebook, Nvidia and Microsoft but these are mostly for full-time Ph.D. students.

Facebook: https://research.fb.com/fellowship/
MSFT: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/academic-program/phd-fellowship/

Any advice is appreciated. Thank you

Part-time scholarships are extremely rare, regardless of the field of research. This applies across the board internationally as far as I know (thought I would be interested to hear of any examples to the contrary).

Personally I see this lack of part-time scholarships as a flaw as many candidates study part time and a scholarship for those researchers would effectively buy them time to work on their research which they would then use very efficiently, even if its just a day or two per week, without them having to quit their job and other responsibilities in order to go full-time.

There are many studies showing that part-time research candidates tend to make better use of the time available. Because they have to! :-)

Some departments have a small budget for paid research but, much like teaching work, this can have its limitations as you often end up working many more hours than you are actually getting paid for. It may be good researcher development but in many cases can be bad economics.

The best solution in my experience is to keep the job you already have if you can and negotiate for a bit more flexibility and reduced hours. Its amazing what you can achieve if you can get a good routine going and use your time effectively.


Is it appropriate to send an email to a professor at the end of the semester thanking them for their teaching? I'm aware of very similar questions previously asked - all with good answers. These usually pertain to following up with a professor after a recommendation. My question is specifically about sending a thank you letter to a professor at the end of a semester.

My current semester is ending in three weeks and it has been my favorite semester by far. My professors taught their material really well and I was engaged non stop from the beginning of the semester. Among my professors, some assigned great homework questions, or lectured really well, or were very accessible during office hours. Overall, I had a great learning experience this semester and I want to express my appreciation because I haven't had a semester like this in the three years I've attended school.

I understand it may seem silly to question what is just a polite and appreciative gesture (I think it's silly myself), but I'm a little intimidated about the impression it will leave on my professors. I want to avoid the stigma of "teachers pet." For this reason, I've considered writing anonymous notes, but that seems creepy.

Kind of a light dilemma but I'd like some input because after thinking about it for a while I think it's an interesting topic. Thank you!

In the academic culture I am familiar with, this is a perfectly appropriate and appreciated thing to do after grades have been released. (A letter at the end of the semester but before grades are finalized can look like an attempt to influence the grading process.)

I have received some emails like this, and I was very happy to receive them. They left me with the impression that the student is a mature, appreciative, and thoughtful person, not that he/she is somehow trying to be a "teacher's pet."


Who do I email about a question on a paper? I want to ask the authors of a paper if they have thoughts on an application of their work. I'm not sure who to email.

The first author is a grad student, who is supervised by the last author - however, the authors are in alphabetical order so I'm not sure if there is any meaning to the ordering. The paper is in economics, which traditionally goes alphabetically, I believe.

Should I email all the authors in one bulk message? Just the professors? Choose one of the authors at random and email them?

Papers usually have one (or more) designated corresponding author, or “contact author”, or “author to whom correspondance should be addressed”. That's whom you should contact.

Sometimes it's indicated by a footnote, an asterisk, or at the end of the paper. Sometimes, it's indicated by the fact that only corresponding authors have their email address listed.

If there is no corresponding author, then email either the first author or senior author, depending on the nature of your question and how confident you feel in communicating with them. I would refrain from copying the email to all authors (except maybe if there are only two): if he wants to, the author you will write to can forward your query to others.


Posting Teaching Videos on Personal Website Background: I am a fourth year math graduate student in the US.

I recently gave a talk in an undergraduate mathematics seminar at my university, and one of my friends in attendance offered to record a video of it for me.  I accepted his offer, since it will give me a chance to review my presentation and polish it, should I give it again at some point in the future.  However, he also suggested another use for it: post it to my personal website as an example of my teaching.

I felt the seminar went quite well and the recording quality is reasonable, so I am comfortable with such a thing representing me online.  The main questions I have are as follows:

Is such a thing appropriate on a personal website?  Could it be considered a bit overbearing?
Will this make any difference when applying for teaching positions?  Would anyone on a committee ever even bother to look at such a thing, let alone my personal website?
In a similar vein, should I try to make more of these?  Is it worth the trouble to have more examples of my teaching available?
Are there any other points I have overlooked?  Unforeseen benefits or possible pitfalls/risks, perhaps?

Any commentary whatsoever is certainly appreciated.

Assuming that your lecturing skills are actually good, I don't see any downside at all to making videos of your lectures available online, other than the trouble involved in creating and posting them. I don't see how anyone would think there is anything remotely inappropriate about this (unless you start attaching 100 MB copies of these videos to emails you send to places where you are applying for jobs; needless to say, that would be a bad idea).

As for appearing "overbearing", depending on how you present these videos on your personal website, it may conceivably be seen as overbearing or in poor taste if they are displayed too prominently (e.g., as a silly example, a large video player window occupying almost the entire page with a flashy caption saying something like "Meet The World's Best Lecturer!!!", but probably that's not quite what you had in mind). But a couple of links to YouTube videos with informative captions such as "A calculus lecture I gave on 11/11/15"), or even a standard-sized embedded YouTube view, should not provoke anyone's ire in my opinion.

As for the potential upside, I think you are very correct in guessing that most committee members would not have the time or energy to view an hour-long lecture by a job candidate. The chances that even a small part of your videos will be watched by more than a few people are not very high. With that said, it is not inconceivable that some people will watch parts of your videos to get a sense of your abilities (I have done this myself on a few occasions, and even googled candidates and found videos of them that they did not think to provide). Even some committee members who don't watch your videos may still be impressed by the fact that you are willing to provide such documentary evidence of your lecturing abilities, and view this as a sign of honesty, trustworthiness and self-confidence.

As for creating more videos, I don't think anything beyond one or maybe two videos will have any added value, so I wouldn't bother with that.

Finally, let me repeat that my advice is given under the premise that you are a good lecturer whose videos will be impressive. You may think your talk went well, but it may be good to get objective confirmation of that from a friend or colleague before you proceed.