How to create a grading rubric that properly incentivizes and challenges students Since I haven't do much TA duty (only 1 semester so far, starting 2nd one), I have struggled to come up with a good way to grade homework. My last grading rubric ended up creating strange incentive pattern wherein people will do all the optional questions, while completely ignore the required questions (or just write some random nonsense to get some extra pity points); and since I posted my rubric publicly, I couldn't change it. Since I am about to grade the first assignment of this semester, I need to come up with a new grading rubric, so I need help with the following optimization problem.

The situation is as follow. Every assignment will contains around 5 required questions, and 1-3 optional questions. Required questions would be very simple and can be solved by understanding the material, while optional questions would usually require new ideas. I have freedom in choosing any 3 required questions to grade (and they have to be the same questions for all students), and anyone optional question to grade (could be different question for each student). I might award completion points questions I do not grade, but since I am not supposed to grade them, I cannot discern whether the problem is actually solved (and given the amount of grading I have to do, I can't really afford to look into more than 4 questions per student).

I want to have a grading rubric that create the incentive such that students are most likely to do all the required questions and at least 1 optional question, subject to the following constraints:

Doing something extra never hurt the grade (even if "something extra" is a drawing of an goat).
Solving harder questions get higher score than solving easier question (note: I get to pick the maximum score for each question).
Maximum possible score can be obtained from solving all required questions only.
When it comes to required questions, partial credits must be awarded for answers that get certain part of a correct answer.
For questions with explicitly multiple parts, every part must get the same maximum score, and any solved part must be awarded scores (note that in a multiple parts question, it is very common for part (a) to be much easier than part (f)).
Anyone who attempted all questions (both required and optional) get at least 50% of the maximum.

Anyone can help me with a good grading rubric?

EDIT: since I can't make comments, I will clarify some of the answers/comments below.

First, about grading randomly comment. That was exactly what I did last semester. Grade random required questions, grade all optional questions (since you know, they are not required, so it would be unfair if some get points and some don't for the same work), and give optional questions much higher maximum points (since they are much tougher). Result: people only do optional questions, since these are the only one with guaranteed points, and give a lot more points.

Second, point #3 makes perfect sense, and I don't see how it is restrictive. After all, other questions are known as optional for a reason: people don't need to do it to get full score. And #6 is what the professor requires of me: the class is supposedly a hard class that is optional for the major and is also regularly attended by people who are not in the major that are simply interested, so he doesn't want to fail anyone who put in "honest effort" (that's the word he used, so I guess 6 goats and 1 turtle won't count, but a bunch of gibberish equations would).

As for the answer below. I won't make the mistake of making the rubric public anymore, the students would have to ask for that in which case I can explain to them. Grading the best looking optional problem will violate constraint #1 here. This is because it is really hard to see which answer are better without and detailed look, since optional problems have lots of intricacies, are long, and tend to have fewer parts. And if I judge wrong, it means someone who attempt 2 problems might end up with a low score because I picked the bad one, compared to someone who only do 1.

In general, I would recommend keeping your grading rubric simple -- complicated rubrics have a way of causing confusion and sometimes resentment when they're misunderstood.

In the situation you describe, I would choose to compute the score as the average of that on the three required problems, weighted equally. If the student solved any of the optional problems, choose whichever looks the best and substitute this score for the lowest of the three required scores, but only if it improves the student's grade.


Repeating oneself verbatim: from a word document to a presentation Is this discouraged? Say I wrote an essay of 20 pages and I'd like to present it in a power point show. Can I simply copy paste what I already wrote in the essay (with shortening it, of course) without the need to re-paraphrase again?

Please, please, please, for the sake of your audience do not create a talk simply by dumping a giant pile of text onto slides.  Prose is dense and meant to be digested slowly and without aid from the author.  A talk is just that: a talk by the author, and any slides should be there simply to enhance the audience's understanding of your words.

Thus, your slides should generally be light on words and heavy on images and diagrams.  You can dump text into the "notes" section that only you the presenter will see, but if you dump it on screen for the audience then 1) they will be reading the text rather than listening to you, and 2) they will be terribly bored and think you are a terrible presenter.

For some better heuristics for approaching the constructions of a presentations, I recommend watching Patrick Winston's "How To Speak" talk.


Dealing with syllabus error as instructor I hope it will be forgiven that I am going the anonymous-coward route when asking this question.
I am teaching two courses this semester.  My university has been mandating lots of evolving changes to syllabi, so I tried to organise my syllabi so that I could make changes to both in one place, rather than having to do lots of cut-and-pasting.  (Basically, lots of \includes in a TeX file.)  Somewhere along the way, I messed up which parts were common and which parts were course specific, and I listed the same textbook for both classes.
Classes start Monday.  The bookstore listings have been available for quite some time, though I don't know how long.  I made the class syllabi available yesterday.  Today, a student wrote me and asked about the conflict between the syllabus and the bookstore's listing.  I immediately fixed the error and sent out a class-wide announcement.
Unfortunately, it turned out that a student had already purchased the wrong book.  I don't know if this student purchased the book through the official bookstore (which might be eligible for return), or from Amazon, or somewhere else.  (I have reached out to check, but I want to have some idea of how to proceed regardless of what the student answers.)  I also don't know if this student is the only one affected.
If the student cannot return the textbook, then they have suffered for acting in good faith on information that I presented that they could not really have known was wrong.  I therefore feel the burden of dealing with that suffering is on me.  However, I am not sure how to proceed.  The easiest answer—in the sense of easiest to say, and to justify—is that I should reimburse the student (and I have checked with my dean that I am allowed to do this).  However, the book is $300 new (a footnote here, about how little I as a professor am aware of the cost of the books I assign), and there are 30 students in the class, and I cannot afford to commit to this option without knowing how many students are affected.  Is there any other ethical way to proceed?
(Another option that has been suggested to me is to suggest that the student sell the book, and then reimburse them for the difference.  This would at least defray some of the costs for me, but I am not sure if it is ethical for me to put that burden on the student.)

Well, you are polite enough to care about this deeply. I think one of your students might be polite enough to help you. As I understand, this "wrong" book actually is the course material in one of your other classes. You can ask in that class if someone who hasn't bought the book would like to buy that spare copy. You can incentivize it with a discount on the brand new book (something like 25 dollars) and you can pay the small difference to the student.


Springer special issue status I submitted a paper to a special issue of a Springer journal.

The notification was supposed to be few days ago.
On that day, the current status became "review completed" and "Submissions with Production Completed (1)".

However, today the status changed to "Reviewer Assignment Pending" but there is still "Submissions with Production Completed (1)".
Does it mean that the paper is gonna reviewed again? (even though it has already been reviewed) or does it mean that an editor is going to make the final decision ?

I feel that the comments posted were really the answer to this question, so I will say it:

You should email the editor to find out the status of your paper. While such online status updates are meant to be helpful, their terminology can be opaque (as you have seen) and they don't accurately reflect the nuance of the peer review process. The change you note could mean that, yes, you paper is going to another reviewer, or that perhaps your paper has been assigned to an internal reviewer among the editors of the special issue, or it could just be a random mistake.

I do suspect that by now the situation has resolved itself, but anyone else who is having questions about online status updates for peer review would be best placed to get in contact with the human behind them if accurate or detailed information is important.


How do academics reconcile simultaneously collaborating and competing with colleagues? In many fields of academia, a professor must get grants to fund his research (e.g., medicine, biology).

Early in academic career, a scientist can have naive expectations about how things work in academia and later may be surprised by the reality. One such surprise is the compete and collaborate paradox.

Later in career, it may be not so simple to collaborate and share fully your ideas, since twice a year (or so) we all submit grants and we suddenly are less friendly colleagues who share ideas, but we compete with each other or between "groups". For example, we don't let anyone see our full grant submissions. (e.g., NIH medical grants - full text must be requested by freedom of information act and only abstracts are on the web).

How do you handle in every day life, at conferences, in hallway conversations this paradox of collaborating and competing at the same time in academia?
How do you determine what to share?
Do you avoid colleagues who are known to 'tell only the minimum' at congresses and then surprise later with an accepted grant?

Philosophically, it is impossible to collaborate and compete at the same time and one has to have some ethical structure but everyone's boundaries seem to be different!

How do you handle in every day life, at conferences, in hallway conversations this paradox of collaborating and competing at the same time in academia?

I ignore it, except around known jerks.  I'm lucky enough to work in a research community that generally values collaboration over back-stabbing.  There are a few exceptions, of course, but they fall under the category of "known jerks".  I'd much rather gain a coauthor and get the result out together than to keep secrets and risk being scooped.

Yes, I have developed coauthors this way.  Yes, I have published papers this way that might not have been published otherwise.  Yes, I have been scooped, but only by people I had not discussed my ideas with.

Your mileage may vary.

  How do you determine what to share?

I don't share ideas or problems that students (either mine or not) are actively working on, without the students' explicit permission.  Otherwise, I'm open about everything, except around known jerks.  In particular, if you want my latest grant proposal, just ask.

