Should I take a summer class at my university or a community college? I am an economics major in my second year looking to pursue a master's in statistics after graduation. This semester I am taking calculus 2 and will be taking calculus 3 this coming summer. I am weighing the pros and cons of taking the class at a community college in my hometown. Obviously the class will be more rigorous at my university, but it would be far cheaper to take the class at a CC. Would taking the class at CC have an effect on applying to master's programs?

I am assuming this is the USA.
Before you take a course away from the university where you are enrolled, find out if the course credit will transfer.  Probably a minimum grade is required for transfer.  Courses that do not transfer will not help you complete your degree.  Rules vary.
Also, beware that courses can fill up.

Obviously the class will be more rigorous at my university

Well, maybe.  This would vary a lot.  The individual teaching it matters more than the institution.
Summer courses are often taught by different faculty from regular-semester courses.  This is true at both elite universities and community colleges.  Either way you are probably getting a surprise.

but it would be far cheaper to take the class at a CC.

This should be a very important consideration.

Would taking the class at CC have an effect on applying to master's programs?

No, but you will have to order a second transcript, which will be inconvenient.  It might have an effect if you took an advanced class from a community college.  That would cause confusion because community colleges normally have not got advanced classes.


Is there a negative stigma associated with choosing a university for non-academic reasons? I am considering a master's degree in Japan.

From a purely career oriented POV, I should be aiming for universities in the USA, Germany or Italy as these are the leading countries in my field. However, I have a great passion for Japanese culture and language. I have considered applying for the JET program, but I wish to avoid a 1-2 gap in my resume.

Would going for a Japanese university (instead of a stronger one) for personal reasons be seen as a bad thing? If so, would it leave a lasting mark and impede on my future career?

Assuming there is a negative stigma, why would you ever need to tell anyone why you picked the university you attended? Having a great passion for Japan and Japanese should be enough for anyone assuming you do an awesome project which you can and should do no matter where you go to school. This is especially true if you're likely to want to stay in Japan after your schooling to be an academic there, and it's a great reason to go to a Japanese university if you'd like to make a life there due to your passion.


How can (or should) I reference basic physics equations? I'm writing my first paper, so I'm unsure about the guidelines I should follow. The subject is within the field of mechatronics and computer simulation.

If I use some basic physics equation in it (say Newton's second law), should I always add some reference that validates this formula? Or such basic equations don't need to be validated?

If the answer to the above is no, then what if I introduce a lesser known physical model (such as Coulomb's friction model)? Should I then add some reference explaining it in detail to the reader?

Justifications are for claims you make that need to be justified. Everyone reading your paper will know about Newton's second law. Everyone reading one of my papers (in quantum theory) will know Schrodinger's equation. I don't think people generally cite them, because everyone will need to know them to understand anything in the paper even a little.

On the other hand, I don't know what "Coulomb's friction model" is off the top of my head. If you introduce this, you should cite it. In general, if it's something that's well-established (but not necessarily well-known) I often see people referencing a textbook. This is quite common for things like mathematical theories. If it's less well-established or more particular, find a paper or review article.

My main recommendation, however, is to learn from your surroundings. If you're writing a paper, you must be citing a lot of previous work. What do they say, and what do they cite? That can tell you what the expected norms are in your field.


How should references in non-Latin script language be treated in English paper? Let's say I want to cite a Russian text in my own paper which is written in English. Should I:

reference it as is, in the original Cyrillic alphabet, although the readers won't be able even to pronounce it?
transliterate the authors' names, while keeping the rest as is?
transliterate the names and translate the title of the work, journal name, etc. into English?

In general, this would depend on the style prescribed by your publisher (journal, conference, etc.) For instance, a blog post cites the Chicago style manual explains how one should go about sources in Chinese and Japanese:

  10.108: Inclusion of original characters

  Chinese and Japanese characters, immediately following the romanized version of the item they represent, are sometimes necessary to help readers identify references cited or terms used. They are largely confined to bibliographies and glossaries. Where needed in running text, they may be enclosed in parentheses. Computer technology has made it much easier than it used to be to typeset words in non-Latin alphabets.

  Hua Linfu 華林甫, “Qingdai yilai Sanxia diqu shuihan zaihai de chubu yanjiu” 清代以來三峽地區水旱災害的初步硏究 [A preliminary study of floods and droughts in the Three Gorges region since the Qing dynasty], Zhongguo shehui kexue 中國社會科學 1 (1999): 168–79 . . .

  Harry Harootunian and Sakai Naoki, “Nihon kenkyū to bunka kenkyū 日本研究と文化研究, Shisō 思想 7 (July 1997): 4–53.

  That year the first assembly of the national Diet was held and the Imperial Rescript on Education (kyōiku chokugo 敎育勅語) issued.

Harvard style and reference guide requires a translation, followed by the original name:

Milani, F. (2001) The Phantom of the Opera. [Le Fantome De L’Opera] Paris, LeRoux.


Include Shortlisted Awards? At undergrad level I was short-listed for the most prestigious award at my university (best graduate of that year). I however did not receive it. I did not get any paper or other evidence stating that I was short-listed. I only know this because my personal tutor told me. She also mentions it in her reference letter for me. Should I include this in my CV? Such as: Shortlisted for award X?

I will contradict Peter's answer: the CV is a living document, but it's one that needs to be supported by documentation. Something that cannot be proven should not be listed on a CV. If you only received a verbal confirmation that you were on the "short list" for an award, then you really don't have any documentation that you can provide, if called on to do so by a future employer.

Therefore, as much as it would be helpful to list such an award, I don't think it's a good idea to do so here.


Are letters of recommendation usually meant to be tailored to a specific programme? I am hoping to be applying for a PhD programme in the UK in the next few months. I have already asked the appropriate people if they would be up to writing me letters of recommendation and they responded positively and enthusiastically.

Now, I am not fully certain about the exact programmes I'll apply to. I have a few picked out but I'm also looking into a couple others - not really related to my original picks (think research in A vs. research in B by means of A.

Question: should my referees tailor their letters of recommendation to the specific programmes I'll be applying to, or is the convention usually for letters to be more destination-agnostic? Is it ok to ask a letter-writer to make the letter relevant to many degrees or asking for multiple separate letters is the usual practice?

When applying to a UK university nowadays, student normally fill out an online application where they will input their referees' email addresses/contact details.

The institution will then contact them automatically, usually via email, with some kind of form asking things like what percentile the students was in their class, give detail of their relationship with them, for how long etc. and sometimes a tick box 'would you recommend them for this course' question yes or no.

They would also be asked for qualitative data in the form of a letter of recommendation.  The could be free text or upload for a PDF or word doc (in my exp. it's always both).

However, in my experience, the prompt for the recommendation will have specific questions related to the course/area of research - eg comment on their ability to research such and such, do they have potential to research such and such.

So, your referees would likely be asked to provide some kind of course dependent information anyway.  Whether they copy and paste a reference from a previous letter, add a few lines to it or do a brand new one afresh is entirely up to them.

If you are applying for a PhD, I personally would expect you to have a fairly solid research topic and proposal in mind already.  Therefore, your references are likely to all need to support you in more or less the same capacity, and of course, you are the same person, so have similar references across different applications would be expected.

The only difference could be if you are applying for a specific project that is very different to PhD applications you have already made.  In which case, I would explain this to your referee and allow them to make up their mind as to whether they need to provide an extra bits to their ref doc for you.

Telling someone what to put in a reference is bad!  But explaining if there is a key difference would be helpful - perhaps make it clear when you request it at the outset.

Finally, remember that your profs can be trusted to give an accurate and appropriate reference for you - they after all receiving references for other students, so they know what is expected!

In sum:

Should my referees tailor their letters of recommendation to the specific programmes I'll be applying to, or is the convention usually for letters to be more destination-agnostic?

Leave it to your referee to decide, they will probably be asked context specific questions anyway, and the potential for variation is probably overstated.

Is it ok to ask a letter-writer to make the letter relevant to many degrees or asking for multiple separate letters is the usual practice?

If there is a genuine need, make it clear to the referee that there is a specific difference with or more applications that you are making.  Don't tell them what to say, but highlight the areas of difference.


International Students transferring between graduate programs I'm an international graduate student in my first year as a PhD candidate. I'm looking to transfer schools for two reasons-

I had a hard time here with my health in jeopardy, so I'm looking to move to a school which is close to my extended family.
My research interests seem to be more aligned with a different school, which I had not considered when initially applying abroad.

I have a good research background in my field, and a four year bachelor's degree from a highly accredited institution in my home country. While I've taken all the first year courses necessary at my current school, I'm just finishing up and I haven't chosen a permanent advisor yet because I'd like to consider transferring.

Is this possible? If yes, could you guide me on how this process works?
Thank you in advance.

