I put off taking some important classes until my senior year, should I still apply to grad school during my fall semester? I'm a junior economics major who wants to get a masters and then possibly a PhD. I know that math background is a very important component of economics grad school admissions and so I'm also minoring in math. The problem is is that I haven't taken either real analysis or an upper-level linear algebra course yet (I did take an undergrad linear algebra course over the summer and got an A in it). While I have the GPA needed to get into most masters programs and I expect to do well on the GRE, I'm afraid that my transcript as of my junior year isn't very reflective of my math abilities. During my sophomore year I was in a really bad place dealing with both anxiety and depression (I know everyone uses this excuse, but I have the doctor diagnosis to prove it) and I got a C in my calc 2 class and a B in vector calculus even though I could have gotten an A.

Since my math background is so important for econ grad school, should I even bother applying before completing these upper-level courses that will better showcase my ability to do the math that economics grad school requires?

There are lots of programs where important classes are not taken by students until their senior year, largely because of the design of the major. Also, in most cases, if there is a "capstone" course, it's not taken until the final year, and grades would not be ready until after applications are due. However, this has not proven to be an obstacle for students applying to grad school, because the people making the decisions are cognizant of such organizations, and take this into account when making their decisions.

So don't worry too much about applying with your senior year courses missing—most of your peers will be in a similar situation!


Are there any online tools to calculate academic collaboration distance (i.e. a generalisation of the Erdős number)? The Erdős number is the academic collaboration distance someone has to Paul Erdős.  MathSciNet has a tool to calculate the collaboration distance between two mathematicians (where one may or may not be Erdős).  Alas, I am not a mathematician, and if I have an Erdős number at all, it's probably quite large.  But the concept of collaboration distance is, of course, not limited to mathematics.

Source: Wikimedia Commons, user h2g2bob, cc-by-sa

Are there any online tools to calculate the collaboration distance between two arbitrary scientists, whether in mathematics or not?  In principle this should be possible using any large database of scientific publications.  It would be fun to know if I have an Erdős number, or what my distance (and the route!) is to famous scientists in my field.

I have been using https://www.csauthors.net/distance for a few years now. It seems to work decent considering I am not a mathematician either. However, it does not work on your name :(


Graduate student salary increase only for new students Graduate student stipends on our campus were low, and our new president increased some stipends. This applied to our department. However, I figured out it only apply to the new students. So we are currently getting paid $1,800 per month, they will get paid $2,200 per month for recruitment purposes.

What would be the best way to approach this, so that current student can also get an increase?

Assuming the poster is in the United States:

You can request a salary increase.  Sometimes requests are granted.
You can leave the university to get higher pay elsewhere.
You can organize students in to a union, which will strike if an acceptable salary is not provided by the university.  Most universities in the United States do not have a graduate student union which negotiates an employment contract.  These are different from the student union which offers campus recreation at universities in the United States.

On your own, a PhD student has very little bargaining power.


Problem with a cheater I will be taking something similar to an entry exam for university. I also had another exam last week and then one person tried to cheat off me, but I didn't let him. Now I'm a little bit anxious that in the next exam he could sit somewhere close to me again. This exam will also have a listening part so I would like to take a place somewhere in the first rows so that I could hear and write down more effectively. Actually it's not likely that this guy will be anywhere near me - there will be many people at this exam, we may not even be in the same examination hall. But I still have worries so that's why I'm posting this question. I will surely do my best to sit as far from him as possible, but if by some really bad chance we are near each other again (for example few free places in the first rows etc.), I'm planning to stay in the first rows just for the listening and after it's over, to ask some of the invigilators to move elsewhere. Do you think there is a chance of me getting into trouble for doing this? Should I also explain them the reason and what would be the best thing to say (I prefer not to get into details at all)? What are your thoughts on this? I have enough stress with the exam, so having to think how to deal with some lazy a**hole is the last thing I need right now...

Arrive early and choose a good seat. Focus on the exam and take a bit of care that your work isn't easily visible. Beyond that, relax as much as you can, especially about the circumstances.

I wouldn't raise any issue with a proctor unless you actually need to, but then, don't hesitate to ask to be reseated. You don't need to offer an explanation unless asked. But you shouldn't have any negative consequences if you need to act.

Don't do anything that might be interpreted as disruptive such as shouting at someone copying.


In the USA, do college courses deeply differ from high school courses? I'm interested in school systems, and I have a question regarding the "college" level. (I have a French background).
When I look at college math or physics books, it seems to me that there is no big difference with what is taught at the high school level.
By comparison, in France, first year university math or physics books dramatically differ from high school books.
To put my question in a provocative way: what is the purpose of teaching at the college level what students already know from their high school courses? Or don't they? Or, is my vision of college contrary to actual facts?

First of all, the US has no university system.  It has somewhere around 1500 community colleges offering 2 year degrees and 3500 colleges and universities offering 4-year degrees, all of which run with more independence than an ordinary French university.  (Keep in mind the federal government has established only a tiny handful of universities; public universities are nearly all set up by the individual states.)
Second, you should understand that there is no high-school leaving exam like the bac.  Basically anyone who is willing to sit in the classroom and do a minimal amount of work can get a high school diploma.  Harvard is incredibly selective and it's about as hard to be admitted to Harvard as it is to be admitted to the ENS.  The top 100 or 200 of US universities are all selective, and the average student would not be admitted.  However, most universities and all community colleges will allow anyone with a high school diploma to attend.  (My university officially has admission requirements based on high school grades, but high school grades have been inflated to such an extent that these requirements are almost meaningless, and the admissions office routinely gives waivers to these requirements anyway.)  About 85% of Americans earn a high school diploma and can attend community college.  (Another several percent obtain a GED.)  Only about 45% of French take and pass the baccalaureate general and can attend university.
At a community college, you should expect that many students do not actually know what you might think they should have learned from high school, and a significant number of students will have trouble with upper elementary material such as adding fractions.  There will even be a few students who are functionally illiterate.


How do you add two independent master's degrees to your name? Assuming you add one master's degree (Master of Science) like that:
FirstName LastName, M.Sc.

What is a proper way to add two independent1 master's degrees (both Master of Science)? Do you just add them both to the end?
FirstName LastName, M.Sc., M.Sc.

1 independent: Different universities, different fields, 2x 120 ECTS = 240 ECTS in total. Not the result of a double degree program.

Just to be clear, I am not looking for recommendations, if or when I should decorate my name with academic degrees. I do not even plan to do it on a regular basis. Even in my country, you don't do it very often. But if there is this one single time in my whole life where I should do it, then I want to do it right. That's all I am asking for: Are there rules or good/best practices on how to do it with two M.Sc. degrees.
Example situation: If you get mentioned on someone else's thesis as an examiner or as a supervisor the names will be decorated with degrees. A german doctor with three doctoral degress can either be Dr. Dr. Dr. FirstName LastName or Dr. mult. FirstName LastName. This example shows two possible rules:

You can stack titles/degrees. Just add as much as you have. That's from where I derived FirstName LastName, M.Sc., M.Sc..
You can condense - at least multiple doctoral - degrees by adding mult. to the mention of one single title/degree. I have never seen this in combination with other degrees.

Unless you are in a place that regulates academic titles, you can do pretty much as you please. But you could qualify each with the specific field or university if you feel the need to list both.

FirstName LastName, M.Sc.(Basket Weaving), M.Sc.(Basket Burning)

Distinguishing by university, rather than field will probably confuse people, thinking you have two masters in the same field. Qualifying with both is probably too unwieldy.


What is a good system for generating BibTeX reference keys? When using a reference manager (or even when tracking references on a handwritten draft), it is common to have a key for each entry when referring to items, which the computer (or you in a final form) replaces with a properly styled reference later (in the style of the journal).

E.g., in BibTeX, which I am most familiar with, writing \cite{Box2015a} might be replaced with "[1]" or with "(Box, O. 2015)" or with "(Box, O. 2015, Meaningful reference key format)" depending on style -- the key in question being the Box2015a part.

Having a good format for the key seems useful, since one would spend a lot of time only seeing the key, rather than the full reference. Simply the author name and date, and a letter to break conflicts doesn't seem ideal.

Was Box2015a Box's work on Meaningful Reference Key formats? Or was it his work on Bicycle Speed Dependency on Weather? Getting that wrong would be embarrassing, and also accidental plagiarism (since credit was not given to the right paper).

What is a better format for reference keys?