  Do you avoid colleagues who are known to 'tell only the minimum' at congresses and then surprise later with an accepted grant?

No.  Why should I?


People who have run an online conference, how much does it cost? I am looking at moving a small online conference for around 200 ppl digital, and quotes from suppliers are all over the place. I'm sure this is because no one knows what good looks like or costs....  So, if you have run one, what are your recommendations for estimating cost?
Clarifications:

A satellite solution is not necessary, though I imagine some participants may lack the internet connections to participate effectively. It might be necessary to send hotspots to such individuals.

All four I know of have cost zero.  However, they have piggybacked off university licenses that the host institution already purchased for teaching classes and some small amount of university IT support, and various organizers may also have chipped in small amounts of personal funds for small items.


Question about listing postdoc on NSF biosketch Yesterday, I submitted a postdoc research fellowship proposal to NSF. I am currently a postdoc.

I realized that I didn't list the postdoc in the Professional Preparation section, but it is listed at the top of the Appointments section immediately below. It is also mentioned in the training plan section of the Project Description.

Should I worry about this error, or is it nothing to be concerned about?

Why not just contact the division rep to see if you can update the application, or if it is necessary? Obviously there will be a discrepancy among your CV and your application professional appointments sections. If this exists and a reviewer sees this error of omission, it may (sub-)consciously bias their review.

Call one of the reps, I bet they're lonely in their D.C. office and would love to hear that phone ring XD. Rep names and ph are listed on the section webpages (e.g., there are two for Biology).

Perhaps there is a way to request edit/update or add comments to the application in FastLane (although you probably already tried this...)?


How to contact Researchers once you are accepted I'm a physics student from Argentina and I've just been accepted for a Physics PhD in Cornell University. There are a few research groups that I really like and I was wondering if it is a common thing to mail them introducing myself and asking if it is possible that there is going to be an available position for me in the future. I wouldn't like to study there for a year to find out that the groups I like wouldn't have taken me in the first place. Thanks!

P.D.: Also, does anybody know when does research begins? I thought that the PhD program was 1 year of courses and then research, but now I've read that there are actually 2 years of courses before you join a research group.

Most major graduate institutions, including Cornell, have extensive written materials that lay out how some of these things are done in a specific program. For example, waiting 1 year to join a research group sounds like a long time for me, but apparently it is normal for your institution (maybe normal for physics in general).

For Cornell Physics, see their handbook at http://physics.cornell.edu/sites/physics/files/Yellow-Book-Revised-July-2013.pdf and the rest of their graduate website at http://physics.cornell.edu/graduate

Verbatim from the 'yellow book':

  As to research, students should, during the first year of graduate work, spur themselves (and be
  encouraged by the faculty) to find out about some of the Cornell research going on around them.
  By the summer following the first year they should associate themselves personally with the
  research of some professor or research group, even if this association is only temporary. The
  normal time for a reasonably firm commitment for a Ph.D. thesis area, and for such an
  understanding with a supervising professor, is at about the end of the second year.

You may certainly approach professors who you may want to work with during and after acceptance into the program. I am not sure what the funding norms are in physics in terms of how far in advance professors know they will be able to take on a student, but I see no reason why it would hurt to contact professors you are interested in working with as part of the application process and decision to accept admission if granted.

Cornell offers visits to prospective Ph.D students: http://physics.cornell.edu/prospective-graduate-students#plan-a-visit which includes meeting with professors, presumably who you would be interested in working with.

It doesn't seem like a visit is necessary just based on what I see on their website (and I would expect this sort of thing is normally done before acceptance, maybe you have even already done this), but you could certainly manage a more informal visit via email, particularly if travel is a hardship.


acceptance letter with no letter of financial support I have received my admission letter for a graduate program from a Canadian university. However, the letter contains no information about funding. I have already talked to my professor about the availability of funding by this email for two times.

Hello Professor,

I am writing to follow up on the letter of financial support we had discussed a while back. I was wondering if you had a chance to write it, or if you needed more documentation from me. Please let me know if I need to do anything on my end.

Best, Nikki

each time he said that he will send me a letter of financial support. So far he has not sent me said the letter. What should I write to ask him again for this letter? Could you send me a template of an email which shows my concern about visa process? any other suggestion? I am fed up with sending so many emails and I really don't know what to do...
I will miss the winter semester if he doesn't send me the letter in 2weeks.

How about,

Dear Prof,
I am an international student and need to apply for a visa to come to the University. I will miss the winter semester if I don't have the letter of financial support in 2 weeks.
Best regards, Nikki.

Be polite but straightforward and always explain why the deadline is real. Don't hesitate to chase people - it might be that the professor is simply too busy and he keeps forgetting things which are not urgent. Note also that his understanding of urgency can be different from yours.


How big are Mathematics research projects usually? I have been involved in a number of large-ish research consortia usually with 10 or more groups, with each group containing 2 or more individuals. Some have originated from computer science, others engineering, and even the social sciences. In general all have contained partners from a variety of disciplines.

I'm curious as to how large mathematics research projects tend to be? Do they tend to be smaller, with individuals rather than research groups and/or subject matter experts involved. Are there any mathematical research associates out there that could offer insight into this please?

EDIT: Just to clarify, if P is a project, the "size" of P I'm interested in is:

|P|=Total number of people involved.

It's rare for a large number of mathematicians to collaborate on a single project.  The vast majority of mathematics papers have 1, 2 or 3 authors.

Using the techniques described in Getting a dump of arXiv metadata, I downloaded metadata for all the math preprints on arXiv, and had a script count the number of authors.  I got the following results:

251459 papers
0 authors:      1 papers         0.0004%
1 authors:      101926 papers    40.5338%
2 authors:      89630 papers     35.6440%
3 authors:      43290 papers     17.2155%
4 authors:      12555 papers     4.9929%
5 authors:      2949 papers      1.1728%
6 authors:      700 papers       0.2784%
7 authors:      216 papers       0.0859%
8 authors:      102 papers       0.0406%
9 authors:      40 papers        0.0159%
10 authors:     14 papers        0.0056%
11 authors:     9 papers         0.0036%
12 authors:     7 papers         0.0028%
13 authors:     4 papers         0.0016%
14 authors:     2 papers         0.0008%
15 authors:     3 papers         0.0012%
16 authors:     2 papers         0.0008%
20 authors:     1 papers         0.0004%
22 authors:     3 papers         0.0012%
23 authors:     1 papers         0.0004%
28 authors:     1 papers         0.0004%
37 authors:     1 papers         0.0004%
60 authors:     1 papers         0.0004%
67 authors:     1 papers         0.0004%

I took a look at some of the outliers.  Some are ordinary papers but some are other kinds of collective works.  Note that some appear to be cross-listed under other arXiv sections.

0 authors: arXiv:1005.0836 (placeholder for a preprint deleted because it was a duplicate)
20 authors: arXiv:1011.1764 (regular paper)
22 authors: arXiv:1403.2953 (review article)
22 authors: arXiv:1501.02155 (regular paper, computer-aided proof project)
22 authors: arXiv:cs/9909001 (report on the results of a workshop)
23 authors: arXiv:quant-ph/0701168 (regular paper)
28 authors: arXiv:1009.4134 (regular paper)
37 authors: arXiv:1001.4737 (regular paper but seems closer to physics)
60 authors: arXiv:math/0406190 (list of open problems collected from a workshop)
67 authors: arXiv:1410.0719 (extended abstracts from a conference)

To the asker: There may be some ambiguity here based on what we think of as a "project" and "people involved", and how research is conducted in our fields.  As a mathematician, I think of a "project" as a concerted effort by a researcher, or group of researchers, actively working to resolve a specific mathematical question.  If this effort is successful, it normally results in one or more published papers (sometimes three or four, but usually not dozens), and all the researchers who significantly contributed to the solution will be authors of those papers.  If it's a two-author paper, then there really were only two people working on that project.  (Of course, there could have been other unrelated groups working on the same question, or something closely related, but they would normally publish separately.)  So to me, there is a pretty close correspondence between "project" and "paper".

You might also find this question interesting: How do mathematicians conduct research?


How common is it for a student to finish a Master's degree at a school and to be rejected for a PhD at the same school? This question likely doesn't make much sense in the US and other countries where separate Master's degrees are uncommon. However, here in Canada, the vast majority of graduate students must first apply for a Master's degree, and then apply for a PhD program (usually filling out applications during their Master's degree, as the deadlines fall).
Students are highly discouraged from completing their undergrad, Master's, and PhD all at the same school for many reasons. But it seems quite common to do one's undergrad at one school, then both grad degrees at the same school.
My question is: how common is it for students in this situation to be rejected from a PhD program at the school where they are currently doing their Master's? And what might be reasons for such a rejection? I imagine that some reasons would be lack of willing supervisors (which begs the question of how they were accepted for the Master's anyway), unsatisfactory work during the Master's degree, or some extreme situation such as academic dishonesty.
My field is math, so I guess we can restrict the question to that discipline, but I'm curious about answers from all fields.