Transferring schools is best done as soon as possible. Your first year credits may transfer seamlessly with another university, but the farther along you get the less likely the transfer will be successful. I would find someone at the university who has experience working with international students (there might even be an entire department dedicated to such) and ask specific questions of them (eg how to apply to another program, how to transfer in good standing etc). Then be in contact with the university that you wish to transfer to and make sure that you meet all of their requirements and apply for transfer prior to dropping out or officially leaving the program that you are in. You do not want to mess with your student visa etc, so make sure everything has transitioned successfully prior to withdrawing from your current location. Moving near family is a good idea, but also make sure that if you are really moving for health reasons that your health will be taken care of there. Make sure that the student health insurance will cover everything that you need for it to cover and that you can access specialists etc in the area that you are wanting to move to. Good luck!


Has anybody had any success with a college level "flipped classroom?" The "flipped classroom" seems quite successful and growing in popularity in high school. Students get their lectures at home from youtube or kahnacademy, write clarifying questions about the material and then bring it to class. This allows the instructor to focus on practice and application. Does anybody have any information about its success or failure when implemented at university?

Oxford and Cambridge University courses in England have always operated a bit like this.  In my Oxford Maths course, I'd attend 1 or 2 1-hour long lectures on the subject, have worksheets to do, then have classes in college of about 5 students to 1 instructor where we would discuss and work through the material.

What you're suggesting is basically the same, but having recorded lectures.  Given that most of the lectures were non-interactive, it amounts to much the same thing.  In general, I found it a very successful approach.


Is obtaining a professorship contingent upon the ability to secure federal grants? I am a DACA student in the US in my last year of my PhD program, and that means that I will be applying for postdoc and professor positions. However, DACA status means that I am ineligible to apply for federal research grants and I am limited to only applying for private grants that have no restrictions on legal status.

There's also a lot of uncertainty surrounding the fate of DACA as the Trump administration has previously stressed that they would work to rescind the program (which may result in deportation of people like me).

My advisers said that applying for lecturer positions should not pose a problem, but I'm concerned about my chances to apply for professor positions when I am not able to secure any federal grants issued by the government, in addition to the fact that my stay in the US is not 100% guaranteed in the long run. I love teaching but would also like to continue doing research as well, in a university setting...

Any insights on the matter, especially by those that have worked in hiring committees, would be much appreciated!

Setting aside all of the questions around DACA, let's focus on the question of how necessary federal grants are to obtaining (and keeping) a position as a professor.

Professorships at research-intensive universities are indeed generally strongly dependent on the perceived ability to bring in funding.  Among other things, without funding it is difficult to support graduate students. Without graduate students, one's research typically progresses much more slowly (excepting perhaps in certain theoretical areas).  Moreover, at some universities successful graduation of Ph.D. students is part of making tenure.  You may be able to do this with private, state, or international funds, of course, in which case you would want to try to demonstrate why this plan is feasible to a hiring committee.

Professorships at teaching-focused universities, on the other hand, are typically much less tightly linked to the ability to get federal funding. While you may face other obstacles there, your primary job would in any case be teaching rather than research, and small amounts of funding from non-federal sources may be much more plausible as an approach.


Are there any institutes removing teachers based on less performance in publications? Consider the four cadres: assistant professor, associate professor, professor and above.

Are there any universities or other institutes across world in academia that removes from office permanently, any person, possessing anyone of the four cadres because of her less or no publishing activity?

I am just asking about existence of organizations with such rules.

Yes, of course. At least in the United States, assistant professors generally do not have "tenure", and they will be evaluated at the end of the tenure period (typically 6 years). If they do not pass this evaluation, their position is terminated and they lose their job. That happens all the time -- most departments at R1 universities will have a case in the last 20 years where this happened.

Once you have tenure, things become more complicated. There is the concept of a "post-tenure review" at most universities, which is triggered when a tenured professor is not productive for several years (as well as for other reasons, such as misconduct). It does happen that people lose their jobs if they do not pass such reviews, though admittedly this method is rarely applied: In most cases, the person in question just gets poor job evaluations, doesn't get a pay raise, is not further promoted, and gets assigned higher teaching and/or administrative duties than everyone else.


Student caught cheating when leaving class after handing me the exam Usually I am quite clear that cheating and plagiarism are unacceptable. Although every semester I have to deal with several cases of plagiarism, I had not expected students to brazenly cheat in exams. A few seconds after one student handed me the exam, as she was leaving, I noticed that she had written answers on her hand. She was showing it off to a classmate and laughing as they left. In my country, just writing anything on the hands or anywhere they can read (including the table) is usually considered cheating. Students can check their answers when they are given their corrected exams back.

I know I could have created a scene on the spot, prevented the student from getting out as she was leaving the classroom, provided evidence of cheating, and graded her exam as 0. But other students were handing me their exams at the same moment, and many others were still writing down their answers. That would surely cause a commotion. I was paralyzed and did not know how to react. I am still not sure how I should have reacted, or how I ought to react in the future. I feel being aquiescent may have an impact on other students' behavior, and also on my feeling of self-respect.

Now I'm facing a dilemma. The student was not caught in flagrante delicto. The evidence for cheating is also gone. If it matters, the student's grade wasn't great either (4,8/10). I cannot decide myself between leaving the issue alone and forgetting about it, grading the student more severely in the next exams, or somehow lowering the student's grade (the last option is a little risky as the student could denounce me).

Exact rules will depend on where you are.  But normally the student has due process rights: to be confronted with the evidence of her cheating, and to appeal to some higher administrator or body if she desires.    Two of your options (grade more harshly / secretly lower grade) are things that you would do unilaterally, without the student's knowledge, and without giving her the right to challenge.  In my view, these options are therefore totally inappropriate and unethical.

The evidence against her is your testimony about what you observed.  If you think this would be sufficient evidence under your university's rules, then it is appropriate to pursue formal punishment as the rules dictate.  If you don't think it's sufficient, then do nothing, and let the student complete the rest of the course without prejudice. (Though of course you can watch her more closely in the future, and perhaps institute procedures to deter this kind of behavior in general.)


What can I do if I am constantly invited as a reviewer, but don't have the time? I've recently started as a PhD student, but had previous publications in forms of conference papers and various talks, so I consider myself very experienced with my particular field of research. One of my supervisors had once assigned me for a review task for a journal because she did not have time to complete it. This was fine with the editor of the journal, too.

Starting from that date, I began receiving invitations to review manuscripts every few months. Of course, I took that opportunity and completed the reviews – which naturally takes a lot of time.

Now, I cannot really invest the time anymore. I've previously rejected two review invitations with "I do not have the time to complete this review" (or similar), but I keep receiving invitations.

What could I do to politely ask the editor not to consider me for review?

Is there anything I'm about to do that could be considered inappropriate? I understand that reviewing activities are positive contributions to my academic career, but I don't think I can take it now.

As far as I know, there is no official please-do-not-bother-me-ever-again button that removes you from the reviewer list in a journal's submission system. That being said, I assume just writing the editor a polite email should do the trick. Other than that, you can always continue to refuse reviewer invitations, and I am pretty sure editors will relatively quickly stop sending you invites (they hate wasting their time, too).

That being said, I would personally urge you to reconsider your stance on this. Reviews are an important community service that are essential to the functioning of science, and one review every few months really is not an over-the-top amount. For instance, I review at the very least one journal submission every month, plus proceedings papers for conferences and workshops where I am in the Technical Program Committee. That you recently started your PhD studies should actually only be more of a motivation to keep reviewing, as this is actually a pretty good way to stay on top of your field.


How much do graduate schools in Mathematics care about the Statement of Purpose? Can a 'bad' SOP keep you out of a program? Can a 'good' SOP help you? Can the SOP only hurt you?

[I have been on the faculty committee for Mathematics Graduate Admissions at the University of Georgia for seven admissions cycles, three times as the head of the committee.]

I view the statement of purpose as one of the least important parts of the application.  It is certainly a part that has very little correlation with acceptance.  In other words, if we look only at, say, the GRE scores or GPA of an application and see that they are extremely high (respectively, extremely low), we can significantly raise (respectively, significantly lower) the chance that that application will be accepted compared to the mean acceptance rate, but a really excellent or really awful personal statement does not change the probability appreciably unless further conditions are met.

Why is this?  The main reason is that, for a PhD student of (most likely theoretical, in our department) mathematics, good or bad statements of purpose correlate too weakly with the qualities for which we are trying to select.  Good writing skills are important, but because a "statement of purpose" is a genre with which most applicants are completely unfamiliar, how they write in this genre doesn't tell us that much about their general writing skills.  (Imagine that we asked them to contribute a haiku or sonnet instead.  That sounds ridiculous...but actually does give some idea of the situation.)

The majority of statements of purpose we get mostly try to convey the student's ardor for mathematics, beginning with an anecdote about how it was kindled at an early age.  They go on to say something about what kind of mathematics they want to study...and in most cases they will show that they don't really know.  As far as our reactions to this: (1) well, we want students who love mathematics, but that is shown better through anything other than how eloquently they write an essay about this love and (2) it is actually okay that most students of (again, mostly theoretical) mathematics have quite vague ideas about what they want to study.  My thesis for instance was on abelian surfaces with quaternionic multiplication.  This is a topic in arithmetic geometry, which is a subfield of number theory.  I believe that in my statement of purpose I said I wanted to do number theory.  Good guess!