Probably, the only general rule to follow is that the key should be something that well characterizes the document. Anything more specific will depend a lot on the topics you are writing about, and vary from reference to reference:

Is the title very unique, or rather generic? In the former case, a shortened version of the title could be integrated into the key. (As a random example: The title The triangle processor and normal vector shader: a VLSI system for high performance graphics might be shortened to something like TriangleProcHighPerf.)
Does the publication describe a product or technique that has a name (which you might also use in your text)? If so, that name could become a part of the key.
Is the publication connected to a recognizeable author name, or do you rarely see the same author name twice in the literature you deal with, in particular with respect to specific approaches? In the latter case, author names may just be arbitrary strings that do not help you remember anything particular, while in the former case, you might think about including the author name the work is associated with the name in the key.
Is the year in any way special for the work? For example, is it an exceptionally early example of a supposedly modern invention, or is it the variant that has become known as "the 2011-version" of a particular approach? If so, the year could reasonably be a part of the key, otherwise, it seems superfluous.
Can the publication be categorized? For instance, you may want to indicate in the key whether something is a concept draft, a user study of a concept presented elsewhere, a survey of several techniques, or a design rationale for a given concept.
Are there various versions of essentially the same work published by different publishers? Different layouts and presentation forms (monochrome vs. color, ...) may have different strengths, so you may end up wanting to specifically refer to (w.l.o.g.) the Springer version and the IEEE version of some work that for some reason was published twice. In that case, including the publisher name in the key might be reasonable.

I hope this helps to get the idea - I do not see a reason for a uniform key format here; instead, this case-specific format highlights the peculiarities of each referenced work and therefore seems to help best to remember which reference points to what work in my experience.

For me personally, the above system generally leads to keys that never include an author name or publication year, and almost always a concept name, otherwise some fragments of the paper title. Depending on your topics, you may well end up with different preferences.

I have never had a problem of key collisions while using this approach; if anything (not that it would actually cause any problem), I may have ended up with several different keys in cases where I created bibliography entries for the same publication several times rather than copying the first one to later works.

To summarize:

An advantage of this system is that you do not need to remember any information that is not descriptive for the content of the paper (publication year, author name, publication venue, ...) to understand the reference.
A disadvantage may be that the key cannot be generated automatically, though I use one .bib file per project and my workflow is usually decide to add reference -> search for reference in JabRef to check whether it is there -> add if it does not exist -> Ctrl+K to get insertion-ready \cite-command in the clipboard, where automatic generation of keys is a non-issue.


How do I ensure I'll be able to claim authorship over a math proof, as an amateur math student? I found proof for an open math problem. I know it likely has flaws, but I can't catch any and I'd like to put the proof out for revision. But without losing the credit for it, in case it turns out to be correct.
The thing is I'm just a math student and I have no experience publishing math papers or anything.
I've already checked a post here with the same question I'm asking, in which many people recommended talking first with a mentor or a trustworthy teacher, but I've never had a relationship with a teacher. And currently, I'm not seeing my teachers in person, because I'm in quarantine and my classes are virtual. Moreover, it would be really embarrassing for me to talk about this with people I know, especially if they rapidly find a mistake in the proof. I fear they'd think I'm silly for even considering the possibility I may have proven something no mathematician has been able to prove before. So I don't want to share this with anyone I know unless the proof is reviewed by expert mathematicians and I'm fully sure it's correct or at least seems to be.
Finally, as you may have noticed, English isn't my native language, so I don't know how I could manage to write down this proof in English. I'm not familiar with the math language and notation used in English.
I want an English version because once the proof is published, I'd like to send it to important mathematicians for revision and I don't know important mathematicians who speak my language.

Moreover, it would be really embarrassing to me to talk about this with people I know, especially if they rapidly find a mistake in the proof. I fear they'd think I'm silly for even considering the possibility I may have proven something no mathematician has been able to prove before

My advice for this concern is to propose your work as an attempt rather than conclusive. It is normal and okay for attempts to fail: most do. If you reduce your expectations publicly to those that you hold privately, there is little cost to failure and substantial benefit to success. Ask others to find errors in your work, and be humble.
If they can find no errors, they will be sufficiently impressed. If they do find errors, you can be appreciative and they will feel useful for having found and taught you something and you need not be embarrassed, only thankful.


Can a company prevent a co-author of a paper from putting his name on it? I was working for a company where we put forward a paper with other colleagues. I was the first author and the paper got rejected. After that I left that company. Recently, I found out that they published the paper removing my name from the list of authors and they simply put me in the acknowledgements. The paper was basically the same. They did not even want to answer me when I asked for clarifications. After I asked the editor to intervene, their excuse was that because I left the company, they could not put my name as a researcher for their institution and that the research belonged to them. Because of that I had no rights for authorship. They even threatened me in case I have drafts of the first submission stating that I have no rights to take them with me when I left.
Can such claim was made and the authorship entirely removed based on the project ownership. I was clearly the main contributor

Thanks for your answers

Other responses talk about the law. However, if the paper, as I assume (after all this is academia.SE), is academic, there is another set of values that rule the matter, and that is defined by the academic rules for authorial attribution of scientific contributions; unlike patent or copyright ownership, they are not waived by working for a company.

Moral rights or not - if you have significantly contributed to the paper (as evidenced by the first submission round), academically spoken, you are a co-author. Removing you is unethical and a breach of academic rules. It is academic misconduct. There is no "ghostwriting" in academia.

Laws or not: the decision to take away a doctoral title is in many countries not a legal, but an academic decision, to be decided by the academic institution that conferred it and not by court. Similar here: the judgement whether this is academic misconduct is happening on the academic, not the legal level.

Note: the fact that they demand the drafts seems to indicate that they know this and try to deprive you of the evidence that you have been co-author on a virtually identical copy; which, if in your possession, would prove that you were a co-author and should remain so for the resubmission.

This may well be a legal trick on their side to improve their position in an academic misconduct investigation. On that part of the matter, you may need the support of a lawyer if you intend to fight, because of course, the company may have the ownership of the ideas and the copyright. But not the right to remove you as co-author.


Can I write a paper on a method that is novel but yields similar results compared to existing methods? I have developed a method that gives similar results (in few cases: better) compared to existing methods and I want to publish it. Can I do this and if yes, how do I motivate it? More specifically:

I am a undergraduate researcher, investigating methods to detect X in images. We have a solution using two images and another method proposed in the literature before also used two images.

Recently we discovered that we can solve the same problem in a very different manner if we use three images (taken differently) and still get similar results. This technique will be based on a particular observation and it is not discussed in the literature. Does it make a good paper given that the problem can be solved using two images with similar results?

How should I write and explain it in my paper about why I am using three images instead of two, because the results obtained are similar? The way in which the three images are taken is different from taking two images and our observation in the three-image-case seems to be novel.

Edit (from comment): In some cases our previously proposed method which uses 2 images gives inaccurate results compared to 3 image solution.

As your three-image method takes a new approach, it is novel in the academic sense: It adds to the existing knowledge. Thus you should be able to publish a paper on this, though probably not in a high-ranking journal (unless you blatantly underestimated the advantages of your method). The rationale for this is the following and you may use it to motivate your method in your paper: Your new approaches may inspire other methods which in turn may drastically outperform existing ones or yield entirely new information.

You could write the paper directly in this tone, not focussing on the method you are presenting but on the fact that you can extract the information your method (and the others) yield in a new way. In this context, you may consider not presenting your method primarily as a method, but as a way to verify your approach to extract the existing information.

You might get bonus points, if you actually have suggestions how to improve your method to outperform the existing ones.


What did Israel Gelfand mean by “You have to be fast only to catch fleas,” in the context of mathematical research? I'm confused about a statement by Israel Gelfand
given in the book TOPSY TURVY: A Book for All in One  Page  No:155
Why did  Israel Gelfand  say “You have to be fast only to catch fleas,”
and how does this phrase apply to researchers?

To me, at least, the metaphor seems clear. Anyone can pick up pennies off the street, but it takes hard work and time to amass a fortune. Hmmm. Another metaphor.
If you want to make a reputation publishing trivial (or small) results, then you have to be fast, since they are available to most mathematicians in a subfield. But if you want to do great things (catch bears, for example), it will take time and effort. It will, necessarily be slower and that is ok as the results are more profound.
The word "only" in the quote is very important. Yes, you need to be fast to catch small, fleeting, things, but only for that. Without that word, the meaning would be entirely different.
Gelfand, of course, is known for some pretty profound work. They didn't result from 3 week research projects.
And, this is only my speculation, since he can't be asked directly.


I used feedback from the code review SE for an assignment. Do I have to mark it? I wrote source code for an assignment. After I was done and the program was functional, i uploaded a piece (a class) on the Code Review SE and people gave me advice, which I then implemented. Should i credit them, and if so, how?

For pieces of code I took from Stackoverflow, for example, I would write it in a comment next to the code, and include a link.

Should this be done in the same way for improvement suggestions?
In my concrete example, implemented suggestions were mostly about programming language intricacies and object orientation. Another option would be to inform the professor in advance and/or ask about this being allowed.

EDIT: The assignment ist not about the programming languages or object-oriented design.

Yes, you should ask the professor in advance and make sure he/she understands what CodeReview actually is.

More generally, you should know (and the professor should effectively communicate) what the parameters are for seeking help. I have doubts that very many professors would permit it, but some would.

The reason for assignments isn't because the professor needs the result. It is to cause a change in your brain that won't happen if you take very many short cuts.