One very obvious thing would be availability. My department has around 100 masters students each year, but will only have 7 PhD places. We pretty much take as many masters students as we can (because they pay). As you can imagine, this is not always popular with the people that have to supervise them for their dissertations.
Master degrees are funded by the student (either directly, or via a loan). PhD positions are funded by external funding bodies or scholarships.


Acknowledging funding I often read in research articles acknowledgments such as

  The first author is (partially) supported by a grant of the National Science Foundation of Sikinia no. 1234567890.

What are the guidelines for acknowledging funding agencies? Should I mention, for instance, grants that cover some research expenses or sponsor my participation to a conference? Or only those who pay me directly?

The general rule I recommend is extremely liberal: If you write or publish a paper while being funded by a grant in any capacity whatsoever, acknowledge the grant.  ("Work by this author was partially supported by...")

When in doubt, say thank you.


How to efficiently read mathematically and theoretically dense books in STEM fields? When it comes to reading, there are literally thousands of methods from Speed Reading to SQ3R to Sequential(Word by Word till the end). My question is regarding reading mathematically/theoretically dense books as a graduate student. My question is primarily targeted to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields.

I have read the other question on SE and this is designed to act as a question on similar lines but for books (> 400 pages) typically found on Reading Lists for Quals. I believe how one reads a book differs significantly from how one reads a paper.
(This could be a question as well but IMO, the length, intention and structure are sufficient to cause the difference)

In order to make this an objective question rather than a vague and open ended one, I wish to concentrate on the following:

Should a book be read from start to finish word by word or through iterations (Skim, Analyse, Summarize)?
If I am interested in a particular chapter with a lot of dependencies, is it in my interest to read everything till that chapter or read that chapter > google unknown terms > read chapter again and loop?
If one gets stuck for over a certain threshold at something is it wise to continue assuming it as true or to persevere till the end and figure it out. This is true for research papers, is it true for books?
How much time per (mathematically dense) page is ideal? This will vary a lot with field but not so much with person as it would with fiction (IMO).

I have never (as far as I can remember) read a technical book cover to cover from start to end.  Most of the time, I have a problem in mind that I want to solve, and I'm looking for tools to solve it; more often than not, if I'm trying to learn out of a book, I'm actually reading three or four books at once.  I dive into the middle of a book that seems most relevant; if I don't understand something, I'll back up, and if I don't understand that, I'll back up again, and if I get really stuck I'll put the first book down and pick up a more elementary book, and so on until I'm on firm ground again.  ("Getting really stuck" only happens after relying to work through/reconstruct details on my own, in addition to trying to understand them from the book's presentation.  I have taken months to read through one page, always feeling just close enough to understanding that I never felt "really stuck".)  Whenever possible I pop back up the reading stack with my target problem in mind, skipping entire chapters if they don't seem relevant (but backtracking if I discover later than I'm wrong), working forward again until I either find the tool that I'm looking for, conclude that I've been on a wild goose chase, or give up on the book.

Yes, I miss a lot this way.  Yes, I get a lot of weird ideas that I later have to kill off.  But I just don't have the patience to read large volumes of technical material that doesn't seem at least remotely relevant to some problem at hand, and prioritizing often leads me fairly quickly to tools that work.

Your mileage may vary.  Caveat lector.


When should we use publication list for peer evaluation? This is a second attempt to ask about peer evaluation, after a pretty unsuccessful one which was probably much too broad. Let me start again, with a more precise subquestion.
The point is commonly made that one should not judge one's peer by looking at the impact factor of journals where her papers are published, as IF is a very poor indicator of the citation rate of individual articles, and certainly even poorer at asserting the intrinsic merit of individual articles. Some go further and consider that one should not judge one's peer by looking at the prestige of journals her papers are published in (e.g. because more selective journals tend to publish less reliable science). Last, the sheer number of publications is obviously no more useful to judge one's peer than the sheer number of books written is useful to judge a writer's merit. So, following these principles, one is lead not to use publication lists in peer evaluation.
However, publication list is most certainly the main component of a record in many, if not most, evaluation.
I have several questions on this paradox, to which I have personal answers which are partial and non definitive.

Q0 What are the actual practices you witness about the use of publication lists in peer evaluation?
Q1 Are there circumstances where using IF, journal prestige or other aspect of publication list leads to a better evaluation than not?
Q2 What other proxy if any can be used for evaluation that are expected to be done rather quickly (e.g. extracting a short list from dozens to hundreds of applicants for a tenured position, attributing small fundings), and what are their pros and cons?
Q3 What criteria can be used for evaluation that are expected to be done more thoroughly (e.g. hiring for a tenured position once a short list has been established), and what are their pros and cons?

Q0. Short answer, all kinds; from trying to dig into all details you mention in your backgroudn text to simply looking at the number. My experience says that evaluations often have lofty aspirations but when it comes down to actually performing the evaluation, a time crunch or other circumstances makes evaluations boil down to simple statistical measures.

Q2. The short answer here is, we do not know. In order to say that one approach yields better results than any other we need some form of comparable materials. I have not seen such comparisons made (which of course does not mean they do not exist).

Bibliometricians work with more advanced tools to try to work out comparable numbers. Having been through a few such processes, for organisations not persons, I can say that the results often indicate whether the object is good, average or perhaps poor and not much more; very relative terms. In my experienced studies the litterature is dealt with after having been subjected to, for example, field normalization since different fields have very different publication strategies. This i sone reason why a straight IF or h-index has limited value; it is important to know with what one is compared.

Q2. What immediately comes to mind is funding. If one is looking for a person that will contribute to a department through their activity, looking at their publications may not reveal the whole. Ability to attract funding may be equally important. It is obvious that the two may be well correlated in many cases and really poorly in others so even this would not be straight forward. Again, one has to look at the norms for the particular field to see how these can be used.

Q3. Thhis goes back to my answer under Q2 to some extent. I think, however, that in order to successsfully select a person for a tenure track, one has to be very clear of what one expects from such a person. Looking at publication rate is one thing but let's say that person locks themselves into a room and is never seen except whena new paper is published. Is that what the department really was looking for?

Appointing (good) people (contributors) is a difficult task and I very much doubt that using simple tools is the best way. Surely some tools such as IF end the like can be used to narrow down a larger group but the smaller the group from which to select, the more obtuse such tools become. I believe multiproinged approachs where the search criteria are clearly identified from the beginning and followed up by an assortment of means is the way to go. This usually involves interviews etc. to figure out how a person can and will integrate and contribute to the work environment.

So the short of it is that you get what you deserve if you use simple tools and underestimate the effort that is needed in the recruitment process.

This answer is very relative, I know, but I am convinced that hiring people is so much more involved than what simple statistics can resolve.


Will a self-designed major lower my chance of acceptance for graduate school? I am in the process of designing a major. However, I am worried that using a self-designed major can make an application look bad. As it stands, this potential major is about 70% computer science classes, 30% psychology and neuroscience classes. As such, this leads me to the questions:

Are these self-designed majors seen as "weird" or simply unacceptable?
In general, are self-designed majors unattractive for graduate admissions?
For computer science specifically, do majors matter?

The disadvantage of having a "made it myself" degree is that in situations in which you are being compared with your peers (i.e. graduate admissions), you are comparing apples to oranges, and the admissions committee only know apples. A committee sees two applicants with CS degrees, even if they come from different universities, they can be somewhat certain that both have covered a certain number of bases. In these situations, your degree compared to a CS degree can look like 70% of a degree vs. 100%, even if you have a higher GPA (and this may read as "they have a higher GPA because they took psych classes instead of Operating Systems, Databases, Compilers, Networks, Computer Architecture, and Theory of Computation").

Admissions committees are less concerned with whether you took classes "related to your interests" than whether or not you passed or exceeded the same thresholds as your peers. If you're worried that people wont give your transcript a good look, most won't (especially if you end up entering the workforce). Don't get a degree in anything that will take more than 30 seconds to explain.

Look at all of the people who are doing the work that you some day want to do. Look at all the professors that you might someday want to work with. What did they get their degrees in? (here's a not-so-big secret: most professors hire students who remind them of themselves)

Get in touch with professors at research universities, admission committees, grad students, and get their opinions. Ask "What are you looking for in an incoming student?" People will be pretty forthcoming with you. Ask your professors if they have any contacts at research universities that you could talk with. Also, your professors all got into grad school - ask them how they did it. Find the youngest ones, they'll have the best idea what admissions are like these days.


What should I prepare for MEXT? I'm an average CS engg grad who wish to go to Japan. I've got to know, in India applications for MEXT will start from 2nd week of April, and I haven't found any resource online. How and what should I prepare?

My wife and I were both MEXT scholarship recipients for the graduate school "research student" scholarship. I got mine in the US by embassy recommendation. My wife got hers in Japan by university recommendation. (University recommendation within Japan is highly competitive and would be impossible without very good on the ground connections at a university that receives slots from the Monkasho).

Assuming you mean the embassy/consulate version, you need to apply to the consulate that covers your city.

There's a written test and an interview. Depending on the numbers, they will either do everything on the same day (common in the US) or split everything across multiple days.