I will come back later and say more about (1) Why most departments require a statement of purpose anyway and (2) What are some situations in which a statement of purpose becomes more important.  I wanted to leave an answer before the question got closed.  (It is a good question.)

Added: As Mark Meckes points out in the comments, I have already answered a similar question on this site.


Which authors to cite for open source software While I have worked on open source software myself I'm, strangely, uncertain about how to cite it in a paper. I do know how to cite software itself, I'm just uncertain which author(s) to attribute it to.

I've got two programs to cite, one of which is a fork, with different copyrights over different files, not to mention the many unmentioned contributors to that work.

Do I just cop out and go "main contributor et. al"? And in the case of the fork, do I take the original author of the original software or the author of the fork?

@MadeOfMagicAndWires,
I have worked with open-source software and even using it (Linux).
So citing an open-source software in your journal will require you to check out the main source (repository owner as in GitHub) and cite according to using APA format or the format of citing you are required to use.


Changing field for PhD - How much do I need to know before I start talking to advisers/applying? I finished an integrated masters program in physics last summer, and I plan on doing a PhD on the coordination of autonomous agents, particularly in the field of automated vehicles.

I was excited after having a discussion with a  top professor in the field at a university I wanted to go to. I was told to read some more of his work to see if I could understand it, and get in contact in a few weeks. I did the reading, with some basic understanding afterwards, but the position I was pursuing was given away while I did this reading before I had the chance to prove my knowledge.

When I read papers in this field, which incorporate set theory and graph theory as well as other areas I have no background in, how much of the material do I need to 'get' before I can seriously apply? I find myself understanding the ideas and the processes, but I get tangled in the maths. How much training would somebody with a good academic record, but from a different field, get on a PhD program like this? Would I get time to get up to speed by reading seminal textbooks?

This sort of move into a new field is scary, and even with my good academic record, I am terrified of being completely useless.

First of all, do you have enough time to change your topic? If so, I would strongly recommend to talk to your supervisor first. If he/she knows you and your abilities, he/she can guide you on choosing a topic; you can finish up and get a PhD. Second of all, with a good help of your supervisor and your commitment you can finish a PhD.

Note on "Scary Parts": Nothing is scary!. I myself had no idea about a subset of computing semantics, and it felt like jumping from an airplane when I started to learn about it. However, at the end of the learning period, I realized why I was so afraid? Don't be scared, it will take your focus away, on doing your job. Your new slogan should be: Keep calm and learn!


When submitting PhD proposals in the humanities in the UK, are students expected to have already applied for funding? In British universities, is there a standard procedure with regards the order of application for funding and submitting a proposal for a PhD? Is there an expectation from universities that the students have already sought funding or be in the process of doing so before their proposal is submitted? Is it more common to be accepted for the programme and then seek funding? Or do they tend to happen concurrently?

Or does it depend mostly on each individual situation and there is no norm?

My question relates to a PhD in English literature in a British university for a British national, but information from other fields and locations would also be good to know. I haven't found information about this on any of the university websites I have looked at.

Specifically, I would like to know if there is a standard procedure or not.

The proposal and the funding are not, tightly, related. Funding status must often be determined, as the applicant has been admitted to the program, whereas the proposal preparation would be postponed up to the determination of the exact path of the research and desired denouements.

Most of the Ph.D. positions and the available vacancies in GB have been, considerably, defined under the aegis of the pre-planned funding. In the case of the engineering and industry-driven positions, the applicants could be sure about the financial support from either the department or supervisor's grant. The humanity-based programs would also be funded. The difference is the more restricted positions within the realm of humanity-driven program...

As the financial packages in GB would be presented by a wide range of resources with different policies (e.g. just for women, dedicated to the domestic students, defined for students of a specific country and so on), the admitted applicants are usually supposed to apply for the packages, does which fit them. However, there might be some universities with centralized system of scholarships that supporting policy for the Ph.D. candidates is always based on a fixed roster of the resources.

All in all, one might conclude that the close attention to the application procedure within the website of each program should be taken into account, case by case. Because even if a typical probabilistic standard procedure would be suggested, there might be some exceptions in your way, will which not be accounted by that standard and may lead to losing that case.


Is it a good idea to submit a recommendation letter from a friend who is doing PhD at the university I am going to apply? I got a friend who is doing PhD at one of the prestigious universities. Two and half years back we were classmates in graduate studies. I have good relations with him. I started working for industry and he is doing PhD. He has good credentials as far his research and academic records are concerned. There is PhD vacancy at the same university but in different department. I need to submit two recommendation letters. Is it a good idea to take recommendation letter from him? Will it increase the chance of getting selected for that position?

No, it is not a good idea to ask your friend to write a letter for you.

Recommendation letters for graduate admissions should be written by people experienced within the field, who know you well enough to form a clear opinion of your preparation and potential for graduate work in your chosen field.  In almost all cases, they should be faculty members with whom you have worked closely, or at a minimum, taken classes with.

Having your friend write the letter would be useless:

He is working in a different field and would not know what skills are needed in your field.
He presumably has little or no experience of research of his own, so will not have as good  a sense of the attributes that are needed for success in research in his own field, much less yours.
He is your personal friend and there would be doubts about his objectivity.  (Ethically, if he were to write a letter for you, he should disclose that relationship.)

The fact that he is currently attending the same institution where you want to apply is irrelevant.  That doesn't give his opinion any extra weight.

Beyond being useless, submitting a letter from your friend would lead an admissions committee to think one of two things:

You cannot find two faculty members who have a good opinion of your abilities, so you asked your friend instead.  This would suggest that your preparation is extremely poor and your application should be rejected.
You are completely confused about how the application process works and did not understand that a letter from your friend would not be helpful.  You have not done your research and probably don't really know what grad school would be like or why you want to go.  They are not likely to accept such an application, either.


No Objection mail to potential advisor before mailing another in the same department I had mailed a professor in a certain department inquiring about graduate student openings and he replied saying that he lacks funding to hire anymore students. The same department has atleast two other professors who work in almost exactly the same domain albeit different numerical technique. My professor had advised me against mailing different professors from the same department, so should I request no objection from the prof who replied before mailing another one or can I go and mail them.

i Don’t understand the reason for the original admonishment, except if it’s based on the assumption that the professors might talk and thus decide to reject you from both groups. However, even given that, since the first professor has already said he can’t take on new students, there isn’t any reason you can’t still contact the others. You don’t need to ask the professor if there are no objections: the professor’s already done that by turning you down outright. The worst that can happen is that they will say no.


What is the meaning of 'six-week course'? Edit: I found the answer. In the preface to the english edition it says

This book is a translation from the orginal Chinese text of notes based
on a six-week course on algebraic curves and Riemann surfaces taught at
Beijing University in 1982.

However, in the English Translation of the Preface to the Chinese Edition it says

In the summer of 1982,1 had the honor of teaching a course on algebraic
curves at Beijing University. The course met six hours a week for a period
of six weeks. This book is a thoroughly edited version of the notes taken
during this course.

So this is like 3 hours a week for a period of 12 weeks so about 1 semester then.
I accidentally checked the english translation to the preface to the chinese edition around based on user111388's question 'Are those numbers from Chinese university terms?' Thank you, user111388.

I'm planning to self-study Phillip A. Griffiths - Introduction to algebraic curves and am wondering about how long it would take to finish. I can reasonably estimate how long this book would take to finish if said book was used in some university and is expected to be completed in a semester.
In the preface of this book, it says:

based on a six-week course on algebraic curves and Riemann surfaces taught at
Beijing University in 1982.

I understand a regular semester to take about 16 weeks and a summer semester to be about 6 weeks, but I'm not sure if the above quote refers to 3/8-ths of a regular semester or a full summer semester.
Context: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3724134/ordinarily-how-long-does-it-take-to-complete-phillip-a-griffiths-introductio

It is not uncommon for visiting scholars/professors to give a short high-intensity course during their period of visit. These have little relation to the usual/normal university semester/summer schedule since they are (1) tied to the limited visit of somebody, and (2) aimed at people not burdened by classes on the normal schedule (not undergraduates or early grad students in the US).
I have seen these as a full day once a week, half days several times a week - whatever can fit into the schedules of the visitor and the pool of people who want to take the course.


If I already have a master's degree, can I use it to apply for another master's degree (UK)? The title already has the question. If I have a master's degree, can I use it to apply for another (in UK)? I have completed my master's degree (GPA 4.0/4.0) at my home country (situated in northern Europe), and I would now like to do another one-year MSc course at a top university to swap fields. The thing is, my BSc degree is clearly below average (lack of motivation during the first years... is costly), so I really hope this would be possible. I also have 4 peer-reviewed publications.

Yes, of course you can, since you are changing fields.

A friend of mind never finished his bachelor degree and had years of work experience and wanted to get into a master program (in the US). The program he wanted said they would take him if he had a bachelor degree but since he did not have one, he could not enter.

He went to the UK, got accepted into one master program based on his partial completion of his bachelor degree COMBINED with his real-world experience. Once he completed that master program, the program in the US (in a different field) did accept him.