Seeking help from the professor or an assistant is different, since they know the actual purpose of the individual assignment (in your learning) and can give hints that won't impede your learning, but help you deepen it. The contributors to CodeReview don't have the context (or usually the background) to do that properly. So you may be sabotoging your learning in pursuit of a better grade. Long term that's a losing game.

Making it functional first was a good step, but there is a lot to good programming beyond functional.

And if you haven't done so, then yes, mark it and point to the source of help. If there weren't already rules around the behavior there should be no reason to punish you and you might get better advice about seeking help from the prof. In fact, you should make the note pretty visible so it just doesn't get lost. Program comments may not be read without some statement at the top pointing to them.


Is it good to summarize your study cases in a thesis? I am writing my thesis and it is a survey. I am making a classification of some algorithms in groups.

Will it be good to add a summarized version (max one page) of each article that contains one of the algorithms?

My prof wants me to make the thesis longer but I haven't encountered this approach before.

The very point of a survey work / literature review chapter / background section/related work section is to summarize the existing work that in other articles.

These sections are compulsory in my sub-field (NLP/ML). With all papers having a related work section, and all thesises having a literature review chapter.
More generally It is my understanding that even in fields that don't include a related work section in papers; they do include a literature review in thesises

The notion of one page max per summary, is I feel a bit constraining though.
For example in a book I recently wrote that summaries the state of my subfield, sometimes it took me 2-3 pages to summarize a particular complex or particularly important algorithm.
Conversely, other times I was able to summarize 5 algorithms in just 2 pages;
and I could highlight that infact they were all variants on the same overall principle (and highlighting these common features in works that are not obviously from the same source is a good thing to be doing.)


How to avoid procrastination during the research phase of my PhD? I just finished all of my coursework for my PhD program, and am entering the research phase of my degree with a topic already in mind.  I've already started the research, but I'm already finding that I end up procrastinating a lot of my time away.  When I was taking courses, I felt like i didn't have time to procrastinate because of the pace of the classes and I felt like I had to always keep up with the pace.  But now that I have no specific constraints, I feel like its harder to pace myself.

Of course, I know it's a bad habit to procrastinate and I should probably devote most of my waking hours to my research.  Sometimes, (especially when I get stuck) I find it's so easy to get distracted on the computer (websites, youtube, text messages, etc.).

What are some effective strategies to avoid procrastination during this research phase?  How do you stay on task, especially when you get stuck?

I have found (and continue to find) two kinds of strategies that have some success in preventing me from procrastinating.

Silly, but scarily effective:

As silly as this might sound, implement a blocker like Leechblock or Chrome Nanny and block sites that you waste time on. I used to scoff at such things, but once I installed them, I found myself being forced to spend more time working.
Along the same lines, disable email alerts. Once I did this, I found that I could spend many hours working without getting distracted by random emails.

Less silly, and also less effective

Much of the procrastination when starting research in grad school comes from the lack of clear structure (as you indicate). So the trick is to create structure. For example, if you're working on one problem, and you've spent a little time generating a few ideas, write them down, and methodically start working through each of them one by one, going as deep as you need to go in order to test out an idea. When you're doing so, try to forget about the larger problem, the context, your Ph.D, your future career, and all other "big picture" matters.

More likely than not, the idea won't pan out (most don't!). In that case, move on to the next one.

The problem with early-stage research is that it doesn't look like you're making any progress, so it's easy to slow down and waste time. But if you can measure progress not in terms of "papers published", but in terms of "ideas tried", you'll get some sense of the amount of effort you've put in, and that can help motivate you to try more ideas, and so on. All these failed ideas are teaching you valuable things about your project, and they will eventually be useful because of what you've learnt.


Stuck completing master's thesis, how to overcome poor choice of topic and supervisor at this stage? I'm in the second year of a master's program, working on a thesis. I am not getting enough help from my supervisor because he has a different methodological background from me. I am also not finding enough evidence to complete the thesis, and the topic has been very difficult to research because almost nothing is written about it. I am dreading completing this degree. What are some constructive ways I can deal with this issue and complete the degree? Is it possible at this point to make it through the degree and succeed despite my poor choice of topic and supervisor?

Both my partner and I felt exactly the same way towards the end of our respective master's programs (in totally different disciplines, at different institutions). I was advising her, and vice-versa, to just stick it out for a few more months and complete the program. We'd both put in so much work and effort up to those times, it would have been a shame to just totally wash out with nothing to show for it.

Now here we are a decade or two later, and both of our careers have been completely predicated on having those degrees as door-openers and a foundation for success. I really love my job in academia, and it wouldn't be possible if I hadn't completed that program. I just asked my partner if she could go back in time to that very difficult period, how she'd advise herself, and she said "Definitely, stick out! Get that diploma!".

In both cases it took us about 5 years to mentally "wash off" that feeling of desperation. But we both feel so much better off, skill-wise, to have that under our belts. Best wishes; it does get better.


Where Can I Get Certified Copies of Documents for Master's Applications in the United States So in a few weeks I will be submitting applications for Master's Programs in Germany. I am a resident of the United States living in Ohio and am required to submit certified copies of my Bachelor's Diploma and Transcript. The German website that handles several online applications list these as available sources:

issuing institutions, e.g. schools, universities and language schools
the Ministry of Education in your home country (I guess the Department of Education in the US)
German embassies and consulates (nearest one is several states away)
the department of cultural affairs of the embassy of the country in which the certificate was issued
public authorities and notaries which are authorized to supply official certifications in your country of origin.

The last point leads me to believe that it could be any notary, but then one application in particular says: "authorities and notaries authorized to provide official notarization in the respective country
In no case will we accept notarizations from private individuals, lawyers, a priest's office, banks, health insurance companies or the AStA (student union executive committee)!"
To sum up, basically I am wondering where I could get certified copies of my documents and which notaries count as "official notaries". For instance there is an Ohio Notary Public office nearby, which is a state department, would that count?
If anyone has gone through this process before and could shed light that would be greatly appreciated.
Edit: After some additional research it would seem notary publics in most US states can not certify copies of documents, including in Ohio. Accepted top answer as option 1 is really the only viable option in my and most US states.

Option (1) is probably easiest.
It's normal in the US to send official transcripts directly from one educational institution to another. The way you do this is typically to go to your school's website and search "official transcript". You may need to pay a fee or may only need a fee to send more than some number.
Since schools are used to sending these to other US schools I'm sure they are also prepared to send them to Germany. They'll come directly from the university with some sort of seal.
When I was applying for grad school this step at least was still entirely by physical mail; there may be digital options now too.


How should one choose a supervisor if they haven't yet narrowed down their research focus? From what I know, every Phd student needs to choose a supervisor in the first year. For someone who is entering a  Phd with a broad interest in a field, this might be difficult since they don't immediately know what they want to work on. How do they go about choosing a supervisor in that case?

My advice will be similar to aeisimail's, and though I have not actually done exactly what I am suggesting, the main points are still based on personal experience.
(Also note that I come from the European setting (PhD in France currently) so the levels of education when you actually start looking for an adviser might differ, but I'll try to do my best to be general.)
In my opinion, there's three almost equally important parts to choosing what to do for PhD:

the subject (narrow field of focus, project you're taking on)
Even if you are not sure what exactly you want to do, if you don't see yourself getting at least a little bit excited about the subject, you will not be able to do it and enjoy it for the whole PhD duration. It also helps if you see the adviser being fascinated by what he does.

the adviser -- on both personal and professional level
Of course, you should read something about his previous works. Read some of his publications, something about ongoing projects. Ask around for information from other students. But also, if you have a chance, try and talk to the potential adviser, in person. Maybe some people can get a feel for an adviser from e-mail or other indirect communication, but for me, if I can hold an easy conversation with someone for 5-10 minutes, I'll probably be okay working with them.

the environment -- both for working and for living
If you can, try and get a feel for the research group and the lab you would potentially belong to. Depending on the type of person you are, you will prefer different environments. But, a friendly atmosphere is beneficial to everybody. Also, take a look at where you'll have to live (if you're moving for you PhD): a very extrovert person might suffer after moving to a small, quiet town. A big bustling town might overwhelm a shy and introvert person. Make sure you can be comfortable outside your PhD/job, because as much as you can't do a PhD if you don't love what you do, you won't be able to do it well if you don't like what your life is outside of that.

It might seem right now that you can survive with a good topic and adviser, in a bad environment, or some other way around, but think about it: those three things will be with you through the whole PhD. You can't do a PhD properly if you don't love what you do, who you do it with and where you are. All three of them are very important.

