date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2019/04/13
| 1,224
| 5,119
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose I used to hold a tenure-track math position at a R1 institution, but then I was denied tenure. Assume I **do not care** about job security (and never cared) and I would be more than happy to keep working under the same conditions and would work just as hard as I worked before tenure denial. The question is: what are the reasons why the department would not be happy to keep me (under the same conditions)?
Some hypotheses:
* Me working at the department is beneficial for the department at any given point of time. If this is true, then they should be OK with me remaining in my present position.
* Accepting someone for tenure-track is a calculated risk the department takes (because it can not judge purely from the post-doc record whether one is going to be a great researcher or not). Now that my tenure-track is over, they have figured out that I am not good enough and it is beneficial for them to kick me out.
* For an average person, the possibility of tenure is a strong motivator. It is beneficial for the department to have someone who has been promised tenure at any given point of time but it is not beneficial once the person knows they won't be given tenure. I am just a weirdo who happens not to care.<issue_comment>username_1: In most jobs in industry, new employees go through a probationary period during which they can be let go (fired) for poor performance without the protections and benefits that more experienced employees might get. If a new employee isn't working out, then they'll be let go during this probationary period.
In higher education in the US, the (customarily at most 7 years long) tenure track is an extremely long probationary period tied with policies that (in the name of academic freedom) give tenured faculty very strong protection against being fired or laid off.
When a tenure-track professor is denied tenure, the university has decided that they're not doing well enough in the job to justify a lifetime commitment from the institution. There are significant costs associated with recruiting a replacement, as well as significant consequences for the morale of other junior faculty, so these decisions aren't made lightly.
Allowing a tenure track faculty member to continue as non-tenured faculty member after you've denied them tenure has problems. In addition to lowering the morale of other tenured and tenure-track faculty, it runs afoul of the guidelines for tenure promulgated by the American Association of Union Professors (AAUP) that say that tenure must be granted after seven years of service.
It should be noted that the tenure system is in a significant decline in the US. More and more, teaching and research work is being done by people in non-tenure-track positions and the number of tenured faculty is declining.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It is a strategy to avoid the [Peter Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle), similar to the military's [up-or-out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out) policy.
In particular, there are only so many slots for professors (tenured or otherwise). They want to allocate those slots to the best candidates as possible. Mathematically, there is some quality threshold Q', and they want to give only to candidates with Q > Q'. Now if your Q is less than Q', letting you go will allow them to bring in someone else whose quality may be greater than Q', which improves the department (or your replacement may also have Q < Q', in which case they'll get let go also and try again). In other words -- by not offering tenure, the university is taking the gamble that they can find someone better to fill the spot long-term.
Further, I suspect it is also true that Q is not static, but changes (decreases) after a tenure decision is made.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: There might be exceptions to this but in general universities have rules that faculty can only be employed without tenure for a number of years, so you can only stay for so long after being denied tenure.
It is also true that many times the denial of tenure is not meant to "fire" you, but to say "you are not ready". I know several cases where the denial of tenure included "you are not ready" language, and clearly implied that the candidate would apply for tenure again.
As others have mentioned, these decisions are not taken lightly, and there are usually avenues for appeal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It benefits the department to have more tenured faculty. The dean cares about nothing except the budget, and wishes the entire faculty were adjuncts. I know of a case where the dean, who was trained as an engineer, decided that the only useful math was applied math and decimated the math department, which then created a war between the math department and the dean, who then re-decimated the department. Half the math faculty were tenured, and that was the only way a (sort of) viable math department survived.
The war on tenure has been brutal, and we're losing. If your department kept you, that's another foot of lost ground.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/13
| 9,944
| 40,116
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a PhD candidate in biology about three semesters in. I am co-advised by two young married principal investigators (PIs), who are just about to get tenure. Things were going great initially, as I completed a medium-sized project and got publishable data very early on. However, now that it has come to writing papers, I’m finding my PIs to be rude, unpleasant, and excessively hands-on.
First of all, almost every time I send something, they respond with something like: "don't send us manuscripts with errors, next time they'll be sent back to you", or: "don't waste people's time with unpolished manuscripts." Of course I do check over them obsessively before sending, but I'm only three semesters in so I'm not perfect. They also will give me comments like, "you didn't explain how you mixed this solution," so I will write, "I mixed the solution by adding XXg of XX to XX." Then they have the nerve to tell me, "you're not doing a good job, you add useless details about adding XXg of XX to XX." Really?! They also make jokes about my writing, like "impossible [to test mice immediately upon birth] unless you're a mouse midwife." I know, it's not even clever. There's also random comments like, "what are you doing here [in reference to a statement]?," "stop doing XX," "don't do that," and "wrong, read it again." They also rewrite almost everything I write. None of my writing ever makes it to the final cut.
If I'm just being a baby, totally feel free to tell me just to suck it up. I'll submit a manuscript, and a certain section gets no comments. Then, I submit the manuscript again and the previously fine section is now crap! Why was it ok before, but now it's not? They're nice to everyone's face, but they have been very rude (i.e., actual severe harassment) to at least one other person over email that I know of.
I'm middle-aged with a spouse and kids – I don't need to take crap from PIs my own age. I've had two-dozen jobs, and I've rarely been treated so rudely. Switching labs is out, because our department is super tiny. I don't want to leave because I don't have much else going for me job-wise. I don't want to confront them, because past experience has taught me that it makes them even more aggressive and rude.
Is this type of behavior normal and acceptable in a lab? Should I just grin and bear it? How do you cope with rude and demeaning PIs?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> First of all, almost every time I send something, they respond with something like, "don't send us manuscripts with errors, next time they'll be sent back to you" or "don't waste people's time with unpolished manuscripts."
>
>
>
This does seem very rude. Either they are just rude people, or your work is really so far below what they expect that they are losing patience. I suspect it's the former (but impossible to say).
I would reply one-by-one to every comment, including this one (perhaps in person). You can say bluntly that you did the best you could and would welcome specific suggestions for how to improve as a writer.
>
> They also will give me comments like, "you didn't explain how you mixed this solution," so I will write, "I mixed the solution by adding XXg of XX to XX." Then they have the nerve to tell me, "you're not doing a good job, you add useless details about adding XXg of XX to XX." Really?! ... I'll submit a manuscript, and a certain section gets no comments. Then, I submit the manuscript again and the previously fine section is now crap! Why was it ok before, but now it's not?
>
>
>
Annoying, but editing is a skill that not everyone has. For the first part, they may have asked the question because they didn't understand, then agreed with your original assessment that it didn't seem appropriate to put in the paper. For the second part, they may not have read the section the first time. In both cases, I would attribute this to stupidity rather than malice.
>
> They also make jokes about my writing, like "impossible [to test mice immediately upon birth] unless you're a mouse midwife." I know, it's not even clever. There's also random comments like, "what are you doing here [in reference to a statement]?," "stop doing XX," "don't do that," and "wrong, read it again."
>
>
>
This seems fine/common, I have no problem with this.
>
> They're nice to everyone's face, but they have been very rude (i.e., actual severe harassment) to at least one other person over email that I know of.
>
>
>
While this may be true, I would set it aside and focus on your interactions with them. Re-litigating old cases with other actors is fruitless, even if it does suggest a pattern.
>
> I'm middle-aged with a spouse and kids--I don't need to take crap from PIs my own age.
>
>
>
I've had really bad experiences with people who make statements like this. I hope you do not "play this card" when you have a disagreement with your advisors (or anyone else). It sounds like these advisors demean all their students -- which is not great, and you can complain about it -- but your past life experiences and age have no bearing on whether it is acceptable.
>
> I don't want to leave because I don't have much else going for me job-wise. I don't want to confront them, because past experience has taught me that it makes them even more aggressive and rude.
>
>
>
There are probably certain strategies that work better than others for dealing with them. For example, you say they are nice in person -- maybe it's worth asking to go through their comments point-by-point in person rather than by mail. If you ask them to explain their corrections in excruciating detail (without being confrontational), they may think more carefully before they make excessive changes (or maybe you will learn something).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: There needs to be a little bit of context in this situation...
Incoming Masters and PhD students often come in thinking that they are going to write one draft of a paper and submit it. The thinking is that writing a scientific paper is no different than writing a paper for one of their previous class assignments, and that they did well on all of those, so their writing must be impeccable... English is their first language after all...
To the contrary, I have never had either a masters student or PhD candidate who went through less than 10 revisions on their first paper before we submitted to a conference (let alone a journal). In all likelihood, this number is closer to 25. Even toward the end of their PhD, this often still involves about 5 revisions.
Everybody hates the advisor after the first few revisions (I hated mine), and does not see the point. However, I feel that if I have not taught you to write an impeccable scientific article by the end of your PhD, then I will have failed as your advisor. And in fact, everybody who completes a PhD seems to be grateful for the struggle.
Typically, I tell students that they must "finish" a paper 2 weeks before the conference deadline. Then we do one revision every single day until the deadline. I mean no malice in the corrections. But there are some common mistakes that need to be refined and refined. Furthermore, everybody asks, "Why can't we just do one revision?"
The answer is simply that often the writing in the first few papers is too ambiguous and vague for me to infer how the rest of the paper should be written. For example, "Are you stating A or B as your hypothesis? Are you stating C or D as your takeaway from the plot you are showing?" These lead to further questions like... how did you come to that conclusion? These things cascade, and the process ends up taking several iterations, particularly at the beginning of a PhD.
With that out of the way... let's address your case...
>
> you didn't explain how you mixed this solution
>
>
>
This is a legitimate point. A scientific paper must detail every minute detail in the most unambiguous way possible. If the paper is at all ambiguous, then the results cannot be reproduced, and the work is not science!
>
> what are you doing here
>
>
>
This is a comment that I would write when I believe that you have not unambiguously explained your procedure. Or perhaps you added a plot, without explaining why it is relevant.
>
> don't send us manuscripts with errors, next time they'll be sent back to you
>
>
>
This is a bit cheeky I think. I wouldn't write this, but I can imagine that the advisors are perceiving that you are not trying hard enough in your edits. When I make edits, there are often errors that are repeated over and over again. If I correct 2 or 3 instances, I expect you to spot this pattern and propagate the corrections to the rest of the paper. If you aren't doing that, I would get very annoyed. The reason is simply that it may take you 30 minutes to apply all of the changes I suggest. However, on my end, I will spend hours going over your paper. Literally I can be spending 2 to 3 times as long reviewing your paper as you are taking to write it. If I don't feel that you are pulling your weight, then I will let you know.
>
> EDIT: They also rewrite almost everything I write. None of my writing ever makes it to the final cut.
>
>
>
Quite common for the first paper a student writes.
The final point I want to make is concerning why we do this? Why do we go through the trouble?
The most obvious answer is that if a paper is not clear, concise, and unambiguous, then the work is not reproduceable, and hence not science.
However, as you will no doubt have seen, there ARE many papers in very well respected journals that are extremely poorly written. These are the ones that you and your advisor will debate for weeks on end... I think they are doing this! I think that their results show that!
Those are bad papers. If I was reviewing them, I would reject them.
By going through this process with you in writing your paper, I am not only helping future scientists (by making your work more clear), but I am putting you in the best possible position to get your paper accepted into the conference or journal. The worst reason to get your paper rejected is because, "I could not understand what the authors are trying to accomplish", or a review which suggests a misunderstanding as to what the paper is trying to accomplish. That is just a waste and completely avoidable.
The papers that have been rejected by my group will often start with, " This paper was extremely clear and well written. However..."
EDIT:
I think that in general, it sounds like the PIs may be going a little bit too far in your case, but it is really hard to tell without knowing your research topic, the scope of the revisions, and your conversations with the PIs. So the following are some more takes on the things you wrote which I did not initially address:
>
> "you didn't explain how you mixed this solution," so I will write, "I mixed the solution by adding XXg of XX to XX." Then they have the nerve to tell me, "you're not doing a good job, you add useless details about adding XXg of XX to XX."
>
>
>
I can see 3 plausible explanations for this:
1. The PIs simply changed their minds about whether this information was relevant. People make mistakes, and opinions change...
2. They meant something different when they asked for "how you mixed this solution". I am not a chemist, but perhaps technique or something else matters and they wanted you to describe that???
3. Perhaps over the course of several revisions, this information got included earlier in the paper, in which case, you should avoid writing this info again at this specific point in the paper.
In any case, the statement "you're not doing a good job" is a bit aggressive from my point of view. My guess is that they are getting really stressed about reviewing this paper. Perhaps they have been putting in a lot of work doing revisions and don't think you are "getting it" yet, or aren't trying hard enough. Whatever the case, they snapped at you here when they probably shouldn't have. In cases like this, you should have a sitdown meeting with them to understand why they do not think you are doing a good job. Did they sincerely mean it? And if so, how can you improve? If they really meant it, then this needs to be clarified in person.
>
> Really?! They also make jokes about my writing, like "impossible [to test mice immediately upon birth] unless you're a mouse midwife.
>
>
>
Probably they are trying to show that your logic is flawed, and simply giving you a counterexample. It probably isn't meant to be funny, it probably was just the first thing that came to their mind which conclusively showed the logical error in your writing. Scientific writing needs to be extremely precise, leaving no room for doubt. If there is an easy counterexample, then the writing is not precise enough.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: In Germany cases have been reported at the Max-Planck-Institutes, where PhD students are treated as working slaves by very famous Professors. Being critized and pressured, e.g. when getting pregnant during PhD and so on. Some of those PhD students then anonymously contacted journalists and the Max-Planck-Society had to take care of this issue. Some professors where put to other institutes or a sabbatical year.
So, this happens even at very prestigious institutes and you don't have to tolerate every kind of behaviour by your advisors, especially when colleagues of you suffer under the same behaviour.
One of my current colleagues left his former PhD position because of the Professor being a manipulating, sexually harassing slave driver, yet with very good publication record.
There is a german proverb: the route becomes the destination. While this is true for a PhD journey/odyssey, it's also true for your advisors. Both still have to learn a lot. Making fun of you in comments on your paper sketch is a no-go. This says more about them than your sketch.
As a sidenote, being co-advised by an apparently very ambitious non-tenured married couple looks rather suboptimal and uncommon to me. It doesn't have to be negative per se, but in your case it can even worsen the situation and pressure. No PhD student submits his first paper to a reputable peer-reviewed journal without several revisions by the advisor. So they could even divide the work load.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I had a similar shock when I started my PhD. I am a native English speaker and a language geek to boot. My father is a professional editor and I grew up playing language games and helping him edit texts, and I consider myself a pretty good editor too. Despite all this, when I wrote my first paper as a young PhD student and sent it off to my Catalan/Spanish-native speaker adviser, he sent it back covered in corrections!
My first reaction was to scoff! What can this guy tell *me* about writing? I'm a native speaker! I have always been praised for my writing skills! I'm sure his corrections will be total crap. And then I sat down and started going through his corrections and damned if every single one of them wasn't correct!
A few years and a few papers later, I sent my first paper as a post-doc to my French PI. This time, I had considerably more experience, I had submitted a few papers already and my PI's English, while good, was not as good as my old PhD adviser's. And yet, once more, she sent it back to me with loads of corrections. Some of her corrections weren't in perfect English, but again, every one of them was either a clear improvement or, at worst, a reasonable suggestion.
I have never written a paper that was not significantly improved by someone else. I have also edited many papers for friends and colleagues, many of whom were far more experienced than I, and I have always been able to improve their work. It is simply very hard, if not impossible, to edit your own work as well as someone else can do it. An outsider's eye always sees things that you missed. And things that seem perfectly clear to you might not be to someone else. You know exactly what you did, so what seems crystal clear to you might be completely opaque to someone else.
All this said, I cannot judge how they treat you from what you've written. You may very well be right and they're being unreasonably harsh with you. But things like "what are you doing here [in reference to a statement]?," "stop doing XX," "don't do that," and "wrong, read it again" seem absolutely fine to me. Don't take it personally, listen to what they're saying and learn from it! When editing, you don't have time to sit and write a long comment on everything you find. I won't write "I am sorry, but I really think that this particular point might be expressed better", I'll just say "this is wrong". And then we can go over it together and I'll point out why.
All this is to say that writing papers is an acquired skill, and nobody expects to send a paper to someone for revisions and get no revisions. So while their tone might leave something to be desired, and you might want to discuss that with them, the fact that they rewrite everything most likely means that you need to change the way you write.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: I don't think you should be so eager to discount your alternatives.
* Just because confronting hasn't worked before, doesn't mean you can't ever succeed in reasoning with them.
* Your university surely has some sort of ombuds office or campus climate unit. In this situation they would almost certainly side with you, and if nothing else should give useful, practical advice on how to mediate the conflict.
* You could quit and do a PhD in another university. Yes, it will make the application more complicated, but you can spin your experience into a strength. You will have wasted your 1.5 years, but in the grand scheme of things that's a fairly minor loss. Consider that a typical PhD takes 7 years in your field.
* You could go into a different career. Grad students are usually anxious about jobs but if you figured out how to get yourself into grad school, you can surely figure out how to get yourself hired for a job that pays more than grad school.
Regardless, don't forget that you're not a slave or prisoner. You were the most promising guy out of several dozen highly qualified applicants. **They** wanted you to be there. It's costing the university and your PIs a lot of money to have you there. It's taking their valuable time. They have very little reason to waste your potential and failure on your part would also diminish their own prestige. So the interests are aligned in this: Everybody would be happier if you succeeded. The manner in which they have chosen to ensure your success might not be pretty, it may even be ineffective. But rest assured that in the back of their mind they *want it to be effective*.
In a perfect world, you would be able to just reason with them and improve matters. Morally, it is also the most correct act to step up and break the cycle of institutional abuse. However, in practice it may be very difficult to get anywhere by resisting, so I'll leave the choice up to you. If you do choose to not fight it, and instead decide to get with the program, here's some advice:
* Try not to take it personally. A criticism of one sentence you wrote is not necessarily a criticism of your character. Even if the critic meant it as such, it is up to you to interpret it as merely a comment on the work discussed rather than you as a person. Nobody except a mind reader can ever know what you are truly like as a person, therefore personal criticism is ultimately kind of futile. Don't identify with your work, don't think of your draft as your baby. That's just asking for anguish when the baby gets spanked. If possible, try to pretend you didn't write the manuscript, you're just helping edit someone else's text and have no personal stake in it beyond improving it as much as possible given the circumstances.
* Sending unpolished manuscripts **is** a bad habit. Even the nicest advisor has limited time he can devote to editing, and there is an infinite amount of editing that can be done, so you have no guarantee that the edits your advisor chooses to make will be the most useful ones. If you send an early draft and your advisor spends his time fixing some typos, you have just wasted a very valuable thing. You could have found the typos yourself, and the advisor could have instead clarified some aspect of theory that only he has the wisdom to. There are edits that your advisor can make, that would substantially improve your paper, that nobody else can (including you). You want to maximize your chances of obtaining these "profound" edits. Since every edit they make is an opportunity for such profundity, and there is a finite number of edits they can make, you want to eliminate less useful, "minor" edits from the pool. You should aim to make it impossible for an advisor to tell you something you couldn't have thought of yourself, or learned from someone else. That way everything they can possibly tell you will necessarily be useful and insightful. I don't know if this is what your advisors mean to tell you, but it is in your interest to interpret it this way regardless.
* If their comments are confusing, try putting the agreement in writing as objectively and clearly as you can. Eg. "you told me to rephrase this part, but earlier you recommended the opposite...". Just typing this out can help you understand their point. If not, you can then make your case to them and ask them to clarify. Don't be confrontational or accusatory when asking for clarification - frame it as wanting to understand them better and improve yourself. And don't forget to demonstrate an effort of trying to understand their point of view.
* Sometimes writing style can be a bit subjective. When the disagreement is mostly a matter of taste, it is not a bad idea to suppress your own taste and follow your advisor's taste. You'll have plenty of opportunity to "find your own voice" once you graduate. But when in doubt, you can only go so wrong if your voice is your advisor's voice. They can't criticize that too much without also criticizing themselves.
* When they give negative criticism, solicit constructive feedback. For example, "I appreciate your comment that this part could use work, what do you think would be the best way to improve it?" or "I agree that extraneous details should be removed. What do you think is the most important detail about making the solution?" A neat trick is to give them a few versions of a passage and ask which one is best/worst. That way it's very hard for them to avoid giving you some kind of constructive feedback. Keep in mind that even people who suck at giving constructive advice, and only criticize, can still be tricked into being constructive by clever phrasing.
* I appreciate that the wisecracks are painful to hear, but it's unlikely that you can get them to stop. Try to look at it in a positive light. It's a minor error, you can correct it and move on. You can even have a chuckle at the silly mistake you made. I'm not saying the remark you quote is fair to you, but if your goal is to not let it get to you, the way to do it is to not take yourself too seriously. Generally, if you get an actionable mean comment, remember that the best, quickest way of getting out of it is to just do what it says, and the comment will become irrelevant (beyond your hurt pride).
* Don't think of it as "sucking it up". That sets up a defeatist attitude. Instead, appreciate that you're overcoming a tough challenge: That of effectively working even with difficult people. It's not about who is being a baby. It's about a bunch of people with difficult personalities who could produce something great if only you figured out a way to make it work. That way instead of ruminating about how unfair it is to be abused and have to turn the other cheek, you can instead feel proud of yourself for making the most of a difficult situation.
* It's good to be confident, but don't be too eager with platitudes like "I have a family so I'm above this". The fact is that almost everyone marries and procreates at some point, it's hardly a distinction. In fact, since the typical PhD student is much younger and less experienced, but is able to handle it just as well, bringing your family into it reflects poorly on you. Again, be confident, don't let the criticism grind you down, but be cognizant of the subtle difference between confidence and pride. One will open doors wherever you go, the other is a cardinal sin.
* This isn't to put you down, but the general impression I get, especially given that you're older than the typical student, is that you could use a little more assertiveness. If these people are really the same age as you, how is it that they get away with the tone they take? If you had met a random stranger on the street that was being condescending to you, how would you de-escalate and resolve that conflict? Do the same principles really not apply to your advisors?