So, yes, it is absolutely possible to do this.

I think what your real question is whether an admission committee will overlook your poor performance during your undergraduate since you have a master degree. It would help to know what your performance was during your master, and how 'top' of a school you want to get into.

The publications should help, especially if they are from reputable journals. The best course is to actually submit an application. However, you should consider what you really want to achieve. If you want to do research, perhaps going into a PhD program would be better for you. If you just want to change fields, but don't want to do a lot of research, then a new master degree might be just what you need.


Switching group due to a lack of interest; How to break the news to an advisor who has been very supportive like many others I'm here to ask for advice about switching groups. I'm a third year PhD in physics. I have been working in my current lab for about a year. Prior to that, I worked on another project with a different professor for about 2 years. I want to leave my current group because I realize this area is not my passion. Good thing is there's a professor from math department who wants to work with me on a project, and I absolutely want to work with him. But I'm not sure how to tell my current advisor that I want leave.

I must say that my current advisor is an excellent advisor in all aspects. He is supportive (both academically and financially); he is absolutely smart and has deep understanding of the field. He cares about his students' overall progress and growth. In addition, the group dynamics is great. I have zero things to complain about. The only thing making me want to leave is that I realize I have absolutely no interest in this area.

His financial support (RA) to me has one more month before it expires, and he is willing to extend it for the summer. But I do not want to stay for another two months, since it does not fit my academic development and I don't think it's ethical to take his money and not willing to work productively. I don't know how to tell him my decision. I definitely don't want to be ungrateful or disrespectful, because I very much appreciate his support in the past year.

Any suggestion would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for the help.

Wow! a really tough situation. On one hand you have the opportunity to continue to be supported by someone whom cares and believes in you. On the other you want to be free to make decisions about your own life without anyone taking it personal. In life people take things personal! Yes, it's not professional but when someone puts time and resources into you they want you to remain committed despite your reservations.

Yes you could leave your group and go for something you're more passionate about, but would you get the same type of  deal? People talk to each other even if they seem like they don't. Would your new group look at you as a "trader" if they found out you had support and turned your back on your previous team because it got a little rough? Drama, folks love it, thrive off of it and will at your expense. I would say have a heart to heart with your current team let them know of your intentions while remaining politically correct and discuss with the new professor about your reservations to leave your old team but you can be more committed to this new challenge.

Do what's in you, try and be prepared if things don't work out the way you want. Live with whatever you may regret.


How to translate German "Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz"? I'm drafting a job offering for a paid PhD position at a German university. It's a temporary position, so it's offered under the terms of the Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz, a German law that limits the number of years that people can be employed with temporary contracts by German universities and similar institutions.

As I wish to invite applications also from people whose first language is not German, I need an appropriate translation of Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz. Is there an official English translation of the title? If not, is "Law on Temporary Employment of Scholars and Researchers" an appropriate translation?

I wouldn’t translate the law’s name as I do not see how it helps potential applicants. Just put yourself in their position and think about what benefit it grants you:

Any reasonable resource elaborating the content of the law in detail will mention the German name, even if written in English.
The translation itself will only give the applicant a very rough idea what it is about. The more important aspect what relevant consequences the law has.
To be actually affected by the law, the applicant has to have a history of employment in German academia and thus not be scared by long German words anymore.

If I would have to write about this in a job ad, I would write something like:

  Applicants who were previously employed in a similar position in Germany may not be eligible due to the restrictions imposed by German law (Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz).

Note that I have rarely ever seen this law mentioned on job ads to which it applies and never on a PhD position – which makes sense because the law would only matter if the candidate already has been employed on a PhD position in Germany for more than three years.

Finally, if you can, I would let your HR department worry about this. They should have some legal boilerplate available.


How much the previous university's prestige matters for a phd enrollment? I'd like to apply for a PhD in Ancient History at Oxford in the future.
Currently I'm planning to apply for a ResMa in Ancient History at Leiden university, in the Netherlands, which is thaught in English.
Is it a recognised uni for classics in UK or the US or should I do a British university instead, such as Durham, Mancester, UCL, St Andrews and so on to have better possibilities to be taken at Oxford?
Thank you all!

All of the universities you have mentioned are top-league universities with high prestige. As for whether you have a better chance of getting into Durham, UCL etc versus Oxford is debatable. They are internationally renowned and the competition very high. Of course, Oxford is Oxford, but there's little point in going to Oxford just because it's Oxford, which it sounds like you want to do, because you don't seem to know what it's like for your specialist subject area.

The most important thing about any university is the staff in the departments, not necessarily the university itself. These are the supervisors who you will be learning from and have constant contact with. Their tuition can be either inspiring or a hindrance to positive learning.

All of the universities you mention are good. Take some time to visit their websites, look at the department members, their publications and what feel you get from the institution and the department. Do you get the impression that you really like the place? Does it look inspiring? Does it make you want to find out more, do you think you that when the course gets difficult [not if] you would be able to overcome the obstacles with the staff's support?

At the end of the day, finding out the answers to these questions is far more important that going to Institution A or B based on some arbitrary popular notion of league places. A slightly lower-league university may get a lot more out of you than one a few more places up depending on how well you gel with the department. If, after your research, you still want to go to Oxford and it looks right to you, by all means go for it, but don't get hung up on it. The amount that an institution inspires you will govern how much 'better' the 'possibilities' are for your entry.


Should I continue to work on a project I'm less interested in for publications? I'm going to be entering my second year of a PhD program, which I entered straight from undergrad.  I haven't published anything yet, neither since I started my PhD program or as an undergrad.

I'm currently working on a project that, should I choose to continue with, should go on for a year a two.  It has only the slightest relation to the area I'd ultimately want to do my research in, if at all.  That said, I'm doing well, and I think this could lead to publications if I continue down my current path.  There may not be funding available for the exact type of research I'd like to be doing in the immediate future, but this project may be a one or two year commitment.

My question is, am I better off continuing with the project to get some publications, or waiting an indeterminate amount of time for something closer to my original interest to come along?  If that's too vague, then are there any general guidelines for me to follow?

If it matters, my field is CS.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Continue with your current focus, publish as much as possible for the next 1-2 years, and once you are more established with publications under your belt, pursue your passion subject full-time. It's best to view your current research focus as a "day-job", meanwhile developing your skills and reputation which will strengthen your ability to pursue the topics you find interesting.


How committed should I be to a specific research area before and shortly after I enter a doctoral program? I am an electrical engineering undergraduate student and entering my final year of study.  I plan on applying to doctoral programs in the field of power engineering.  Specific advice from the field would be appreciated, but I welcome professors and students from other backgrounds to comment.

I say power engineering because I'm interested in studying problems related to the electrical grid.  However, there are a lot of problems out there: multi-agent systems, smart grid technologies, distributed grid technologies, power electronics, and many, many more.  It's such an overwhelming list that I don't know how to choose, or even how to educate myself enough to make a choice.  I'm sure other fields have this problem of "too many subjects, too little time".

I know in a general sense that I want to enter this field and do research in it, and that I would enjoy the challenge of a PhD program.   At this point, though, I don't know which specific aspect I want to study.

My questions are these: how much should I know before applying to a program?  Upon entrance to a doctoral program, how much time do I have to pick a certain area of research?  I've heard of students being co-advised by more than one professor; does this mean my study can be somewhat multifaceted?

Edit: Answers specific to doctoral study in the United States would be appreciated.

This is the answer posted by Cameron Williams in a comment. I am pasting it as a CW answer - it's not "my" answer.

  I think the best course of action for most graduate students is to apply to programs that are good across the board in your general field. You may end up not liking something that you thought you'd love for one reason or another (be it tedium, incompatibility with advisors or simply finding something that you love so much more). Don't shoehorn yourself into a program that specializes only in one facet of power engineering because you may end up not liking that one thing. As an incoming graduate student, you're not expected to know much about the field you're entering so knowing whether or not a certain subfield is a good fit for you is not reasonable to assume. This comes with courses/research while you are a graduate student.

  As for how much time you have, this varies a bit from university to university, but you will probably spend a lot of your first year on courses and after that you'll be expected to have an idea of what exactly you'd like to do. Of course it isn't set in stone at that point, but you should be moving in one specific direction.

  And yes, you can be co-advised which can allot for multifaceted/multidisciplinary research.


Why does a US/Canadian STEM PhD 'almost' always comes with monetary assistance while a British PhD doesn't? A US/Canadian STEM PhD 'almost' always comes with monetary assistance from the supervisor. In some universities/programs, supervisors are able to individually recruit students along with monthly allowances. In most cases, students don't even need to submit a separate application for money.

Even PhDs in Hong Kong and Singapore come with full funding. Students don't even need to submit a separate application for money.

Why doesn't that happen in  UK?

It does, supervisors in the UK can support PhD candidates with funding - based on the research projects they are recruited to...

Some PhD's have funding through external companies especially those in some engineering disciplines - usually found in universities that have strong links with industry such as research involving stress & structures (I remember some funded by Westland...)