And some more specific advice that I collected over the years, which is probably not applicable in all the situations but is worth taking under consideration:

young advisers at the start of their career are more likely to pay more attention to their students. If you want to work with your adviser, it will probably be harder with somebody who's already made a name for themselves: you're more likely to end up just working under them.
the longer the people are in academia, the more they do administration instead of research. Know how to take advantage of what you have. If you end up with an adviser over his head in administration, keep research questions rare and to the point, when you need them. But know that these kind of people will be able to resolve some administrative problems for you that others might not be able to.
no matter what type of adviser you get, in the end it is your own PhD topic. The adviser does not hold the absolute truth, and does not have all the answers. He's good for directing you and helping you focus, sometimes discussing problems, but towards the end of your PhD, you are the one that will become the foremost expert on the topic. Prepare for that, so you don't end up disappointed the first time you see your adviser guessing and struggling around your problem just like you.
find what fascinated you about your own (potential) topic. Don't get all starry-eyed about what the output should be when looking for at a subject. If the output is all neat and useful and pretty, think about weather it has, for example, too much maths for you to be enjoying working on it. It's not just about what you are capable of doing, it's about what you enjoy doing.

Sorry for the short novel, I hope you find something that helps you.


How to cope with failing qualify exams? I am a graduate student in mathematics and I recently found out that I failed my qualify exams.
I have the chance to take them next year. But now I am really concerning my future. The problem is that faculty members explicitly told me they wouldn't supervise students unless they pass the quals. That means I have to waste another year because of the exams. I am concerning that this will place me into big disadvantage compare to other students because they are already doing research (as I observed, almost everybody passed). I also feel embarrassed when the others ask about my results.
I am reading on topics that I like now but I have a hard time adjusting my feelings and can't really concentrate. How should I approach this situation? Any advice will be appreciated.

From someone who's been there - I started in a PhD program in mathematics, received only a "Masters pass" on my written qualifiers the first time around, retook a year later to the same result. Left the program with a masters, since we only had two tries. Fast forward 2 years and I'm admitted into a different PhD program in mathematics. This school has oral qualifiers. First attempt at that and I literally break down and cry and ask to just stop and try later. Reprepared, and nailed it the next time.

I just finished my PhD in mathematics. I took longer than most due to qualifier issues at one school, changing to another, changing areas of mathematics, and dealing with increased imposter syndrome due to the experiences at school 1. Long story short, it's not a competition with other students. Don't compare yourself to others. You were admitted to the program and you can do it. Study hard, ask the professors for advice and follow it. If it doesn't happen, it's OK. You can still achieve a PhD, just perhaps at different university and at a different time. I am proof of that. Best of luck.


Are the methods used in math-based teaching (including physics, engineering, etc.) substantially different from those used in other areas? Background: There is currently a proposal for a new Math Teaching site that will be entering private beta once enough people sign up. One question that came up during its question is (basically): Is teaching math significantly different from teaching any other subject? Would it be better to broaden the scope to all education?

I had my own opinions, but I don't have enough experience teaching non-math classes to know. And now I am really curious about variation in teaching methods across disciplines.

Therefore, I have this question:

  Is there any evidence (such as refereed sources) to show that teaching mathematics and related fields uses significantly different methods or skills than teaching other subjects?

Conversely,

  Is there any evidence that teaching ability and/or techniques transfer across a wide variety of disciplines?

At the University of Georgia we have a program (which is not identical to a "department", but is close enough so that the distinction has always eluded me) in Mathematics Education and thus we have undergraduate mathematics education majors and also mathematics education graduate students (both master's and PhD).

There are certainly close ties with both the mathematics department and other education disciplines -- e.g. the mathematics courses I teach have a substantial population of mathematics education majors -- but such undergraduate majors also take plenty of courses with the name "Math Education XYZW".  These courses are split into "content" and "pedagogy" courses.  This distinction was very hard for me to wrap my mind around (it literally took me a few years to do so, although obviously I was not working very consistently on it!): see for instance
this page, and please read carefully: the courses that they list as Content are actually in the math department (one or two of them are taken mostly by math education majors, but many of the others are also required courses for undergraduate math majors).  Rather the distinction between "content" and "pedagogy" -- which are the terms used by UGA students and faculty who talk to me about this -- is a distinction being made between two types of courses in the longish list of Professional Education courses.  Thus e.g. compare

  EMAT 3800.
  Course Title:   Connections in Secondary Mathematics II
  Course  Description:    Exploration of secondary mathematics topics related to number and measurement with an explicit focus on reasoning that connects critical topics of secondary mathematics to one another and to problem situations. Sample topics include proportional reasoning, number theory, and probability.

and

  EMAT 4800
  Course Title:   Teaching Secondary School Mathematics I
  Course Description: Introductory ideas about mathematics education, including current mathematics standards and policy documents, learning theories, and teaching strategies. Students will explore how secondary students think about and learn mathematics, examine how to select and modify tasks, use appropriate technology, and apply their learning in an accompanying field experience.

This seems to give rather strong evidence that the answer to the OP's first question is yes: Math Education is rapidly becoming distinct enough from Education in general to count as its own discipline.  (Obviously there remain many connections and commonalities between Math Education and other kinds of Education, just as virtually any academic field overlaps significantly with others.)  In particular, yes, math education students learn math-specific teaching methods.  This is indirect, though strong, evidence that there are differences between the teaching methods of various subjects.  But my other point is something that is not explicitly in the OP's question: more than just teaching methods, techniques or ability, there is actually additional content that math teachers learn and that other teachers (and students of mathematics who are not intending to teach!) do not.

Let me also introduce you to my colleague Sybilla Beckmann.  Beckmann (who was trained as an arithmetic geometer and holds a faculty position in the UGA mathematics department; her office is next door to mine) is truly* one of the very top American experts in the field of mathematical education of teachers.  (Beckmann is also largely responsible for my awareness and understanding of the issues presented above.  In fact I will contact her and ask her to look over this response to make sure I have gotten things right.) One of her initiatives over the last few years has been to promote the idea of an explicitly identified mathematics teaching community. In this regard, please see this article and this website.  Also, Beckmann writes on her webpage "Longer term, we plan for this project to include an electronic self-organizing journal."

tl;dr: Yes, this is definitely a thing.  It is a thing which has grown in recent years and is liable to continue to grow in the near future...and everyone seems to agree that we want/need it to grow.

*: So much so that I need not justify it here: just search the web for her and you'll see it right away.

Added: My colleague Sybilla Beckmann took time out of her busy workday [on Saturday!] to quickly look over what I wrote above.  She pronounced it "basically accurate" and went on to add the following:

  Teaching methods in math are definitely different from other disciplines. Work of Lee Shulman and Deborah Ball on mathematical knowledge for teaching has been transformative for the field in that regard. Some sources to refer people to: the CBMS Mathematical Education of Teachers II on the CBMS website. It refers to various other sources. Math education is a separate discipline with a large body of research amassed over the last 30 - 40 years. It connects to other education research but is its own separate field. At UGA, the math ed program is within the department of mathematics and science education (it used to be a separate math ed department but was joined for administrative reasons some years ago).

I added links to the wikipedia articles on Shulman and Ball, and I recommend at least skimming these.  Shulman is responsible for the idea of pedagogical content knowledge, a concept which is rather slippery at first [or at least, it was to me] but really seems to lie at the heart of an answer to the OP's question: it is precisely the material that you need to know as a mathematics teacher that you do not learn in your mathematics courses and cannot learn in non-math specific education courses. To nail it down more specifically than this is beyond my expertise -- e.g. the above two course descriptions were intended to convey this distinction but looking back it seems even more complicated: none of EMAT 3800 would be appropriate material for aspiring teachers of most subjects other than mathematics, and some but not all of EMAT 3900 would.

The two linked wikipedia articles give entry points into the vast body of literature
on these matters; people who were interested enough to read this far are encouraged to delve into the literature itself.  And when you do, come back and tell me about it!  I am an academic mathematician and thus a mathematics educator, but I have no specific training in mathematics education.


Should I add a bibliography for this? While writing up my introduction for my transfer report (first year exam of the PhD in the UK) I want to give importance to the topic saying something like:

  It lead to huge research, being N amount of papers published between
  2005-2015 in high-end publications.

I will look at this in Nature database. Should I add a bibliography to this? In the affirmative case, what format should the bibliography item have? In the negative case, I shouldn't add a bibliography, but is it OK to put an statement like this one in a report/thesis?

I am using bibtex but just the output format will do.

It is a non obvious claim, so it should be cited. An alternative would be to give a few examples of high impact papers on the field.

The style should be as any other database, if your style manual specifies it, or as an online resource.


I hate taking lectures, can I still survive in academia? I'm 3rd Physics & Mathematics student and I almost hate both taking and attending lectures; it is not because of the content, but rather the way how it is done; I don't like sitting in uncomfortable in a crowded room for 50 min. unstopped.

To explain what I mean, let me describe an "ideal" learning environment for me, which was what I had during this last winter break - it was like a paradise.