To successfully get a scholarship via consulate/embassy recommendation from India, you are going to need to do really well on the written test for Japanese and the test for English.

Moreover, I would recommend (against the instructions the consulate may supply) first identifying professors in Japan with whom you would be interested in pursuing a graduate degree. After you've come up with a list, e-mail them indicating you are hoping to apply for a MEXT scholarship. With this in hand, you can describe a specific project.

This is key because you need to submit a project idea as part of your application. Preferably, you should write this in Japanese and get it checked by a native speaker capable of academic writing.

With this in hand, you will also have an interview if you make it that far. I have no idea how the interview is evaluated, so I don't have any tips on that.

At the time I applied, I was already in a PhD program in the US in my 3rd year, had Japanese grammar knowledge at about the N3 level, kanji knowledge at roughly the N2 level (currently, I have the JLPT N1). I had lined up a project with a Japanese professor. I may have already met with him at that point in time.

Best of luck.


My advisor's new student copied parts of my PhD thesis; advisor doesn't care. What to do? I wrote my PhD thesis a few years back. After I finished, my supervisor found another researcher and continued research with the apparatus I built, but along a different line of study. I met this student a few times and gave them advice and help when I could. They always had a hard copy of my thesis in the lab for reference; I also provided a PDF copy at the student's request.

The student recently finished their PhD and I looked at their thesis. The lit review, results, and findings are the student's own work. But, particularly in the middle section (describing the apparatus I built):

Many paragraphs of their text is copied and pasted from mine, some without checking so that it makes false references;
In other instances, the student has substantially copied paragraphs, but changed a few words here and there;
One that particularly annoyed me was the copying and awkward re-hashing of my acknowledgements to my supervisor, very personal words;

I informed my former supervisor (with whom I have a good relationship) and he seemed not to want to know. He said that as long as it wasn't the results then it wasn't too important. He reckoned as the student was a good guy, he may not have known what plagiarism was, and perhaps did it by accident. He did offer to acknowledge or include me in subsequent journal papers.

Given that only some of the background text (rather than the results section) was copied, is it reasonable to pursue this further? What is normally done in such cases?

In particular, I was thinking to quantify the level of copying involved and ask my supervisor to withdraw the thesis until copied material is removed. However, I risk jeopardizing a fairly good relationship with my supervisor and possibly also with the small network of colleagues.

You have two options:

Not care about plagiarism enough to warrant getting involved.
Care about plagiarism to the degree you get involved.

There are arguments for both points here.

It would be an obvious matter of record as to whose thesis was written first if anyone else happened to notice the similarities. Why get involved further? You notified the adviser, let him deal with blowback from letting a student plagiarize. Pushing the issue further would just compromise your relationship with your adviser. Whistleblowers rarely get rewarded properly anyway. And, cynically, some universities may not even care about a student plagiarizing parts of a thesis. It's more paperwork and labor for them to deal with and it's easier to just hope (from an administrative perspective) that the problem goes away.
Based on what you have told us, it seems reasonable that your thesis was plagiarized from. You have contacted the adviser about this and he declined to do much about it. The graduate college and university administration, however, may not concur with your adviser. Plagiarism should be stopped on principle alone. I would report the offending thesis to the graduate college and see if they are willing to investigate it further. If you really wanted to do some nasty damage and the university declines to investigate, notify the local newspaper and see if they'll send over some junior journalist to write a spot on how your university is allowing plagiarism to occur.

Part of writing a thesis is learning to articulate in your own words what your research is about. This has to do with much more than just shoving original data in a table.

If your adviser told you the student "might not know what plagiarism is" then.....wow.....No one reaches graduate school and is completely oblivious to what plagiarism is. Let's be honest here.

For me personally, I would let it go. The network with my adviser is more important to my career right now. This is pragmatism, not principle, speaking.


Should I report an instance of nepotism - misconduct in favour of sexual partner? It came to my awareness a case of nepotism in my academic network.
It concerns a professor and a former female student of him. The professor and the student had relationship while she was conducting her Master thesis under his supervision. For the year she was writing her thesis, the professor intervened through an academic network he is heavily involved, to give her a scholarship although she didn't have prior outstanding performance.
For her Master thesis he proposed her for some industry prize that she obviously won.
After finishing the thesis she changed city and moved to a nearby city for her PhD (also the Prof. was married with 3 children).
Within the first 2.5 years of her Phd she hasn't produced any scientific output. The student and the professor visit several conferences abroad together in order to have time for their affair.
Now it came into my awareness that he is planning to involve her in a prestigious exchange program so that she will be able to work in his city. The plan involves a newly founded start-up and some of his collaborators/friends abroad. She will "collaborate" with the collaborators abroad, but from distance since the start-up claims to be flexible with location.
So in essence, she will appear to be working with some other Prof. abroad to get accepted into the exchange program, but she will work remotely from the city of her boyfriend professor. Also the Professor recently broke up with his wife.
Since all this is very shady, I am thinking whether someone should inform the directors/board of the exchange program.
What do you think?

This could go very wrong for you. If you go around and tell people what you told us here this could be considered as defamation of the professor and I wouldn't be surprised if he outright sues you.
The questions you should ask yourself:

Can you prove that they indeed had a sexual relationship?
Are the other students of the professor indeed more skilled than the student he promoted?
If yes, can you prove this in any legal sense or is this just your personal opinion?

Especially if you think you are one of those more skilled students I would be very careful, this can backfire horribly. Bad performance in her PhD certainly is not enough to prove 2. There are a lot of people who don't perform well in their PhD and didn't sleep with their advisor. And even if the professor and the student are a couple now, this is in no way proof that they slept with one another during the time the professor advised the student and less so proof that he promoted her for sexual and not academic reasons.
Academia is always very concerned with integrity. Is it ethical to sleep with his students and betray ones wife? Of course not. But you shouldn't just think about some academic code of conduct the professor may or may not have broken, but about the very real legal implications you may face. You are risking a lawsuit in pursuing this further and your personal gain is absolutely zero.
If this would be taking place in Germany, then relevant for the discussion is the following paragraph:

Section 186 Malicious gossip (üble Nachrede)
Whoever asserts or disseminates a fact about another person which is
suitable for degrading that person or negatively affecting public
opinion about that person, unless this fact can be proved to be true,
incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or
a fine and, if the offence was committed publicly or by disseminating
material (section 11 (3)), a penalty of imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years or a fine.

If you insist to pursue this issue, I would strongly advise you not to mention the affair. Go to the board and tell them you think there may be a conflict of interest in the award of scholarship XY. Don't accuse the student and the professor of having had an affair, you can't say this for certain. As Buffy points out it is highly likely that the board already knows about the issue anyways - Leave it up to them to make the conclusions.


Postdoc with full-time appointment while doing business part-time I understand that postdocs can be too busy to even sleep, but if we put this aside - would US school allow a postdoc (full time appointment) having his/her own business in spare time? If so, what kind of regulation is applied here? Also, would the mentor be annoyed/alerted by this kind of planning?

I guess the field of the business also matters. For example, if the business is related with research the postdoc is doing, it is probably highly restricted; while being a landlord is something completely different.

Any thought? Thank you in advance.

We try not to give legal advice on this forum, so the legal question of whether or not (and if so how) you can have a business on the side is one that you probably need to ask a potential employer.

But I do want to comment on a separate point. As you point out, being a postdoc is a tiring phase of your life. In essence, people who want to be postdocs do so because they aspire to getting faculty positions in their next career step. I suspect that that is the same for you.

The reason why being a postdoc is so tiring is because you're competing with others for these few faculty positions: it's not necessarily that your job description requires you to work 60 hours a week, but that you feel like you need to because you see all of these other postdocs crank out 3 or 4 papers a year, and these other postdocs are your competition. So, if you are thinking of running a business on the side, then you need to be aware of the fact that that curtails your productivity compared to other postdocs, and that that in itself curtails your chances to get a faculty positions because you will have less to show on your CV.

If you know that your chances of getting a faculty position will be significantly diminished, and you still keep your side business, then you ought to ask yourself why you want to become a postdoc.


Medically undiagnosed condition: how to inform? I am currently a final year grad student. Sometime last year, I developed severe pain in one of my hands which led to a lot of time lost. I have seen some of the best doctors in the country for my condition (I am doing my PhD at a hospital so that helped) but we have not been able to narrow down on any diagnosis. Through out this time my supervisor has been super supportive and helpful; he even helped me arrange a few consultations. My PhD committee (which monitors my progress among other things) has also been mostly supportive. A few months ago, the pain began to subside (could be on its own, could be medicines helping). I communicated this to the committee members last month (who have usually been concerned and periodically checking up on me).

A couple of weeks ago the pain is back suddenly and this time it is in both my hands. This has put me in a difficult spot work-wise and I feel that I might end up losing some more time if the pain persists.

Therefore, the premise of my question is: I have medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). In general people really have low tolerance for such conditions and often think "its all in the head".

My questions are:

1) How do I deal with telling my committee members that I am in severe pain once again? Given that I just told them last month that I was doing fine and that I do not have a diagnosis, I am afraid I might come across as someone using my illness as an excuse for reduced productivity.