Is software developed by publicly funded research groups legally public domain? In the United States, if a university lab develops code while receiving public funding, are they legally obligated to release their source code?

No, in general they are not.

It is true that works prepared by US federal government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain.  This applies, for instance, to journal articles by scientists at DOE or DOD laboratories.  It does not apply to public university employees (they work for state/local governments) and, as far as I know, it does not apply to computer code.


What is the etiquette for making an appointment to request a letter of recommendation? I'm currently a college sophomore looking to transfer to a university overseas, and I need a letter of recommendation from my adviser in order to apply.

Usually, in order to get in touch with my adviser, I just sign up for a 20 minute time slot, but that system is usually intended for students to quickly discuss class options.

I feel like signing up for the time slot and asking her for a letter of recommendation in person with no warning is sort of rude, and I've also heard that asking for a letter entirely over email is also rude. So, scheduling an appointment over email seems like the best option, but I'm not sure if I should explicitly reference my transferring and the letter of recommendation, because that seems tantamount to just asking over email. Any suggestions?

The reason to want to talk in person is to be able to have the space for discussion and nuance that may be impossible over email.  But you can certainly start the discussion over email.  Why not send an email saying your plans and that you are interested in getting a letter of recommendation, but then close by saying that if the professor is willing, you think it might be a good idea to meet to discuss?


Strategy to avoid duplication when my paper is under-review I am a Research Scholar in Mathematics in my initial days.
I  wrote an article and submitted it to a good journal recently.
I am confused with the following inquiry of mine:

If my article gets accepted then there is no worry.
But suppose my article gets rejected and in the meantime when my article was in peer-review, someone else does the same research as mine and submits his/her research to some lower ranked journal which unfortunately gets accepted.

My query is what will happen to my article. Since an article  similar to mine has been accepted, if I try to resubmit it to another journal after the rejection, will the Editors consider my article as duplicate even if I started the work before.

Will the Editor of the journal  allow me to resubmit my paper if I show them all the details that  I was the one who started this work first but since it got rejected from a higher ranked journal, I am submitting it to his/her journal now.

Or

Will my article be considered duplicate of the one which got published recently in a lower ranked journal?

I am confused.What shall I do in this kind of situation. I guess these sort of things happen to every researcher. How does one get to deal with this?

Another query of mine which is related to the same problem

Even if I put my article on the arXiv and if someone does the same research as mine, is it possible that he/she may say that he/she does not read arXiv articles and hence his/her work is not plagiarized.

Someone please help me out. I am puzzled on how to deal with these two issues.

Sadly, priority is established by whoever is first to publish, not by when the work has been conducted (since this is normally not really traceable). However, depending on the discipline, there are normally multiple ways to handle this problem:

Posting a preprint: probably the easiest way to show that your work has existed before it appears in a peer-reviewed journal is to send a preprint to a preprint server, such as arXiv. How "useful" this is for establishing priority depends a bit on the discipline, but at least your work is out there and you have a fairly solid argument to convince people that you at least did not copy from whoever published before you (if it comes to that).
Multiple discoveries: in many disciplines, it's simply not true that once a paper on a specific idea has been published no further similar work can be accepted. Frankly, in an experimental discipline, as long as there are not a handful of similar experiments with results pointing in a similar direction a theory isn't really accepted anyway, so the second, third, or even tenth study may still provide sufficient value to be considered even at strong journals. I think in math things are different (but if you are in math you would probably post a preprint).
"Being vocal": it goes against the instinct of some people, but in my experience a good strategy to fight against losing priority is to tell as many people as you can what you are working on. If you already give talks at conferences about your preliminary results, tell your collaborators, publish partial results, or blog about it, the word what you are working on is out there long before your paper actually appears. This has two effects. (1) It detracts people from working on your topic in parallel (or, if they already are, seek collaboration). Your competitors fear the same thing you fear (and, if they are just getting started, they may feel that you are way ahead of them). (2) Even if somebody beats you to publication, the community is well aware that you and your competitor just worked in parallel on the same topic (see also "multiple discoveries").


Grad student asking department for increase in stipend If a graduate student knows that they are on the lower end of the stipends offered to their cohort, and if they are performing as good or better than their other cohort members (as measured by grades, number of publications, number of current collaborations, etc.), then is it acceptable to ask for a higher stipend? If so, how would you go about this?

Yes, you can certainly ask that the department reconsider the amount of your stipend. However, you should also prepare for the case where they do not adjust it.

Normally, I would start by talking with your advisor, as she will most likely have to be on board for any increase to be successful. Then, I'd approach either the graduate student advisor orthe graduate student administrator for the department. There may already be rules and policies in place for how to request a stipend increase. If that doesn't work, the next steps are probably to contact the chair of the department and the dean for graduate students (or other appropriate officer at your institution).

However, depending on where your funding comes from, it may or may not be possible to get an increase. For instance, NSF or NIH stipends are normally set at a uniform level across a college or university. It's also possible that the students with higher stipends have outside funding which reduces the actual cost to the college. Finally, your advisor may not be able to afford a large stipend increase.


Is it possible to restart a PhD due to issues with supervisor (and should I do it)? I am a PhD student in Europe and I am in the state of permanent crisis because of my PhD supervisor. He is a very nice person, who is very active with public engagement, very successful at grant applications and all that. But the problem is, it turns out he does not know the subject. Now I realize this is a very arrogant thing to say. However, for a very long time I refused to believe it and thought that there was some problem with me. Now all evidence (corroborated by others) shows that he really is incompetent. He somehow manages to pull it off, getting on other people's papers and so on.

The fact that this takes place in Europe is significant: I had to choose someone from the start of my PhD and the time is extremely limited. Also, I am not sure, but I have an impression that you will not be able to get funded, if you quit your PhD and start over. Is this so? Also, there is a very small number of people doing similar things around and none in the same institution. Additionally, it seems very likely, that no one would support a rebellion (i.e. switching a supervisor), because of politics.

I have a very good track record, I finished at a top American university with very high grades, and most importantly I do want to do research. So this situation makes me very unhappy. I can't see any way out, but maybe there is someone who can? I will consider changing the field somewhat (but not too radically) and starting over, but it seems like the funding will most definitely not be available. Or maybe it will?

Adding a student's perspective to Pete's answer:

My advisor told me at the being of my master thesis, that soon I would know more about my particular area of research than him. At the time I didn't believe a word he said, but at our third meeting I was already explaining stuff to him and by the fifth I started to feel irritated that I had to explain stuff to him which I didn't have to explain to his PhD student whom I collaborated with.

But then I realised that I worked on this topic all day every day, my collaborator worked on a related topic and discussed my research with me several times a week but my advisor only got to spend time on this topic every other week when we met with him, because he had plenty of other students to advise in the meantime and also had his own research, teaching and some administration to do.

So from the sixth meeting on it became a habit for me to open the meeting with a quick catch up on my topic and my progress before diving into the details. And from that meeting on I always got great advice from him.

I think you need to think about whether you have given your advisor a fair chance to help you when you were stuck and whether he has been able to help in that regard, because that's his job and knowing all the details about your current topic is your job.


How do I check the ranking of an engineering conference, and determine whether presenting there will be useful for my CV? I am a final year student of engineering. I have submitted a paper for presentation at IEEE Power and Energy Conference 2016 - Illinois USA to be held on 19th and 20th February 2016.

The paper has been accepted and I am excited about the same. I am in the planning stage of going and presenting the paper at conference. My departments HOD and most of my teachers are supportive and have encouraged me to attend the conference.

One of my seniors has however commented that I must check the ranking of conference before deciding to attend.

How do I check the conference ranking?? If I find that the conference is not ranked how does it affect the importance of presenting at IEEE conference and addition to my CV.

I am planning for a career in research and in the process have applied to some US universities for PhD. Will this addition to my CV be useful??

Awaiting a reply before proceeding to book tickets and apply for visa.

It is a legitimate IEEE conference organised by the local IEEE section in Illinois and its proceedings will get indexed to IEEExplore. Also the University of Illinois is well-known for its Power Engineering - Power Electronics area so you will get to meet some people in the area.

On the other hand, it is not one of the major PES conferences for the year so do not expect many sessions or huge audiences in the conference. you might want to consider that especially if you plan to travel from abroad and need to pay flights - accomodation - registration. Last year's table of contents is available here so you can judge for yourself:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7064877

(Probably you should have searched these before you submitted the paper and not after it has been accepted!)