I was studying Quantum Mechanics from the video recordings of a graduate course taught by one of my professors and I was watching them in my home with my pyjamas. While watching the lectures, if I didn't understand something, I would stop and think on about it, make some research, check out the book that I was using etc. and (after all those tries) if I still couldn't find it, I would take notes and think on it for days while I was still making progress through the course material. With this way, in a single day, I was watching almost 4 hours of lectures and taking detailed notes of those lectures (which were actually taking much more time than watching the lectures). That experience was like a paradise for me; I was progressing at my own pace, taking breaks whenever I feel I need it. There was no worry of any grade; I was doing this in a "holiday" just because I wanted to learn quantum mechanics, not because I needed to pass an exam.

But if I were to learn QM by taking a course from the university, most of the time, I would be forced to take the course from a single professor with a curriculum s/he prepared - not I chose - and most probably I wouldn't like his/her teaching (let's say I am a bit picky). Moreover, even though I would be the active student in the class, at some point during the lecture I stop thinking on what is being taught and that would make me sleepy. Also, I would have to take good grades from that course, so there would also be the grade-anxiety. And the list goes on and on, but you get the point.

Now, considering the fact that even most of Phd/Master's programs have some course loads, and even as a professor one needs to give lectures, can I, being such a person, survive in academia? or should I just look for other alternative career options?

I mean I love Science, but just don't like some of "formal" practices, such described above.

Just a side note: I actually like teaching things, but not giving lectures to a whole lot of people; I mean I have a friend who asks me lots of questions, and I love answering & discussing those with, but giving lectures is totally a different experience, which I despise.

Edit: There is no requirement that forces me to attend the lectures, but when I take lectures, I have to "learn" the notation / the content of the materials the instructor is teaching. In terms of what I want to learn and when I want to learn, just not attending the lectures does not solve the problem.

I can sympathize. I'm extremely susceptible to "Power Point" hypnosis: 10 slides in and my head is staring to nod, 30 slides and I'm in danger of snoring. This isn't limited to dull talks, or the amount of sleep I got the night before, it's apparently a quirk of my physiology.

However, part of your education is learning to exercise your skills in suboptimal conditions. Schwarzschild wrote three important papers on gravitation while serving on the Russian front in WWI. Attending lectures may not be optimal for you, but is it really such a huge hardship?

If you stay in academia you are probably going to need to listen to talks at conferences, listen to presentations by your students, and attend seemingly endless faculty meetings. There are equivalent obstacles in the non-academic world. By all means, arrange your days and your study environment as you find most effective. But learn to work with the fact that world is full of friction, and learn to cope with the minor inefficiencies it imposes on you.


How to deal with exam performances that do not reflect my abilities? I'm an undergrad student in TAU for mathematics.
I failed two classes I took on the first semester so I had to repeat them. unfortunately, I failed again. I got 48 on one exam as you need to get 55 to pass, which is at the moment fairly enough for me.

How do I deal with repetitive failure like this, as I know these grades do not reflect my knowledge and my abilities?
I'm not interested in changing my major as I love what I'm studying and I know that I could be good at that, but I need to overcome this obstacles and I don't know what else I could be doing.

Something seems to be going on that you need to change. I don't have any idea what it is, but it isn't the grade or the "argument" that you need. You say your performance (repeated) isn't representative of your knowledge and abilities. That may be true or not, but something is getting in your way.

Is it the inability to study properly because you have too many obligations elsewhere? Do you have particularly bad study habits, say assuming you "learn" something by reading it? Do you have particularly bad teachers (also assuming you learn by hearing something once or reading it)? Is it that you had poor teaching in your past and so were never taught the basics? (I learned/memorized my multiplication tables, finally, after finishing a doctorate in mathematics.) Or are exams so stress inducing that you freeze up and can't think normally?

I'm not one to dismiss any student as not being able to learn mathematics so I won't insult you, but something is blocking you, whether internal or external. You need to find it and change it. It could be as "simple" as you are at the wrong school and they have no way to help you, or no desire to. (Yes, not so simple.) I've had some students who's background was so poor that it was impossible to figure out what I could do for them in the time available. Fortunately, math wasn't their main pursuit so they could be successful elsewhere, but it was very frustrating.

Each of the possibilities I've mentioned and others, has some way to overcome it. But first you need to self-diagnose the problem. Only then can you attack it.


Remind professor of email a second time? Disclaimer: I know there are some similar questions around. However, I don't feel like the answers there suit this situation completely. This is why I am asking.

Some backstory (not necessarily important, but maybe of interest, just to give the complete picture): A student of mine was talking about a thesis (undergrad, so a relatively informal project of 1-3 months) at an external research facility. The professor there answered her first few emails in a positive way, they started discussing timetable. Professor says, he's away for some time next year. Student makes suggestion for time to work on the project. Professor answers, says he forgot to think of some traveling he had to do during that time.
Now, student proposes another time for the project, later in the year, when the professor said he was at the institute.

Now the problem: Professor doesn't answer anymore. Student waits 2-3 weeks, sends a friendly reminder, just as recommended in a lot of the answers on here. Waits another 2-3 weeks - no answer. Student seems to be a bit insecure now, emails the secretary of the professor saying she might have missed the professor, maybe he was absent, asks when he's in office. Gets an answer, saying he is back in office at date XY, not really clear about whether the professor was absent before or not.

Now she came to me, asking whether I had any experience with this. She tells me the story I told you here and says that he feels it is rude to remind a second time but she a) might have missed the professor, he travels a lot, so there's that possibility and b) she also feels like the professor would send at least a short notice if he decided to cancel the project. On the same time there is a time problem because she has to find another thesis at some point if this one doesn't work out. However, contacting someone else might result in an awkward situation of having to cancel on of the projects in a late stage of preparation. She also really wants to work with the professor, he was no. 1 on her list.

I - sadly or luckily - have experienced no situation like this. But maybe there is a higher ranked academic (I am only a grad student myself, her tutor) or someone who had a similar experience here who can give his opinion on that. I genuinely feel bad for her and want to give her some good advice.
Thanks a lot!

I would track down the professor in person, coordinating with the secretary if necessary. People get busy, and dragging out the email chain seems unproductive. If the student meets the professor in their office, this can probably be settled in 30 minutes. Assuming the professor tends to be very busy, I would email the secretary and ask when the professor has 30 minutes free for a short meeting.


Criteria of experience recognition for "TV-L 13" position I know that the topic of stufe for "TV-L 13" contracts in German universities has been discussed several times, but I was not able to find the answer to my question. I am offered a post-doc position with salary level "TV-L 13". I have a 3 year PhD and 3.5 year research experience. However, the administration wants to put me on stufe 1. They argue that although my experience is relevant for the current position, the type of contracts that I had are not suitable. Is TVL experience really dependent on the type of contract rather than the actual tasks performed? Also if you managed to successfully argue for inclusion of you PhD as experience, how did you argue for that?

I understand that they base it on the following document (I used google translator so only roughly understand that point):

  Liegen die im Weiteren erläuterten Merkmale vor, findet zwingend eine Anrechnung statt:
  Berufliche Erfahrungen setzen das Bestehen eines Arbeitsverhältnisses voraus (im Umfang von mind. 25 v.H. einer Vollbeschäftigung). Ausbildungszeiten, Volontariate, Praktika (mit Ausnahme eines Anerkennungspraktikums i.S. des Tarifvertrages), Stipendien, Werkverträge, freie Dienstvertrags- oder sonstige Vertragsverhältnisse können nicht als berufliche Erfahrungen angerechnet werden.
  Eine einschlägige Berufserfahrung liegt nur vor, wenn die frühere, prägende Tätigkeit im Wesentlichen unverändert fortgesetzt wird. Ausreichend kann auch eine gleiche oder gleichartige Tätigkeit sein, sofern sie in der Wertigkeit der jetzigen Eingruppierung entspricht. Maßgeblich ist das für die frühere Tätigkeit nötige Wissen und Können und die dort erworbenen Kenntnisse und Erfahrungen als prägende Elemente auch für die neue Tätigkeit. Beide Tätigkeiten (konkrete Aufgabenstellung) müssen nach Aufgabenzuschnitt und Niveau gleichartig sein.
  Liegen die vorgenannten Voraussetzungen vor, ist des Weiteren nach der "Herkunft" der beruflichen Vorerfahrung zu differenzieren - Zeiten bei anderen Arbeitgebern dürfen auf dieser Ebene grds. nur bis zur Stufe 3 (!) angerechnet werden. Die nicht zwingend anzurechnenden Zeiten können aber als förderliche Zeiten anerkannt werden, dazu s. u..
  Zu den vorgenannten Tatbestandsmerkmalen ist die Sonderregelung im Hochschulbereich zu beachten: Zeiten mit einschlägiger Berufserfahrung an Hochschulen oder außeruniversitären Forschungseinrichtungen werden bei Beschäftigten der Entgeltgruppen 13 bis 15 grundsätzlich anerkannt; bei Beschäftigten der Entgeltgruppen 9 bis 12 dann, wenn sie im Rahmen der Planung, Vorbereitung, Durchführung, Aus- und / oder Bewertung von wissenschaftlichen Vorhaben einen wesentlichen Beitrag leisten.