2) I am due to submit my thesis in June. I am interested in applying for post-doctoral positions (most likely in Europe). Should I let my future boss know about my condition? I feel that it would be unfair to not let them know given that my pain can lead to (significant) loss of work time; however, since I do not even have a diagnosis I don't even know how should I go about disclosing it to them.

3) At this stage it looks like I might have to deal with pain on a long term basis. Should I expect discrimination (not legally, of course) in academia simply because I might not be as productive as other people? Any advise on how to deal with this kind of situation?

I have read some other related questions (for example, this) but I feel that my situation is slightly different given MUS.

Edit: I am currently doing my PhD in India

I think you should inform your thesis comittee about your current situation. Best case, they are understanding, worst case they will ignore it for PhD-related matters. It might help to get a sick note from an independent professional even if the diagnosis is difficult.

As to your second question, I would suggest to not disclose any health issues in the hiring process for the same reasons as stated in your linked questions, unless the position is specifically advertised as 'disabled applicants preferred' which I believe is a thing in Germany, for example.

Regarding your third question, I cannot say in general whether discrimination is to be expected. Depending on your condition and country of future employment, there may however be laws in place to protect you from discrimination against your condition.
I can only offer limited advice on how to deal with discrimination otherwise, but coping strategies against pain may be of interest to you in case of chronic problems, and may be subsidized by (potentially employer-paid) health care.


talk with professors about prospective graduate study Following some tips about graduate study, I have contacted the professors before the admission cycle, and managed to secure some appointments with them. I have read through their publications that match my research interests, and prepared some brief write up about my research experiences (though I had sent them my CV beforehand).

I am just confused about what I should expect from such meetings. To be frank, do you think to impress them to the point that they agree to accept me is a feasible thing? Or I should aim for something simpler, like maintaining relationships with them through this semester?

As a rule, I think such meetings are a bad idea.  At a minimum you should go in with no admissions agenda.  If you are interested in research and only research I think the meeting will go well.  But if your real agenda is to help the admissions process, they will read through the facade and probably be annoyed.


What happens if the speaker dies on the way to the conference? Suppose that two collaborators sent a paper to a conference which was very far away (say, from US to Australia). After the paper was accepted, one of the authors took the flight to the venue, and died on the way.

Conferences generally require someone to present their work for their paper to appear in proceedings. However, in this situation, it is nobody's fault.

Is there a rule or a specific implementation for such cases?

It is up to the conference committee to decide in exceptional circumstances. This is probably all that can be said about this.


Just started a postdoc, but it went REALLY bad, REALLY fast. Stay or go? I just started my 2-yr postdoc, but things have gone sour really fast. So, I really need some career advice as to what to do.
Over several months, I did the interviews with the supervisor and the lab and things seems to be really great (although I got a strange feeling that the lab members were trying to deter me from joining, see below).

I joined the lab last week, and the condition of the lab and the equipment was really poor (but the supervisor said it was great...), but I got along with the supervisor and the lab great. However, this week took a turn for the worse. My supervisor has been vicious with me for several days and we have had a major conflict almost everyday this week, which I believe is a bad sign when something like this happens when starting a position. The other members of the lab said that the supervisor is frequently is overbearing, micromanages, and has "lost it" on them for reasons as asking for vacation. As I said, I met with these lab members via Skype over the summer and I felt that there were trying to warn me not to join the lab, and today they confessed that this was true. One of the lab members did file a complaint against the supervisor. The situation was that the supervisor typically makes numerous phone calls during weekends and the one time the lab member did not answer, the supervisor was furious with her. She then made a complaint to the appropriate person in the department.

I am concerned about the supervisor and more concerned that this is not going to help my career at all since the mentoring by this supervisor is poor quality (this is how the other lab members feel after being there for almost 2 years. They are leaving immediately after that). She has promised a good work environment, additional pay to the NIH base pay, flexible time off and great equipment, but all of this is not true. The other lab members confirmed that this happened to them too. Basically, this supervisor promises a lot of things and does not deliver.

So with all of that being said, is it wise for me to leave ASAP and look for a better opportunity OR is it best to stay put and complete the 2-year postdoc (or most of it). I don't favor leaving a job this soon and would rather give things a chance, but this place has been extremely BAD. Furthermore, the lab members feel that this is not a good workplace and confirm that the behavior of the supervisor will continue (they have their reasons for staying, but really regret joining). For these reasons, I don't feel staying is beneficial to be perfectly honest.

I would rather not have to ask for advice about this, but I am in an uncomfortable situation and any advice is extremely appreciated. Hopefully I expressed this clearly... I'm kind of a mess right now.

EDIT:
I have resigned from the position. But, I have obtained a new position with someone I know well and has helped the careers of people I know. Aside from the conflict with the supervisor and the experiences of other people in the lab, the position I'm resigning from just does not offer any development for my career as per my impression prior to arriving in the lab. Unfortunately, what attracted me to this position was not the reality. Even giving this position more time would not change the condition of the equipment I have to work with (and the lack of equipment), the lack of safety practices in the lab, nor would it change the supervisor's lack of organization, leadership and the control of her emotions.
Also, I discovered that all of the current lab members plan on leaving within the next few months. Past/current postdocs typically do not last more than 2 years.

With all else the same, given an choice between staying in a bad situation that cannot be resolved or leaving it, the decision is easy.

Of course, all is never exactly the same. When the balance is uneven, I hold at the point where you are that following your passions and desire for healthy growth is the most important factor. You can and will end up in situations where leaving has worse consequences than staying and you must therefore resolve the issues at hand or let go (and stay where you are). Is this case really to that point for you? I sense not.

As you weigh the various concerns, realize that you owe the lab only the respect that you will never be dishonest. The promptly, professionally delivered statement that "I am leaving because this is not the fit that I really wanted" is all that is required at the end of the day.


Is having a job that you love an advantage or disadvantage when applying for a Masters? I'm currently applying to a masters program in a field unrelated to my current line or work. I am lucky to have a job that I love in a different field. Will this make the admissions committee question my commitment to their program? I am satisfied with my current job, but the Masters would enable me to try and do my dream job.

In case it's relevant, my PhD is in physics, and the Masters is in Computer Game Engineering. I am applying to a one year, full time taught Masters at a UK institution. (Related to this question.)

If it is a full time master, I strongly advise you against having a job, especially a full-time one, at the same time. I don't know what the degree you're applying for looks like, but a master's course is usually pretty demanding and requires a lot of personal work. By pursuing two full-time activities at the same time, I think you put both of them at risk.


Thesis experiment done by others I started my masters with semi finished experiment by my supervisor, and h suggested to do more experiments to include them in my thesis.
However, after year and a half, the other methods we were using failed to show any results (the cells were not growing)!
My supervisor told me not to worry and he will let me have the previous results and methodology to be in my thesis since we couldn't conduct more experiments on other specific cells.
My question: is it ok to do so? I haven't done that experiment myself!

This is ok (happens all the time, because usually you do not have severaly years for a big project), as long as you make sure the your citation is done right. Just don't claim you did the other experiments and you will be fine. (I know this should be clear. I just mentioned it, because I know of a case where that apparently wasn't clear enough...)


Is the ETH Zurich part of the University of Zurich? I'm wondering if the ETH Zurich is part of the University of Zurich. Not only are they build close together, according to Google there are famous graduates of the ETH that are also listed as graduates of the University of Zurich(for example Einstein). I couldn't find an answer on neither of their websites.

Some quotes from Wikipedia:

ETH is a federal institute (i.e., under direct administration by the Swiss government), whereas the University of Zürich is a cantonal institution. […] In the beginning, both universities were co-located in the buildings of the University of Zürich.
[…]
Events of the neighboring University of Zürich are well-attended by ETH students and vice versa.
[…]
The amicable rivalry between ETH and the neighbouring University of Zürich has been cultivated since 1951 […]


Choosing a title to hold upon completion of a doctoral degree: "Dr." vs. "Ph.D." Possible Duplicate:
  EU Ph.D. in Germany: Calling yourself “Dr.” or “Ph.D.”

I'm asking this question in relation to my doctoral studies in Germany. However, my question may be relevant to regulations in other European countries.

At the university where I pursue my doctorate, I have the choice between two titles. Upon successfully completion of my dissertation and all related examinations I can decide which title I want to hold: "Dr. rer. nat." or "Ph.D.".

In Germany, the traditional title is "Dr.". From what I understand the title "Ph.D." is being introduced at many universities for reasons of comparability with degrees from other countries (especially with the US and the UK). I'm guessing, the reasoning is that holding a "Ph.D." will improve your chances when applying for (academic) openings internationally. However, I have also been told that the German "Dr." has an excellent international reputation and may give you an edge over "Ph.D.".

EDIT: A couple of years ago, legal steps were taken so that a "Ph.D." issued by other European countries is automatically recognized in Germany (as long as the issuing institutions are eligible) and may be "translated" to "Dr." in Germany. There is also a question related to this here. However, a "Ph.D." issued in Germany may not be "translated" to "Dr."! Therefore, I have to decide for either one and cannot use both.