Bad experience with my PhD supervisor Recently, I defended my PhD thesis in one of the universities in this "lovely" world. I was studying in a university out of my country, in a different environment, language, and culture.
During my PhD, I was doing great works .. always motivated and working hard. My supervisor was pleased, and he was telling my colleagues: "Be like him (me)". I have good relations with my colleagues and they were telling me this after their meetings with him.
Unfortunately, despite the good works that we were doing, I was always mad of my supervisor because of his attitude.
He was always talking about morality and life values, but I didn't see any of these in his personality.
He is a very racist person (he thinks that he is anti-racist!) and he was always offending me with his silly jokes. I never told him anything wrong or replied in a bad way to his jokes, but I tried to show him that "I don't like your jokes". Also, when I finish writing up any of my papers, he was telling (asking) me that we have to add X. X is a postdoc working with him, and he is a sub supervisor. Unfortunately, X has never been involved in any of my research works, or even giving any suggestion.
The thing that made my relation worse with him is that: at the last year of my PhD, he asked me to work on a project for him (totally out of my PhD topic) because his postdoc cannot continue. In the beginning, I accepted the idea, but then while he was talking, he said: "if you don't work on this, I can't continue funding you". Actually, this was not the first time he says something similar: he did it during my second year, and he made me working on something for his projects.
At that time, I started working on the project, but I was outraged and upset (because of what he said) .. I didn't finish the work properly (I kept very small things to the Postdoc researcher). Then we had another meeting, and it was a very tense meeting; as a summary, he said that he will stop my fund. This was 5 months before the end of my PhD. In that time, I got an opportunity to work with a company where I did my internship. Actually, he could have stopped my funding during the first 2 months (of the 5 months), but he didn't do it.
After the defence of my PhD, while we were having dinner (a local tradition), he asked me: "why did you refuse my suggestions for more publications when you started working in the company?", I told him that I didn't want due....I mentioned some of the things that made me upset during my PhD (actually a couple of very general points). He didn't like my answer, and he started replying to some of my claims (he became mad). Anyway, we finished the dinner and we left the restaurant in a very uncomfortable way.
My problem now is that:
Soon I will leave the country where I am because I had awful memories in it and I don't want to stay here anymore. So, I was thinking of sending an email to thank him: why?

He helped me to start my PhD by accepting me and funding my
study.
I don't like the idea of leaving without even saying:
"Bye!".

I'm still angry about what I've experienced with him. On the other hand, I feel it's my mistake that I didn't stop his lousy attitude since the beginning.
So, what I want to ask is, do you recommend me to send him a "thanking + Bye" email?

Yes, you should thank him. You don't need to work with him in future, but, as you say, he helped you along. He helped you start your career and you can now be independent. If you did good work under his guidance it is worth a thank you, and you may be well positioned for good works in the future.
There are a lot of racists around, of course, and many of them don't understand what it really means. But your bad experience is now behind you and you were pretty lucky (and strong) to overcome the issues.
But you may need a letter from him in the future to continue your quest. Don't burn bridges that don't need to be burnt.

And the jokes of academics are often not as funny as they think and the worldview they have may not be shared as widely as they imagine.
There are, I suspect, hundreds of questions here from people who are in a bad relationship with their advisor but are not finished and so have serious decisions to make about continuing or leaving. You are lucky now to have that behind you.
Good luck.


Discipline clarification or field of study The boundaries between academic fields have blurred to such an extend that many studies today are interdisciplinary in nature.

My PhD is in the social sciences. It was located in the Faculty of Arts at the university. It is a blend of sociology, organisational economics, public policy and a bit of psychology.

I am wondering if a term like "social economics" is appropriate to describe my study. (It is neither "social" nor "economic" in the 'pure' sense.)

My university will just award me with a PhD but I want my CV to be more descriptive.

How does the academic community view these types of descriptions?

I have been in similar experiences with some friends, and I'm willing to share:

Here in Japan the programs usually have the weirdest possible names, even in the University of Tokyo they have the "PhD on Creative Informatics" (What's that supposed to mean?), when is nothing but a good ol' PhD on Computer Science. Or the "PhD on Frontier Sciences".

I asked my adviser and he told me that those names are usually for the sake of attracting more students. But he also told me something I've been seeing in the Industry looking for a job (Academic/Industry): No one really cares that much about the title in your PhD, but rather on your specialization topic. Usually questions will be directed towards: "What did you do on your PhD" rather than "What's the name of your PhD"

I advise you to create a brand around this concept of "Social Economics", if you know different people doing that, try to be in contact with them (Twitter/Mail/Conference) so you'll get recognized in the field later and when you get interviewed you don't have to explain it all over again.


Average age to start a PhD and correlation to future career Which is the average age in which persons start their PhD? Is this age in some way related to the post PhD plans a person does?

In my (European) experience I have 3 groups of people, with the relative distributions:

(70% of the total) Those who started right after graduation (let's say when they were 24) without any job experience. Most of them (with exceptions, of course) are a bit fed up with research and willing to try a "real world job experience"
(25% of the total) Those who started 2,3,4 years later (so between 24 and 29), taking a full time phd. Generally people belonging to this group seem to be more motivated for academic career, even if starting a phd when one is 29 years old might be a bit late (or not?)
(5%) Those who start in their 40ties with the idea of taking a part time PhD as an out of job activity, and don't plan to leave their job.

Clearly there are all the possible shades between the above categories.

There are many confounding variables (field of study, country, citizenship status, sex, race/ethnicity, probably many others) that correlate with both age at doctorate (as seen below) and post-PhD plans. This makes it difficult to directly measure the relationship between age and post-PhD plans.

The median age at doctorate varies by country and by field. Here's some OECD data:

It also varies over time. In the US, from 1978-2003, in the science and engineering fields:

And in the non-science and engineering fields:

See this report for more details.

For the US, we have data on the distribution of students' age, not just the median, and it's also broken down by  sex, citizenship status, and ethnicity and race.  From 2014:


should I put this information into the reference section or within the text? I am making an article about Information Technology, mainly related to policies, and I have a list of some solution providers with their proposals; something like this:

Vendor1, Proposal related to...

I would like to know if the web links that are related to each proposal can be put inside the same list or should I reference them, in some cases I have only web pages and in other pdfs. So should I do this:

Vendor1, Proposal related to ... (information available at http//nosense.com
Vendor2, Proposal related to ... (information available at http//page1/document1.pdf)

or like this:

Vendor1, Proposal related to ... [1]
Vendor2, Proposal.... [2]

References
[1] ...
[2] ...

which one should be the correct way of referencing this information?

Personally, I would put them in the bibliography, but either way looks fine, to me. I don't have a strong opinion, and I suggest you to do what you consider more readable.

However, I have often encountered copy editors who did have strong opinions on matters like this, so be ready to change it if they complain.


Releasing all lecture materials at once vs. releasing materials lecture by lecture Some teachers decide to release all lecture materials (e.g. prepared lecture notes, slides for presentations) at once at the beginning of the term, while some others release their materials gradually (i.e. releasing the lecture materials a few hours/days before the corresponding lecture), even though all materials are the same as the previous year.

What are the pedagogical advantages of not releasing all lecture materials at once at the beginning of the term?

I am especially interested in graduate-level computer science (machine learning) education in the US, in case the answer is country, field or level dependent.

As a CS student, I experienced both types. In my opinion, there are many practical disadvantages and psychological effects to consider when releasing everything at the beginning of the semester.

However, it is very nice to be able to view the materials from previous years in full, and almost none of the disadvantages listed below apply for this case.

Practical considerations:

If everything is available at the beginning of semester, students might deem it not necessary to check the course website during the semester, as they already know that "everything is there". They will miss announcements and updates to the website.
If the lecture materials are changed or revised during the semester, students might miss these updates if they downloaded everything at the beginning of the semester.

Psychological effects:

Information overload: Students may think that the course will be too difficult if they take a look at later slides at the beginning of the semester and thus might drop the course.
Frustration: Eager students may try to understand the contents of later slides (e.g. a few weeks in advance), but get frustrated if the slides are not completely self-contained and there is information missing (that would have been given in the lectures).
Lazyness: If everything is there at the beginning of the semester, students may not feel the need to keep up with homework/reading week by week, as there is less of a weekly reminder that things have changed (the page is static and does not change every week). If the materials are released weekly, there is more of a motivation to not fall too far behind, as students are reminded every week of how far behind they are. Also, students might not be motivated to go to the lecture if they already know that all the material has been released.
Inattentiveness: Students that have already read the slides of the coming weeks may be bored or inattentive during the lectures. This may be important if the slides "give away" too much of the thought process if students read ahead. In some lectures, homework is only mentally stimulating if the slides of next weeks' lecture are not available in advance.
Students may also get the impression that the professor is just "phoning it in" for this year, even if that is not the case. If slides are released every week, this gives more of an impression that the lecture was tailored to this specific year, and to the questions asked during this year's lectures.


Averaging exam scores with very different means/distributions I'm teaching a course that has two exams which together form a large part of the students' grades.

On the first exam, the mean score was very high (~90%) with the majority of students scoring over 80%.

On the second exam, the mean score was much lower (~70%), with many students scoring below 50%. The distribution was also much "flatter". (This is not too surprising, since the second exam covered more material and more difficult material.)

On both exams, there were some students who scored ~100%.  There were even some students (that I feel should be rewarded) who scored much better on the harder second exam than  on the first easier exam.

When computing final grades, is it fair to simply average (with equal weight) the scores on these two exams?