But in general, try to maintain an attitude of making the most of the hand you're dealt and improving as a person. We can't know if your advisors really mean well and are just coming at it wrong, or if they're truly just bullies and enjoy abusing you. But the good news is, it doesn't matter. Even a negative, mean or hurtful comment meant to put you down can still be turned into something constructive that you can grow from. It doesn't make the hurtful comment right, but if you can't meaningfully redress the offense, you might as well benefit from the situation if possible. And it is often much more possible than it may seem.
Lastly, I would also strongly recommend seeing if there's some sort of counseling or support group available at your university. Try as you might, the emotional aspect of it may be very tough in isolation. If you can commiserate with people who are basically in the same boat as you, shrugging off the negativity can become much easier. And who knows, you might learn a useful trick or two from it as well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: *Your PIs were without questions very rude*.
However, from what you are describing here:
>
> I'll submit a manuscript, and a certain section gets no comments.
> Then, I submit the manuscript again and the previously fine section is
> now crap!
>
> ...
>
> They also rewrite almost everything I write. None of my writing ever makes it to the final cut.
>
>
>
That means after several attempts to help you to write the paper, your PIs concluded that it was impossible to fix your writing, and it would be better for them to write the paper themselves.
This is counterproductive, you and your PIs were wasting a lot of effort, and everybody were understandably frustrated.
[I also had problem with writing during my PhD](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/26751/do-asian-authors-have-a-different-style-of-academic-writing-from-european-author), and although my advisor told me several times that he just wanted to re-write the papers, he never really did. So you need to understand how much effort your PIs had spent on you and your paper.
Your PIs were rude, as a result of losing patience, and losing self-control.
>
> Should I just grin and bear it? How do you cope with rude and
> demeaning PIs?
>
>
>
You need to address the root cause: improve your writing to meet the satisfaction of your PIs.
I'm unable to give advice on how to improve writing, but there are some good ones in my own question, you can find a bunch of others on this site or in the internet.
Your PIs re-wrote the paper, so now you have to versions: what you wrote, and what they expected you to write. You can learn from them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: It's mixed, which parts of their behavior are rude. But in total, they are just plain rude here, even when some parts would be okay for other persons.
---
Lets analyse the different parts:
>
> don't send us manuscripts with errors, next time they'll be sent back to you
>
>
>
When you made a good attempt with your manuscript this is rude. Even when it would be bad, its partly their responsiblity to help you or at least point out the obvious flaws.
When they needed to point out the same mistake three times, they would be right. But the first time, they should help or at least give some rough pointers where you need to improve on.
>
> don't waste people's time with unpolished manuscripts.
>
>
>
That's just rude.
>
> I'm only 3 semesters in so I'm not perfect
>
>
>
You don't need to. You need to make a best-efford attempt and teaching you what you got wrong is their responsiblity, when you did your best.
>
> impossible [to test mice immediately upon birth] unless you're a mouse midwife
>
>
>
If you're having a good relationship, this would probably be an acceptable attempt at pointing out some mistake with a bit of humor. Then it would even make the cricticism less harsh. But your relationship is not like this.
>
> what are you doing here [in reference to a statement]?
>
>
>
Just a short way to point out a mistake. This is normally not rude for persons that have little time. They point out a flaw and it's your task to check what can be improved.
>
> stop doing XX
>
>
>
This can be some short advice as well.
>
> wrong, read it again
>
>
>
A bit impolite, but still pointing out that you should read the source more careful. Implies, that they think you should have read it better the first time.
In the sum it is not acceptable, and some statements are not acceptable in any case. I just wanted to point out a few statements, that are not polite, but not unusual for busy professors, even when they are much more polite persons when they have enough time.
>
> If I'm just being a baby, totally feel free to tell me just to suck it up
>
>
>
It is not okay to make you feel like that. They need to get this right on the interpersonal level, independend of the quality of your work.
>
> I'm middle-aged with a spouse and kids--I don't need to take crap from PIs my own age
>
>
>
Right. But you do not need to justify this with anything. You just do not need to take crap.
>
> Is this type of behavior normal and acceptable in a lab? Should I just grin and bear it? How do you cope with rude and demeaning PIs?
>
>
>
No. Some people seeming rude because of their brevity happens often in labs with busy people that need to take care of many PhD candidates, but they still respect their subordinates. You do not seem to be respected and that's absolutely not okay.
>
> They also rewrite almost everything I write. None of my writing ever makes it to the final cut.
>
>
>
I am not sure here. I think you should first try to understand the interpersonal problems. When you get the respect you deserve, it can be clarified if your work really misses important points all the time or not. But this cannot be clarified as long as you are not able to interact in a respectful way.
Anything they say may just be not objective because something's wrong about you, so you have no way to actually tell if their criticism is correct or not.
To build some self-esteeem, you could try to find some neutral people to review your work and tell you whats great about it. Then you will be able to trust them, when they point out flaws as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: The PIs' comments on the OP's writing are not constructive. If the OP's university has some kind of writing lab or writing center [1], they may have people who are trained in helping you identify and use best practices for scientific writing.
Writing centers can be tremendously helpful. I trained to work in such a writing center around the time I defended my PhD. This was shortly before I submitted my final chapter to my PI. Two previous chapters had a combined 45 drafts. After reading the final chapter, my PI asked who had helped me with it and that the style was much improved - and this was just with me taking the training for a writing center (~20 hrs), not having actually worked with someone on it. While at the lab, I assisted several PhD candidates on both publications and theses, up to 5 hours a week for 10 weeks.
[1] <http://writingcenter.oregonstate.edu/>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: **Your PIs are being rude and giving you non-constructive comments**.
Currently, the top voted answers to this question incorrectly focus on you needing to improve your writing skills. They should be focused on your question, about your PIs' behaviors and comments. **Many people give their PIs and advisors a pass because they have it in their head that graduate school should be miserable and comments made by a smart or successful PI cannot defacto be misguided. This is wrong.**
You don't have to be an asshole to be a successful scientist, PI, or advisor, despite the fact that there are plenty of them with these undesirable qualities.
Do not just grin an bear it. I would suggest approaching them civilly in person to explain why you felt their comments were not constructive, and how they could be more constructive with minimal effort. Explain how this would benefit both them and you (e.g. you get more clear feedback on how to improve your writing, they don't have to endure as many mistakes in your writing).
Graduate school is all about learning how to do independent research, and everything that goes along with it. This is part of your PIs job. This shouldn't be miserable; challenging yes, miserable no (your PI especially shouldn't be adding to your misery).
Best of luck.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: 1. My advice is just to flex a little spine. Some people only respect you if peck back. Don't whine. And don't go postal. But definitely push back. Hard. Let them have something to stress about. Put the bear on their shoulders.
2. The situation sounds really bad given (a) two advisors and (b) married to each other, thus a conflict of interest and (c) relatively junior/young [older profs are WAY more likely to be kinder/gentler]. Also, I would assume they are probably giving conflicting edits.
3. You've had different jobs and done work in industry. Follow the directions to authors and what you see in papers and just write them as you think best. My very first paper, my PI said "this will get outright rejected, if not held up for a year of revisions". I said, send it in and let's see. It was accepted without any revisions (and at a good journal). PI was dumbfounded as he'd had 100+ papers and never had just "accepted". And even a few hundred as a subeditor without seeing this. He didn't know how to respond (no response needed, wait for galleys). He never screwed with me again on papers and we just submitted exactly what I wrote (and every other of the handful of first author papers I did flowed through). The point of this is not just "yeah me", but that these little tinpot dictators aren't always as on the ball as they think they are. Do your own thing. Even if it goes wrong, better to hang with your own rope than someone else's. It sucks to have issues when you wanted to do something different in the beginning yourself. Be independent.
4. If you just can't get stuff done with these people, than switch advisors (talk to the department, they will likely take care of you). Sure, give them a talk first, but make it a bit of a "my way or nothing" since you have nothing to lose and are already ready to bail.
5. Unfortunately bailing from academia entirely is also an option. There is a lot of BS in academia and it can be a drag if you've been a functioning adult not a delayed adolescent (perhaps in ways/settings that the professors don't even have). But I would try to make the thing work. Adapt and overcome and be a bit of a guerilla fighter.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_11: Your supervisors are not yet experienced enough to understand that it is unprofessional to talk in insulting way, subtle insulting including. The criticism should address very exact technical or scientific aspects, argument the reasons why should be done a different way, be communicated in emotion-free way and in general concentrate on making science, not on power games and ego grooming. Also, the feedback must include all issues that should be fixed, minimizing the number of rewrites this way.
Some of the comments look like warnings that your skills or level of trying is unacceptably low. Unless this is exactly that is *intended* to be communicated, such a trash talking is also unacceptable.
I think it would be appropriate to talk about these problems with them first. The insult may not be deliberate: some people just play the manner of some movie hero they like yet not in place. If the conversation does not work, ask somebody higher in the hierarchy to change the supervision, explaining the reason.
From the other side, it is normal to rewrite the scientific work multiple times, and even redo the experiments. This does not show by itself that your skills are low or you are not making any progress. Even professors, heads of department, do this quite often because it is very unusual to get the manuscript accepted on the first submission, without even minor requests for correction. Hence you really should not be insulted by proposals to make multiple changes, and multiple times, and more than you think would be enough. It is not "redoing" the work, it is just making a step forward towards the finished work.
However if the language is uncivil, that's another story. There is no any need for researchers to insult one another, regardless of the ranks.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_12: **Frankly, your writing needs to improve AND your PhD advisors are jerks.**
Incoming graduate students are incapable of writing acceptable (let alone good) scientific papers (and that's not their fault). Part of the PhD experience is to learn to write well, satisfying the rigorous standards of scientific communication. Teaching this is part of a PhD advisor's job.
**HOWEVER**, in your case, two things stand out:
1. Your advisors' rudeness
2. Your advisors verbally abusing another co-worker while being nice in person (thereby constituting a pattern of behavior)
The 2nd point specifically rings alarm bells for me. People who are nice upfront and rude behind the safety of their computer are passive-aggressive bullies (I'm speaking from experience with people like these, including my ex).
>
> If I'm just being a baby, totally feel free to tell me just to suck it up.
>
>
>
No you're not being a baby. People should have the right to be treated with dignity.
>
> I'm middle-aged with a spouse and kids – I don't need to take crap from PIs my own age.
>
>
>
**You may receive flak for this statement but I agree with you on this one: PhD wages are peanuts. You don't get paid enough to take this sort of crap and frankly, at one point you are too old for this.**
However, your situation as described, means that you don't have a lot of options other than continuing on in this lab. I suggest:
1. Politely point out the fact that their rudeness affects you personally and hampers your efforts to improve. Keep the tone non-accusatory.
2. Clench your teeth, put in the effort and write better. Most universities have writing services where they impart training on manuscript preparation.
3. Confide in your spouse and attend counselling services.
4. Maintain a record (electronic and/or written) on the abusive behaviour. This may come in handy should you one day decide to file a report with the school's disciplinary/mediation committee.
5. Keep your communications with them polite, but curt and professional. Never share information about your personal life with them because people like these are vultures and won't shy away from using your emotions and personal circumstances as leverage in the future.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/13
| 729
| 3,327
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was teaching a graduate course in previous semester. One of my student implemented an idea I discussed with him during semester project. The results are astonishing and we decided to publish our findings in a prestigious journal.
I included his supervisor as co-author, and before submission I sent the manuscript to him for his feedback. But in response he said, he should be second and corresponding author. He has zero contribution in idea, write up and experiments etc.
The student told me his professor is angry to him that why he is publishing article with other professor; although, it was outcome of semester project based on my idea.
Being a young faculty member how to handle this situation (Professor is very senior person in his 60s)? especially without hurting the relationship between student and his supervisor.<issue_comment>username_1: What is considered normal, hence ethical, varies by field. In mathematics, this would be a highly unusual situation. But in some lab sciences, the PI is normally included on all publications since the lab itself exists only by their efforts.
I suspect you are in some such field and would then suggest that the senior professor should probably get his way. It may even be advantageous to have him as "corresponding" author as it may ease publication. In such fields readers understand these things and know who does the actual work. Thus it isn't considered to be a problem in those fields.
If you are a co-author it is probably as much as you can expect here. And maybe even that is impossible. But work to get an acknowledgement in the work, at least - especially if it says that the original idea came from you. You actually say that the student did the work of developing the idea, of course. If the student is "first author" it is a good outcome. The rest is just a bit of an arcane dance.
I think that if you don't press to hard for what might be considered in the field to be an unusual outcome that the relationship between the student and the senior professor will settle down sufficiently.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: My personal feeling in this matter is that the student or you should be the first author (better if the student), his PI the second or later, and you be the corresponding author.
Breaking it down, if you be the first and corresponding author then it is kind of redundant with no extra benefit. But if the student is the first author, it shows that you guided the student through the project and writing, hence good teaching and leadership skills. Lastly, in no instance, I believe the other PI should be the corresponding author. Just because he is senior and might be established in the field should not just get his way. If you are an early career, then getting on the publications as the corresponding author is a great way to get exposure and network. In this situation, I believe the best course of action would be to sit with the student and his PI and discuss this in person and explain everything. And make sure he understands that this publication is the result of a project that was conceived during semester teaching to ease out the tension he might be having with his student working with other professors.
This is my own opinion, so proceed with your own gut feeling.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/13
| 2,777
| 11,560
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently working on my PhD in a Canadian university. I already had a master's degree before joining the PhD program. In my department (chemical engineering), the normal timeline for getting a PhD is 3.5-4.5 years (if joined with a prior master's degree). We take only 2 courseworks in the first semester. More are taken if the advisor or the committee instructs one to do so. Rest of the time is dedicated to research, TAship, etc...
However, due to my own mistakes (taking too much time initially to explore the research area and scope) and wrong decisions (investing too much time of a day in developing my hobby), I will be defending later this year with the total PhD duration equalling 5 years 4 months.
I will have 4 publications (in decent journals) by the time I graduate. I also have couple of other works that will eventually get published. I am not concerned about my publications record at the moment as that's something in my control and which is directly proportional to the hard work I put in the future.
My question is: Will my above average number of years spent on a PhD be considered a red flag in future academia or industry positions?<issue_comment>username_1: It might but indirectly, because you are a bit older. While I don't have a picture for industry, in academia I would say that is of minor impact.
It can even don't show up in an interview or audit, when the activity of the candidate has been up, of quality, and constant.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It's well known that there is a significant amount of variability in the time that it takes for a student to finish a PhD, particularly in programs with more rigorous standards. My own graduate department, for example, preferred people to finish in 5-6 years, but was somewhat infamous for allowing some to take as long as 10 years.
In fact, I would venture to say that it is the opposite. I would typically consider it a red flag if somebody took a *shorter than usual* amount of time to obtain their Ph.D. Typically if you have a really good student, you don't graduate them faster, but instead you graduate them in the normal time but with a much stronger portfolio of results. Shorter-than-usual Ph.D. studies, on the other hand, are typically a sign of somebody rushing to depart the program by meeting the bare minimum of requirements.
Bottom line: if you've done good work and have good publications, the fact that you took one more year than is typical for your department will barely even be noticed, let alone held to be significant. This is even more true for most industry jobs.
If somebody does actually ask you, however, focus on the first of your reasons (time spent figuring out an appropriate area of focus) rather than the latter reason (time spent working on out-of-work projects), as the second may be of legitimate concern to future employers.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: In my department the normal time to finish is 4-6 years, but there were some cases with >6 years too. And they are all doing fine in academia as well as industry. As long as you have something concrete to show your output from a PhD then you should be good.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: "Red flag" is a definite exaggeration. There is probably some correlation of faster Ph.D.s being stronger, but it is weak. Even there, there is huge variability.
I find the variability being more with longer Ph.D.s having some very outstanding people than the converse. Disagree with the answer above that sees short Ph.D. as a red flag (or at least mild negative). I see it as mild positive.
As for your papers, that sounds fine. You've checked the boxes (stereotypical "three strikes and you're out"). At this point, I would not be wistful about your grad school career. Although it is natural human instinct to be so at this stage. It is not unusual to have some wheel spinning during this time. But you got the job done. Finish up and move on with a smile on your face and looking for next challenge.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I recently hired several people for our company. If I saw that somebody took more than 5 years to get a PhD, a red flag would go off, and I would actually start looking at their dissertation to get a sense for whether the extended time was actually necessary. (5 years 4 months probably wouldn't trip my alarm though). In my view, a long period of time completing a PhD should only be warranted for an exceptional dissertation.
One way to mitigate this would be to indicate why the PhD took so long on your cover letter. For instance, one candidate took approximately 10 years, but had a severe medical issue for several of the intermittent years. That is valuable information to me as the one screening the applications.
I would just add one more point. And that is that typically, we will screen literally 100 candidates for 1 position, all with fairly similar backgrounds. So while it may seem unfair to just quickly judge a candidate based on how long it took to acquire a PhD, I will use every tool at my disposal to try to get that stack of 100 seemingly equal candidates on paper down to about 15 candidates that we can start calling for prescreening interviews.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> Is above average number of years spent on PhD considered a red flag...?
>
>
>
Not a red flag, but it could make your potentional recruiter apprehensive if it took you a very long time. How many years are we talking about here?
>
> ... PhD duration equaling 5 years 4 months.
>
>
>
Oh, then no problem. I mean, you won't get "magical glory points" for being very fast with your PhD, but no. You said you got decent publications, so it should be ok.
Of course, that doesn't guarantee you'll get a tenure-track offer anywhere :-(
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I work at a large finance/technology company and have been on the hiring team for nine new members of our department in the past two years. Three of them have PhDs. I've interviewed dozens of candidates and lost track of how many PhDs were among them. I myself have a PhD, and generally look out for things like the field, subfield, years at school, etc, when I first get a resume.
I have never once brought up the amount of time anyone has done a PhD, and have never heard anyone else mention it. By the time a room of people are discussing a candidate, we are talking about their group interview, technical challenge submission, one-on-one Q&A performance, general team fit and other characteristics that would directly affect the job. We have a limited amount of time to discuss these things. If a coworker ever brought up such a detail without immediately leading into a point about something greater, like a potentially dishonest resume, I would straight up ask why we are spending time talking about it.
The *only* exception I could conceive of is if the opening is for some sort of academic-like research position, but I have no experience hiring for roles like that (or in academia at large).
**Virtually nobody in industry cares about how long a candidate takes to do a PhD.**
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_8: I took seven years to finish my Ph.D. As far as I can tell it's never hurt me at all. If anything, staying longer helped a bit because CV looked better when measured in the standard unit of "years since Ph.D."
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: There are some legal limitations for mentioning the years during which you studied.
For instance, in the USA the period of the academic study is not mentioned on resumes. This is to prevent employers to estimate one’s age, which is also not mentioned during the job application.
For the reason mentioned above, at least in the USA, how long it took one to do their PhD is irrelevant when they solicit a position.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: As somebody who does a lot of technical interviews for consulting: In my experience up to 1.5 times the "normal" time is not a red flag under the following conditions:
* Acceptable publications/results (patents, project participation) are proven
* Potentially other circumstances (family, job etc)
* Switch of topic/subtopic
* Switch of advisor/difficult advisor
* Failed approach to topic
* Group moved
* New field in group started (5 years in not a super-big amount of time for setting up a clean room for lithography to getting the first results)
* Skills learned (Yes, in many reputable groups candidates usually are very focused on their central topic, good for academia, not so good for industry)
...and many other factors.
Most of them are to be explained/discussed in the interview, however the publication/patent/project record and skills is something which I typically check based on the CV only before deciding for an interview. Make sure that you are prepared to clarify your motivation during the interview for continuing the PHD)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: A PhD is a very individual experience -- most people hiring one will know this. Many people finish quickly because they have strong results, or finish late because they were doing valuable work and being well treated. Similarly, poor students might take short, ordinary, or long times as well. What matters is the quality of your academic output *and* the letters of reference / teaching reports etc. People will either hire you for specific things you have done or specific expertise, or they hire you for the kind of contribution you can make to their department or lab as a person, or some combination of both.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: Hiring at the junior level in academic economics is based on the prediction of the person's future performance (at a senior level it may be partly "buying" publications for the department, thus past performance). The prediction is partly about whether the person will get tenure or not.
To predict future publication output in a specified timeframe (tenure clock), the time taken to produce the current output is helpful information. I would divide the current quality-adjusted papers by the number of years taken to produce them to estimate the output per year, then multiply that by the length of the tenure clock and compare to the tenure standard. The number of years for past output includes both the PhD and other research positions, for example research Master's, working in a research position at any institution, etc.
I do not exactly know what you mean by a "red flag", but a longer time to PhD conditional on the same output is a negative signal. The signal is continuous in the length of time, not a discrete cutoff in the style of ">6 years and you're disqualified".
A similar adjustment as for time can be made for the number of coauthors.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_13: I would claim it is rather the opposite.
A good student you want to spend much time working together with.
A bad student just takes time and resources and gives nothing.
So it makes sense to get rid of them faster and hold on to the good ones.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_14: In Argentina for example PhD tend to last 6 to 8 years after master studies that take around 6 years. However if there are no max age requirements to apply for further positions I don´t see why taking 5 years would be a problem.
5 years spent on a PhD with no scientific production at all, well that could be a red flag. But with 4 publications in your portfolio..... you can know for sure that you have made a decent PhD!
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/13
| 663
| 2,147
|
<issue_start>username_0: In a thesis using the “(Author, Year)” citation style a problem arises when the date is missing. Then Citavi for Word just writes “(Author)”. Now in case that there are several undated sources from the same company, all of them become “(Company)”, which is ambigious. If there was a year one could simply do “(Company, 2019a)” and “(Company 2019b)” to resolve this.
What shall one do when there is a missing date and there are multiple sources? Shall one just use “0000a” and “0000b” for the date?<issue_comment>username_1: Follow whatever your required citation style demands. One option is to write "no date".
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You can use the same approach as for multiple sources from a single known year, adding an additional letter. For example one way of writing it would be "(Company, n.d.-a)" and "Company, n.d.-b)", where 'n.d.' is short for "no date". Adapt as needed to meet the requirements of your citation style. The hyphen is required for the [APA style](https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/01/alphabetizing-in-press-and-no-date-references.html), for example, but might not be universal:
>
> Also remember that if you have two or more “in press” or “no date” references with the same authors in the same order, you should use lowercase letters—*a, b, c,* and so forth—after the publication date and alphabetize the references by their titles (excluding *A, An,* and *The;* see p. 182 in the Publication Manual). The only difference between these types of references and references with publication years is that “in press” and “no date” references contain a hyphen before the *a, b,* and so forth:
>
>
> American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-a). The knowledge . . .