Hence, my question is: What are the advantages and disadvantages of either title with respect to academic careers in Germany and internationally? Is a "Ph.D." seen as less distinguished by German academics? How is the German "Dr." perceived by academics in other countries as compared with a "Ph.D."?

I'll add a bit of a legal perspective into the game. Disclaimer: I hold a Dr. rer. nat. from Germany, though lived and worked in several other countries in the EU.

Firstly, personally I think, that "choosing a title" and seeing it as an important issue, is largely a German/Austrian/(Central European?) specialty. After all, why should your title matter outside academia, where the difference is anyway largely understood around the world?

Secondly, even when you hold some title from country X, you are not automatically eligible to use it across the border, even given there exists an equivalent one in the other country. Rather, there are legal procedures which lead to a formal recognition and proper translation of your title. So for me, being a "Dr." with a title from Germany, to be able to use either "Dr.", or "PhD" in other EU countries, especially those east of Germany, I would have to either undergo a formal procedure called nostrification, or, in selected cases, if the university is granting an equivalent degree in my specialization, they could forgo the nostrification hassle and they could recognize it right away (rather and exception to the rule). Either way, you need to obtain a formal certificate from the state, or at least the university, stating exactly how your title translates to an equivalent title in the other country. Only then you can use the title freely. To top it up, the whole matter is regulated by bi-lateral international treaties between countries exactly stating which title holders are eligible to use which titles in the other country and how. See for example the treaty on grades recognition between Czech Republic and Germany. There even is a full website in Germany on all this (mostly for foreign title holders wanting to use them in Germany).

To sum it up, there is a whole lot to simply using an academic title in a country different from the one you obtained it in. This can be straightforward in countries where the culture doesn't care too much (in my experience e.g., Netherlands), but in countries where the title can be legally a part of your name (not sure whether it still is the case), such as almost whole Austrian-Hungarian empire heritage countries, this can be a big deal.

My point is the following: It's probably irrelevant which title you choose. If you want to be precise, legally speaking, somebody probably already translated your title to another one (which you can't choose) which you should adopt in other countries.

Apart from all that above, I regularly see people approaching me in e-mails, or letters by both "Dr. XYZ", as well, as "XYZ, PhD" - not speaking of those not checking the background and virtually promoting me to levels I do not belong to (yet). Again, the precise title doesn't matter that much after all.

Later edit, on a more anecdotal note:

  the precise title doesn't matter that much after all

Well, except when you want to use the title for things like skipping a queue when visiting a doctor and being treated very respectfully by all the nurses (Germany), or when encountering police, getting away with only with a warning and avoiding a fine for speeding, or other minor trespassing (countries eastwards of Germany). I have first-hand knowledge of such incidents, so my advice here would be to 1) go for the fanciest possible title, yet it should be widely recognized by general public, and 2) if your country of residence allows it, include the title on your ID card, passport, social security ID, whatever else, so that you can wave it when necessary :-D.


Publish own work online, ethics and platform My question is similar to this. If someone wants to publish his work in the medical field, for free but without a review process, how is this seen by the academic world? Are there any online services or platforms that provide this service? Is this usually seen as a problem by the institution in which one may work?

how is this seen by the academic world?

Generally speaking, as inferior to a peer-reviewed paper. But the 'academic world' is made up of a lot of different people. Assuming you have conducted a high-quality study, the extent to which a reader would consider your findings valid or robust or believable really depends on how they feel about the value added by peer-review. Given the growing evidence of the inadequacy of peer-review, the academic world may increasingly see this type of publication as acceptable. But I would suggest that we are not there yet. A more important question for the context of medical research might relate to how the clinical world would see it.

  Are there any online services or platforms that provide this service?

Yes. For example, PeerJ Preprints.

  Is this usually seen as a problem by the institution in which one may
  work?

In terms of medical research I would say it definitely would be seen as a problem if used as an alternative (rather than a complement) to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. At an absolute minimum, your institution would probably expect your research output to be indexed by PubMed. If, however, you use the preprint route as a complement to publication in a peer-reviewed journal then it should not be seen as a problem in itself. It could become a problem if your target journal does not accept papers previously published an another form.


How much does it hurt one's application to try the GRE again? I'm applying for mathematics PhD programs and I got 162 on the quantitative GRE exam (I didn't prepare for it at all). As I thought this would probably be a good grade and I don't like spending 200 bucks for nothing, I reported the scores to some universities I would really like to go to (e.g. UIUC, Berkeley). However, it ends up being in the 82 percentile, which I'm not sure is great. I think I have a reasonably strong profile (strong letters of recommendation, lots of graduate classes, high GPA, scholarship to study for a couple months at a high-regarded european university etc.), but I'm worried that this not-so-great quant score would keep me away from top mathematics programs. If I retake the test and get a better grade, will my previous score hurt me somehow?

The first score will very likely not matter if you do better the second time.  Most programs look only at the best score a student has on their record.  Officially, that's what my program does.  Unofficially, if you had a really low score the first time you too the exam, it would raise a red flag, and we might go looking for some other reason not to admit you.  However, an 82 percentile on the first try, if you take the test again and do better, is not going alarm anyone.


Are there any high profile cases of conflict of interest in research? I am going to do a presentation about academic ethics for my class, and one of the themes are conflict of interest. As of now I have found only generic examples, such as research done with corporate funding, but never concrete examples. In addition, most concrete examples, I presume, are dull and minor. So are there any high profile case I can refer to as demonstration?

The manipulation of research and press coverage by the tobacco industry on the health effects of smoking would make an excellent case study (see e.g. Bero, 2005), not least as many leaked internal documents have come to light over the years which leave no doubt as to this having been a deliberate policy.

  One infamous internal memo from the Brown & Williamson tobacco
  company, typed up in the summer of 1969, sets out the thinking very
  clearly: “Doubt is our product.” Why? Because doubt “is the best means
  of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the
  general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

-- The problem with facts, Tim Harford

Just one example would be the attempt to refute an influential Japanese study on the effects of passive smoking. The actual employees of the industry were left off the study to confer some distance ("ghost authors")

  The tobacco industry generated a study, the “Japanese spousal study,”
  in an attempt to refute the findings of a 1981 cohort study showing an
  association between secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke and lung
  cancer

  The parties involved in conducting the study
  included a tobacco industry scientist, a tobacco industry consultant,
  an industry law firm, and two Japanese investigators. The consultant
  was the sole author of the final publication

-- Hong and Bero (2002)

Interestingly, the picture is not completely negative, as Big Tobacco's policy of "distraction research" (funding unrelated research for good PR) led to some important high profile discoveries and Nobel Prizes.

  Prusiner is a neurologist. In 1972, he was a young researcher who’d
  just encountered a patient suffering from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
  It was a dreadful degenerative condition then thought to be caused by
  a slow-acting virus. After many years of study, Prusiner concluded
  that the disease was caused instead, unprecedentedly, by a kind of
  rogue protein. The idea seemed absurd to most experts at the time, and
  Prusiner’s career began to founder. Promotions and research grants
  dried up. But Prusiner received a source of private-sector funding
  that enabled him to continue his work. He was eventually vindicated in
  the most spectacular way possible: with a Nobel Prize in Medicine in
  1997. In his autobiographical essay on the Nobel Prize website, Prusiner thanked his private-sector benefactors for their “crucial”
  support: RJ Reynolds, maker of Camel cigarettes.

-- The problem with facts, Tim Harford

Bero L. A. (2005) Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Reports. 120(2):200-208.

Hong, M.-K., & Bero, L. A. (2002). How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 325(7377), 1413–1416.


How to properly reference a source when almost exact copy? I am currently writing a piece of work, mainly studying some theory developed in a particular article. I did my best to be clear whether it was one of my own comment concerning the subject or material, eventually rephrased, coming from the article.

But now, I need to copy a large section from the article. There is no point in modifying the section, it is actually a list of hypothesis written in a mathematical fashion, and rephrasing it would be unclear. So well, maybe I changed a bit the formulation of a few things, or changed the order of the list to fit the way I present the things, but really cosmetic changes.

How should I cite that ? I guess (as it is not exactly copy/paste) no "", but then what ? I already mentioned that the whole work was closely related to the article, but I feel uncomfortable copying the section without knowing how to reference it.

Copying is of course not good. But, it is always possible to use a quote. This can be done by either use quotes or in your case to state that you are providing a copy of the list provided by the author.. In your case I think you can easily say something like "Following "cited author" (yyyy) we can define the problem as ..." and then follow up by rewriting the list you mention. It should then be very clear that what you write follows what the cited author has written. The exact phrasing might be slightly different but along the lines I outlined.


Changing fields after PhD, master or post-doc? I am not far away from finishing a PhD in molecular toxicology, however with time i have gotten more and more interested in topics such as renewable energy, environmental/climate science and engineering. My education so far is not completely alien to environmental science, but my background heavily oriented towards molecular biology so i lack basic knowledge about things relating to renewables, climate systems and field work. Another big factor is also that non-academic jobs in my current field do not interest me at all.
So what would be the best route for me if i wanted to move towards these fields, get a new master or try to land post-docs incrementally closer to where i want to be?