Since universities are governed by state law, it matters which state this is in. In general, you should be hired at Stufe 2 if

you have been employed (i.e., not receiving a stipend or contracted to provide a specific service)
for at least a full year (this can be on multiple contracts, though)
in a similar capacity as the position for which you are to be hired (i.e., after your PhD at a German university, research institute, or comparable institution)
within 18 months (i.e., there should not have been a cumulated break of more than 18 months between these employments, including ineligible forms such as stipends and service contracts).

(If you have more than three years of eligible employment, you are entitled to Stufe 3, but that is usually hard to get.)

Things are a bit more complicated since there is a wider catalog of förderliche Zeiten ("beneficial time") which the university may recognize (but usually don't to save money, sometimes categorically as in Berlin). This includes the more prestigious stipends or scholarships such as DAAD or Humboldt fellowships. This is not something you can argue for, though, but the hiring person needs to apply for with the administration if they believe they have to offer it in order to attract a specific desirable candidate.


Master's program advice A little background on my question. I recently gradated with my BS in Computer Information Systems and am looking to pursue a Master's program. I am also married with 3 children. I am looking for advice on which path to take. The two paths I am looking into are to either take on the Master of Computer Science in Computer Science program at Colorado State University or the Master of Science in Computer Science program at Boise State University.

The reasons I am looking into CSU's program is because it able to be completed 100% online. With my recent departure from the military, starting a new career, and the fact that I have taken many online classes in the past push me toward this program.

I am torn by BSU's program because the CSU program does not have a thesis requirement while BSU's does. My plans are to continue on to a PhD program at some point so the benefits of completing a thesis seem rather large. I am also local to BSU and would be able to complete the program as a traditional student. However, that "traditional student" status is sort of my deterring factor. As a father of 3 children, it would be very difficult to be gone most nights at class.

A long story short, is completing a thesis worth the stress that it would put on my family to have to take night classes? Would I be just as competitive for a PhD program later by completing CSU's Master's program? To be clear, I am not asking for a comparison of the two different programs.

I think that it is partially depends on an institution that you plan to or, eventually, will be studying toward the Ph.D. degree. Note my emphasis on "partially", perhaps, I could have used "somewhat" or, even, "potentially". The implies that it might have some impact or it might not. If you don't plan to attend a Ph.D. program at a top university, then I would think that it will have a minimal effect in terms of admission. However, from a perspective of gaining experience in semi-dissertation-level-writing, the thesis option could be useful to you. However, at the end of the day, IMHO family should be a priority and, thus, I would suggest choosing the route that puts less strain on your family. It is possible to graduate in a Ph.D. program with a dissertation after previously graduating in a 100% online Master's program - I am speaking here from my own personal experience. It is somewhat more difficult, but doable. Again, family should be a priority in my book. Good luck!


Is the maintainer of a database a good or bad reviewer in principle? I have used a large database comprising the equivalent of about 10 studies.
Would the researcher in charge of this database be a good peer reviewer? As an editor, would they be a good selection?
On one hand, they know the database and the field very well, on the other hand, you could make the argument they may be biased in favor of publication because it draws attention to their project and cites the associated papers.

It is impossible to say whether they would be good or not, but it is fine to suggest them. It will be the editor that chooses, in any case. And they are unlikely to be the only reviewer. Don't worry about it. If you think they have the required skill it is fine to suggest. You don't need to make a judgement.
The editor, being human, will use their own judgement. But a reviewer, promoting their own work and giving unwarranted positive reviews will probably be easy for the editor to see.


Peer-review: Reference to unpublished work Paper I am reviewing

I am reviewing a paper from authors Xs. In their paper, they assume that a function f was equal to g. In my opinion (see below paragraph), the particular choice of the function f can have important impact on the end results. I would note that most people in the field assume that f is equal to g (without good justification for this assumption).

Unpublished work from a colleague

A colleague of mine (let's call him Y) had the idea that depending on the field of application the choice of f might be important. He worked on it and we recently talked about his first results which suggest that he was right; if f equals to h for example, the results of interest might differ. He has not published his work yet.

Issue

I would like to suggest to authors Xs to comment on the potential importance of the f they chose. However, by doing so I would give author Xs the credit of being the firsts to recognize the importance of the choice of f while it is Y who first came up with this idea. I obviously want to avoid that. If the work of Y were published, I would just suggest Xs to cite this work but it is not published.

Should I just remain silent?

It seems highly unethical to disclose the work of Y. If no previous literature questions f=g, I don't see your role as the reviewer to question this. Hold your horses, review this in view of past literature, and wait until the work of Y is public.


Applying for both assistant and associate professor position at the same university I'm an established, normal, non-stellar postdoc in computer science, several years after my PhD defense, and am going now for higher-rank academic positions. A particular university in the US offers both assistant and associate professor positions in my subfield. These are two different positions, but the announcements are copy-and-pasted with small adaptations. I would like to apply for both, since I wish to maximize my chances at a small additional cost (about an hour of adapting the cover letter and submitting).

Is it normal to apply for two positions simultaneously?
Is there anything particular to be paid attention to in the application documents (cover letter, research statement, teaching statement, reference list, publication list)?
What are the typical pitfalls of job seekers in such a case?

First of all, are you sure you have a clear idea on the distinction between an assistant professor and an associate professor at a US institution, and in particular at this US institution?

The majority of associate professorships come with tenure, so that's the first thing to find out.  To go from a postdoc position to a tenured position on arrival is possible but really rare -- this is something that happens to someone because they're a superstar, not because they went the extra mile in applying for more positions.  To apply for both a tenured position and an untenured position sounds a bit weird to me: are you qualified for and desiring of tenure on arrival or not?  If the associate professor position does not come with tenure, it is not completely clear what the advantage to you in taking it is.  At all US institutions I know, the responsibilities and rights of all tenure track faculty are essentially identical (exceptions include certain faculty votes).  Moreover, in my department the average salary for assistant professors is sometimes higher than that for associate professors, because the annual raises do not keep up with market value.  At most institutions I know of you get a fixed, automatic raise upon promotion from assistant to associate and from associate to full, so arriving as an assistant professor with a short tenure clock might be more lucrative than arriving as an associate professor.

I would recommend against doing this "just to economize."  To address your specific questions:

  Is it normal to apply for two positions simultaneously?

It is not so abnormal, anyway.  I have often seen people apply for both postdoc and tenure track assistant professor positions.  Actually though this makes more sense to me, because these are both natural continuations of a PhD or postdoc position.  But I can't think of anyone who has applied for two positions and been awarded the higher position.  (I applied to my present institution for a postdoc the year before I applied as a tenure track assistant professor.  I didn't get the postdoc position, but I did get the tenure track one the next year!)

I think most people's reaction to that will just be to consider you for whichever of the two positions seems most appropriate to them.  Conversely, if multiple positions are available and you apply to one position, if those who read your application think you are better suited for another position, they may invite you to apply for it or even just carry over your application.

  Is there anything particular to be paid attention to in the application documents (cover letter, research statement, teaching statement, reference list, publication list)?

Presumably the documents would all be identical except for the cover letter.  If you actually have a good rationale to apply for both, the cover letter is a good place to explain this.

  What are the typical pitfalls of job seekers in such a case?

The main risk is along the lines I outlined above: it makes you look a bit naive and unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of academic jobs.  But most young academics are this way to some extent, so I don't think it's a terrible risk.  On the other hand, I don't see much reward either.

All of this is a great thing to talk to your advisors / mentors about, by the way.  If you're really a good fit to go straight to an associate professor job, they'll know and be happy to tell you.


How difficult Is a PhD Program? I am a Master's student in math who is doing pretty well so far.
I aced my first two classes (real analysis)
and my summer session in probability theory is going well, too.
Even before my Master's study, I already thought of a PhD.
Nonetheless, there are concerns:

My good grades were the result of grit, not brain,
meaning that I had to spend time to understand what the book is telling me.
Furthermore, a lot of times during exam and homework,
I had to try and fail a few times before arriving at the solution.
I did not study math during undergrad.  Before my Master's study,
I gulped down three semesters of calculus, plus LA and DE in one year.
So compared to other students, I am already behind.
In the next two months, I will learn complex numbers on my own
and review my linear algebra.
I am a professional in a field that has nothing to do with math or research.
After the holiday, I will speak to my advisor about taking a thesis class.
It's not an insurmountable obstacle,
but, in an unrelated field, I do have less time to concentrate on math.

At the end, how big is the jump from Master's to Phd?
Especially after what I said in (1), I do worry that it is beyond my ability.
I do not hold anyone responsible for my decision.
So, please kindly offer your best assessment of my situation.

I'll answer your title question and sub-questions in three words (then add to that): Difficulty is relative.