>
>
> American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-b). A strategy to . . .
>
>
> <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2011a). The power . . .
>
>
> <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2011b). Task complexity . . .
>
>
> <NAME>., & <NAME>. (in press-a). The rapid learning . . .
>
>
> <NAME>., & <NAME>. (in press-b). Sometimes a child . . .
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2019/04/14
| 632
| 2,243
|
<issue_start>username_0: Dear academics and scholars,
Since the primary purpose of the Stackexchange academic community is suppose to be creating a reliable internet resource of easy to access facts; this "Big List" request for similar cases from around the world should, in my humble opinion, be "compelling" enough to be expanded upon.
>
> Questions asking for a "big list" of examples, illustrations, etc. Ask only when the topic is compelling, and please do not use this as the only tag for a question.
>
>
>
Recently, in the US; the [**"largest-ever"**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal) college admissions bribery scandal was exposed in the news.
>
> "The case is the largest of its kind to be prosecuted by the US Justice Department.[14]"
>
>
>
How does the scale and scope of this particular case compare with these types of scandals in college admissions exams in other "third-world" and European countries?<issue_comment>username_1: Oh boy, this was so cute when they mentioned it was the biggest scandal in the US history. It happens around the world more frequently and at a larger scale. [Here is a brief summary of these kinds of scandals around the world](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/16/our-big-college-admissions-scandal-just-made-us-look-lot-more-like-rest-world/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a2cd0973463).
Here are a couple from my home country of India. This one was at a large scale in the state of Madhya Pradesh called [Vyapam scam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyapam_scam). It was big enough that they made a wiki page for this. I remember it was in the news for too long when it happened. "It involved scamsters including politicians, senior and junior officials and businessmen systematically employing imposters to write papers, manipulate exam hall seating arrangements and supply forged answer sheets by bribing officials." Wikipedia
Another one from same Indian state called Dental and Medical Admission Test [(DMAT scam)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMAT_scam).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Many universities accept all students who apply. At these institutions, nobody pays a bribe to be admitted to the university.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/14
| 1,234
| 4,897
|
<issue_start>username_0: So, I’m sure we all know about the stereotype of the professor in the tweed jacket. Based on a cursory web search, it looks like the stereotype started because tweed was a relatively cheap but warm material, and professors were a relatively poorly paid class of professionals, so they kept wearing them until the elbows wore out and they patched them.
I’m aware that these sorts of things can get a degree of momentum of their own, though, so I was wondering if there was any etiquette in modern academia regarding jackets? I’m a master’s student who is planning on doing a PhD afterwards with the intention of getting into academia; would buying a tweed jacket to try to look professional be viewed as presumptuous or anything?<issue_comment>username_1: ### Simple, smart, clean clothes
Stick to conventional office clothing, if you want to convey efficiency. Do not waste money on expensive clothes to impress, but also do not look shabby or unkempt if you can avoid it.
You will (or should be!) judged on the quality of your work, and not on your clothing, unless it is dirty or outstandingly ill-fitting.
I am a professor of medicine. I am glad you are asking your question here, anonymously and you are not one of my students asking me in person: I would rebuke you for wasting time thinking about trivialities, and perhaps even for thinking I am so vain as to spend my every last penny on clothes! I can certainly afford far, far more expensive clothes, car and home than I have, but I don't want to.
When presenting at an external meeting, though, try to look smart. This does not have to be expensive. Wear the clothes your teachers wear in such occasions. If you don't know what they are going to wear (say tomorrow), then make an estimate and "round up". If you are slightly overdressed, nobody will notice. If you are markedly under-dressed, it might attract unfavourable attention.
In my field, the most cost-effective approach for students who don't want to spend much is to have a standard interview suit, and use it for presentations in front of big groups or external audiences, and for interviews. And then stop thinking about it. Work on your research instead.
By the way, my personal approach for myself? I always wear black trousers. They are interchangeable. Any time I need to give a presentation, I use any one of a handful of black suit jackets I keep in various places. It vaguely looks like a suit, in the sense that nobody notices it isn't, and nobody cares. The moment you start to get different coloured suits, you are in for a world of expensive fiddling around where you have to have the particular matching set, and damage to one part of one thing messes up a lot of money in one go. I save my brain cell
time for funner things than colour-matching, like StackExchange.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I don't know if I'd call it an etiquette, but there are certainly different ways to dress in different subfields of disciplines. If you attend an academic conference and notice such things you will see the variety by clique. As for tweed, my partner and I wore it as students (bought second-hand in Edinburgh) and we were mostly viewed as the eccentrics we are, as far as I know. Dressing decently generally shows respect for others, though a few people find it an affront to their class consciousness. Dressing expensively can be seen as distancing from those who can't afford it. The main thing is to be confident that you are presenting yourself as who you really are, so then if there are any concerns you can hopefully laugh them off or explain your dress as a matter of personal taste and/or a concern for general aesthetics.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: When I was a masters student (management science) at Imperial College 50 years ago, I chose to wear a suit and tie. Fortunately for me, I must have had other characteristics that compensated for the obvious eccentricity of my dress, so I survived.
I am now a PhD student (statistics) at a leading UK university. I have seen no evidence that any of the academic staff, including full professors, know what a tweed jacket is, let alone would wear a jacket of that or any other kind in their daily work.
From what I know of Australia, I would suppose that it tends to be less formal than the UK.
My conclusion is that you are likely to be overdressed in daily academic life if you wear a jacket. That might or might not be a disadvantage: a friend of mine claimed that his professional career took off because his taste in collars (stiff and high) meant that people remembered him, but he did of course have outstanding professional skills as well.
It all turns on whether you think people will think of you as "that weird guy who wears a jacket all the time" or as "that brilliant guy, you know, the one who wears a jacket."
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/14
| 861
| 3,778
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a couple of interviews for research assistant vacancies in the next few days, but I didn't list the advisors of my undergraduate research project as my references, even though I added the project details and listed them as the advisors. I left them out of the references as the relationship I had with them wasn't that great. It was solely a case of a poor fit between a student and advisors; they had a particular way of providing feedback and comments that worked really well for some students but didn't work for a lot of students. I unfortunately fell into the latter camp.
I want to emphasize that they were not bad people, but simply because the fit, both professionally and personally, was probably quite poor to begin with. They've had students before that really blossomed under their supervision style, but it required a particular kind of student with solid coping mechanisms that I unfortunately did not cultivate at the time. They've also had much more personable relationships with other students as well, one which I did not have with them; we only talked about the thesis. Again, it wasn't their fault, and I can't emphasize that enough, but it was just a case of a really bad fit that I unfortunately did not see at the time.
With interviews for research assistant positions coming up, I'm not sure how to address this if it's asked. For example, '***Why weren't your advisors listed as reference?***' or '***How was you're relationship with your advisors?***'
Worse still, '***Would you be able to provide us with the contact details of your undergrad advisors?***'
Has anyone else been in such a position before? Have you had a relationship that made you not want to list your advisors as a reference? Has it come up in interviews before, and if so, how did you address it?
If you're a PI for a lab, what would your initial thoughts be on this? Are all poor advisor-student relationships a red flag, or do you consider each circumstance on a case-by-case basis?<issue_comment>username_1: Try to focus on the positive in interviews (well, and life :-). Explain why you recommended whoever you did recommend. Say that you thought the people you recommended could give the best assessment of what you would be like on this particular job, and why you thought they would be good at that. Point out (if pressed) that your supervisors are listed on your CV and could of course be contacted, it just wouldn't be your own first choice.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The advisor-student relationship is only of higher importance in such an interview, when the student has to and is still learning a lot and needs regular supervision and guidance. It comes down to division of labour in the end, how much supervision and control an advisor wants and invests of his time on the student and how much supervision the student needs and wants.
So you could argue that you are a very autonomous person, self-teaching new material to yourself etc... Of course, it's a bonus if you can also connect easily with all types of persons and cultures and did so in past and are able to make compromises. But it would be rashly to exclude you from a job position (in my opinion), because you seem like a difficult personality, as this phenomenon is not uncommon among some of the historical renown and very successful scientists, mostly because such had very personal ways to think and conduct their work with the will (not inability) to not make compromises. Just don't overweigh this issue. Other questions, criterions and answers in an interview are much more important and personally I would prefer a difficult but autonomous and creative person over someone who needs constant and unbroken supervision.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/14
| 890
| 3,735
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know that a PhD is necessary to enter academia which means you can find a better job and get salary.
But, how about doing a Habilitation in Germany? Does it have any positive impact on the career or financial situation as an international student?
For instance, say someone is barely employed. So, he is supposed to get an "actual" job after the completion of his PhD. But, can he postpone getting the job until he completes his Habilitation? What would be the financial implication?<issue_comment>username_1: Your question is a bit unclear (see @Wrzlprmft's comment) and I hope to resolve the confusion. Practically doing a habilitation is very similar to a PhD in Germany. You are hired by a professor and conduct/manage research projects (and you often have the duty to teach).
The difference is you are expected to work very autonomously, acquire funding as PI, supervise PhD students and develop your own research ideas. The professor/university more or less borrow you infrastructure (offices/devices).
The implication is, if you have managed to write and defend a habilitation thesis after some years, you are over-qualified for much more jobs in comparison to "only" having a PhD.
Giving a general answer, how this pays off in industry/academia depends more on the current demand in your field of research. But it's crucial to anticipate that if you don't get tenure as a professor with habilitation (and there is a high likelihood it distinct branches), there are nearly no other positions in the German academic system where your habilitation is an advantage (rather disadvantage).
In industry you are then seen as someone who wants to develop his own ideas, manage projects, be autonomous and is maybe hard to integrate in a bigger team as small wheel number #.
The questions here is not to ask what is the hypothetical virtual better pay-off. The question is which kind of person you are. Many people are just not suited to lead, supervise and manage teams (under strong competition) and even when attaining such a position will not be successfully in it long-term. If you are only looking for the bigger pay off and you are an autonomous person, industry is anyway the way to go (at least in Germany where professors cannot have a salary of several hundred thousands)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You have to distinguish things here:
1. A Habilitation is a **qualification level** (not quite like an academic
degree but you can think that it is sort of a **grand PhD** with additional teaching). This does not mean
that you have to be employed but in most cases you will be because
otherwise it is going to be a bit difficult to finance your life for the time it takes (normally 4-8 years)
2. A Habilitation used to be the **formal qualification level** to become
**Associate Professor** and **Full Professor**. The position of an Assistant
Professor (German "Universitätsassistent") was usually the time when you worked on obtaining the
Habilitation. Today most job advertisements do not ask for a
Habiliation anymore. Instead it states something like "Habilitation
or equivalent qualification". This allows hiring of international professors.
3. In daily university life a Habilitation might still be of
**significant advantage**. You (sadly) still hear phrases like "This guys does not even have a Habilitation - what does he even want". Also nobody will questions your ability to supervise students if you have the Habilitation (you can also without but it definitly still helps)
4. In **non-academic jobs** as in industry you will certainly not need a
Habilitation. It might rather be a disadvantage as you will be seen
as **overqualified**.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2019/04/14
| 2,974
| 12,570
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm aware that some institutions offer something that is called 'Thesis by Publication' (sandwich thesis) but that's not available to me. I'm trying to work out what pitfalls there may be to simply copying from papers that I have previously published in order to form large sections of my thesis.
The papers that I've published were largely designed to solve major problems encountered within the larger frame of research, so altogether they *should* follow a single coherent line of thought.
Must one's own work be cited in a thesis? This would be standard when submitting a paper for publication, but there is a stipulation when publishing papers that that work has not been already published elsewhere, and the same sort of thing does not really crop up with a thesis, does it?
Are there any other potentially pitfalls in this course of action?<issue_comment>username_1: A general answer for this problem can not be given here with 100%. Here some hints:
The problem you might be running in is called **self plagiarism** and
different institutions allow/forbid different approaches here.
If you are planning to write the thesis like this (which is absolutely your right) then:
1. It is essential for you to get the guidelines of your university before starting to write (and save them somewhere where you will still be able to find them even years later)
2. Check the policy of the journals that you have published in - most journals allow to re-use published material in your
thesis but make sure to also print out these guidelines and keep
them.
Checking with the university and the journals (and to have written proof of it!) might save you many troubles later. Because if someone later claims that you commited self plagiarism then you can always cite the official guidelines that were in place at the time when you wrote your thesis.
You should also check with your supervisor but just having his/her oral Ok might not be enough many years later.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Actually, I will give a general answer. **Don't do this.** It is clearly self plagiarism and this is antithetical to the scholarly process.
Ordinary plagiarism is normally stated as attributing to yourself the work of others, but there is another aspect of it that becomes clearer when you consider self plagiarism.
When anyone reads a scholarly work, unless it is completely self contained, they will want to know where the various ideas in it originated. The way to do this is to cite the previous work. What this allows is that the reader is able to go to the prior work and read the arguments there, including further citations. S/he is then able to both understand and evaluate the complete development of the ideas in the paper that started the investigation.
If you self plagiarize, unless you copy the work as a whole, including the citations and references, you break this chain. It becomes more difficult for a serious researcher to put together the bigger picture.
It is easier now, but when I was a math grad student half a century ago, one spent hours in the library reading and trying to understand deep concepts. Usually they were too difficult for us beginners, so we went back to the referenced articles to get a bigger picture. Eventually our understanding emerged and we could then work forward back to the starting point. You, in this century, don't need to do it in consultation with the librarian any more, but the process remains the same. It is the citations that form the *fundamental context* of a work, not just the words in the work itself.
So, even if you advisor says it is fine, and even if local custom says it is fine, *it is not fine*. Your thesis will become a block if anyone stumbles across it. It will be a wall, when it should be a doorway.
However, if you still hold copyright to your original papers, it is permissible to quote from them extensively. But still necessary to cite the quotations, rather than giving the impression that the ideas originated in this work, rather than in prior works, each with their own full context.
That context is fundamentally important. Don't subvert the scholarly process.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Others have already told you that a university *can* require novelty for a thesis in the sense that results published as papers do not count towards the thesis work.
However, the setting I've seen more often is that publication as paper (or conference presentation, poster, etc.) do not hurt the thesis novelty requirement but that no material that has been submitted for any other exam (e.g. Master thesis) can be used for the exam/thesis in question. *I'll answer for this scenario.*
>
> Must one's own work be cited in a thesis?
>
>
>
* In consequence of that novelty requirement, any material that was submitted for other exams has to be cited as such (i.e. like any other citation) - otherwise it would be *self-plagiarism*.
* OTOH, having peer-reviewed publications of the thesis material would usually count in your favor, so *it is in your best interest to cite them as such* even if is your own thesis work ("The results of this section have been published as [publication]").
In my (long form, but other language) thesis I numbered my publications with a prefix to mark them, and put them also in a separate reference list (the thesis application anyways required a list of my publications).
* Publications of the thesis work where you have co-authors must be cited unless you manage to leave out the contributions of your coauthors in the long-form thesis.
>
> pitfalls there may be to simply copying from papers that I have previously published in order to form large sections of my thesis.
>
>
>
The remaining pitfall then is *copyright* of the paper.
* If you retained copyright for the paper, you're fine with reusing from the publisher's point of view.
* Many journals that require you to sign over copyright to them do allow thesis use in that license contract. Others require you to obtain a license (usually highly automated process). All this is pretty streamlined nowadays because it's neede for the boilerplate theses.
=> read the copyright agreements and act accordingly
* Also your legislation may say that you retain certain rights (i.e. clauses in the copyright agreement that take those rights away are void).
* Worst case (you don't have a license to reproduce the required parts of the paper), you'll have to reword the content of the paper and to re-format tables and figures.
I'd consider a publisher with such terms a legitimate reason to not publish there any thesis-relevant work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: What I have seen is:
* to state in the first paragraph of a chapter / section, that this chapter / section was already published as a paper, your paper, and you properly cite it.
* You don't make a verbatim copy, but you can lead closely to the paper. Often you want to give more details in a PhD thesis compared to a paper, so it is less difficult than it may sound.
This does only work, if you wrote the paper. Otherwise you are almost-copying someone's else work, which is wrong.
If you intend to follow this idea, ask your adviser whether it is ok.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> 'Thesis by Publication' ... is not available to me.
>
>
>
Perhaps not as such, but I very much doubt your institution wants your thesis to be on *different* research than what you've published. I would guess that the university expects you to do more than simple copy-paste-bind-together. However, the most important advice I have to give you is:
1. Read your university and your faculty/departments specific, detailed guidelines on what you're supposed to write and submit.
2. Talk to your advisor - s/he knows what is expected from the experience of previous advisees.
3. Skim through theses of previous advisees of your advisor or others in the department, whose research you're somewhat familiar with. See how their published papers relate to the thesis.
>
> what pitfalls there may be to simply copying from papers that I have previously published
>
>
>
Don't "simply copy", but rather adapt: Use common preliminaries for different results; weave more of the context of the work in the other papers into the exposition of each result; mix up the section structure somewhat; etc.
>
> Must one's own work be cited in a thesis?
>
>
>
Well, essentially yes, but even there are caveats here - never mind them. Just say explicitly that "this section/chapter is mostly based on [SelfRefHereToThePaper]" (or however it is customary to self-reference in theses in your university". That also means that if anybody has a unforeseen problem with this being the case, they'll complain upfront rather than accuse you of anything underhanded.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: It is a positive that your work has already gone through peer review and is archived.
Yes, cite the previous articles (and retain the original citations from those articles). I would also discuss it in your intro chapter. You will probably have a subsection of the intro called "organization of the thesis". You can have some structure like:
Para one (list and describe the chapters in content, organization. Show a heirarchical structure and a reason for the ordering.)
Para two: Chapters 4, 5 and 7 are original work from this thesis research which were successfully published during the study. (citations). Chapters 6 and 8 are intended to be reworked and published in the future as stand-alone journal articles. Chapters 1 and 2 include synthesized content from the published research reports as well as expanded detail for this thesis. Chapter 3 is a synthesis of issue X of the lab work from articles corresponding to chapters 4, 5, and 6. It is intended to be published as a standalone article in a journal contentrating on issue X
I would go ahead and do some light editing to make the thing more integrated. For example in experimental work, the methods sections for the lab work will have a fair amount of partial duplication. Separating that out to a chapter 2 on "methods" can be useful. Same issue for the intro sections, excise them and combine into a more integrated/expanded section within the Intro chapter that has lit review and motivation.
You may, may not have other reasons to reorganize some of the meat of the content. I would not strain to do so, just do so if it makes editorial sense, not through some desire to change things for appearance.
This is also a good chance to add some expanded content that you feel is helpful but were unable to put into terse journal articles. E.g. details/advice on methods, apparatus, safety. Work that was non-notable for an article (e.g. a computer-based calculation that agrees with earlier direct methods, properties experiments that showed no change in output but may be useful in the future for example in comparison to systems with more interesting results, more detailed simulations, verification of terse proofs/derivations in supporting papers, etc. You should have a little bit the attitude that this thesis may be looked at by follow-on students, postdocs, or even your PI when doing followon work. It can be a helpful training document. This is a bit of a different issue than the archived literature (which serves that function also, but tends to be more terse.)
Also, it is just a chance to record things that you don't want "lost". I am an advocate of "publish everything", but still we have to live with the reality of terseness in normal science articles. Best is to find some way to get every finding, idea into regular journal articles. But the thesis is a sort of "half a loaf" versus just never getting the content recorded at all. The rationale for getting content published is that it prevents rework (which happens too much, see the E Bright Wilson book on research.)
IANAL but I think it is extremely unlikely that journals will have an issue with the republication of content (even graphs and the like) within a student thesis. Or the converse, when the content was in the thesis first.
Nor are your actions unethical. (I disagree with the surfeit of caution in the username_2 reply.) It is very normal in the sciences for a thesis to be a collection of papers. Not the European explicit sandwich. But a lightly edited smorgasbord, sure. Nobody is surprised, bewildered or aghast at this. It is a positive that you already got papers done.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/14
| 472
| 2,067
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am going to send a manuscript for publication. I made the work in my vacations (while having a fellowship) with my own resources and, although related, it was not part of my research plan.
My fellowship is over. I still teach at some university but I am not paid for doing research. However, the institution prefers being the affiliation.
I am trying to figure out what is more convenient, publishing with or without affiliation considering the following:
* I am in need to find work as researcher in any country due to the almost null probabilities of make research in my own country. I tend to think that a paper published with no affiliation should be good received by the employer, due to it shows real interest in the subject (because of doing the work for free in free time). But I am not sure about how this is considered around the world.
* Maybe, in real life, it could be more difficult to publish with no affiliation.<issue_comment>username_1: This is more in the realm of opinion than fact, but I would always use the affiliation. This gives the reader a bit of context that will most likely increase your credibility. If the reader is open to believing what you say even before beginning reading the paper the mindset will be different than if it is just a bit of work by a random, completely unknown person.
Of course, once you become <NAME> the affiliation is no longer needed.
But for the rest of us, knowing that we did the work as a faculty or staff member at the *University of the Universe* (or whatever) will give us that opening that allows a fairer reading of the work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Ask the university. You do not have anything to sacrifice, while the university might be pleased of that. In this way you avoid any possible troubles with the university. Good relationships and no relationship are always better than something cracked or not perfect.
Affiliation, though in principle should not be like that, surely will assist going through the reviewing process.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/14
| 3,893
| 16,660
|
<issue_start>username_0: I really love physics, and I told my parents about my interest. They want me to become an engineer, but I hate engineering (too practical, too far from physics), and I don't enjoy fixing things. What should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I hate engineering (**too practical, too far from physics**)
>
>
>
This in an unfortunately common misconception, which can bring nonsense answers like [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6136/111969) on Meta Physics SE, where it is said:
>
> If I pose this question to an electrical engineer, I will likely get design rules, possibly in the form of immediately useful formulae. If I pose it to a physicist, I may learn something about the physics of electromagnetic fields near dielectric boundaries, diverging fields at conductor corners, and maybe even something about conformal mapping.