Other possible options, none of which feel completely satisfactory to me:

Scale the second exam up in some way so that it has a higher average, then combine the scores. This seems unsatisfactory to me, since it will actually hurt students (relative to their classmates) who did better on the second exam than the first.
Weight each students' higher exam score more heavily. This seems problematic for the same reason as before.
Simply weight more heavily the more difficult second exam. This is nice in that it helps students who did well on a more difficult exam and rewards improvement over time. But is it fair to do without telling the students in advance?

What do you usually do in these situations? Am I overthinking it?

Follow what you defined previously. The 'average policy' needs to be done beforehand, so nobody can argue that you defined/changed it to specifically screw/help someone. If you didn't define it previously, the safer route is the arithmetic average, which is kinda standard (or something equivalent for your institution, if different).

More than that, IMHO, you are overthinking. Grades aren't a reward that you give, they are a measure of how much the student learnt the content. A professor of mine says that he doesn't give grades, the students earn it. If they performed badly, they performed badly. You have a duty to fail under performing students.


How can I set up a fund to support academic research at a particular lab using my own money? I want to fund basic research, particularly one research lab which does what I like. Can someone point me to resources on how to set up a fund to support the research? The fund would be in USA, and the lab is overseas.

Talk to your attorney or certified public/chartered accountant and the development or giving department at the university in question. Both deal with these kinds of issues constantly. You need tax advice in your location and giving advice in theirs. These are common questions for universities which like to receive charitable donations and want their donators to be best advantaged in their contributions. They may be able to recommend attorneys and accountants with experience in donation laws in your and their jurisdictions.


Do you need to know in detail the last papers of your future PI in preparation for a postdoc interview? I have an interview for a postdoc position next week. The project was running for 9 months or so and they already have some preprints out. This specific position says that the researcher will work closely with the 3 PIs, so it broadens the area for me a little bit since each one has different research areas. Do I need to know in detail the papers that are out in this project? I'm asking this because I've noticed that people say "do your research and look at the latest publications of your future lab".

The advice "look at the latest..." is good advice. Whether it is necessary to do depends entirely on the views of the PI. They may care deeply, or not at all. Certainly it is better to be as prepared as possible, even if their main concerns are elsewhere.
If the position is competitive, then it is likely that other candidates will be as prepared as they can. Due diligence, I guess.
Even if you only bring questions about those papers to the interview you will be better off than being completely unprepared.


I made a huge technical mistake in an arXiv paper... How bad is it? I made a huge technical mistake in a paper I published on arXiv... How bad is it in academia?

Mistakes are "bad" in academia if you fail to disclose them once you know about them (which constitutes unethical behavior), or if they affect something that counts towards a formal credential (like a degree; which is unlikely for an arXiv submission).

So, the way forward is:

Inform your co-authors (if there were any).
Upload an updated version of your paper to arXiv, in which you place a big notice at the top stating that there is a major technical error and the contents of the paper should not be considered accurate.
Then withdraw the submission from arXiv with an appropriate notice as to the nature of the error.

Then, if you think you can correct the error and rescue the rest of the paper, get to work on that.

Academics make mistakes all the time. Acknowledge your error, disclose it, and move on.


One of my students has a Master's degree but was offered admission to another Master's programme. What could be reason? One of my former undergraduate students (overseas student), whom I still have contact with, has got a Master's degree from a very, very prestigious US university.
That student recently applied to a lower ranking US university for a PhD program. They send a rejection for the PhD program but offered an admission into their Master's program instead (almost the same field).
What could be reasonable motivation for such an offer? I suspect they didn't read my student's application properly, or it's just rejection that comes with a generic just-in-case offer of paying tuition fees?

Master's programs often charge tuition and they are often profitable.  It is quite possible finances were a factor.
Some universities are greatly reducing PhD admissions owing to lack of money or delays to the graduation of current students because work was disrupted by the pandemic.


Why are MBA programs closing in the United States? There are various reports about full-time, on-campus MBA programs closing its doors, e.g. from LinkedIn:

  MBA programs are getting axed: The number of full-time MBA programs in
  the U.S. declined by 9% between 2014 and 2018, the Wall Street Journal
  reports. Wake Forest, Virginia Tech and the University of Iowa are
  among several universities that have decided to shutter their
  full-time programs, opting to offer online programs and specialty
  business masters instead. Applications to full-time MBA programs —
  even at elite programs like Harvard and Stanford — have declined in
  recent years,

and also reports about applications dropping steeply, e.g.

in summarizing from a 2018 report [PDF]:

  Applications in the United States are down 6.6 percent -- while they are growing in Asia, Canada and Europe.

  –"M.B.A. Applications Drop (Except Outside the U.S.)",  (2018-10-08)

Why is this happening?

Demand is counter-cyclical.  During recessions, demand rises as people seek additional training, hoping to prepare for new careers.  But US unemployment is currently at only 3.6%.  We haven't seen unemployment that low in decades, so people are not feeling the pressure to seek additional training for new careers.

Here are some references that describe this counter-cyclical behavior of applications to graduate school.

Ilana Kowarski, "Fewer People Are Applying to U.S. Business Schools", US News, Nov 5, 2018

  From a U.S. domestic prospective, historically, U.S. business school
  application volume has run countercyclical to the economy," Basye
  wrote in an email. "In times of higher unemployment or job loss,
  people often go back to school. In times of full employment or high
  GDP growth – like right now – opportunity costs are higher to leave a
  job and return to school.

Jade Scipioni, "Harvard, Stanford, other top MBA schools see applications drop", Fox Business, October 1, 2018

  Sangeet Chowfla, president and CEO at GMAC, notes that historically
  business school application volume have often run counter cyclical to
  current economic trends and indicators. And the current low
  unemployment rate means “young professionals have an increased
  opportunity cost of leaving their jobs in pursuit of an advanced
  degree,” Chowfla said.

Wendi Go, "Is Enrollment into Graduate School Affected by the Business Cycle?", Department of Economics, Stanford, May 11, 2009

  The findings show that the effect of the business cycle on First-time
  First-professional enrollment follows a relatively consistent
  counter-cyclical pattern. More specifically, a 1% increase in
  employment growth is associated with a 4.09% decrease in enrollment,
  while a 1% increase in GDP growth corresponds to a 2.04% decrease in
  First-time First-professional enrollment. Finally, 1% increases in
  personal income growth and personal disposable income growth are
  associated with 1.68% and 1.30% decreases in First-time
  First-professional enrollment respectively.

Srikant Datar, David A. Garvin, Patrick G. Cullen, "Rethinking the MBA: Business Education at a Crossroads", Harvard Business Press, April 22, 2010

  Because MBA programs are often viewed by young people, especially
  those with few other career options, as a safe harbor for weathering
  economic storms, business school applications have historically been
  countercyclical.


Submitting an official transcript vs unofficial transcript for postgraduate studies; why the difference? What is the reason that some post graduate schools only require an unofficial transcript upfront vs. an official transcript(referring to online application submission). And if they require an unofficial transcript, but you have an official in pdf form, is that fine as well.

Have schools come to the conclusion that an unofficial transcript is most likely valid, have there been less incidents involved in tampering with original documents? Is this related to how less schools are requiring standardized testing?

The primary issue is expediency. It can take time to issue official transcripts. The sooner a candidate has a complete application on file, the sooner it can be evaluated. In addition, most schools that may allow unofficial transcripts generally require an official transcript before matriculation. If it is found that the unofficial transcript doesn't match the official transcript, then that would be grounds to cancel the offer of admission.


2nd bachelors vs 2nd masters I already have a BS and MS of a certain degree. I am contemplating going for a 2nd BS or 2nd MS, in which my employer is willing to provide financial aid. The employer is generally supportive of me getting a 2nd degree with the belief that I will become a better employee, and I am interested in the fact that I can put it on my resume to potentially be more desirable to companies.

So there is the option to get a BS for this 2nd degree, or skip the BS and go directly for the 2nd MS. I'm not sure which option would benefit me more. I believe I have done enough related real-world work that I could easily stomp out the BS (though it would take longer), or at least not struggle too badly if I skipped the BS and went directly into the MS.

Would an employer see more benefit in having 1 BS and 2 MS, vs 2 BS and 1 MS?

Ask your employer. They're the ones funding you after all.

Having said that I strongly suspect they'll prefer a 2nd Masters as opposed to 2nd Bachelor's. Several reasons:

Masters degrees usually take a much shorter time to get.
You learn more in a Masters. Bachelor's degree are broader in the sense that you often have breadth requirements. You can't focus everything on your major. That doesn't apply to a Masters degree.
You learn more advanced things in a Masters degree. If you have a Masters in [topic], you are assumed to be qualified for jobs that require a Bachelor's in [topic]. The reverse doesn't hold.
Holding two Bachelor's degrees is pretty unusual. Why do you need two? Why didn't you do a double major?

Discuss it with your employer, but I strongly suspect they'll prefer a 2nd Masters (they might even be assuming you'll do a 2nd Masters).


Is it a good idea for a prospective MS student to mention in his SOP that he has good expertise on software like Microsoft office? I heard that information technology is a great tool to do research.I have good expertise on Microsoft office (Office,Excel,Access,Power point,Output) and graphical software like Adobe Photoshop.Could I mention these learning skills in my SOP?