Noam Elkies finished his PhD in math at the age of 20. The average graduate student would probably take anywhere from 4 - 5 years. That doesn't mean Noam was a god among graduate students when he was a graduate student, and that's the reason he was able to finish his thesis faster than Joe Schmoe (though he is quite exceptional) and Joe Schmoe should just give up. Far from it. The fact that you're doing well in your master's courses is a good indicator you're well qualified for the coursework part. Working on a PhD thesis means producing original research. Producing original research means dealing with not so cut-and-neat problems like ones you'd encounter in your homework or textbooks. It means working with problems that you're not sure are close-ended, open-ended, or neither. In other words, different skill sets are needed for research in addition to the problem-solving heuristics which you've already acquired from your coursework.

Since you've never wet your foot it seems to me you have no indication of your ability to do research . So what do you do? Just go for it! You only live once as far as we know, and it seems to me that your real problem is your self-imposed doubt. Get that out of your head. Research is about staring and thinking about a problem long enough then coming up with an answer which turns out to be completely wrong and in that, the process repeats until you get your "Eureka!" moment.

You should also stop worrying about others being ahead of you. There'll always be someone faster and better than you (unless your name is John Von Neumann :-) especially in academia. A good algebraic geometer from UGA by the name of Roy Smith didn't get his start in advanced mathematics until his late 20's, after working in industry as a meat lugger. He received his PhD at 35. Over 30 years later, he's still going strong. What you should learn from him is if passion calls for it, then there should be no stopping you. If you fail at a career, then that's that. It's not the end of the world. But if you never bother to even try, then you'll never know and you'll always have a "What if?" moment.

So just to sum all of this up: Apply to a PhD program and see what happens.

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/7120/too-old-for-advanced-mathematics/45644#45644 (if you're interested in Roy's post)


Can a first author of a pre-print be demoted in the version sent to a journal? Can a PI decide to submit to a journal a previously agreed manuscript, uploaded to a pre-print server, and swap the first author with someone else after introducing some changes in the writing? Would the first author (student) have some way of defending himself against this?

EDIT: It is a field where author order matters.

Yes.

Preprints are preprints. They're preliminary versions. It's not surprising if the preprint differs from the version that's submitted to a journal. Author orders can even switch during revisions, during publication, etc.

You also ask about the first author "defending" himself/herself against this, which implies you think the order switch is unethical. In that case, speak to the other authors first, argue why the first author deserves to be the first author, and if they can't be convinced (+ you're equally convinced of your position), that's when you escalate.


Duration of postdoctoral positions in pure math I'm curious as to how long postdoc positions in math usually last for. I'm far away from thinking much about this myself but all my grad student friends seem to be telling me they only last a year or two. Now I know people don't want a postdoctoral position that's too long, but I'm getting the sense that postdocs in math are both less common and generally shorter than post docs in other areas. I'm wondering if this is true or if I'm just getting the wrong idea as an undergrad from a relatively small pool of graduate students. Primarily I'm just curious as to how long these positions usually last in mathematics.

This varies considerably from country to country.  In the US, the "gold standard" is typically a 3 year position (just a quick look at MathJobs reveals ones at Baylor, Dartmouth, Northeastern, and that was just on the first page of listings). Note that some will say that they are shorter with a possibility of extension to 3 years; the extension is generally just a formality. There are even occasionally 4 year positions.  There are also a mix of shorter positions: one semester or one year appointments at institutes like MSRI or IAS are usually intended to complement specific programs, and generally taken as a supplement to a longer term position.  Sometimes there are shorter grant funded positions, though in most cases I know in the US, the department will be able to step in to extend the appointment to 3 years.  "Postdoc" is also a kind of porous category; sometimes departments will hire shorter term positions when they just need someone to teach a few classes which fit somewhere on the continuum of postdoc to adjunct positions.

In the rest of the world, positions this long are much less common, due to some mix of cultural and economic factors, but certainly not unknown.  Generally positions outside the US are funded by grants, and it is hard to get enough funding to support a postdoc for 3 years (in most countries).


Copyright date or publication date, which one should I cite? Can't believe I've got to the end of my PhD before asking this one! I want to cite a work whose copyright date is 1996 but whose first paperback edition (the one I'm referencing) is 1999. Which date is correct?

I have actually asked a librarian about this issue as it came up for me in the past.

She told me to cite the exact copy that I am reading. If what you are reading is the first paperback edition (usually the inside left initial pages will have information about this), then do cite that.


Is it advisable to use non-scientific method to teach science courses? This question is motivated after reading a pop-science book from a famous researcher about physics and some implications. I find the content very amusing but I was utterly frustrated at the lack of any scientific value.

In particular, the book is about some plausible explanations about some observed fact. The author tells a story as follows:

Event A *could* occur under some wild assumptions. If A occurs and a sequence of events B occur, then an event C has non-zero possibility to occur. So, A is potentially responsible for C.

I.e., if something could happen, let's write a book about it (about A => C) without absolutely any supporting scientific evidence for A or B. It doesn't matter if C could occur for a gazillion other non-related and more plausible issues.

Such exposition reminds me the famous argument that a rocket launch could (in principle) alter the rotation of the earth and a change on its rotation could alter the climate. So, if we observe a change in the climate together with any change in the rotation, we should blame NASA.

I wonder why, otherwise prominent, scientists follow such populist and counter-scientific way of exposition. Could this qualify as pseudo-science?

My question related to academic standards and ethics, motivated by the above incident, is the following:

Do the ends (of drawing more people into science) justify the means (doing so by an exaggerated non-scientific way)? This is not limited to a single pop-sci book.
Can this be applied to standard university level pedagogy? Is it advisable to teach any scientific topic using a non-scientific way with the hope that more students find it appealing?
Are there specific examples of such successful pedagogical method?
Is this a contradiction?

Note: Initially, this post created some controversy, and subsequently was voted for closing, for being very opinion-made. I tried to adapt the text and the questions to reflect more objectified answers related to ways of teaching in academic environment. In other words if it is OK to teach the public about scientific matters in a non-scientific way, could we do the same in class? Do you have any particular examples, successful or not, in mind?

"What if..." Is the bread and butter of science and mathematics. Making outrageous guesses and then checking them is part of the toolkit for professional thinkers.

In your examples, you say that the author takes the stance that one event only potentially explains another, which seems fine from a scientific point of view.

As others have said, when you popularize you often intentionally leave out some subtlety. This is really a function of your intended audience. I leave out some subtlety when I teach intro calculus.

As to whether or not the author you reference does this badly or irresponsibly, I can't form an opinion without reading what they wrote.


What to do when visa is in administrative processing and PhD program is starting? I'm a 1st year admitted Ph.D. student at an Ivy League University and a former Fulbrighter. I'd like to ask for your advice on my situation. I have applied for the F1 visa at the American Consulate and had the interview on July 17th. My application is under the "administrative processing" since then despite submitting all of the required documents on the same day of the request, July 17th. Note that I'm fully funded by the graduate school. My program starts September 1st, and I'm worried that I won't make it on time. Should I ask the school to defer my admission (which is unlikely as I've been told by a faculty), or ask my university advisor to try to reach the concerned authorities? I have worked very hard to receive such an admission offer by an extremely selective university and program and I'd appreciate any help in how to overcome this unnecessary delay.

The US state department says that wait times for administrative processing are usually less than 60 days, and they don't allow complaints or inquiries before those 60 days have passed.

July 17th sounds really late for PhD admission. You should have applied for a visa when you were admitted, probably back in April, or May at the latest, especially if you are in a country likely to have more scrutiny of visas.

You can talk to your department and inform them of the delay and ask how they would like to to proceed, but this seems like it falls under the category of "your fault" and there isn't anything your university can or should do to expedite the process. If your visa was denied for some incorrect reason (like they didn't believe you were admitted as a student), then the university would be of more help.


Professor has no interest in the topic of my research proposal For a research paper in my course we had to come up with a topic proposal.
When I talked with my professor about my topic he did not seem interested in my proposal and only talked about a topic of his interest, in which I am totally inexperienced and not really interested in. He didn´t even comment on my research proposal.
The problem is, that my professor is really into this topic. How could I politely ask him to discuss my proposal instead of only his proposal?

Yes, of course you can ask. And, depending on his personality and yours, you might be successful or not. Be prepared for the "not", I guess. But you would be wise to give some deep thought to his suggestions, since he likely has more experience at this stuff than you do.
And one of the things you can ask about is why the professor doesn't advise you to follow up on your own plan. There might be some unstated reasons - though such things should be made plain. I think he owes you that much, at least.
But the best you can probably hope for is to be allowed to follow up on your own idea but with little help or guidance. If you are really new at this, then that guidance might be invaluable.
And fighting with professors seldom leads to successful outcomes.


BSc in CPSC or CIS: How will this affect Grad School applications (Stanford, UBC)? I am trying to decide whether or not I should pursue an undergrad in Computer Science (link to curriculum)
or an undergrad in Computer Information Systems (link to curriculum).