>
>
>
As an electronic engineer who specialized a long time ago in engineering electromagnetics, I can tell you that, yes, I've studied all of the theory above and much more than design rules. And I have also studied Langrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, chaotic dynamical systems, quantum mechanics, quantum optics, statistical mechanics, relativity. Indeed, with an engineering flavour, which I have actually come to appreciate along the years.
Said another way, engineering can be as theoretical as you wish it to be.
>
> I don't enjoy fixing things
>
>
>
Most engineers don't fix things.
>
> What should I do?
>
>
>
Some thirty-odd years ago I was somehow in your exact situation: I wanted to study physics, but my parents wanted me to do engineering because they felt that there were more job opportunities.
I studied engineering, but I chose my curriculum to have a good blend of electronics and physics and, now, *I cannot be happier than this about my education*.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: There are nowadays many engineering study courses, where the bachelor degree is more or less a set of physics courses (e.g. nanostructure engineering, quantum sensing,... to name some from german universities). A real specialization of the students can happen then in the master courses, if the students chooses strong enginnering/economics-oriented courses, which a physics student is unlikely to want and be able to choose.
Also, you can explain to your parents that the difference from a later job perspective point of view is small if you wait until the bachelor degree, if they don't want you to become exacly an engineer for developing hydrogen-driven cars from the first semester on. Of course, an engineer is normally much more specialized than an physicist and has often a higher job-security and salary when entering the job market after graduation, but long-term this mantra doesn't hold true anymore because we are now in the age of exponential technological progress where the ability to self-teach new things will become the new mantra, life-long learning. And a physicist is often much better educated for this due to broader and more fundamental science study courses. At least in academia you can spot many PhD physicists being a professor at an engineering institute.
But, if not many of the old-fashioned engineering jobs (electrical/machine) are overtaken by machines/machine-learning/industry 4.0 processes in some years/decades is an open question. You can have a long discussion with your parents to analyse their risk vs. return of invest in financing you and this is of course a legitimate question/concern they have, when attending an university costs them ten's to hundred's of thousands living cost and study fees for you.
**My argument would be that only after the bachelor degree the decisision can and is to be made if you like more engineering/physics and if you would be a better engineer/physicist**. You only become personally and financially successful in your job if you like it. Honestly, I think even you cannot know this now for sure as an initial interest in fundamental questions/physics can turn around during your studies in the direction of applied physics due to bad/very competitive job perspectives in fundamental phyiscs you weren't aware of or loosing totally interest in e.g. particle physics/astrophysics which happened for many of my colleagues who studied with me and work now in programming/finance.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I come from an engineering family and chose to study physics as an undergrad, I ended up getting a graduate degree in mechanical engineering, and now primarily work as a software engineer. In hindsight, it likely would have made more sense to study computer science.
One of my big draws to physics was that it was theoretical, basal to everything else (mathematicians would dispute that), and that I felt like physicists were some sort of supernatural superior being. To this last point, I can now assure that they are not but that at least some of them think they are.
If you choose to study physics, plan on getting a PhD as you will struggle (relative to an engineer) to get a good professional job (I only got my first job out of college because of a CS minor).
This is (or should) be your decision to make. If you really want to study physics, do it! Just make sure you do it for the right reasons. I did not.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm going to share a bit of my own story which hopefully can give you a different perspective on physics and engineering and the fact that there is no strict dichotomy between the two. I think, from the little you wrote, that I used to have a very similar mentality to yours, and so perhaps it will be useful to you if I share how my mentality changed.
I am currently working on a Ph.D. in theoretical condensed matter physics. I, like you, used to hold disdain for the "applied sciences" like engineering, preferring the "purity" of theoretical physics, particularly because physics really does undergird all of the natural sciences. I thought that I would pursue quantum gravity research (how much more fundamental can you get than that?), and in my undergrad I did some research in that direction (insomuch as an undergrad is capable of doing any meaningful research in a field as advanced as quantum gravity, I primarily did some simple stuff with black holes and general relativity). After that I went to do my master's and I did research in Lattice QCD (i.e. quantum field theory). In my last year of my master's, I opted to take a course in low-temperature physics instead of general relativity since I already had experience with GR, and I have to say I absolutely do not regret it. I learned so many things about superconductivity and superfluidity and the actual details of how low-temperature physics is performed which I had never previously had experience with, and it was my first real introduction to the field of condensed matter physics.
This is the point where I had to make a decision, whether I wanted to pursue the "pure", mathematical physics which is known as High Energy Physics (HEP, i.e. Lattice QCD and String Theory primarily), or take a different tack. I sat down with a string theorist in my department, a young guy who was recently hired and incredibly smart. After a long discussion, he laid out for me the reality of being a physicist in HEP: very few full time, tenure track positions in an extremely competitive field of extremely talented aspiring physicists.
This is my first point that I think you should be aware of: being a "physicist" primarily means getting a tenure track position as a professor at a university. This means getting a Ph.D. (if you start college at 18, you're looking at 4 years for your bachelors + 6 years for a Ph.D.), then getting probably at least two postdoctoral positions (1-3 years each) before getting hired, *if* you can get a tenure track position. These are increasingly difficult to come by, with more students pursuing higher education than ever before and more universities reducing the number of tenure track professors on faculty. So know what you're in for. Depending on what you want to work on, it may be easier or harder to find a job as a professor. Granted, the Ph.D. will count for plenty if you seek an industry job instead, but if that's what you want then it may be better to get industry experience instead of further advanced education.
Finally, to catch up to the present, I am now working in theoretical condensed matter physics, and I'm having a blast. Condensed Matter as a field is far more closely tied to real experiment than HEP, my research is motivated by experimental findings, guided by potential experimental studies of the theory, and deeply in collaboration with actual experimentalists (who are also physicists!!). I find the work far more interesting and rewarding specifically because of the close connection to something tangible, whereas the work I did in LQCD was interesting but difficult to tie to something really meaningful or impactful. And best of all for me, I get all of that plus as a theorist I still use all the skills I learned in my work in Lattice QCD, quantum field theory is extremely relevant to condensed matter systems.
And lastly, I want to really stress this point: The boundary between engineering and physics is not distinct. One of my close friends is an experimental physicist who designs sensors for detecting B-mode photons from the Cosmic Microwave Background. Judged by what he actually does day-to-day, you might think he was an electrical engineer, and in some sense he *is* an engineer who is *also* a physicist. The circuits he designs (and often fabricates himself) involve superconducting Josephson Junctions and SQUIDS (superconducting quantum interference devices) and much more complex devices that require a deep understanding of quantum mechanics to utilize properly, but also require a deep understanding of electrical circuitry in order to maximize the sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio of these sensors. **Remember: behind every great physics experiment is a team of engineers who built it**. Do you think theoretical physicists built the LHC that discovered the Higgs Boson? Someone has to build all the synchrotrons and telescopes and high energy colliders etc., and those people need to understand the physics to do their job right.
So perhaps as a middle ground, check out programs that have dual engineering-physics degrees (many universities offer this now), that way you can experience both. See if you can do some work with some professors in condensed matter physics, and I would definitely check out doing experimental work, even if you think you won't like it. I have a friend who transitioned into experimental work after doing computational physics and he feels like he has found his true calling and passion. Don't discount things that you haven't tried yet. If you are just starting a Bachelor's degree, you have plenty of time to try different things and find what you really enjoy. If you enjoy engineering (again, a huge field which can't be boiled down to "fixing things") then you can pursue a job in that straight out of undergrad (my engineering friends suggest getting a master's for the extra pay bump though, some universities have one year engineering master's programs). If you find you enjoy physics, you can put two years into a master's degree and then get a job (I know many people who did this) or if you are extremely passionate then you can pursue a Ph.D. In the end, even you devote all those years to a Ph.D., although you will not be earning income like you would if you had gone straight into a job, you will still be able to find a nice job afterwards if you don't decide to be a professor. So in the end, try everything, don't limit yourself, see what there is to see and find what you enjoy. I assume you are just starting a Bachelor's, in which case you have plenty of time to figure out what you ultimately want to do. And again I *highly* recommend looking into some sort of dual physics-engineering degree, and most universities allow you to be "exploratory" in the beginning anyway, so you can try some physics and engineering classes and see if you like them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Do some more theoretical or mathematical engineering. But still do the engineering. It gives you job/industry options but you can also do research. Even the academic salaries and competition are more reasonable in engineering, because they have to compete with industry.
Else we will see a thread from you a few years from now talking about postdoc hell. Father knows best.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: This situation is kind of what I experienced the year I was about to enter the university, and your words strike a chord in my heart.
I used to hold opinions very similar to what you expressed regarding physics and engineering.
However, I believe you are somehow mistaken.
The short answers is that your picture of what engineering and physics are about, is at best exaggerated and depends on fields.
You are right to remark that engineering is impossible were it not for our knowledge of physics.
The microwave engineering is based on Maxwell equations.
The circuit theory is built on Kirchhoff laws of current and voltage.
The semiconductor device fabrication depends on semiconductor physics.
And the list need not go on, and you can supply yourself.
But conversely, physics research is also impossible without resolving *practical* concerns, and without *fixing things*, to quote your phrase.
You may think you want to learn the purest things only, and the most basic law of nature, but they only make up a small portion of the vast knowledge of physical science.
The study of EM waves does not finish the moment Maxwell equations are written down.
The models of EM wave in the outdoors, in the sea, or in the rain, are different.
And that provides model of communication channel, and help you receiving signal with better quality when you browse Stack Exchange.
Similarly, chemistry does not stop with Schrödinger's Equation.
Beyond Lithium, the wave function of electron has no closed form.
They are approximated by molecular orbital, and even that is resorted to numerical simulation.
By simulation we mean programming and debugging, another example of practical matters.
Take the magnificent example of the photo of black hole M87 shot recently by the event horizon telescope.
Now you may think that to be the pinnacle of the purest physical science: We know something new about the universe, not being utilitarian, not doing engineering, not involving any boring, dirty work.
But it is not.
The research team has to deal with circuits of the telescope, signal processing of the noise, complexity of the algorithm used, not to mention working within the restriction of budget.
All of these are engineering.
Your picture of physics and engineering are not mutually exclusive, but are largely overlapping and inseparable.
The deeper you learn, the harder to divide the fields by simple terms.
Perhaps it is best to call them only by the one old noun, *science*.
Science is the study of the real world, and that need not only theory, but also practice.
As theory and practice work in tandem, human knowledge makes progess, however small, however time consuming and laborously.
Now there are surely consequences of finance and of family relationships if you study physics anyway, for which there is very little we people on S.E. can do.
We are in no position to "recommend" which department you had better enroll in.
We can only provide you a wider perspective of what physics and engineering are like, and you must trade off the two options by yourself.
Nevertheless, I have some words to remind you.
If you are determined to study physics, having supposedly conquered difficulties as above, you are likely still have to learn, and do "engineering" in the end.
Or if you, unfortunately, relent and end up getting the engineering degree, you might not be as far from the "physics" as you now think.
No matter what you study, learn the subjects thoroughly, make friends in that area, and constantly reassess the present view of yours.
In the end, if you keep working diligently, keep being honest to your heart, and keep revising your picture, you will most certainly find the career suitable to you, regardless where you have started.
You may think of the path integral as an analogy: You take any reasonable path, and end up in the predetermined finish point, which you shall not know (nor we) by now, but here, I do wish you all the best luck.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/14
| 1,078
| 4,507
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a faculty job interview coming up in a few months.
I am trying to prepare the presentation that includes my past (PhD and postdoc) research and future research. I am looking for some sample presentations or guides and tips online , so far could not find any. **I would be grateful if anybody could point to me some good faculty interview presentations and guides or tips that could help me crack the interview.**
Another question is: I have been a postdoc only for five months, therefore my postdoc research is very limited and major focus is on PhD research, will this affect the interview negatively?<issue_comment>username_1: I think everybody's reaction might be different, so this is really just opinion. But, I think, the best presentation is one that is NOT just about you and your research. If you can connect what you do in some way with what some subset of the existing faculty does you might come off as "more connected" and therefore better.
It is also possible, in some cases and at some institution, to connect what you do with what students (at any level) might want to do.
Both of these dimensions are specific to the institution, of course, and take a bit of research to do it well.
But you want people in general, to say more than "That's interesting." You want them to say "We want this person."
Don't neglect speaking about that research of course. But connect.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Another question is: I have been a postdoc only for five months,
> therefore my postdoc research is very limited and major focus is on
> PhD research, will this affect the interview negatively?
>
>
>
I don't think so. For many, postdoc is a transition period anyway. Many just take a postdoc position to either finish up their PhD projects/papers. Few do it gain some extra experience for independent research. You can talk all about yout PhD research and then show you carried it forward to your postdoc.
Overall, for the presentation, try to distinguish it from your PhD defense seminar. What I mean by that is, do not go too much into technical details. In your defense seminar you go into every detail because you are trying to defend what you did by telling how you did and why. But here, they will be most interested in the bigger picture like, why the experiment was done, what you learned from it, how will this be implemented or how will it affect your career moving forward in the future.
Also, do talk about how will your gained experience help the department who is hiring you. Learn about some professors who are working in a similar area and try to find a common hook where you can help them. Maybe a common problem in the field that you think you can bring a fresh perspective on. Talk about collaborative efforts with other faculty in the department and outside. Identify and talk about some funding agencies that might fund your research.
That being said, ask your interviewer if the presentation is only about your work or about philosophy also. Depending on what you learn, modify your presentation accordingly. Good luck!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: You might find this guide useful: <https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/1085>
The key organizing questions are as follows:
• What problem have I worked on?
• Why would anyone work on this problem?
• What is significant about what I have done?
• How has my work made progress on the problem?
Here's a sample structure for a 45-minute research job talk:
Content \* Time \* Target Audience \* Detail Level / Purpose
Background \* 15 \* Everyone present \* Your parents would understand it
Your approach \* 10 \* People in related fields \* Show you know the field
Your results \* 10 \* People who work in your field \* Show that you are the world expert on something
Summary \* 10 \* Everyone in the room \* Relate your results to the big picture
I found this structure particularly useful because it's easy to lose sight of how specialized one's work is. You need to make the talk relatable, and to speak to a broader audience than, for example, a conference presentation or a journal article. Even though these faculty might be in the same discipline and have phds, there is every chance they don't follow your subfield. Only part of your talk needs to demonstrate the cutting edge aspects of your research. Most of it should be broader.
Of course, your mileage may vary, but I found this advice convincing (and it worked for me!)
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/14
| 551
| 2,340
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted my paper to a supposed editor for publication in a book.
He never responded to the emails post my submission of the paper and upon contacting others from the mailing list I found out that they haven't received any response from him either.
A senior scholar suggested that I should partially publish the paper I sent so that I can save it from him stealing it. I did that and thought to forget it, but I just found out the supposed editor has a paper with my research idea in his list of publications.
This person is now doing his postdoctoral research at a European university.
As a young scholar, I am feeling quite helpless. What can I do in this regard? Please help me.
EDIT: So upon reading the paper I can see that he lifted my idea and sources and tweaked it, my research paper was a literary analysis and he has copied my methodology and core text along with my sources.<issue_comment>username_1: This is an unfortunate situation. I would try to contact that person's current supervisor (if you can find out who) and explain all this, and maybe s/he can reprimand this person. Additionally, I would also contact the editor of the journal and explain the same to him/her. It might result in the paper retraction on grounds of plagiarism/academic dishonesty. However, I am not sure how would you be credited for the stolen work. Maybe an addendum saying it was your idea or maybe publishing it separately altogether.
Edit1: As @CaptainEmacs pointed out, "Add email date evidence. It is not perfect, but at least corroborates the dates."
Edit2: As @ASimpleAlgorithm pointed out, "Presumably there would be vastly more evidence possible in terms of prior revisions and incremental experimental or theoretical work. It only takes a very short conversation before it becomes obvious which person is the plagiarizer and which is the author."
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you can document what is in your question, collect all and contact, letting both recipients know about the other,
* the dean(s) of that european university;
* the editor of the journal or book where your stollen paper had appeared.
If I understood the situation correctly, the pseudo editor should have a rather hard time, professionally speaking.
The behaviour is a kind of *aggravated* plagiarism.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/15
| 1,546
| 5,936
|
<issue_start>username_0: I see some academics – both professors and grad students – write their biography on their university webpages in the third person, and it sounds really weird.
What's the purpose of writing about oneself, e.g. research accomplishments, research interests, in the third person? Is it considered more professional to do so?
It reads very arrogant and self-indulgent, so I wonder if I'm just missing something.<issue_comment>username_1: I’d always considered it a means to achieve uniformity throughout the bios when one person is writing them. That is, if you have to write a short biography for each author of a paper, it makes more sense to do it in the third person.
Also, a lot of academic writing styles discourage the use of the first person (or used to). It’s more likely that the web page third person bios are a copy-paste, or simply written in a style to which the author is accustomed, rather than an attempt at a stealth brag.
They’re biographies, not autobiographies.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: When I wrote a biography of myself, it was because someone in administration asked me to so they could put it into a prospectus, where there would be lots of biographies in a row all in the same editorial voice.
It was specifically required to be in the third person for that reason: all the profiles are presented as though they have been written by the omniscient author of the document. It wasn't written that way because *I* wanted it to be, but for an actual purpose.
Once written, that biography went on file and was put everywhere that needed one. That includes the university website, future grant applications, other advertising material, commendations for students, reports, papers, and sundry other places. Sometimes I copy it there, and sometimes it happens without my even being involved (sometimes without *any* actual person being involved!).
In particular, it's useful to put it up front on a public website so that collaborators can easily just copy accurate pre-written text in when they need to provide a profile **of me** for one of their own purposes.
---
There *are* places that I've written a first-person biography, which is generally a lot shorter. Those are places that are 1) in my voice, and 2) where it was worth the fuss of rewriting something tailored to the situation. In general, and particularly for things published by the university, my "official" biography just goes back in again, because it's there, it's been edited, and it's comprehensive enough.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: ~~My~~ This author's own opinion is that occasionally this is due to how ingrained 'academicspeak' is in academia. 3rd person / 1st person plural is the norm when writing journal papers.
In this sense, the reason may well be in fact the *opposite* to what you state: people avoid writing in the first person, in order not to come across as self-serving and arrogant and claiming personal recognition, but rather appear impartial and recounting events dispationately from a third-person perspective.
This, along with 'bio reuse' from contexts which specifically required the use of third person narrative, may be a reason why you might see such bios even in contexts where third person narrative would seem less relevant.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: In addition to the key "written for use by others" reason put forth by @MichaelHomer, another reason that many academics have a 3rd person biography is that many organize their online present not as "Prof. X" but rather as "Prof. X's group/lab, including Prof. X, students, postdocs, and alumni".
If the *group* is the subject, rather than the person, then there is no "I" to narrate, and it's appropriate for all to be listed in 3rd person.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: To somewhat build up on [what <NAME> said](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/128195/7734), consider the following two texts:
* >
> ### Cunningham Group
>
>
> I am <NAME> and I did my PhD in Astrochelionology on “Great A’Tuin is a black body” …
> I am interested in all sorts of interesting topics from the vast field of theoretical lepidopterology, ranging from the quantum butterfly effect to flapping dynamics.
> My group consists of:
>
>
>
> + **<NAME>** wrote his master’s thesis on “Analogue search-engine optimisation – a shameless self-study” and is now a PhD student investigating trunk manifolds.
> + …
>
* >
> ### Group for Theoretical Lepidopterology
>
>
> We investigate all sorts of interesting topics from the vast field of theoretical lepidopterology, ranging from the quantum butterfly effect to flapping dynamics.
> The group consists of:
>
>
>
> + **<NAME>** wrote his master’s thesis on “Analogue search-engine optimisation – a shameless self-study” and is now a PhD student investigating trunk manifolds.
> + **Prof. <NAME>** is the group’s leader. She did her PhD in Astrochelionology on “Great A’Tuin is a black body” …
> + …
>
Both texts convey the same information, but (for whatever it is worth) the first one leans more on the arrogant side.
Now, webpages may have a more complex structure, but the general style is translatable and you can find analogues of both texts out there:
* Professors who name their group after them and whose webpage puts the primary focus on them – which is not completely unjustified since the professor is not only the boss but usually the only constant.
* Professors who focus on presenting their group, whose leader they happen to be.
In this light, it makes complete sense for them to use the third person – for a reason that is quite the opposite of how you are perceiving it.
Note that I do not want to say that one of the variants is generally better or worse here. (Perceived) arrogance or modesty are only one reason to choose between these styles.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/15
| 1,550
| 5,993
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose in mathematics, someone writes a paper, uploads it to arxiv and afterwards he learns that the proof technique used in the paper has some similarity with some discussions in a math forum (e.g. math exchange / stack exchange). It was not published in any journal or in arxiv. He did not see this discussion while working on the paper. What should the author do? In general, in mathematics the priority goes to the one who publishes the article first in arxiv.<issue_comment>username_1: I’d always considered it a means to achieve uniformity throughout the bios when one person is writing them. That is, if you have to write a short biography for each author of a paper, it makes more sense to do it in the third person.
Also, a lot of academic writing styles discourage the use of the first person (or used to). It’s more likely that the web page third person bios are a copy-paste, or simply written in a style to which the author is accustomed, rather than an attempt at a stealth brag.
They’re biographies, not autobiographies.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: When I wrote a biography of myself, it was because someone in administration asked me to so they could put it into a prospectus, where there would be lots of biographies in a row all in the same editorial voice.
It was specifically required to be in the third person for that reason: all the profiles are presented as though they have been written by the omniscient author of the document. It wasn't written that way because *I* wanted it to be, but for an actual purpose.
Once written, that biography went on file and was put everywhere that needed one. That includes the university website, future grant applications, other advertising material, commendations for students, reports, papers, and sundry other places. Sometimes I copy it there, and sometimes it happens without my even being involved (sometimes without *any* actual person being involved!).
In particular, it's useful to put it up front on a public website so that collaborators can easily just copy accurate pre-written text in when they need to provide a profile **of me** for one of their own purposes.