No, because it does not distinguish you from other applicants nor explain why you would a good fit in the program to which you are applying.  The expectation in 2015 is that everyone likely to be in graduate school, and even undergraduates, can use the standard desktop software with enough proficiency to get things done.  If specialized software, something like Mathematica or SPSS, is needed in your field, the assumption is that you either already know about it or you'll figure it out.

If you haven't already done so, have a look at this: (Master's Degree) What are they 'precisely' looking for in a Statement of Purpose, and does a SOP matter when one has excellent GPA?


How direct should I be in my email to a potential Msc advisor? In an email to a potential masters supervisor, should I ask to "speak" with the professor / researcher as opposed to instantly asking for her/him to supervise me during graduate school? For instance, should I mention that I find his/her research is interesting and I would like to speak to him/her about it? Or, should I just "cut to the chase" and ask if they could supervise my studies? I have heard conflicting opinions on this topic.

It's a bit of an art and a stochastic process because depending on the personality of you and the recipient same tactic can have opposite results. With that in mind, you can aim for an approach that is most efficient, courteous, and professional.

First a disclaimer: my experience is only relevant to the U.S. Generally, most researchers are wary of saying yes to supervising anyone without knowing the person. So, asking if he/she will supervise you from the get go can lead to a high rejection rate. And in the same time, you want to use your time efficiently so going in as a 100% academic consultation may not be the best for your interest, as some researchers may be interested to talk to you, but they may not have any funding or effort available to guide you.

To increase the success rate, I'd recommend starting with an introduction to describe who you are and what you are planning to do in the next academic stage. Then, ask for a defined amount of time  for an information meeting (30-minute is a sweet spot for me, 45-min is also fine but I'd avoid asking for any commitment for more than an hour). Lay out the major items you want to discuss, include using part of the meeting to ask academic questions that are pertinent to the researcher, and express the interest to learn more on optimizing your application process and tips in looking for an advisor, etc.

If you have a short, well-formatted resume, by all means attach with the e-mail for the recipient to "better understand your background before the talk."

The overall goal is to make the e-mail low-risk but with clear purposes. During the meeting if they are interested they may mention any opportunities that are available. And if they can't be your supervisor, they may still be able to connect you with somebody if you have impressed them enough.

Another tip is try to seek for a referral if possible. For example, if someone you want to meet has collaborated with one of your professors with whom you are in a good standing, check with that professor and see if he/she will be able to introduce you.

After the meeting, regardless of the result, send a thank you e-mail or a thank you card for their time and advice.

Good luck!


Identical projects by students at two different colleges: still plagiarism? Me and my friend attend different colleges, both of which are part of the same university. My friend has done the project and as well as me too. Our projects are exactly the same - not a single word is different.  Is this considered plagiarism?

The fact of being at different/same colleges or different/same universities has zero bearing on whether it is considered plagiarism or not.

If you submit a project that includes someone else's work, without making it clear what is your own work and what is not (and crediting the other contributor/s properly), this is plagiarism. This is true whether the other contributor is at the same college, same university, someone not in college at all, etc...


What should I do when my supervisor wants to delay my graduation? I am MASc (two year program with a thesis) student in a Canadian university. Right now, I've finished my course requirements and I want to graduate in five academic terms. I have two supervisors. One of my supervisors has said my research accomplishment is good enough to start working on my thesis. But my other supervisor isn't willing to let me work on writing my thesis. He doesn't give any specific reason why my accomplishment is not good enough or what I can do to get his approval. He said he wants me to stay for six terms and then he will approve my graduation. He is also pushing me to do PhD under his supervision. Whenever I want to discuss my masters graduation, he diverts the whole discussion into doing PhD with him. Sometimes he ends up threatening he won't approve my masters. So discussing this issue has become pointless. Anyway, I've contacted two other faculties; they said my research accomplishment is already good enough for research milestone set by university. What should I do?

Relevant question: My MS thesis advisor wants me to delay my graduation for one semester. What should I do?

My situation is different because it's not the issue of time or my supervisor is careless. My supervisor wants to delay my masters for his own benefit.

Based on your description, one of your supervisors is behaving in an unethical manner.  A faculty member must not delay a student's graduation purely for personal benefit.  Nor should they coerce a student into beginning a PhD under their supervision.  Most programs have a procedure for removing or replacing a supervisor.  I recommend you use it if your supervisor is behaving unethically.

You might get a better answer if you said why you have this supervisor or what your goals are.


What is the point of being the head of the department? What is the point of being the head of the department ?

I'm an undergraduate Physics & Mathematics student and I want to stay in academia, do research and also teach. I'm assuming professors also want this. Hence,

Why do they become the head of the department and deal with lots of administrative stuff?
Isn't that boring for a person who presumably wants to work on his/her field rather than deal with lots of nonsense?

Note: I want to restrict this question to departments in STEM fields only.

I can't speak for the work environments at other schools, but where I teach, the department chair gets an nicer office, a reduced teaching assignment, and extra pay, in addition to some political and financial power associated with the fancier job title.


Advisor pushing for dead end topics I am new to this forum. I am encountering a problem in my doctoral studies that I haven't been able to find in an existing thread so I wanted to ask here. Any advice on how to navigate this would be very welcome.

I'm 2.5 years into my doctoral studies (geography) working under two co-advisors. Their areas of expertise broadly overlap with my dissertation topic, but the topic is my own, and I know the study area better than both of them. One advisor has been pressing for me to conduct a certain methods for social data collection that I knew wouldn't work (research fatigue is high in this area, distrust towards scientists without existing connections in these communities is a huge - if not insurmountable - obstacle). I tried to explain that these issues would make this type of social data collection very hard to pull off. I suppose I failed at this communication, because he pressed for this method all the same (with the rebuttal "science is hard"). Because he's an advisor I assumed he knew something I didn't, and I wrote up a dissertation proposal with this approach being used to answer one of my research questions (in my program a "dissertation" consists of three publication-ready papers). I emailed a few groups engaged in work in these communities. The reply I got was what I expected: they strongly advised against attempting to collect household surveys for the reasons I had tried to explain to my advisor before. I just got this reply today, I have not yet discussed it with my advisors.

This does not sink my entire research proposal necessarily, but only a portion of it. There are other methods of data collection and analysis I'm still working on to answer the other research questions. Furthermore I spoke to my other co-advisor earlier in the fall (not a social scientist) asking what my recourse is if the social data collection component falls through for the reasons I feared. I was told not to worry necessarily, that we could figure out a way to work around it.

That being said, I'm still worried. I'm worried that the advisor who pushed for the an approach that was ultimately dead-on-arrival doesn't fully understand my research. He's suggested approaches in the past that have turned out to be dead ends too. I'm also worried that I wasn't able to recognize this as a problem until I am 2.5 years into my program. The heavy initial course-load (full graduate course-load for the first two years) and first few research dead ends had me seeing the individual trees, not the forest. I'm sure a lot of this is my fault; I should have communicated better, I should have been more clear on what the expectations were. But now that I'm waking up to the fact that this is a problem, I'm not sure what to do about it. I have (excuse the lack of modesty) a good topic, and I think there's still a lot of value in seeing it through. I suppose I will have a better idea of what to do about this when we all meet next week, but an outsider perspective would be really valuable to me right now.

Thank you in advance

One piece of useful advice my thesis supervisors gave me was:

  We're going to throw a lot of ideas at you. You need to figure out which ones are worthwhile and which ones aren't.

If you know that something isn't going to work, then you need to figure out how to communicate to your advisor that it's not feasible. If you've tried and didn't succeed in making your case, try again using a different means of communication. Remember that the ability to make a convincing argument is crucial to success in research.


Is it appropriate for random students to approach professors they admire? I am a freshman, and over the summer I found out about a professor at my university who has recently published a book. Curious, I bought a copy and ended up falling in LOVE with this man's writing. As an aspiring author myself, I would be honored to receive advice from him.

But would it be too weird for me to go up, introduce myself to him and be like, "Hey, Dr. ___, my name is Jenny. I read your book and loved it. Is there a time we could possibly get together and discuss it? I just have a few questions."

I'm asking because I'm not sure how common it is for students to do this. I know it would be one thing if I was in his class, but I'm not. Unfortunately, I will not be able to take his class for several years, as he only teaches upper level courses.

I just don't want to seem annoying to him, or like too much of a fangirl. But like I said, I was mesmerized (cheesy as that sounds) by his book. I thought it was incredible, and I'm dying to talk to him about it. I definitely wouldn't want to sound demanding or anything; I'd ask him if he would be willing, and at what time.

There's nothing wrong with approaching a professor whose work you are interested in and asking for an appointment. The worst that can happen is that the professor will decline to meet with you. However, most professors (like most human beings!) will be appreciative that someone enjoys reading their work, so I'd think you're more likely to find the professor will agree than not.

That said, I would probably change what you'd say. Rather than just say "I have a few questions," I'd say "I'd like to know more about X and Y." This shows that you're serious in your request.