Specifically, I'd be curious to know if picking one over the other could be problematic later, when applying to a masters program in computer science (the CIS degree is much less theory heavy). I am interested in Standford's MS program, but if I go with the CIS program, I am concerned I will be filtered out in the selection process because I don't hold a brick-and-mortar CS degree with a heavy theoretical focus.

As a mature adult, I have financial obligations that constrain my ability take on studies full time, so I am leaning towards the CIS degree because it is offered through distance education (the CPSC degree is not), and subsequently applying to Stanford's Masters program which is also offered through distance education.

FWIW, I currently work as a developer full-time, and in my younger years I worked on a lot of random jobs, mostly non-applicable to my computer science interests.

The obvious answer here is: if you have very specific programs in mind, and a specific set of constraints that may hinder you, check with the upper-level programs you're interested and find out what their requirements are. If the master's program requires a bachelor's in computer science, then you have your answer. If not, then they may list what degrees they accept as "equivalent" or "sufficient" for their program.

But, in general, when in doubt, ask. That's what graduate officers and admissions staff are there for!


How to encourage students to answer their peers' questions We have a forum in which students can ask questions about the course material, homework exercises, etc. Usually I answer all the questions. I want to encourage students to answer some questions too.

One option is to give some bonus points in the final exam to students who answer a substantial number of questions. Another option is to create a reputation scheme like in stackexchange, and give bonus points to the three students with the highest reputation at the end of the term.

The problem is that these two schemes are manipulable: two students can conspire to have student A ask questions and student B immediately answer them, and vice versa.

Is there a better way to encourage students to answer their peers' questions?

My classes have a similar online forum (Piazza).

The best way I’ve found to encourage student participation is to have an explicit policy, published in the course syllabus, that the TAs and I will not answer any question about course content in less than four hours.  Not “may not”, but “will not”. (Questions about course administration or potential errors in lectures/notes/homework/labs/exams/solutions are exempt; we answer those as fast as we can.  We also try to upvote good student answers on course content quickly.)

I also offer extra credit for especially helpful questions or answers.  (Notice I said “helpful”, not “numerous”; it’s important to reward quality, not quantity.)  But I have the sense that this helps considerably less than just getting out of the way.

It’s also important to encourage a supportive and collaborative environment elsewhere in the class.  So among other things, I encourage students to work together: in small teams (up to 3) to write homework, in larger groups in discussion sections, and with whatever groups they want to figure out the homework, study for exams, and so on.  (Homework teams that work together are still required to write solutions independently, and they are required to cite each other.)  So students are already used to helping each other offline.


Best path for a PhD in CS from a top school? In short, I recently got admitted to a computer science and engineering programme at the KTH royal institute of technology which basically is a Bsc. in CS + Msc. in one of a dozen choosable related subjects. My main interests are machine learning, math and finance and would like to eventually work as a research scientist in ML (deepmind if I am allowed to dream) or in algorithmic trading. Naturally, I'd like to do a PhD in CS and although this can definitely change in the future I want to prepare myself for it.

What is the best possible path for me to take academically when regarding employability and admissions to a top PhD program (Oxbridge, MIT, berkley etc.)?

I have 4 options:

Take computer science and engineering degree from KTH and just focus on getting as competent as I possibly can for CS/ML research.
Take computer science and engineering degree from KTH with good grades and take a Bsc. Business&Economics from the Stockholm school of economics in PARALLEL.
Take computer science and engineering degree from KTH with good grades and take a Bsc. Mathematics from Stockholm University in PARALLEL.
Suggestion please

Note that I am referring to two seperate bachelor's degrees in 2. and 3. with a twice the credits/ECTS. I am not referring to a double major.

option 2. has been done before by highly motivated and intelligent students so I know it can be done. This option dramatically increases employability in Sweden especially in consulting but I have no idea how much this helps CS PhD admissions. Furthermore, although enjoyable it seems like a total waste of time as I doubt I will learn anything useful.

Option 3. seems like a balance of option 1 and 3 but I have no idea how difficult this is to execute as I have never heard of anyone doing this. By balance I'm not implying it is the best option, I simply don't know how much weight I should put into employability and competence.

Does anyone of you have any suggestions for what would be a better academic path with my goals in mind?

I realize in advance that this post may come of as naive and that might very well be true. If that is the case please enlighten me on my false perception of reality.

Thanks in advance!

Research experience will help you a lot more in getting into a good PhD than an extra degree. For this reason, I would recommend 1. to meet your goals.

Additionally, having dual degrees in not a requirement for doing inter-disciplinary research. Working with an adviser that has the relevant experiences, taking a few classes, or reading on your own are all great ways to learn about a second field, and then to start to apply your research from your primary field to your secondary field. You can also transition to your secondary field for your PhD if you choose, even if you don't have a degree in that field. My Bachelor's was Math, I am now pursuing a PhD in Computer Science. Doing extra research as an undergraduate helped me more in getting into my program than taking extra CS classes would have.


Dealing with professor's death on my thesis My professer, regrettably and very suddenly, passed away yesterday. He was my mentor for my graduation thesis. His teaching capabilities were not great, but he was a great man. Always helping out with everything he could and very supportive. I have very fond memories of him.

I have to hand in my thesis in two weeks time. Currently, I have his and another mentor's name on the front page to make it clear they are my supervisors.

How should I proceed with his name? I'd prefer not to erase it from my thesis, as he helped me and supported me. Would it be appropriate to leave it? Is it appropriate to add a little symbol like a cross next to his name to mark his passing? Should I just leave it the way it is now?

If it matters, I'm from the Netherlands.

You should definitely keep the name. I've seen that people who passed away during some endeavor usually have their names surrounded with a rectangle.

You can also consider putting some In Memoriam page for your mentor somewhere at the beginning of the thesis. You should consult other people within your institutions culture to make sure that this doesn't come off as pretentious (although I see no reason why it should).


some questions before applying for postdoc I appreciate your guidance on the following questions:

Should I inform my adviser before applying for each an every postdoc position?
Should I send my research statement to my Ph.D adviser before sending it for postdoc applications?

In general, you should be communicative with your PhD advisor about your applications. This is so that they can do their job and advise you about the process. Their input will be invaluable to you. In particular, you will probably want your PhD advisor to write recommendation letters for you.

You should tell your advisor in advance that you are planning to apply. (Although it is usually not necessary to specify exactly where.) And, once you have applied, you should tell them where so that they are on the look out for a letter request.

However, if you have a problematic relationship with your advisor, then that's a big problem that you will need to navigate. If this is the case, then your question should make this clear.


How to approach Professors from other institutes (without potentially offending the ones at mine) tl;dr - I want to rely on Tutors from other institutes without offending the ones at mine (for not turning to them instead)

I'm studying Undergrad Medicine in South Asia.

The curriculum is pretty interesting, however, there are a few problems I face.

Most of my Tutors/Professors,

Aren't exactly keen on discussing topics/information that isn't explicitly mentioned in our course textbooks (which in turn, is the work of local publishers and is regrettably riddled with poor wording, shoddy formatting and incorrect or outdated info)
Are usually reluctant to provide us with the rationale/intuition, even for stuff that is in our textbooks.
Are usually very busy. So it gives me next to no time to sit down and clear questions with them. (Texting or mailing them is just as difficult)

They're all really nice people and have been very encouraging so far, but for the reasons listed above (exacerbated by a ridiculously rigid education-system), I've found it difficult to grow as a student under them. Changing courses isn't an option I have.

Therefore, I hope to approach (E-mail?) Professors from other institutes with my questions. Assuming they're able to reply reasonably quickly (and satisfactorily), I'll seek to establish regular interactions with them.

However, there's a very real chance that they are in contact with the faculty at my institute (among others); my institute regularly holds Conventions to which faculty-member from other institutes are invited. If my Tutors were to find out that I'm actively turning to people other than themselves for my questions, they're likely to take it as a personal insult.

So on one hand, when I go Tutor-hunting, I need to make it clear in my E-mails that the resources and Tutors at my home-institute are inadequate (regrettably) for my growth as a student, lest they misjudge the gravity of situation.
On the other hand, I can't just bluntly tell them "My Tutors and I aren't exactly on the same wavelength" (this is putting it mildly), because should they end up meeting my Tutors and mentioning this, it'll cause irreparable damage to my relationship with them.

I suppose my question ultimately boils down to this:

So when I first approach a Professor from another institute (this is likely to be by E-mail), how exactly do I word my introduction?
In a way that won't potentially incriminate me down the road, that is.

Most important, I question your statement that you need to "make it clear" that you are dissatisfied with your current faculty. That seems like a terrible idea unless you wish to break ties with your current institution.

You can, of course, reach out to people about topics of interest without giving motives beyond your interest in their work and the answers they might give you.

But there may be little incentive for people to give you very much support, as they are busy and have their own responsibilities. But I don't think you improve that incentive, at all, by complaining about your current situation.

If your emails are subject/topic based then word getting back to your current professors should have no consequences. But if you say offensive things, you can expect that people will take offense.

But you might also ask yourself whether you are at the right institution or whether you should be looking for another.