---
There *are* places that I've written a first-person biography, which is generally a lot shorter. Those are places that are 1) in my voice, and 2) where it was worth the fuss of rewriting something tailored to the situation. In general, and particularly for things published by the university, my "official" biography just goes back in again, because it's there, it's been edited, and it's comprehensive enough.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: ~~My~~ This author's own opinion is that occasionally this is due to how ingrained 'academicspeak' is in academia. 3rd person / 1st person plural is the norm when writing journal papers.
In this sense, the reason may well be in fact the *opposite* to what you state: people avoid writing in the first person, in order not to come across as self-serving and arrogant and claiming personal recognition, but rather appear impartial and recounting events dispationately from a third-person perspective.
This, along with 'bio reuse' from contexts which specifically required the use of third person narrative, may be a reason why you might see such bios even in contexts where third person narrative would seem less relevant.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: In addition to the key "written for use by others" reason put forth by @MichaelHomer, another reason that many academics have a 3rd person biography is that many organize their online present not as "Prof. X" but rather as "Prof. X's group/lab, including Prof. X, students, postdocs, and alumni".
If the *group* is the subject, rather than the person, then there is no "I" to narrate, and it's appropriate for all to be listed in 3rd person.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: To somewhat build up on [what <NAME> said](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/128195/7734), consider the following two texts:
* >
> ### Cunningham Group
>
>
> I am <NAME> and I did my PhD in Astrochelionology on “Great A’Tuin is a black body” …
> I am interested in all sorts of interesting topics from the vast field of theoretical lepidopterology, ranging from the quantum butterfly effect to flapping dynamics.
> My group consists of:
>
>
>
> + **<NAME>** wrote his master’s thesis on “Analogue search-engine optimisation – a shameless self-study” and is now a PhD student investigating trunk manifolds.
> + …
>
* >
> ### Group for Theoretical Lepidopterology
>
>
> We investigate all sorts of interesting topics from the vast field of theoretical lepidopterology, ranging from the quantum butterfly effect to flapping dynamics.
> The group consists of:
>
>
>
> + **<NAME>** wrote his master’s thesis on “Analogue search-engine optimisation – a shameless self-study” and is now a PhD student investigating trunk manifolds.
> + **Prof. <NAME>** is the group’s leader. She did her PhD in Astrochelionology on “Great A’Tuin is a black body” …
> + …
>
Both texts convey the same information, but (for whatever it is worth) the first one leans more on the arrogant side.
Now, webpages may have a more complex structure, but the general style is translatable and you can find analogues of both texts out there:
* Professors who name their group after them and whose webpage puts the primary focus on them – which is not completely unjustified since the professor is not only the boss but usually the only constant.
* Professors who focus on presenting their group, whose leader they happen to be.
In this light, it makes complete sense for them to use the third person – for a reason that is quite the opposite of how you are perceiving it.
Note that I do not want to say that one of the variants is generally better or worse here. (Perceived) arrogance or modesty are only one reason to choose between these styles.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/15
| 1,642
| 7,180
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background**
I did my Master's and PhD with my former PhD advisor in an Australian university. Coming from the experimental biology background, my advisor switched to the field of bioinformatics around the time when I started my Master's.
For my Master's project, I mainly used Graphic User Interface (GUI)-based programs and platforms such as Galaxy. During my Master's I started learning several computer languages without any support from my advisor. After six month into my PhD program, my advisor decided the whole lab would focus on a newly emerged sub-field which relies heavily on command-line-executed programs for data analysis. I have successfully completed a couple of projects and graduated by a series of publications last year and my degree was conferred in Nov 2018.
My former advisor was not the most knowledgeable person in programming language and statistics. Likewise, my fellow students in the lab all had the same level of statistical and programming proficiency. As a result, I had to provide support to each single fellow student from data downloading to differential testing and many micro tasks in-between, even after my graduation in Nov last year. I've shared online resources on programming and basic statistics with the lab, however there was little improvement or progress. Six months after my official graduation, I find myself answering emails from fellow students and former advisor on a weekly basis, sometimes ten emails a week; many times I had to rerun their analysis or debug their codes, a good amount of my time went to my former lab. Lately my former advisor even introduced to me via email a new honours (an undergraduate-level research year) student who has just started this year, hoping I could teach the student to generate a specific type of plot for their honours project. Either teaching the student via email or generate the plot by myself will be very time-consuming as the program has a steep learning curve and requires a lot of pre-process of input data, all for a non-essential plot for an undergraduate level thesis.
**Reasons that cutting tiers with my former advisor seems inevitable:**
I can't see an end to my current situation as a free labour for my former lab. The more support I offered, the more demanding they become. I've decided to stop replying to the students' emails altogether. However, very likely my former advisor will eventually step in since I am the only person they know who could solve their problems, but I am unwilling to do any more work for them. They have no funding currently so hiring a post-doc or a bioinformatician is out of question. That being said, I don't think the burden is on me. Frankly, having been exploited by them ([Should I decline unrelated work assigned by PhD advisor?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/118220/should-i-decline-unrelated-work-assigned-by-phd-advisor)), I am not particularly grateful to my former advisor and just want to stay away from them.
**Questions:**
1) Am I obligated to teach other students even I have developed the necessary skills by myself without my advisor's support and that I have graduated almost six months ago?
2) What are the consequences if I choose to cut ties entirely with my former advisor?
I plan to work as a freelance bioinformatician therefore their recommendation letters don't really matter right now. If I want to go back to academia later, I figured the price I have to pay (in labour) will be overly high anyway so I will probably try applying jobs without their recommendation letter.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: Document the time you spend then send an email to your supervisor and their manager / Dean stating that this is work which needs to be supported ie paid for.
Then see what they do.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **ad 1)** Once you have graduated and you are not employed in the lab anymore nobody can force you to do work.
That being said there are a few options for you that might be interesting (but it depends what you actually want):
* If you are interested in a publication record then agree with your
former PhD supervisor that you co-author all papers you gave support
for (even if it was only an email or two).
* If you are interested in the financial aspects then write him a
friendly email saying that you would be happy to further help if
you are being employed an paid by him (e.g. on an hourly basis using standard market freelancer rates).
**ad 2)** He will not be happy (but this is not your problem). If you do not plan any further academic career there shouldn't be any real consequence. If you plan an academic career then (1) see the first point above (2) he might be on certain panels about funding/positions etc (3) he might be reviewer (4) he might have friends in points 2 and 3. But if you do not plan to continue in academia then these points do not matter to you.
In any case I would recommend not to just stop answering but write him a clear email with whatever decision you make (and then stop answering if you want).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The amount of remote help you supplied sounds rather excessive from your description. It's not unusual to get the occasional email about specific aspects of your previous work from PhD students that continue with related work, but your description goes very far beyond that.
In general, you're not obligated to work for free. If it is of interest for you, collaborating on publications is an option that results in benefits for both sides. But it doesn't sound like this option is appealing to you.
You have to obligation to provide help that requires a significant amount of effort on your side. There is a huge difference between asking a former group member about something that takes them just a few minutes to respond and essentially asking them to debug their work and spend a lot of time on it. The latter is unreasonable to ask unless there is some kind of collaboration.
You're not employed by your previous institution anymore, and you have new responsibilities now. As a courtesy you could still respond and give the students some general pointers on their problem, but they have to figure it out themselves and debug their own issues. I think politely declining to help is a better idea in this case than not responding at all (not responding is valid if they continue to bug you after you declined).
One part that isn't clear to me is how much the supervisor knows about the situation, or whether this is driven by the students themselves. They might be unaware on how much their students are still relying on you. If they're unaware, they might not react badly at all.
Your former supervisor might get angry if you stop helping their students, but that would be a rather irrational response. That doesn't mean it won't happen, but it would not be justified. If your former supervisor retaliates it could cause you significant issues, but far more if you stay in academia than outside. But how likely this is is very hard to judge without knowing them and their personality.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/15
| 1,355
| 5,848
|
<issue_start>username_0: Later this week one of my undergrad classes have their first written test and one of the students is not from my country, and he said he's been having some problems both understanding my lectures and the recommended book
And now he desperatedly sent me an email asking for advice on what to do.
The thing is: I don't know what to recommend either... I never have this case before...
What could I indicate/advice him that would help?<issue_comment>username_1: I have this problem every year.
There are a few recommendations but in the end the student will have to put lots of effort into catching up on the language and you can not fix it for him. You can recommend:
* [Language tandems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_language_learning) (there are lots of options in social networks)
* Mobile phone apps for learning
* Maybe the university offers language courses?
* Private courses/classes
* 1 to 1 private language classes (most effective but expensive)
* Watch TV with subtitles in the language
* Taking the book you recommended and a dictionary and struggle the way through the pages. This will be really hard for the first few pages but after a few the words and phrases will start to repeat and it becomes easier.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: He needs to improve his language skills fast...
When I studied in France (and this was engineering, which means a different vocabulary), we watched tv, worked with our French colleagues (ie other students), we helped them with English and they helped us with French... **Total Immersion** was what we practiced - limiting our use of our mother tongue to increase the French as fast as possible.
We also did evenings where we provided food & beer / wine to increase opportunities for conversation as well as getting our work checked.
Also, watching France V England at rugby was good for a laugh... :)
Are there any courses in the institution he could enrol in? but these courses need to be accelerated...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm not sure you can tell the guy this, but if I were freely talking to the guy would advise him to get a your language speaking girlfriend (unless he is hitched). Drives your learning fast. Plus there are the added benefits.
In any case, the more he socializes with locals and gets himself out of the immigrant clique the better. Consider how kids dumped into a foreign land for the summer (sans parents, sans bilingual education) get up to speed just from playing with the other kids.
Of course the timeframe for this will not likely help with your class. Probably if all he cares about is your class, the most efficient thing would be just to get a textbook in his own language and use that as an accompaniement. If he reads it (and works problems) AHEAD of your lectures, he will have a much easier time since the content will be more familiar. [This is true even without a language difference...prereading makes lectures easier.]
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: First thing first, I'd suggest focusing on what you can do to minimize the impact to the student. For example, what can you do to lower the impact to his GPA: is your course an elective/required course? And has he passed the date to either drop or withdraw? Having him dropping the course, and focusing on language learning for another semester before (re)taking your course may be the best for him.
If he will have to stay in your course, then do an inventory of what you can supply. For example, how much time, man power (including TA), and resource that you can allocate to help this person. Here are some measures I have seen people doing:
1. Allow the student to record your lecture.
2. Make your lecture outline/script available. Or make some of the Q&A scheme available so that he can get a sense on the style.
3. Provide a longer duration of time for tests/examinations. (Based on policy you or he may have to file for accommodation, check with your school.)
4. Inform your TA about this, so that your TA can use simpler wording with him if necessary.
5. Be somewhat conscious about your speech: minimize the use of i) local colloquiums, idioms, or jokes ii) somewhat indirect expressions like sarcasms.
Informally, you may also encourage the student to identify some textbooks that are in his language as a reference. It may also be prudent to first see how he did in the test this week first. He *may* be confusing the language understanding and the content understanding; or he could have some worrier personality that is aggravated by the looming test.
If it turned out to be really language barrier, programmatically you can also consider the followings:
1. Check with the admission/student office of the program and see if they can connect the student with language service. Some of them may include paid lanuguage tutors, editors, etc.
2. Connect the student with any kind of student life organization in the school, which may have resources on activities like workshops, peer-writing groups, social hours, etc.
3. Contact the student's academic advisor, so that he/she may be able to suggest some relevant language courses for the student.
My advice is that, be professional and diligent in helping, but do not take this as your personal responsibility. Making your course understandable to every non-native speaker is not the job. Remember he i) knowingly applied for the institute, and ii) had likely produced relevant language competency during the application process, so the lion share of the responsibility falls onto him and the admission. Time to time, a student with great language test score may not come with an equally good listening or speaking; so, if you detect that the student is unlikely to make it, you should suggest him to withdraw for now and come back when he's more ready.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/15
| 958
| 4,215
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm aware that most literature reviews follow a similar structure, which is:
1. Introduce a topic
2. Discuss and cross reference papers that cover this topic
The literature review that I am covering is a very broad topic (medical applications for machine learning) and is interested in all the research covering this topic. Is it okay to write a literature review with the following structure?:
1. Introduce paper
2. Discuss paper
3. Move onto next paper and repeat.
This could be discussed in the methodology of the lit review.<issue_comment>username_1: The answer to your title question, “is it okay to restructure a literature review...” is yes. There is no one uniform way that literature reviews must be written. What is important is to make sure that your literature review does its job, which is to do a comprehensive review of the publications on a particular topic.
The only worry with the structure that you propose is the ability to do a completely comprehensive review (which is a difficulty in writing any given literature review, but is especially troublesome in your topic). By simply discussing papers and not cross referencing them within topical discussions, your literature review turns into a data-dump instead of a review. It is not necessarily bad to have a broad topic, nor is it bad to discuss and “rinse and repeat” through several papers, but it is essential that your review is well-structured and does not arbitrarily choose the pieces it is reviewing.
Restructuring is fine, but do not compromise the quality of the review because the topic is broad.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In principle, I don't think what you suggest is a good approach, assuming that your goal is to produce a helpful review of the literature (for yourself and for your readers). The reason for the "similar structure" of "most literature reviews" as you describe it is that it is a more useful format. It is far more useful to readers to understand what the literature says topic by topic than it is for them to read your paper-by-paper summary report.
An excellent explanation of the difference is presented in [Webster and Watson (2002)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12005153504485981086). Although what they cover is not exactly the same thing, it is pretty close: they call the recommended topic-by-topic approach "concept-centric"; as for the paper-by-paper approach that you propose, they condemn it as "author-centric". Very simply, it is not very useful for the readers.
If I understand your description correctly, you seem to think that "medical applications for machine learning" is one big topic, and so you have little choice but to then go paper-by-paper. On the contrary, every topic can be sliced into subtopics; that is very much so for a broad topic like yours. You could divide topics by different fields of healthcare; by different machine learning approaches (e.g. classification; regression; clustering; etc.); or by many other subtopics that present themselves in your reading of the literature.
However, I specifically recommend along the lines of Webster and Watson (2002) that you focus on theoretical concepts as your organizing principle. In machine learning, this would mainly mean that you would group studies based on similarity of the target variables (at least, that would apply for supervised learning studies), for example, grouping by targets that study predictors of the same kind of disease; targets of predictors of the effectiveness of certain procedures; etc. Unsupervised learning techniques might not be as readily amenable to this kind of grouping (since they do not have the causal structure of theory), so for those kinds of studies, other organizing schemes (such as those I listed in the previous paragraph) might be more suitable.
In my research on literature reviews, I have found that this kind of organizing principle (that is, based on theoretical concepts) is more useful to readers. (My most recent work is not yet published, but [I have an earlier working paper on this topic](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2699362) that you might find helpful.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/15
| 328
| 1,151
|
<issue_start>username_0: I can't find an answer to this question anywhere. How do you properly cite an advertisement from a website online in APA formatting?
Is it just:
Company. (Year, Month Day of Ad Retrieval). Ad title [Advertisement]. Title of webpage. Name of website. Retrieved from URL<issue_comment>username_1: I found this from [Columbia College, Vancouver, Canada](https://columbiacollege-ca.libguides.com/apa/advert). Look at their "Video Advertisement from YouTube Posted by Advertiser" section, I think it should be similar to a website advertisement.
Name of Company That Owns the Product. (Year, Month Day Posted). *Name of advertisement* [Advertisement]. Retrieved from URL
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: On top of the links shared by @nsinghs, you can also check [University of Lincoln](https://guides.library.lincoln.ac.uk/c.php?g=110736&p=1211272). Also, you can refer to [this](http://www.citationmachine.net/apa/cite-a-advertisement/manual) link that will create APA style citations for you based on the information you fill for an ad (the ad can be in a newspaper, in a magazine, online, or on TV/radio).
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/15
| 840
| 3,440
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose a paper has authors A, B, C, and D. The first author, A, isn't in academia anymore, and much of my work is inspired by the senior author, D. I've also only communicated with author D.
Can I say/write "author D et al."?
When I looked this up, "first author et al." is the recommended version, but I would rather prefer to say "author D et al."
This isn't for a formal paper submission, but rather for something like a blog post describing my recent findings, which I hope will be published in the near future.<issue_comment>username_1: Your feelings and the journal citation rules might not align the way you want them to be. Therefore, I suggest you stick with the accepted norms and go with author a et al., even if it is an informal conversation or blog.
Using any author other than the first author in citation would not only do injustice to that author, but would also be a disservice to the readers. Readers would probably be confused when trying to find the bibliography of that citation in the reference list.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I think in an informal medium like a blog post, you could convey that author D is the main character in the “story” you are trying to tell while still maintaining proper citation standards by saying something like, “Author D and his/her colleagues (Author A, et al., 2018) have shown that...”
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: It just isn't that much work to name everyone. Think of all the work all the authors put into that paper. We can all afford to spend one extra second reading all of their names. And that extra second might make someone recognize the name on a file and result in someone getting a job they otherwise wouldn't have. There's no justification for using "et al."
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: The only situation when this is common is if you're referring to multiple papers at once. However, even then you'd probably want to use formal citations in parentheses (like mentioned by LarrySnyder):
*LAST AUTHOR et al. have done a lot of work showing phenomenon X (AUTHOR A et al., year; AUTHOR B et al., year).*
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: When using citations in an informal text, one often refers to papers in the form (Author A *et al.*, 2018) mainly **to make it easy for the reader to know which paper is being addressed** without the need to scroll to the end and see the full list of citations (which you should always include, be it a blog post, Powerpoint slides, or a journal article).
In my field (computer science), it is common that people rarely produce multiple first author publications within one year, so referring to a paper as (Author A, 2018) usually narrows it down to a single publication. However, the last place in the author list is usually reserved for a PI/senior researcher, who has his name on dozens of papers every year. Referring to a paper as (Famous Researcher, 2018) tells very little about the actual paper you are talking about.
As long as you care about the reader, I would use the first author's name.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Not enough reputation to comment, hence writing as answer.
The other answers didn't address the "I've also only communicated with author D." part.
If that personal communication yielded information that is not in the paper, you can cite (in addition to the paper) "D: Personal Communication".
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/15
| 834
| 3,559
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have already read the relevant questions, but mine is really different;
I found useful information in a paper, it (basically) says for a specific case that "they use up to %60 more torque" but when I go to original source I saw that, in the original paper one of the values was "%63 torque", so I wrote, "they expend about %60 extra torque" and I couldn't give reference to a secondary source, because it was wrong, and my sentence became different.
Similarly, a paper said that (just a part of it) "during walking on a flat surface". However, when I open the original source, I saw that the original source says "for unrestrained walking" which means "during normal walking", so I couldn't give citation to secondary sources for that sentence because I corrected a part of the information.
Similarly, again, another paper (briefly) said that "in that country 159.000 amputation occurs per year" but when I open the original source, I saw that it was 143.000 so; I write "in that country each year more than 140.000 limb loss occurs." so, I couldn't write reference to a secondary source, because information became different. But sentence structures are similar I do not know if it is plagiarism?
Note1: Please, do not choose "duplicate" because my question is different, I'm correcting some missing or falsified information and I need a help about it. Is it correct to citing just original source, because secondary source reflects the information in a different way/and I can not find that information in original source, so, I modify the information, and I just cite the original source? Because at secondary source, information is a bit or more different (falsified or reflected secondary author's interpretation)? (as I explained above)
Note2: For some of them, I use a summary of secondary sources but I do correction for wrong parts or falsified numbers/interpretations. So I think it becomes my summary? I do not know where to draw the line.<issue_comment>username_1: The general norm is to cite the original source even if you find about it in another paper. For example, if you find about "some method" in paper B where they cited the paper A for that method, it is your responsibility to cite A and B both. That being said, before citing paper A, it is expected from researchers to confirm that what was cited in B was correct, and not blindly cite paper B.
In your example, you found a paper that said it was 60% torque but the paper they cited for that had 63% torque, so in this case it depends what you want to mention. If you mention 63% then go with the original source, but you mention 60% then go with the secondary and original both because you found about it in the secondary paper. But again, you have to make sure that secondary paper inferred the results of original paper correctly. And same for the other examples.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You are mixing up to different things. It sounds like you are copying the sentence structure of the secondary source. If this is the case, that is plagiarism. It doesn't matter if you cite the secondary source or not, as no one will know that the citation is referring to the sentence structure. The second issue is the *facts*. For these, you should be citing the primary source. You do not need to cite every source that has cited the primary source. It is generally much better to cite primary sources than secondary sources, because as you have discovered, things can get messy the further away from the primary source you go.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/04/16
| 2,674
| 11,641
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am enrolled in a lpn nursing program, and the professor teaching the pharmacology course announced to the class last week that he wont be here the following week, due to a "conference in California", and that another teacher would come and teach us the remaining chapters for the final exam.
Today no one showed up to teach the class, and the director is now claiming she had no idea he wasn't going to be here to finish the course. The director told us to read the rest of the chapters on our own before Wednesday (basically teach ourselves 6 chapters worth of pharmacology)... oh and there is also a HESI examination that they are saying we still have to take on Wednesday even though we haven't covered all of the material. I feel like the school is setting everyone up to fail at this point so we have to pay 3,000 to take the course again. I really need to know if this is ethical??<issue_comment>username_1: Remember Hanlon’s Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
I doubt that any of the staff at the university are deliberately trying to make you fail so that they can make more money by forcing you to redo the course; it’s much more likely that someone just put things off, failed to read their emails, or something similar because they were busy with other things.
Complain to the student ombudsman at your university if you feel like a failure by the staff to properly follow procedures has disadvantaged you.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Consider the alternative, *not* letting you take that exam.
Would that really be better? I am sure many students think that would be worse. They just want their exam papers and start working as soon as possible.
So, try to prepare for the exam on your own and take it. Having to read one chapter on your own is not a *big* disadvantage.
Then, as username_1 suggested, *complain*. The university messed up and should fix things.