I don't expect this to be the best answer (I am not from these fields), however what I'd do in your place would be researching websites of environmental science departments and research groups in order to find some topics/projects for which your qualification up to now makes some sense or adds some relevant competence. There even may be postdoc positions, however maybe you can ask for some project or internship work. Maybe also there are some biologically oriented temporary teaching jobs in such departments, which could enable you to get into the community.
In the meantime try to read and learn, and try to get into contact with people. I can't guarantee it of course but sometimes opportunities open up when looking for them in a determined way. And surely try to make use of your already achieved qualifications, try to connect things somehow.


Paraphrasing course titles on resume Under the Education section of my resume, I have relevant courses listed for a position I'm applying for. Some of the courses have titles that are vague and do not convey their relevance well. Is it acceptable to paraphrase the course title in a way that does?

If it's sufficiently important for you to list the courses taken, and a transcript may be sent, then it's probably best to list the original course titles. Any summaries of the content should be placed as a comment afterward. For instance:

  Widgets and Doohickies (Whatchamacallit Theory).


Why does a UK university need to know my sexual orientation and religion? I want to apply to a postdoc position at a UK based University.

They want me to fill a "Equal Opportunities Data" form with questions about my marital status, sexual orientation, religion and race. Why do they need that? Will there be any consequences from not specifying these?

Will the employing professor have access to the data?

The employing professor will not have access to this data.
You can omit anything in this form.
The data from this form goes to HR and is aggregated there so they can prove to auditing bodies that the staff distribution is not skewed (i.e. that they are not discriminating on basis of whatever)


How to tactfully "decommit" from projects? As a young academic recently flown from the nest, I am starting to figure out my own research interests. I now feel like I have too many, though. During a postdoc where I struggled to fit in and produce papers, I started or agreed to take part in something like 8 projects, a couple of them well outside my field, requiring the acquisition of new skills. I've tried principal-component-like analysis to prioritize projects, splitting my week up into chunks of time devoted to particular projects, and various other methods to make meaningful progress. I think, though, I really just need to decommit myself from a couple projects or push them off by six months. What is the best way to do this without building up a bad reputation and alienating future collaborators? Or will most senior folk understand the situation as the mistakes of a young buck and not take it personally?

Better to withdraw explicitly rather than just disappear.

After you decide which are the projects that you can and must stick with, go to the leader(s) of the others - in person - and tell them you must withdraw. Tell them your "youthful enthusiasm" overcame your good sense and you are in danger of shortchanging everyone's expectations and that you value their work too much to get in the way at this time.

A good time to be a bit honest and humble.

But this sort of thing has to be done face to face. Email isn't going to be a good vehicle. If face to face is actually impossible it is much harder. In such cases you may want to offer, in email, say, to stay connected but to take a lesser role. That is the sort of thing that would likely come up in a personal meeting in any case.

Note that you don't have to be a youth to have "youthful enthusiasm". See, for example: Paul McCartney age 73


How can I make my engineering MSc dissertation look professional? Obligatory apology if this is off topic...

I'm struggling to make my MSc dissertation look professional.

I've been told that academic documents such as PhD theses are often written in/using TeX, but I am not familiar with this and I can't say it's the right time for me to learn how to use it.

Does anyone have some advise on what fonts, formatting styles etc. are acceptable/preferred in academia?

P.S. I'm using MS Word.

It is important to use format templates i.e. do not format a heading as 12pt and bold but format it as "heading 1" (and change the properties of a heading 1 as you like). Also for the flow-text and figure captions use the Word in-build features instead of doing it manually. By this way you can change the whole document within seconds if you are unhappy with the layout. And yes, you can make your word document look exactly like a TeX this way. In my opinion learning TeX is not worth it (I wrote my MSc and PhD thesis in TeX) as you will hardly need it every again (I never used it again after my PhD) as any type of later collaborative work will most likely be done in Word.
Word is very mighty if you use it correctly but few people use it that way.


Why do departments fund PhD students instead of postdocs? If I'm not mistaken, most PhD students (at least in the sciences, which is the field I'm most interested in) are funded. They're provided with a stipend, and all tuition fees are waived. In other words, it's effectively a low-paying job for them. My question is, why fund PhD students instead of postdocs?

I'm dismissing the altruistic reason ("we fund PhD students as a service to the community") immediately since it doesn't make sense - presumably if someone is spending money in this fashion, they'd fund need-based scholarships. The only other reason I can think of is that the department wants something out of the PhD students - presumably research output; can't think of anything else - that they think they're getting a good deal on.

Now according to Google, the typical PhD stipend is about $20-25k / year. Meanwhile, the typical postdoc is paid $47k / year. That means that a department can hire approximately one postdoc per two PhD students. To that we can add:

Postdocs have already been trained; PhD students are in training. Postdocs should hit the ground running while PhD students take time to get up to par.
PhD students especially in 5-year programs spend the first couple of years taking courses, i.e. not doing research work.
Postdocs can do other things like supervise Masters students that PhD students can't.
PhD students apparently have a high attrition rate, as high as 50%. Postdocs have been in the business longer, so presumably are also more aware of what they're going into.

It seems more sensible to me that departments should concentrate all funding on postdocs, and leave PhD students to pay for their own education. This is already the case for undergraduate studies. Why do departments continue to fund PhD students?

"I'm dismissing the altruistic reason"

Therein lies one of the biggest problems with your question. I work for a land-grant state university in the U.S. Our mission includes education. It's not an altruistic reason, it's literally why we exist.

The other flaw in your question is assuming that the money to hire these two groups is fungible - it isn't always. For example, there are grant programs where education of graduate students is a major component of what one is supposed to be doing - "we're going to hire a postdoc" is simply a non-alloweable use of funding.

There are some other nice features of graduate students to consider as well:

They're cheaper. While a postdoc is probably more value for complex activities, there are sometimes things that require some expertise, but not a full-blown PhDs worth. Masters and early-stage PhD students are excellent people to conduct literature reviews, field collection, etc.
You can identify promising researchers early. Lets say you see someone in undergraduate courses whose impressed you. If you only recruited postdocs, you're essentially saying "Look me up in 6 to 8 years, I'd love to work with you." If you recruit graduate students, you can usher them into their research career.
You get them for longer. Postdocs are (by and large) transient positions, and much of their time may be taken up by looking (rightly) for another position. In many labs, especially those without long-term technicians, graduate students may actually have more institutional knowledge.


How to handle a title (PostDoc) I consider misleading? I have been granted a Marie Curie fellowship recently, and as some of you might know, one of the requirements is a PhD or 4 years of equivalent research experience (This question is related to that). Now, the contract issued from the host institution and the paperwork from the funding administrator set my role as Post-Doctoral Researcher.

Given that I don't have a PhD and applied based on the research experience item, I don't feel it is correct to have that title. Actually, I think this could be misleading and don't know how could this impact my career/reputation.

Should I ask to change this title? Does it matter in the end? or as long as I disclose I am "PostDoc researcher" because it was the title given for the role?

Here is another related question

In my experience, "postdoc" isn't even treated as a title, and what your contract says is your job title is kind of irrelevant, because you can write it up however you want on your CV.  My contract says I'm a "scientific researcher," but I have what is generally considered a postdoctoral position (because it's after the doctorate), and I alternate between both descriptions depending on the context.  Outside of academia, no one really knows what "postdoc" or "scientific researcher" mean anyway, so I call myself a "mathematician"-- a title which isn't written on any official documentation anywhere.  Furthermore, no one is going to address you by the title on your contract.  No one has ever referred to me as "Postdoc Moonlet" or "Scientific Researcher Moonlet."  The only title I use sometimes is "Dr." (which is ok, because I have the degree to back it up).

As long as you're not telling people to call you a doctor, I don't think there's anything to worry about.


What are the most important factors to consider when deciding the time to teach a course? I'm starting as an Assistant Professor at an R1 university, and will be teaching my first undergraduate course (~2.5h/week) in the Spring of 2021. I've been asked if I have a preferred teaching time. What are some factors to consider when deciding the class time? Is there a specific time that should be avoided at all costs?

Some students don't like to get up early in the morning, so attendance can suffer then.

Just after lunch (or supper) can be hard as people can get drowsy.

None of that is necessarily a problem if the course is interesting and you have a way to keep them active.


Eagle Scout rank on CV? Q:  Should I keep Eagle Scout (the highest rank attainable in the Boy Scouting program of the Boy Scouts of America) on my CV?

I do not think that this is an appropriate item to include on a CV.  However, CV is loosely translated as ''the course of my life'', and this is an achievement that takes a lot of perseverance, and something that is earned and not just given away.  It requires a significant amount of time and volunteer work to complete a project that gives back to your community and also shows leadership and management skills which, you don't normally acquire until a little further in your academic career, but shows the ability to do so.

Is this award detrimental to include? looked down upon by hiring committees? not even given a second glance?