A reasonable fix would be for the university to give you another chance if you fail, free of charge. Another possibility is for the grades to be adjusted.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: First, I suggest checking the course syllabus. At higher levels of education it becomes increasingly likely that the student will ultimately be held responsible for acquiring the requisite information for tests like HESI, graduate school qualifying examinations, etc. I've had mathematics graduate courses, the subject matter of which would be covered by mandatory qualifying examinations, specify in their syllabus that the course may not cover everything that may appear on the qualifying examinations, and that it is left to the student to study such material. Practical realities may simply not leave enough time to cover everything, and as you advance up the educational and professional ladders the more it is expected that you will have the intelligence, drive, and time management skills necessary to acquire broad swathes of information and skill sets on your own. Classes become increasingly less about telling you exactly what to do, and covering everything you need to know, and more about providing you the basic direction and fundamental skills necessary for you to figure out what you need to do and know on your own.
As such, "6 chapters in one week" may be more like "6 chapters you knew you would have to know since the beginning, but were explicitly told we may not have the time to cover during lectures, and you have to figure out how to deal with that on your own." In which case your burden is noticeably less than you think it is. Not that "lecturer disappearing" is normally accounted for in class structures, so there's still a problem here, but you may already have been expected to deal with several of these chapters entirely on your own.
Following Nick's suggestion to complain to the ombudsman is a good follow-up step. This is definitely a situation that should never happen. An instructor who will be absent for lecture days is responsible for securing a replacement instructor for those days, and for clearing his absence and replacement with the department head (or whoever else serves as a supervisor). This situation appears to be a multi-tier failure where either the usual instructor or replacement instructor failed to execute their part of the arrangement, and also the department head/supervisor failed to properly monitor the situation and make sure the students experienced minimal disruptions. At least one of them is probably getting disciplined behind the scenes and being made to feel very uncomfortable thanks to this failure.
If this provides an unsatisfactory resolution, you might even go so far as to pass this story on to local news agencies. While this doesn't sound like a state-wide or greater interest story, it may be worth it for local news channels, newspapers, school newspapers and newsletters, etc. to report on it. An unfavorable report, or even an interview request to discuss the matter, would elevate the pressure on the school to make PR-friendly amends and accommodations to affected students. No school wants to start developing a public reputation for condoning disappearing instructors and lax administration.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Faculty Responsibilities
========================
I take first the potentially wrong assumption that "quit" is not meant literally.
To the question of (ethics) violations *by the instructor* ...
A faculty member may have to file written forms before he/she goes away from teaching duties for a situation known in advance. The forms should document what is to be done in the course(s) that will be missed. They should be signed off by the department and perhaps all the way up through the college level **before** the trip is taken.
--> Ask your SGA representative and/or the Student Affairs Office to establish what protocols are required of faculty who will be absent from teaching duties. When forms are to have been filed, the director's claim of ignorance means either that he/she is lying or that the faculty member failed to follow protocols. One or the other deserves an administrative rebuke. Otherwise, when no official policy is in place for this case, your student organization needs to fight to establish one.
--> The next step is to file a strongly worded statement with your representative student organization and/or through your student evaluations. Regardless of whether an official form was or was not to have been filed before the trip, the instructor of record bears full responsibility in this case to assure that his/her teaching duties are properly handled in his/her absence, especially when the absence was planned in advance. The department chair, the college dean, and the university provost should hear in writing from the entire class about his/her negligence to fulfill this responsibility.
You may instead mean "quit" literally, as in "The instructor pretended to be going to a conference but actually was resigning without telling us the truth".
--> This case is entirely out of your hands. The administration above, starting the the director and finishing at the provost, have to handle the violations.
Preparation for Exams
=====================
The director is telling you to do something different than what you expected would happen. The best you can do is do as requested. I cannot attest to whether the requirement is or is not excessive. To address this, you could determine whether it would have been any different had your instructor been present. Ask students from last year's or last semester's class for insights. I will add however, the director has the responsibility to not leave your class just hanging to *learn it on your own*. Your class can/should petition for a make up session to cover the material when it is to be required on an exam (the final exam) for the course.
By comparison, your class cannot rightfully petition to have a make up session to cover content on (national and professional preparation) exams that are **not** part of the course syllabus. You can only request to have a preparation session for such exams at the graces of the department.
Being Set Up for Failure
========================
Is the university (purposely) setting up your class to fail? ... Most assuredly not (on purpose). At worst, the university has set itself up to fail because it does not have a way to assure a responsibility of its faculty to their core mission. This is a longer discussion for a different thread.
Unfortunately what has happened instead is, the instructor of record has set up your class to fail. While Hanlon's razor is invoked, I do not see stupidity at play in his/her case. When the instructor is truly only gone on a conference trip and was to have followed a formal protocol to file forms before the trip, this is a most glaring case of official negligence of duties. Even absent that he/she had official requirements to file forms, the instructor has neglected his/her contractual obligations by not handling the responsibilities for his/her teaching duties completely and with all due attention.
When the instructor just quit and had kept that plan hidden (from everyone), he/she bears the full brunt of the blame--the university is just a bystander to the destruction. Even as a bystander though, they have a responsibility to clean up the mess fairly and equitably.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Where I did my undergrad (in the 1990s), it was was not uncommon for the final exam to be about the chapters of the book that were not covered in class. It generally went like this:
1. We students arrive on the last day of class, awaiting information about the contents of the final exam
2. The professor looks at the syllabus, and says "hmmm, we only seem to have made it to chapter 8 in the lectures. But the course requires that we cover through to chapter 12. So let's make the final exam about chapters 9 through 12."
3. The professor then spends the class paging through the textbook, saying "this section is important, learn this" or "ignore this part".
4. We students studied like crazy to learn the material, cursing the instructor for having some 20% or 40% of our grade based on material that we didn't learn through our homework. Stress allowed us to learn very quickly.
5. We students took the exam.
That's it. So, your question is: "Is this ethical?"
My answer is "Yes, it is ethical".
Here is why I think it is ok. In high school, it is the job of the teacher to ensure that each and every student learns the material. In a University setting, this is not the case - it is the job of the student to learn the material, with guidance from the instructor. This is especially true for graduate school.
Here is a counter-question. Did you read the text prior to class, in preparation for the lectures? Did you arrive with questions about content that was unclear? Is it ethical to arrive to class unprepared? This is your job as a student. While it is nice to receive this information in a palatable, spoon-fed format, it is not required.
Perhaps your entire post-secondary education was a mere extension of high school, where the responsibility of learning was cast upon the instructor. That is lucky! Good for you. I suggest working to learn how to learn independently.
Addendum:
Does your University have a required number of hours of instruction per course? Did the cancellation of classes brings the number of instruction hours below this limit? If so, the University has breeched its contract. This is most certainly un-ethical.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/16
| 467
| 1,982
|
<issue_start>username_0: My proposed PhD supervisor told me the department is currently working on my offer.
Does that mean my admission is guaranteed? And what can they be doing?<issue_comment>username_1: Nothing is guaranteed until you have a **written** and **signed** piece of paper.
(this advice applies to all parts of life!)
Your chances are possibly really good to get it now but there can always be something unexpected (clauses one of the parties does not agree to, financial implications, something wrong in the paperwork, change of mood, etc).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It should generally mean that they have decided to offer you something. If you applied for a PhD, don't be surprised (but I guess you will be) if they offered you an MS admission because they thought your credentials or prerequisites were not at par with their requirements. Other thing that can happen is that they just offer you what you are hoping for. But unless everything is written on the paper in an official capacity, nothing is certain.
I was once offered an admission at a US university for a PhD which was funded by a National Science Foundation fellowship. After several email exchanges, and a phone interview, my potential supervisor thought I would be a good fit for his lab and that project. So he sent me an email on Friday congratulating me on my success and all that pleasantries. Over the weekend, I went out with my friends, we partied and I paid for all the beers and food. To my surprise, I got one line email on Monday asking if I was the citizen of the United States. To which I replied, no, I am not. And couple of days later, I got an apology email saying that only a US citizen can take part in the project. Hence, shattered my dream and expectation of an offer.
So, what I am trying to say is, nothing is certain until it is officially done. You can relieve a bit that it might be a good news but save the partying for later date. Good luck!
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/16
| 889
| 3,997
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently an undergraduate student studying in an area of mathematics and am planning to apply to do a masters research degree next year. I have been doing research with my supervisor who works in some topic say X and will be doing more research throughout the remainder of the year with him.
I am still very interested in topic X and consider this a large option for my masters, however, I have greater interests in another topic say Y. There is another university in our country that has a specialist research group in topic Y. I am looking into changing to this alternative university to study topic Y for my masters, however, I have had no conversations about my future research with people at either university.
Would it be considered rude for me to leave my supervisor now, who currently offers me a lot of support during my undergraduate, to pursue research in this other area of mathematics solely because I am more interested in this alternative topic? And what would be the correct way to go about this without burning any bridges with my current supervisor?<issue_comment>username_1: If Y is what you really want to do then go for it. There is no point in going down a career path just to please someone else.
Talk in person to your current supervisor once you have a written offer from the university that does Y. Explain to him that it is your dream to do Y and you hope to keep in contact with him even though you are leaving the university.
A good supervisor will understand - if not then he was not a good supervisor anyway. It's a win-win for you.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you have spent the time to earn a degree somewhere and have interacted with the faculty there who are closest to your interests, then it is actually a good thing to move on to another university for continued education. Don't get too comfortable early on.
You have learned a lot from a few people, but other people have different ways to think and it is good to get exposed to that early in your career.
Many, maybe most, faculty understand this. Especially undergraduate faculty. I always thought it was best if my best students left me behind and found inspiration elsewhere. My view is that it is much better if my students can surpass me than if they wind up just like me.
So, don't worry much about rudeness as much as you worry about maximizing your own opportunities. Thank your professor for all that s/he has done for you and for making it possible for you to move on. In a few years, return and thank them again and bring them up to date on your success.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: A good advisor will tell you to explore the new areas and make new connections, even if that means you will be leaving them. Both my MS and PhD advisors told me to go to different institutions whenever my degree was completed, but still kept their labs open in case I don't feel like doing that. Therefore, as a result I have my BS, MS, and PhD from three different institutions. And I believe that attending different institutions, meeting different people, learning and embracing their different operating styles, prepared me much better for job hunting and future career.
If your supervisor is understanding, he will put your interests and career ahead of his comfort of not finding another student. However, you have mentioned that you haven't talked about this to any of the people yet (current or future potential supervisor). I would talk to your future potential supervisor if s/he is interested in supervising you before you talk to your current supervisor about leaving. You don't want to be standing in two boats with one foot in each, because if the boats drift apart, you could fall in the lake. Once you have a confirmation from your potential future advisor then you can talk to your current supervisor, and if he is understanding, then he will understand and will let you go without burning the bridge.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/16
| 2,144
| 8,753
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a fifth year PhD student in chemical engineering (in North America) who's about to submit his thesis in 4 months, I have a serious doubt about my capabilities.
My PhD thesis was in an area not exactly in my PhD supervisors forte and I did not think that to be an issue when I accepted the PhD offer. Though, he was always available to offer ideas when I was stuck or guide me with a problem, I did not get much help on the technicalities of my works. Infact, he learned more about the future scope of my modeling technique, my research area as I continued to work on it.
However, since my PhD work is (in a way) entirely my own idea, it also meant that I was limited by my technical skills. I have tried my best to make my work as much rigorous as possible. But I think I did not do a good job.
My supervisor on the other hand seems very pleased by my work. He never complained about my productivity and rigorour of the work. The experimental collaborators also seemed satisfied by my work.
However, I think I have wasted my PhD time, which has resulted in a weak work. My manuscripts are about to be submitted, so I don't know if the work I have done is upto the mark in academic community or not.
I have been to many conferences, but I have neither got any praise for my work, nor any critique on them. So, I am not at all confident about my contribution to academia.
I am losing my passion for academia, and I don't think I have the necessary skills to survive in industry.
If I look at the quality of my PhD work, I think I am not the correct person to pursue further in academia. Can my PhD thesis be an indication of my suitability for a future academic career?<issue_comment>username_1: I think you are overly harsh with yourself, actually. There are several things going on here. First is that you are now more mature intellectually than you were when you began the work so are more likely to discount it than others might be. You know it best and if you were starting now, with what you now know, you would start higher up the ladder. That is just growth.
Just as important to answer your wider question is that for successful academics their first work, the dissertation, is seldom their best work. The more you work, the better you get. Just like an athlete.
I'm impressed, actually, that you taught your advisor something about your methodology and, it sounds like, developed that yourself.
But, the work doesn't get easier as you go along. It is just as hard, but you gain additional insight into the nature of things, especially that which it is important to study. I'll predict that if you don't give up you will do pretty well. A bit of letdown burnout is pretty common at your current stage. Power through it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I can tell from my personal experience that generally it is not. If you go in academia (or industry for that matter), people generally do not talk about what specifically you did in your PhD, but rather talk about the skills you gained and your future vision. No job or academic position will hire you for one specific thing you did in your PhD but for the whole suite of skills and ideas you will bring.
>
> As a fifth year PhD student in chemical engineering (in North America) who's about to submit his thesis in 4 months, I have a serious doubt about my capabilities
>
>
>
I haven't known any PhD student who haven't said this. Somebody said this to me once at a meeting, "if your PhD doesn't break you, or if you feel you are doing your PhD very well, then there is something fundamentally wrong". Now that might not be the exact wording but I still use quotes because it is not mine. The point is, PhD makes you do things that you might not have planned before joining. In my case, my supervisor and I agreed on a project, but when I was hired, his funding got delayed for that project, and he put me on another project temporarily. And by the time funding got approved, he hired another student for that project and I was full time on that temporary project. But I couldn't be happier because I learned so much on that project and it gave me an opportunity to learn new things and expand my network.
>
> My PhD thesis was in an area not exactly in my PhD supervisors forte and I did not think that to be an issue when I accepted the PhD offer. Though, he was always available to offer ideas when I was stuck or guide me with a problem...
>
>
>
My personal feeling is that this is what supervisors are supposed to do. Supervisors are not necessarily the experts in what they are doing. Maybe they have their forte, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't explore more. But as long as they are providing you the guidance when you get stuck, that is all that matters. If they can point you in the right direction and then you have to find a way to fix this, then it is worth it.
>
> However, since my PhD work is (in a way) entirely my own idea...
>
>
>
This is your highlight. Not many PhD students can say this because their projects are already designed and planned by their supervisors. This might feel like one less thing to do, but in hindsight many students never gain this skill by the time they finish their PhD. You have designed your PhD and learned new technical skills on your own. So give yourself a pat on the back for this.
>
> My supervisor on the other hand seems very pleased by my work. He never complained about my productivity and rigorour of the work. The experimental collaborators also seemed satisfied by my work.
>
>
>
It is probably because I think you did a good job.
>
> I don't know if the work I have done is upto the mark in academic community or not.
>
>
>
Leave it to the other researchers to judge.
>
> I have been to many conferences, but I have neither got any praise for my work, nor any critique on them. So, I am not at all confident about my contribution to academia.
>
>
>
Many people are not into giving unsolicited advice or critique.
>
> Can my PhD thesis be an indication of my suitability for a future academic career?
>
>
>
My answer remains the same, NO.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I disagree with the so far posted answers and in my opinion your PhD work is a quite good measure, especially *for yourself* to decide, if you should pursue more years in academia and even aspire tenure.
Your PhD work might not be the best and objective measure how competitive you are as a person and scientist, as the boundary conditions at other universities (supervisor, infrastructre, collaborators, colleagues...) are not equal. Yet, within your universisty, institute and research group you have a good measure how productive and successful you have been, especially in comparison with the PhD students in your group but also by the common PhD standards at your university (number & quality of papers, talks (not posters) at good conferences). 5 years are a very long time. Not doing some aftermath yourself to judge your own work and not explicitly asking the professors scrutinizing your thesis, if you should pursue an academic career or take another route can cost you many years. There are not much good reasons to become a post-doc if you are not looking for a fixed position in academia.
I really advise you ask other people in your environment knowing your work, but draw the conclusion on your own, otherwise you might regret the decision to have spend more years in academia without a success or to not have entered the post-doc phase.
Your advisor like most of the poster here will often encourage you to carry on and be nice, but it doesn't look to me like this is the advice you are looking for. There are also many statistics available, how many PhD enter post-doc phase and finally get tenure and this variates strongly among different scientific branches and should be a strong criterion for you decision, especially if you know your work wasn't outstanding in the light of above discussed criterions.
Another important criterion and measure I see among graduating PhD's is the ability to formulate research questions on their own that attract the interest of your professor and funding agencies. Writing an funding proposal 2-3 months, reviewing it with your professor and submitting it to an agency and the feedback you get is a good measure. If you are not capable to formulate interesting questions and your professor doesn't even invest the time to work on the idea with you and submit it finally to an agency, then I would personally question seeking an academic career. And from my experience the ratio of PhD's who can formulate ideas worth being funded is small. And the funding rate is often much less than 30%.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/16
| 1,284
| 5,063
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the past year, as faculty, I have spent 33% of my time on paperwork and bureaucratic activities. This does not include service (committees,department meetings, etc), and is *after* hiring a full time laboratory manager! It is simply the filling out of forms, arguing to retain and expand my space, a wide variety of mandatory training, and being asked to justify and verify a wide variety of things.
I would like to spend less time interacting with the vast number of middle management at my school, and focus on what I enjoy: research and teaching. However, there always seems to be another 'mandatory' thing. I do not have tenure, so I cannot yet simply tell them to go away. Any suggestions on how to spend less time on bureaucracy?<issue_comment>username_1: Complicated mess, I guess. As an untenured faculty member you should first analyze what you need to do to get tenure. If the meetings and paper work are getting in the way, you can go to the head/chair of your department and discuss the issue. You may be able to negotiate a *temporary* release from some duties so that you can focus on what is important *right now*. Most places it is the research that is most important, but in some, your distribution might even be seen as advantaging you. I can't answer that from this distance, but you probably can.
However, after you obtain tenure, I have two thoughts for you. One is to never volunteer for any bureaucratic task. *Never*. If your complaint is valid, this may be a way out, even though you can't avoid it all.
But, there is a tradeoff. If you don't contribute to the bureaucratic aspects of academia you are at the mercy of others who do contribute and are then subject to policies driven by their ideas and not your own. If you completely trust those other people, as I was able to do in my final position, then all is well. But if you think of them as incompetent (some of my earlier positions) then it is sub-optimal and you may need to work to drive the policies yourself.
Academia is a complex place. There is more to it than research. Lucky are those who can ignore aspects that don't appeal to them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Honestly speaking, sometimes there is no way out of these duties. When I entered academia, I also thought that it is all research and teaching, but soon learned that it is only a part of it, and sometimes, not even the biggest one. Other part includes politics and bureaucracy. In your early tenure years, your best bet would be to talk to the head and negotiate for complete or partial relaxation. However, if these were the things you agreed to during your hiring then this might be tricky. Another strategy would be to hire a full-time or part-time lab manager/administrator to handle paperwork regarding expenditures, hiring, travel, equipment storage, safety etc (things you mentioned). But you mentioned you already hired one, so maybe you need to talk to your manager to distribute duties.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Learn to say "**NO**" (especially to people that do not decide about your tenure)
It is discussed in length [here](https://psychcentral.com/lib/learning-to-say-no/) and [here](https://www.wikihow.com/Learn-to-Say-No) but these are my favourite points:
* Short and simple answers like "Thanks for coming to me but I’m afraid
it’s not convenient/possible right now" or "I’m sorry but I can’t help with this (at the moment)". Don't start to write endless time-eating apologies.
* Avoid feeling guilty about saying "no".
* Interrupt the "yes"-cycle using phrases like "I'll get back to you" -
you might not hear from them again if it was not that important after all (which is the case for very many things). My ex-boss did this on a master level: we would only answer requests from people lower in the food chain if the requests were already reminders - the original request was ignored straight away. (I personally think that this is a bit over the top but it worked for him (post-tenure)).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Likely you cannot get rid of all of the paperwork and bureaucratic activities.
But, you can control how you use your time.
My suggestion, learn how to maximize your time. Personally, I suggest reading Cal Newport's book, [*Deep Work*](http://www.calnewport.com/books/deep-work/). He provides case studies of how professors can maximize their time and impact. Some tips he provides include:
* Batch scheduling (e.g., creating uninterrupted time for research, answer emails in batches, even batch teaching all courses in one semester if possible).
* Saying No (as mentioned in other answers). This includes limiting your outside engagement and travel.
* Being digitally disconnected and more engaged with what you are doing.
* Do not respond to emails that are not critical.
* Follow <NAME>'s [advice](https://tim.blog/2007/10/25/weapons-of-mass-distractions-and-the-art-of-letting-bad-things-happen/): *in order to do the big things, you have to let the small bad things happen*.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/16
| 627
| 2,696
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have applied to a Canadian university for a math PhD starting this fall. I was very keen on working with Prof. A and he in fact, had encouraged me to apply. Few days earlier, I reached out to him for an update on my application status and he replied saying sorry that his funds for this fall are already committed. However, he finished by saying that I may find another advisor to begin my graduate studies.
Now I know this does not mean that I am admitted. But can I reach out to other potential advisors now? As a matter of fact, I have been independently reading some new topics and been finding them much intriguing. Now there is a Prof. B who has similar interests and I like his profile too. Will it be worthwhile to write to him now? If yes, how should I broach this subject? Should I mention Prof. A? I don't want to look pushy, but at this time now, I really want an opportunity to start my graduate studies and Prof. B's interests are very similar to what I've been reading recently.
I am looking forward to your suggestions. Thanks in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: Of course you should contact him. There is no harm in that. But I wouldn’t mention professor A. Write a simple and short email stating the you have already applied in the department and you are looking for a supervisor for your PhD. Then also mention that you have been reading papers on topic X and you find them interesting. And since his research interests are similar to what you want to do, would he be interested in serving as your supervisor? And then end your email by asking him to review your application and contact you in case of any question or query.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In the US it is common to begin doctoral studies without a dissertation advisor. One then has a chance to learn more about the options. I know the Canadian system is similar in some ways to the US, but differs in others. What I say below may be helpful or not.
If the available profs are getting busy it is probably a good idea to make contact as soon as feasible. Look at their specialties as you have done. Especially, try to determine if there is an ongoing faculty/student seminar that is also attended/led by your first choice. You could start with another member of that seminar, perhaps, but I'd advise against an extremely junior member if possible. They may be more devoted to obtaining tenure than helping students.
Again, in the US one normally starts with course work for a while and it is possible here to choose your preferred advisor later if an opening comes up. This might be less possible in a lab science, but in math it could work out.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/16
| 475
| 2,064
|
<issue_start>username_0: As far as I know a PostDoc in USA is 2 years of research program. Habilitation is 4-8 years program. So, why is this difference in time frame?
What are advantages/disadvantages of Habilitation over PostDoc in case of academic career?<issue_comment>username_1: PosDocs usually work on someone else's research programs. Often the program is an incremental or partial step in a larger research framework. Postdocs have some independence in choosing the methods for their research, but are largely supervised/trained by their PIs or mentors. Postdoctoral projects can be rather technical in nature. They usually result in a few journal publications. It is very likely that your colleague next door did or will do a few postdoctoral projects during their career.
Habilitation is a large piece of work focused on a large problem, performed completely independently by one person. It usually contains major theoretical breakthrough (e.g. a completely new methodology) and results in a number of journal publication and at least one major "manuscript" publication (e.g. book). It is not so likely that a random academic next door did a Habilitation (because in most countries PhD is a terminal degree and Hab. does not exist).
tl;dr: Postocs and Habilitation are completely different programs.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A Habilitation is a qualification level (not quite like an academic degree but you can think that it is sort of a grand PhD with additional teaching).
A Habilitation used to be the formal qualification level to become Associate Professor and Full Professor. The position of an Assistant Professor (German "Universitätsassistent") was usually the time when you worked on obtaining the Habilitation.
In the meantime the Habilitation is a bit outdated.
You could also think the Habilitation as the successful completion of your Assistant Professor time i.e. postdoc positions are usually before and you usually cant start your Habilitation time before you completed several postocs.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/16
| 667
| 2,903
|
<issue_start>username_0: I start my master's degree in this lab in September. After accepting my offer I found out that an ex-PhD student has been spreading rumors that the supervisor is publishing fraudulent data, going back many years, basically suggesting her whole field of research is a lie. The ex-student was very insistent to let me know about this and encourage me to *not* go into that lab. I think he is even trying to get an official investigation into her research to get the paper(s) retracted.
I'm worried that this will affect my career in academia, especially if the research for my master's thesis is based on falsified data. The ex-student apparently got his career ruined as well by the supervisor because he refused to put his name on the paper(s) and she made some calls that resulted in him not getting a post-doc. But I am only hearing one side of the story and I'm not sure what to believe. She is pretty well-known in her field for her research and from my personal interactions seemed nice. I'm scared if I ask her or her other students about it directly it could ruin our relationship before I even begin working there.
From my understanding my acceptance into the master's program is to the department and I *could* request another supervisor, though this would definitely make things awkward and there's probably limited options at this point for profs that can accept me. I'm not sure how I should proceed.<issue_comment>username_1: With no further information available, this seems like a situation to avoid. If you have time, and if the resolution of the case seems imminent, then you could wait, but otherwise you would be good to protect yourself. Protect yourself from the turmoil that seems inevitable to come as well.
One way to proceed is to go to the head/chair for a sit down and ask for advice. If the advice is to stay with this professor, you want some assurance that you will be allowed to succeed even in the worst case for the professor.
The charges might be false, of course, though the professor sabotaging another student would be equally serious, if that is what actually happened. But make sure that you aren't just being driven by rumor here. Make sure you have accurate information.
The head or another senior professor is likely to have better information.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Find a new supervisor. Even if the ex-student is dishonest or mentally ill, this seems like a bad situation.
I think you should be quite open about your problem. The more people know you have changed supervisor because of "future supervisor's" reputation, the more scrutiny will be cast on the situation, and the sooner the truth will get out. Make it clear you do not know who to believe, and that you are just avoiding the situation. Then nobody will blame you.
Also, contact some other ex-students and ask them for advice too.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/16
| 2,033
| 8,731
|
<issue_start>username_0: My English professor recently asked us to bring in all of our graded essays from the whole semester in order to fill out a 'rubric' of sorts which tallied the various types of mistakes we had made. She will be grading the rubric, and previously stated that if we did not have *all* the essays from the past semester in class that day, our grade would be comparably lower than otherwise. She made no mention of 'keeping all graded work' at any point during the course, and in my current institution, I have never been expected to keep past work for any specified duration. There are a multitude of reasons why a student may not have been able to keep particular (or any) essays, which my professor did not take into consideration.
Is it fair for my English professor to expect us to keep all of our past graded work, and then grade us on our possession? If unfair, how can I bring this issue up with her and dispute her expectation?
Note that I doubt that this is because she lost the essays; they’ve already been averaged into our final grades.<issue_comment>username_1: If this was not mentioned in the syllabus (or at least announced prior to the papers being returned), this is totally inappropriate. While it may be foolish for students not to keep their graded work (at least until the end of the term), if it was not established as a requirement before the students got their papers back, it cannot reasonably be made a retroactive requirement.
You should bring this problem to the attention of the instructor. You do not need to reveal whether you actually have all your past papers when you bring this up, lest the instructor try to wave your concerns away if you say that you actually do have all the papers and are just complaining as a matter of principle. I would also suggest having multiple students come to her together to make the same objection; that may make it more likely that she will relent. However, if the instructor does not agree to make a change, you should take this up with someone higher up. That could mean the department chair (or another departmental official, such as the director of undergraduate or graduate studies) or a student ombudsman, if one is available.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'll first say that if the Professor needed a copy of the graded assignments, she could have and should have just made the copy when grading, and kept it. This sounds like an arbitrary "trap" for people who are a little absent-minded, or mere arbitrariness.
First order of business IMHO is talking to the Professor, preferably out-of-class. Explain that you have not kept copies of all your work, and that you were not aware (regardless of who is to blame for it) that you had to do so - and you would like to ask for an alternative w.r.t. grading.
Considering what you've said, this is likely to fail. While waiting for the above meeting to occur, also talk to: 1. Your fellow students in this class. 2. Your student union representative (assuming you have one; otherwise - higher-ups in the student union). If they are willing, consider planning for some sort of collective action or intervention which would force the Professor's hand in case she doesn't agree to flex her positions. It's much easier to avert inappropriate grading before rather than after the fact. What could such an action be:
* Most or all students simply fail to bring any graded assignments as requested. They collectively agree to say they haven't kept copies of them. The Professor would not be able to just fail the whole class (or rather - is unlikely to do so and would be unable to defend the action) and would likely cave either at that point or earlier.
* Student union starts some sort of publicity campaign against this Professor's policy.
* Student union petitions for disciplinary procedures against the Professor (in some universities there's a legal right to start such formal procedures; in some you have to beg).
It's not that I think that these things *should* be done, but they are not impossible nor inconceivable and should be made possible as fallback in case things turn sour. Regardless of whether such action is agreed upon and readied for execution, either a student union rep or a group of students, and even better - both, approach the Professor collectively to try to change her mind.
But let's parallelize some more. Next step up after the personal meeting with the Professor is the Professor-in-charge for the course (in case it's a different person); then, next up - the person in charge of (undergraduate?) studies in your department. Again, student union rep + many students is the best combination from your side to meet with people further up the chain of authority.
Good luck!
PS - @username_1's answer also makes some good points - especially about not saying which assignments you have or don't have.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: To make a somewhat contrarian answer with a somewhat obvious point: **is the teacher's request actually causing problems to someone in the class?**
If it does, then I believe it is completely reasonable to complain, and also to side with the people affected even if you do not have the problem yourself (e.g., you have your past assignments).
However, this isn't obvious to me because the question doesn't say there is evidence for it. So, if it so happens that everyone has all their assignments at hand (or that people who didn't were not actually penalized for it, e.g., because the teacher realized on her own that it was a bad idea), then I wouldn't think it's a good idea to complain just out of principle because it could have put someone at a disadvantage or because the policy was bad. This could be given as feedback to the teacher once the class is over (e.g., when evaluating the class if this is done) but I wouldn't appeal to challenge a rule if it didn't actually affect someone.
In summary I'm just saying that it's OK to complain about an actual injustice but I wouldn't complain as vocally about the fact that an injustice could have occurred if there is no evidence that it did.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Recommend the instructor use BlackBoard, Canvas, or some other LMS (Learning Management System) -- the "papers" are all online, so both students and instructors can access them again. (Most US colleges have an Instructional Technology division that can assist with setting this up, if it's not already being used.)
It would be then fair to ask the student to do a final paper that reflects on their patterns and improvements over the semester, which would make specific reference to certain past papers.
And to make it easier for the instructor to only grab the parts that are in mentioned in the "portfolio," the instructor can request the students re-upload the relevant files (with screengrabs of comments, perhaps, if they're on the LMS Rubric, instead of embedded like Word's TrackChanges comments).
A final word for the instructor -- in professional life, a portfolio is *curated* -- not everything is included - only the best or most relevant works. If there's portfolio grading, not only should it be mentioned early, students should be allowed to make (some) selections. Since it is educational, however, to have a gradeable standard, she can require some things be the same for all: Maybe students can choose 1 of 3 short essays, and 1 medium essay, but everyone has to include the research paper and the very first essay of the semester.
---
*Source - I was a perma-adjunct for about 12 years, mostly teaching ENGL100. I did use reflections on students' first papers (with specific questions) at the end of the semester, but rarely portfolios. I also heavily used BlackBoard to coordinate everything and not lose physical papers.*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: One unmentioned possibility is to file a petition with the dean for credit/no credit grading on this course, citing this retroactive requirement as the reason. While this doesn't help the rest of the students, it does get the point across and protects you.
Late filing of credit/no credit (and this would be very late if you're on the quarter system) doesn't have to get approved, but this puts the thing on record in case you decide to appeal the grade later. Effectively retroactively changing the grading metric is a good case for credit/no credit.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: The school and the professor have the right to determine fairness in their institution. Outside opinions are mostly just opinions. If you dispute the professor, follow the school’s guidelines for academic appeals. Don’t be surprised if they support her side.
Upvotes: -1
|
2019/04/17
| 1,905
| 8,182
|
<issue_start>username_0: A faculty interview is short, whether it be a skype one or an onsite one. Esp for the former, as interviewers have tight and non-negotiable time limits, it's so short that there's little space beyond answering the interviewers' direct questions. In a short interview, as one invariably improvises, no matter how well they were prepared, it seems. Many rehearsed lines (not necessarily the exact wording, but topics planned to highlight) are forgotten. How to bring into full play what was prepared?<issue_comment>username_1: If this was not mentioned in the syllabus (or at least announced prior to the papers being returned), this is totally inappropriate. While it may be foolish for students not to keep their graded work (at least until the end of the term), if it was not established as a requirement before the students got their papers back, it cannot reasonably be made a retroactive requirement.
You should bring this problem to the attention of the instructor. You do not need to reveal whether you actually have all your past papers when you bring this up, lest the instructor try to wave your concerns away if you say that you actually do have all the papers and are just complaining as a matter of principle. I would also suggest having multiple students come to her together to make the same objection; that may make it more likely that she will relent. However, if the instructor does not agree to make a change, you should take this up with someone higher up. That could mean the department chair (or another departmental official, such as the director of undergraduate or graduate studies) or a student ombudsman, if one is available.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'll first say that if the Professor needed a copy of the graded assignments, she could have and should have just made the copy when grading, and kept it. This sounds like an arbitrary "trap" for people who are a little absent-minded, or mere arbitrariness.
First order of business IMHO is talking to the Professor, preferably out-of-class. Explain that you have not kept copies of all your work, and that you were not aware (regardless of who is to blame for it) that you had to do so - and you would like to ask for an alternative w.r.t. grading.
Considering what you've said, this is likely to fail. While waiting for the above meeting to occur, also talk to: 1. Your fellow students in this class. 2. Your student union representative (assuming you have one; otherwise - higher-ups in the student union). If they are willing, consider planning for some sort of collective action or intervention which would force the Professor's hand in case she doesn't agree to flex her positions. It's much easier to avert inappropriate grading before rather than after the fact. What could such an action be:
* Most or all students simply fail to bring any graded assignments as requested. They collectively agree to say they haven't kept copies of them. The Professor would not be able to just fail the whole class (or rather - is unlikely to do so and would be unable to defend the action) and would likely cave either at that point or earlier.
* Student union starts some sort of publicity campaign against this Professor's policy.
* Student union petitions for disciplinary procedures against the Professor (in some universities there's a legal right to start such formal procedures; in some you have to beg).
It's not that I think that these things *should* be done, but they are not impossible nor inconceivable and should be made possible as fallback in case things turn sour. Regardless of whether such action is agreed upon and readied for execution, either a student union rep or a group of students, and even better - both, approach the Professor collectively to try to change her mind.
But let's parallelize some more. Next step up after the personal meeting with the Professor is the Professor-in-charge for the course (in case it's a different person); then, next up - the person in charge of (undergraduate?) studies in your department. Again, student union rep + many students is the best combination from your side to meet with people further up the chain of authority.
Good luck!
PS - @username_1's answer also makes some good points - especially about not saying which assignments you have or don't have.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: To make a somewhat contrarian answer with a somewhat obvious point: **is the teacher's request actually causing problems to someone in the class?**
If it does, then I believe it is completely reasonable to complain, and also to side with the people affected even if you do not have the problem yourself (e.g., you have your past assignments).
However, this isn't obvious to me because the question doesn't say there is evidence for it. So, if it so happens that everyone has all their assignments at hand (or that people who didn't were not actually penalized for it, e.g., because the teacher realized on her own that it was a bad idea), then I wouldn't think it's a good idea to complain just out of principle because it could have put someone at a disadvantage or because the policy was bad. This could be given as feedback to the teacher once the class is over (e.g., when evaluating the class if this is done) but I wouldn't appeal to challenge a rule if it didn't actually affect someone.
In summary I'm just saying that it's OK to complain about an actual injustice but I wouldn't complain as vocally about the fact that an injustice could have occurred if there is no evidence that it did.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Recommend the instructor use BlackBoard, Canvas, or some other LMS (Learning Management System) -- the "papers" are all online, so both students and instructors can access them again. (Most US colleges have an Instructional Technology division that can assist with setting this up, if it's not already being used.)
It would be then fair to ask the student to do a final paper that reflects on their patterns and improvements over the semester, which would make specific reference to certain past papers.
And to make it easier for the instructor to only grab the parts that are in mentioned in the "portfolio," the instructor can request the students re-upload the relevant files (with screengrabs of comments, perhaps, if they're on the LMS Rubric, instead of embedded like Word's TrackChanges comments).
A final word for the instructor -- in professional life, a portfolio is *curated* -- not everything is included - only the best or most relevant works. If there's portfolio grading, not only should it be mentioned early, students should be allowed to make (some) selections. Since it is educational, however, to have a gradeable standard, she can require some things be the same for all: Maybe students can choose 1 of 3 short essays, and 1 medium essay, but everyone has to include the research paper and the very first essay of the semester.
---
*Source - I was a perma-adjunct for about 12 years, mostly teaching ENGL100. I did use reflections on students' first papers (with specific questions) at the end of the semester, but rarely portfolios. I also heavily used BlackBoard to coordinate everything and not lose physical papers.*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: One unmentioned possibility is to file a petition with the dean for credit/no credit grading on this course, citing this retroactive requirement as the reason. While this doesn't help the rest of the students, it does get the point across and protects you.
Late filing of credit/no credit (and this would be very late if you're on the quarter system) doesn't have to get approved, but this puts the thing on record in case you decide to appeal the grade later. Effectively retroactively changing the grading metric is a good case for credit/no credit.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: The school and the professor have the right to determine fairness in their institution. Outside opinions are mostly just opinions. If you dispute the professor, follow the school’s guidelines for academic appeals. Don’t be surprised if they support her side.
Upvotes: -1
|
2019/04/17
| 756
| 3,329
|
<issue_start>username_0: Statements of authors' contributions appear to be a standard practice in journal papers from experimental sciences or similar fields. Yet I haven't seen many such examples in mathematics.
I'm wondering if it will be appropriate to have a statement of contributions in a paper (algebraic geometry + some applications) that states the contribution of a coauthor who is my undergraduate student. If yes, will it be strange if the statement only explain the contribution of this student coauthor but not other coauthors?
The intended purpose for such a statement is twofold:
1. To highlight the real (and nontrivial) contribution of an undergraduate student which may potentially be helpful for this student's career.
2. To avoid opposition from coauthors who may question listing a student as an author. (EDIT: To avoid opposition from coauthors who may question the actual amount of contribution)
EDIT: One crucial detail was left as it was somewhat subjective. The student's contribution is small but nontrivial in my opinion. It is only a nice-to-have result. This paper can live without it. But I believe it adds some depth to this paper. So the necessity of this student's contribution is debatable. I'd hope to preemptively eliminate this debate --- why argue with someone you'll work with for a long time.<issue_comment>username_1: You should include an authors' contribution statement if and only if the journal requires it. Follow the journal's style instructions.
The place to help a student's career is in a letter of recommendation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In mathematics, the default assumption is that all authors contributed more or less equally to a project, so the main reason I see to describe individual author's contributions in a mathematics paper is that the authors want to attribute credit of certain aspects of the paper to individual authors. (This can also be done with appendices by subsets of coauthors.)
It does not make particular sense to me to highlight someone's contributions just because they are a student. You are free to do so if you wish, but it will be weird if you only describe one of the authors' contributions.
>
> 2. To avoid opposition from coauthors who may question listing a student as an author.
>
>
>
This is completely ridiculous. I have never heard of any co-author complaining that someone should not be listed as a co-author just because they are a student.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I think it would be very strange to have contribution statements:
* in a magazine that doesn't normally have them
* for only one of the authors
* only for most junior author (often it's more likely the senior authors that didn't do much!)
Instead of contorting to preempt a debate, just fight it out with colleagues if it does come up (and offline, not in article). Confident assertion, and only addressing it if needed, will serve you better than this worrying pre-emption. After all, you can refuse to allow your name and probably defacto block the publication if it comes down to it.
Of course it's also possible you are overrating the person's contribution (we only have your version and no details) but then the details can be debated among the collective authors if they force a discussion.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/17
| 1,211
| 5,050
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a new assistant professor in a research institute, where the number of top-tier publications matter a lot. In short, they simply **count the number of tier-one papers**.
I am highly advised to work out a good publication pipeline, in terms of how many papers are in progress (e.g., implementation), how many papers are under review, and also how many are in the preliminary stage to investigate the feasibility.
So besides "working hard", what are some tips, comments and advices on start to setting up a "publication pipeline"? To concretize a bit, what I can come up with are:
1. has one or two main research lines such that you can constantly publish your major research output towards some really prestigious conferences in your field, in CS it's like SIGGRAH, OSDI, POPL and so on. But of course, usually preparing such a work takes a very long time; my personally experience is about 1~1.5 year, when I was a Ph.D. student.
2. Simultaneously, become versatile in terms of skillset and therefore can quickly hunt for some (low-hanging) fruit. This can be much shorter, say 3~5 months, can still target on tier-one conference, but maybe not that "prestigious" ones. I am not going to name such conferences to avoid some arguments here...
3. What else?
All I can find is a thread here (<https://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=38427.0>), but the message is a bit unclear to me. Any suggestion or advice would be appreciated a lot. Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: Here two pieces of advice:
* As a mid/long term perspective you should build a large network with
bright people. In the beginning talk to as many as possible. Tell
them about your ideas and ask them about theirs. This will lead to a lot of collaborative papers. Don't waste too much time with people who are reluctant. Most people will be very open (especially the younger ones).
* Do this also with people who are not working in exactly your field. There might be a lot of low hanging fruits to collect i.e. something that is easy for you to do but not for them or vice versa. There is hardly any type of research field that would not like to get some input from CS (buzzword "data science"). e.g. Experimental biologists [here](https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004214) or people working in business or geography etc. This will not lead to first-authorships but possibly get your name on many papers by putting only few days of work in.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> So besides "working hard", what are some tips, comments and advices on start to setting up a "publication pipeline"?
>
>
>
As Lordy's answer points out, the key to a regular stream of publications is a healthy network of collaborators: external collaborators but also the students or postdocs that you supervise and consequenly who follow your research agenda. So to some extent a sustainable publication pipeline depends on maintaining a pool of PhD students or postdocs working with you. This usually depends on you getting some funding to pay them, by submitting applications to the appropriate funding bodies in your domain.
So the standard strategy goes like this:
1. Follow the calls in your domain and submit applications regularly in order to ensure a stream of funding for the next years
2. Fund some PhD students and/or postdocs on the grants awarded to you
3. They follow your research agenda, carry out most of the exploratory work under your supervision and you co-author their papers
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: While collaboration is important, I would caution you to get too hung up on this. You want to avoid being the person that just hangs around in the middle of the publication list in many papers - in my experience people eventually develop a bad taste towards scientists that they perceive to be freeriders on other's top research.
Instead, in my experience the most important key to having a good pipeline, especially if you are in one of the more applied CS fields, is to have a clear research programme. If you have, say, three PhD students, try to make sure that there are synergies between their work. In the ideal case, none of your future students past the first one or two should start from a completely green field - develop a **portfolio** of prototypes, methods, and data sets that you and your students can build on in the future. In my experience, this drastically cuts down on the time needed to write an A+ paper - if you start from a completely green field, it can easily take a year or two to collect enough material to have a shot, but if most of the scaffolding (knowledge- and technology-wise) is already there, I have seen people churn out excellent papers in surprising small time. This also has the advantage that your different research strands will eventually build up to something larger than individual papers, which ultimately ends up more important in tenure and promotion evaluations than the pure number of papers.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/04/17
| 541
| 2,438
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the field of applied math where a paper has been accepted for a conference presentation (talk), is it common for the ordering of the authors to be changed for a proceeding that entails thereafter?<issue_comment>username_1: In general it is **not** possible to change the order of authorship once a piece of work is accepted at a conference/journal etc. This is for several reasons:
1. Authors should think about the order of the authors before they
submit and if the work contributions afterwards change then this
work is normally not part of the submission and what counts is what
was submitted on not if further work was put into it later.