I have not found a satisfactory answer for this.

If it is kept on the CV, where should it go, i.e. award or outreach (both I think would be appropriate items, and it may be that if deficient in one or the other, one could move it around).

I wouldn't include it.  I doubt it makes much of a difference, but you yourself say it's not an appropriate item. I agree.

To expand a little bit, let me say this: the things you should put on your CV are those that directly connect to the job you want to have.  Something like a job you had in an unrelated field is worthwhile in that it shows you were employed and not a hobo, but most other things that aren't really directly part of your career (jobs, education, publications, info about teaching, conference presentations, grants, etc.) is just a distraction, and will make it look like you are padding.  I think high school achievements are especially bad in that they focus things too much in the past.  Nothing on my CV goes earlier than my junior year of college (and probably I should cut that; nobody cares where I studied abroad).

Of course, it's good to have lots of things to list on your CV, but you also want to keep the average high.  There are only a few things on there that are really important, and you don't want to distract people from what they are.

It would be great to discuss your experience as an Eagle Scout in a personal conversation, say if you have an informal dinner or drinks during an interview, but I just don't think the CV is the place for it.

EDIT: A point which a deleted answer raised also occurs to me: one reason to avoid putting extraneous things on your CV is that you can't control what associations people reading it might have.  For example, the Boy Scouts of America have stirred up a lot of controversy with their stances on homosexuality, and for many people that maybe be the first thing that pops to mind.  It's unfair to connect one scout to that, but people aren't logical.  They read "Eagle Scout," they think homophobia, and they have a negative reaction to your application that they weren't even conscious of.

I recently read an application for graduate school by a student who listed on their CV membership in some political groups with which I vehemently disagree.  I don't think that should affect my judgement of their file (luckily, I'm not on the committee, so I didn't have to try to make a judgement), but I honestly did not want to know about that aspect of their lives.  I'm sure they thought it showed something about leadership, but to me it looked like very poor judgement.


Advisor is Moving -- Should I Quit Grad School? I am currently just finishing up my 2nd year as a PhD student in the life sciences. I was informed about 10 months ago that my advisor and our entire lab will be moving to another University this summer. I agreed to join my advisor (I will remain enrolled at a student at my current university and would earn my PhD from here) and would finish my remaining research at the new university.

Over the past month and a half I have been feeling increasingly depressed and anxious about moving and just thinking of all I need to do in order to complete my degree over the next 2-3 years has my head spinning (I am told it is normal to feel this way while in grad school, but with the added stress of moving I am not so sure I can handle it all). Additionally, I am unsure of whether or not I can handle working with my advisor over the next several years as he has become increasingly irritable during the moving process and is often very micromanaging and demeaning to me and other lab members during meetings.

At this point I am working on a manuscript for one project I started working on a year and a half ago but still have a lot of planning to do for my next projects. I have been contemplating moving to another lab simply because I am not sure if I have the self-esteem to continue working in the lab I am currently in. My advisor has a track record of producing very successful students, but at this point I question whether or not I will even be able to make it through.

I love science (if I left the program with a master's I would want to work in industry), and sometimes my anxiety and depressed feelings go away when I have a really cool or interesting idea for a project, but my enthusiasm for science is slowly waning. I suppose my question is if these feelings or thoughts are normal to have midway during a PhD and are just exacerbated by the stress of moving, or are they signs that research is not for me?

Your advisor may be under a great deal of stress too -- so you may want to take that into account.

You could:

Decide you've gone far enough with your studies (for now, at least), and withdraw from the program, giving yourself a pat on the back for the hard work you've put in so far.
Apply and transfer to the other university.  Many people do this when their advisor goes somewhere else.
Remain formally enrolled in your current university, but do all your practical work in the new place.
Stay where you are but work with someone else.

Only you can decide.


Get in touch with potential advisors, although I have no clue what my topic might be? I am in the Humanities, and I have a rough idea about the general field I want to work in. I have identified several professors who also work in this field. However, I am not sure how I can now find a topic for my dissertation. I am reading and reading, but as of now, I do not have a great idea.

I was thinking of getting in touch with the professors who might be potential advisors, but I am not sure whether that's a good idea considering I do not know my topic at all. I do not want to come across as naive - esp. since they are all at prestigious institutions.

If you think it is a good idea to get in touch, then I am still clueless about how to go about this, and what to write. I want to be honest but would like to avoid looking like a fool.

PS: I am in the Humanities, I think it's important for this question.

I don't think it is a good idea to contact them for several reasons. First, by your own admission, you do not know what you wish to focus on. Bear in mind your competitors probably already have a specific research question in hand. Second, even if you do have a research question at hand, academics in social sciences/humanities generally do not respond (of course, I can't speak for everyone) to potential candidates' emails prior to their official submission or consideration. That is to say, your prior email, in theory, has no effect on whether the professor would positively view your application that way.


Is there a way to find review articles by the keyword? When I search for papers using some keywords in academic databases (like Google Scholar), there are lots of papers, but I would like to read literature reviews first because I’m new in that area. (By literature reviews, I mean article-length papers that analyze existing work on a specific topic.)

So I think it would be helpful for me if there were a way to find literature reviews using the keyword or using the paper’s title. I want to categorize papers I’ve found by its document type (research, survey, review, etc).

What I've tried is using a specific academic database (ScienceDirect), which provides an advanced search, in which one can filter the paper by its type (original research article, review article, short survey, etc) – but I feel some limitations of this method.
I think I can also do this by adding the word review to my keywords for searching or by reading a paper’s abstract, number of references and guessing whether it is review article or not.

Is there a more efficient way to find review articles by the keyword?

(My research area is computer science.)

UPDATE

"feel some limitations" in my post, I'm not sure but it seems that ScienceDirect only searches for literatures that belongs to ElseVier company. I think It doesn't cover the journal articles well, comparing to e.g) Google Scholar so I said I feel some limitations of it

To me, using academic citation databases (such as Scopus or Web of Knowledge) is the obvious choice for these types of searches, since they have option for filtering on article type (which Google Scholar doesn't have). You haven't explained why you "... feel some limitations.." when using ScienceDirect, so it is hard to know exactly what you feel is lacking. If your issue is that it is a closed subscription platform, you can also use PubMed, which can also filter search results on article type (as review[Publication Type] in advanced search or by clicking on "Review" in the left panel when viewing search results). The main issue with PubMed is that it has a smaller coverage than the other databases, at least in some fields of science.


Is it ethical for me to hire research assistant as a part-time PhD to help with secondary data collection? I'm just wondering to what extent I can hire someone to collect data for me. This would be secondary data, collecting patient records from clinics. I have no clue how to organize data or use databases, so the research assistant would also be helping me do that. I would, of course, be reading the patient records and interpreting them into specific variables (such as did this patient have a heart problem: Y/N).

My full-time job is at the university working for a project under a PI who is not my PhD supervisor.
The project funding has run out that we cannot pay for our team's salary.
I applied for some funding as the PI on the project and got some extra funding.
I could use the funding coming in from the new project to cover our team's salary and also utilize the team's research assistant to collect the data for the new project and for my PhD thesis at the same time.

The project only needs data to caluculate the prevalence of heart problems whilst my intention for my thesis is to find out risk factors for these heart problems. I would only ask to further collect a years worth of history for each patient with a heart problem.
I think this arrangement I could kill two birds with one stone but I am worried about the implications such as how much of the work should be all mine for my PhD thesis. Also, I wouldn't have to pay out of pocket to hire someone to do this for me as I'm only getting paid 81k per year.

In terms of academic honesty, there is in principle nothing unethical about using data that was collected by someone else, subject to all involved parties agreeing to this of course. Collecting sufficiently large clinical datasets is a long and complicated process, and there are entire departments specifically created to manage such databases and provide data to researchers. Papers solely analysing and re-analysing such publicly available data are very common in epidemiology, bioinformatics, statistical genetics etc., so that definitely will not be an obstacle to publish.
However, your supervisor and thesis committee may have different expectations about the work that you will do and skills that you will obtain during your PhD. Some issues that might come up are:

Are you outsourcing something that you are expected to learn during your PhD? Is the "database use and organization" something very menial, or too computational to be relevant for your field? Otherwise maybe you can do a part the process by yourself, and thus show that you have acquired enough knowledge of it?
Usually there are some regulations on how much time & effort you should put into full time studies. If you do not do the data collection, will you be spending the same amount of time on some other academic work, beneficial to the project/lab?
Is there sufficient scientific advance/intellectual contribution/novelty remaining in your thesis, when viewed separately from the data collection? This one is the most difficult to judge. In the eyes of thesis examiners, doing some "menial" work often pushes the candidate towards bench biology, and this takes away some scrutiny from other parts of the work (even though it shouldn't). For example, you might be expected to have a deeper understanding of your statistical models, have some sensitivity analyses, maybe comparison between different models or such.

As long as all the involved parties agree on these expectations, I don't see anything unethical about this path.
Now, whether you are legally allowed to use the new grant for this purpose is an entirely different question, and will be determined by the fund's conditions and your institution's hiring policies.