2. The reluctance to change authorships also comes from the fact that
sometimes authors try to get their name of a fraudulent paper and
this is something journals want to avoid at all.
If you can prove **exceptional circumstances** and all other authors agree (in writting) you might have a change by writing to who ever is in charge. But this should only be done if really necessary and you have a really good reason.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Here is a quite frequently occurring extreme case which may help you evaluate your own situation:
As @JonCuster also mentioned in their comment, there is always plenty of time between the abstract submission and the presentation itself, and the work typically evolves a lot during that period. Imagine it evolved such that new collaborators were added. Adding new names in there may change the list of authorship a lot. Imagine also that you actually submitted the manuscript by the time you present it, of course with the co-authors on it. In the conference, strictly adhering to the list of authors submitted in the abstract would mean removing your new co-authors, which should be out of question as it is best practice to give them credit as co-authors of your work. Thus, the list of authors can definitely change during the actual presentation as one is usually entitled to also present improvements to one's work. Whether it is common in your field, I don't know, but my guess would be that it is not too rare.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: My experience is it is no big deal provided the papers are not set for publishing. I would consider it similar to any other minor edit to the paper. If it can be done logistically fine. If it requires review, and authors wouldn't, not fine.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/17
| 1,239
| 5,585
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was a postdoctoral fellow at a university and received nothing but the regular postdoc salary. I received no grants myself, but worked on various projects, many of which happened to be industry sponsored. My PI disclosed them as sources of potential conflicts of interest, but I never did. Assuming that my position couldn't exist without the industry research grants received by my PI, did receiving money from a company, although indirectly, generate a potential source of a conflict of interest for me?
Edit: Just to clarify, I am not interested in how to disclose/report this financial relationship, but in the ethical repercussions.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, this is a potential conflict of interest. You specifically refer to working on industry-sponsored projects in addition to your salary being paid by an industry sponsor (even if indirectly): both can be perceived as conflicts.
Since your position is contingent on the industry funds, it would be possible for you to lose your position if the sponsor was unhappy with the results you produced.
That doesn't mean your work is by rule dishonest or tainted, but it means that for people to properly interpret the meaning of your work they should be aware of how you were funded: that's the purpose of conflict of interest disclosure. You aren't saying that the work was unethically influenced, but you are allowing others to make that determination on their own.
As @BrianBorchers pointed out in a comment, the importance of this particular conflict depends on the rules for reporting conflicts of interest in whatever context you are talking about. In general, though, it's better to err on the side of disclosure.
To clarify further, if you are asking whether you are legally required to declare a conflict (for example, to abide by US federal law) then your question is probably off-topic for this site and you should instead be consulting with staff and training materials at your university that determine what is a reportable conflict of interest. My answer should be interpreted according to the question you asked, which is whether you had a *potential conflict of interest*.
---
In response to your edit, and your comment that indicated you weren't aware of exactly where your funding was coming at the time: **I think you can relax a bit and not worry too much** about this potential conflict, as long as when you present your research either in talks or in published work that you make sure it is clear that the work itself was funded by an industry sponsor, even if no improper behavior actually occurred. I would definitely put it in a disclosure slide if you are talking about work related to the company that funded you and the work. If you are talking about anything unrelated to that project then I see no need to disclose: you have no continuing ongoing financial interest and there is no conflict of interests on an unrelated project.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Just because you were funded by a grant that was sponsored by an industry, doesn't mean you are in conflict. It is situational. For example, when you publish your results about product/method X being better than product Y, and product X was developed by your funding sponsor, then it is a conflict of interest because it might be perceived as your results being influenced due to your funding. And you have to (should) declare it. Whereas, if you are working on a project looking at something totally unrelated to what company does or produce, then you still declare where your funding came from, but you are not in conflict of interest.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: While I continue to disagree that [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/128297/75368) is necessarily correct and would need much more information on the actual funding chain to make a determination, I will offer the following advice.
Whether or not it is a real conflict of interest, your career would probably be better served by assuming that it is, rather than the opposite. This is, perhaps, an overly conservative approach, but it is safer for you to state it as a possible conflict than to deny that it is unless you can determine otherwise.
Thus, in my view, the theoretical and philosophical view may be in conflict with the practical view, you would be best served by taking a cautious stance. You are the one that is at risk here, not the commentators, so you should protect your reputation as best you can.
Your PI, of course, may have something to say about this issue.
A conflict of interest arises when you receive something of value as an inducement to provide a particular answer in your research, whether that particular answer is specified or not.
One can have an issue, even when doing proper research as exemplified by the following. Suppose a company (say, big tobacco) provides funding for 100 separate statistical studies. In the nature of things, some of those will produce results different from those of the population as a whole, say five of the 100. If you aren't allowed to publish separately, the company can then advertise only those studies which match its desired outcome, even though all 100 researchers carried out their studies completely honestly. In fact, this sort of thing seems to have happened in the past, hence the caution required of honest researchers. You don't even have to "bend to the will" of the funders to have a bad outcome here. Statistics itself leads to such a result unless all of the studies can be published.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/17
| 213
| 828
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it ok to use a slash to separate alternatives, as in "If 1st\_method/2nd\_method is used and 3rd\_method exists....", in academic paper writing?<issue_comment>username_1: Strictly speaking yes it's "ok" but it does not mean it's the best.
Most style books (I'm looking at AMA Handbook at the moment) would list that using forward slash (also called virgule or solidus) to represent "or" is acceptable. But the same symbol can also represent "and" as well as "per." So, there is some chance that misunderstanding can arise.
If it's not under strict word limitation, you may consider using the word "or" in between the two named methods.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: What is wrong with something like :
If either the first method or the second method is used...
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/17
| 767
| 3,288
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an early-career scientist and I attended a conference 2 years ago organised by a local university. I presented the results of one of my first funded research projects and I included my assistants as co-authors. The presentation went well and the rigorous work has impressed the panel and the audience and even one panel are interested to collaborate with me. However, one of the panel, instead of giving feedbacks decided to somehow "discredit" us and our effort by saying "So you are from University X and you must be a colleague of Professor Y. I have high regards of her work and thus I believe in your work." The thing is Professor Y was never involved in my project nor familiar in my work. I wasn't offended by that remark (or should I be?) but I feel that this kind of comment is unfair and shouldn't be tolerated especially when dealing with young scientists starting their career. Today, I was concerned that this panel member will be again present in an upcoming conference and I am sure he will do the same remarks again as he did to other before in past conferences he panelled. And I am also sure that our paths will cross again this time. My question is: Should I "call him out" when he do this behaviour again? Is it polite or proper to "call him out" during the panel discussion? Any advise how will I deal this kind of behaviour without being impolite.<issue_comment>username_1: Don't read too much into the remark. While some would say such things to lessen you, others wouldn't even think of it in that way and, instead, consider it a neutral or even positive comment. On the face of it, the person is trying to connect himself with you through the other person.
In particular, with no more information than what you write here, I think it would be a mistake to "call him out".
I would take the worst case interpretation of the comment as a person who is a bit insecure and is trying to boost them-self, rather than tear you down. That you suggest this is a common practice of the person seems, to me at least, to support that view.
But even if the person just goes around tearing people down, it isn't worth the mental effort to respond. They are what they are. There is nothing to be gained in that case.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This sounds like positive banter/smalltalk. It's a way of creating a positive link which the OP interprets negatively. I personally would interpret the statement as the person liking your work but not wanting to say so directly, as direct compliments are frowned upon in many cultures or even sound suspicious. Obviously, OP takes it exactly in the opposite spirit - so one never gets it right.
I will hypothesise that calling them out will only:
1. cause not to want to talk to you anymore;
2. cause them not wanting to deal with you ever again in the future;
3. if they know them, probably privately remark to Prof. Y about the strange and borderline impolite behaviour of OP, despite the good work of OP.
To be honest, I fail to see how this statement could possibly be negatively interpreted, but obviously OP did so. Nonetheless, my very strong recommendation to OP is to reconsider whether this is not actually meant as a very complimentary statement.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2019/04/17
| 567
| 2,316
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got accepted to a PhD program at a university 3 years ago, sent an offer and everything but declined. Now I have secided I want to return. Is there any possibility of being admitted again without reapplying if I went and spoke with members of the department and graduate division?
Has anyone done this before? 3 years is a long time for sure but im curious if anyone was readdmitted without a defferal of admissions after 1 year.
Going back through old correspondance the faculty in the department were fond of me and hoped I would attend.
Any thoughts or insight appreciated thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: Most likely you will need to reapply. However, reaching out to some of the faculty who were fond of you couldn't hurt, to let them know you are reapplying and tell them you are looking forward to meeting with them again.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I did something similar (2 years). I just went ahead and reapplied. 5 of the 6 schools that accepted me previously did so over again.
Didn't even think about not doing the applications. What's the big deal. You should know how. Let them run their process.
I recommend to apply to several schools. Always good advice but in this case to hedge your bets in case "A" doesn't like how they were cold shouldered earlier.
I would try to put a positive spin on things but not dwell on the previous decline (no mea culpa). 'Have had 3 productive years doing X, but now see more than ever that my skills would better fit in a Ph.D. level position.' Hopefully they still want you. Of course for any schools that you didn't decline earlier, you don't need to mention it as much. Just say you worked a while and decided you belong in Ph.D.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Some programs will explicitly say that once given an offer, you can accept, defer for a year, or decline, with declining requiring reapplying if you want to be admitted again. Your offer may say something along those lines if you can fetch it.
If you'd like to check with the department and are uncomfortable reaching out to the professors, see if the department has a staff directory on its website. If there is an office coordinator or a graduate program specialist, they may be able to tell you if you have to formally apply again.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/17
| 3,557
| 15,816
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently been accepted to a top five math PhD program. The department seems to have a good mix of pure and applied math, and there are plenty of opportunities for collaboration with other departments (Stats, CS, Econ, etc.)
I am most interested in pursuing math more on the applied side of things. Moreover, I would like options outside of academia once I graduate. Looking at the previous PhD alumni, this does not seem to be a problem - anyone not in academics is doing pretty interesting stuff in finance, data science, consulting, machine learning. However, I want to make sure I am not missing something along the way that these students did which enabled them to have broad and attractive job prospects.
I am especially interested in Analysis, Probability, Stats, Machine Learning, Econ, Mathematical Biology, Cryptography, and Applied topology. I would be happy to do work involving any one of these.
My questions are these:
1. What should I do during my PhD to be able to have good non-academic job prospects after graduating? (Would something like a PhD minor be helpful?)
2. How does it differ by field? If I want to do something like quantitative finance, what do I need to do versus if I want to do something like data science?
3. How can I find out more information about question two. As things change and evolve, how can I find out what it is I need in order to be accepted for positions and jobs involving areas that interest me?
I am not sure if I am exactly asking the right question, so if someone else has suggestions of what I should be asking, please suggest.
Note: There are a number of questions on this site that ask similar questions, ("I'm doing math but I want to go into industry") However I think my question is rather different. Firstly, I am hoping to pursue research with applications during my PhD, rather than focusing on super pure math. Secondly, I am asking this question before I have even started my PhD, hoping to know what I should do before, during, and after my program. Most of the other questions basically have the theme "I did a PhD in pure math, now what?"<issue_comment>username_1: Based on my own interactions with graduate students and post-docs, I would suggest:
1. Develop skills that are useful to potential employers. This includes basic communication skills and a broad background in data analysis and modeling as well as buzz-word computer skills (R, Python, Deep Learning, etc.)
2. Develop cultural-competence for the corporate world. Learn how to dress and act the part, preferably by immersing yourself in the corporate world through an internship.
3. Have some examples of your work (besides your papers and dissertation) to show to potential employers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Another important factor here is choice of advisor. Look through the faculty profiles and see if you can find a good fit. This would be someone with industry experience, or that has managed to assign their students to industry jobs past graduation. It would be good to be advised by someone who'll be able to help you get internships at relevant companies and direct your research in the direction you want.
In my experience, math PhDs (with a smattering of CS/Econ/Stats) are highly employable in industry, even if they err on the purer side of research.
I know several people who studied pure math and applied their problem solving skills in internships with very good outcomes, let alone if you are learning applied skills on the way. Other soft skills that you acquire will be extremely useful in industry - writing papers, speaking skills, problem solving and so on.
PhD studies are also an excellent time to try out transitioning your ideas into startups. Most good universities have tech connections to help you do that, try to look into that.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Instead of thinking in vague terms about how your mathematical training can be applied in industry, I think it is much more fruitful to focus on problems in the real world that excite you. Most math PhDs pursue research problems by letting curiosity guide them. Things don't suddenly change just because you're going into industry. Particularly in the current era because of the tech boom, there are tremendous opportunities for bright, mathematically minded people in industry.
It isn't just power point presentations and talking to clients. Of course there's nothing wrong with that if that's the kind of thing you like. My point is just that mathematicians have a rare ability to think deeply and get to the core of a technical problem and many corporations are realizing the value they can bring.
If you haven't heard of them, two people to read about are <NAME> and <NAME>. Both started out as mathematicians and went on to become great figures in the fields of biology and finance respectively. It is notable that Jim started out trading in a discretionary manner and only later incorporated quantitative techniques. So rather than viewing "industry" as some monolith, think about what problems you want to solve and be confident that your mathematical training will give you a leg up.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I added a PhD minor in computer science to my mathematics PhD. It's helped market me for industry jobs. Every recruiter has mentioned it. One still needs to have the skills (and be able to demonstrate them in the interview) but the minor does seem to get you phone calls.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: As a former arithmetic geometer currently on the industry job market, here's some advice/observations, current as of 2021 (things in industry do rapidly change though, so stay vigilant). I'm speaking from a US perspective and don't know anything about how this changes in other countries. I'm also talking about the labor market in a big US city with a large tech sector (e.g. SF, Seattle, Boston, NYC, LA...) - regardless of where you get your PhD, you'll likely find way more industry opportunities for math PhDs somewhere like this.
General advice:
* networking is really valuable, both for general knowledge about industry opportunities and for finding actual positions. Keep up undergrad connections, try to meet people who do quantitative research outside the math department (stats, econ, CS...) e.g. by going to their seminars, and don't be afraid to ask your friends to introduce you to people in their network who might be willing to help. Your university's alumni network is also a good place to look.
* Industry is way more flexible than academia and evolves rapidly; as a corollary, it's much easier to pivot your interests than it is to e.g. change research specialties. Math is awesome because it's extremely portable and ubiquitous, so definitely don't talk yourself out of opportunities because you have the "wrong" experience.
* Work on the job application process early and often. Doing internships during your PhD is a great way to learn about job opportunities, try out a field, and maintain industry connections. Plus you'll make more money than you would doing summer teaching... Keeping an up-to-date resume and LinkedIn and reading about careers on the internet is great too. Many PhD students spend 5 years in a Faraday cage, only thinking about their specific research field: if nothing else, this isn't great for your mental health (ask me how i know...).
* Whatever you do, take the time to build and maintain solid competence in general "quantitative skills". This means statistics, basic programming, and basic data analysis (e.g. working with R or Matlab). Ironically, pure mathematicians might be some of the only STEM PhDs who *don't* have to do these sorts of things all the time in their research, and industry people don't necessarily get this. You can take courses (including ones for undergrads!), build solo projects, practice with stuff like Project Euler, LeetCode, or Kaggle, etc. Depending on what kind of research you do, maybe you can write some Sage libraries to do computations or run statistical models to test hypotheses, etc.
* If you pick a sufficiently applied research topic, this all could get a lot easier. For example, having an advisor with industry connections or even just a track record of students with industry jobs would be extremely useful. The industry job market isn't bad for math PhDs even if they study extraordinarily useless things like I do (nobody's launching a startup using perfectoid spaces...), but if you become an actual expert in something useful (even from a theoretical/academic perspective), you could open yourself up to a very elite tier of job opportunities.
* Don't sleep on your "soft skills". Mathematicians have tons of opportunities to get really good at technical writing and communication to folks with a wide range of backgrounds. Take the time to get good at teaching, volunteer to talk in student seminars, etc. This is a crucial skill in industry and will be tested directly in interviews.
* Job opportunities for math PhDs are certainly not at all limited to the sorts of heavily quantitative tech-y industry I'm discussing below. There's consulting, law/politics/policy, education, technical publishing/writing, just to name a few. You can really leverage those "soft skills" above plus the prestige of a math PhD and your analytical skills to do just about anything!
Specific industries hiring mathematicians:
* Quantitative finance: these firms often seem happy to hire math PhDs who can demonstrate strong skills in statistics and competent programming (e.g. being able to write some Python or C++ code to run a statistical model; software engineering background isn't so necessary). "Quantitative researchers", especially at small hedge funds/proprietary trading firms, often work in a fairly academic/research-oriented environment, sometimes even publishing papers. These firms care about pedigrees a lot, so the prestige of your program and university matter (unfortunately!). If you have Putnam or Math Olympiad background, that's very helpful (I've even seen companies ask about standardized test scores?!?). To a lesser extent, having a strong publication record might help. Very few people have studied math directly relevant to quantitative finance (derivative pricing, stochastic PDE, etc.), so doing a PhD in that area would set you up very well. Doing something related to stats or probability is also a big plus, but all sorts of mathematicians are attractive applicants. These firms are willing to invest quite a lot of resources into training and care mostly about finding the "smartest"/most prestigious people. Jobs are 90% concentrated in New York and sometimes Chicago (plus e.g. London and Hong Kong outside of the US).
* Data science: here, you're really expected to have some legitimate domain expertise when you apply, at least if you're looking at jobs with the word "researcher" in the name (lots of "data science" jobs are things like database engineering with a fancy name). Jobs involving a large amount of theoretical research on ML models (e.g. at somewhere like DeepMind) are particularly competitive, and you'll be competing with people with machine learning PhDs. If you can do actual research related to machine learning, even if it's 1-2 side projects/papers, you're in a very good position. You're very strongly encouraged to have built a non-trivial ML project and have the code up on GitHub, e.g. competing in Kaggle data challenges. Programming skills are important, but mostly on the level of being able to hack together a solid model in Jupyter or R. Coursework or a PhD minor would definitely be useful here, and you should at minimum take some machine learning courses at your university. Strong stats/data/modeling experience puts you ahead of a "non-quantitative" pure mathematician.
* "Defense"/government cryptography: the NSA and similar organizations (e.g. the "Center for Communications Research") seem to consistently hire very many mathematicians. Background in cryptography or applied/computational number theory is great but definitely not a requirement. These are institutions with deep and immutable sources of funding working over a very long time horizon, and they appear to be rather happy to collect talent and provide space for fairly open-ended research in a wide range of subjects as well as specific domain training. Some general competence with programming is likely helpful but not critical. Having a strong academic/publication record is useful. There are a number of "postdoc" type positions and some "tenure-track" type positions; unlike universities, the NSA actually has the resources to promote a large number of its junior researchers. Obviously, you'll need to pass extensive background checks, much of your work will be secret, and you may or may not ever know what your work is being used for.
* Software engineering: this is an *enormous* and very wide field which appears to never stop growing. Outside of "FAANG", there can be stiff competition among companies for qualified applicants. Math PhDs are attractive and will likely help you get interviews and possibly bump you up a pay grade relative to even fairly strong undergrad CS majors. But you'll be expected to do the same technical interview as everyone else, which requires you to be able to solve tricky coding problems on a whiteboard. Taking undergrad or grad CS courses at your university is very helpful here, and you'll be expected to be familiar at a minimum with basic algorithms and data structures along with decent fluency in a programming language of your choice. Advanced CS course work helps. Building some sort of cool project/app and putting it on GitHub helps a lot. Big tech companies like "FAANG" (maybe now it's called "MAANA"?) have a lot of competition for jobs but also have better hiring pipelines for PhDs and lots of experience training people without a software engineering background. Startups are more likely to expect you to be able to build something useful right out of the gate. Networking is helpful, especially at smaller companies, so it might be a good idea to hang out at the CS department and make some friends.
* Blockchain/industry cryptography research: this is a fairly new industry and will likely look very different by the time you finish your PhD. At the moment (fall 2021), there's a lot of demand for talent but not an incredibly large pool of people with specialized knowledge. This field is developing very rapidly and ideas often flow between academic cryptography and industry, so being able to read a research math paper is a useful skill. Doing a PhD minor or doing math research on the theoretical side of cryptography would make you pretty attractive. It would definitely be worth your time to take a course or two in the subject if this is something you're interested in. Contributing to open-source projects or otherwise participating in the "ecosystem" would be a good idea too. Basic programming skills are necessary, and some software engineering background could be helpful. [Warning: when I started my PhD in 2016, one might have said similar things to the above about the data science industry. Since then, the talent pool has exploded and the growth in demand for industry research has tapered off].
* Industry general research labs: e.g. Microsoft Research or Google Research. I've seen such institutions recommended a lot on this site as industry destinations that allow you to keep doing something very similar to academic math research. The caveat here is that the job market at these places is also similar to academic math research - these are basically faculty positions with a different funding structure, and they hire accordingly.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/17
| 3,735
| 16,587
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a finishing PhD student in the field of cognitive neuroscience. During my PhD program I was underperforming than anyone else in my department (in my belief at least). Although I liked research, or at least some aspects of it, I had become so emotionally exhausted in the absence of support in many respects, and recently just wanted to leave academia as soon as I finish the degree. So, when I had started applying for postdoctoral positions in the last winter, thinking that I should at least give it a shot, I never ever expected that any reasonably-minded PI would show an interest in hiring me after looking at my CV. But surprisingly, several PIs wanted to interview me and I even got a few offers. (BTW I hope this can encourage some people who are depressed and discouraged just like I have been. I was in terrible shape in past years and needed medication at some point).
So, right now, I am considering the job offers thinking whether I really want to take up this opportunity. At the back of my mind I want to become successful again as an academic researcher although I am still feeling tired. I guess I like research in general, but I also have a serious math/stat anxiety, which is terrible. I did not have a solid training on math or stat in college (wasn't a STEM major) nor did I have experience as an RA or so like other people. I know that these are all lame excuses after all the years in the doctoral program. I am a very slow learner when it comes to quantitative aspects, and my advisor was not being really helpful in many aspects.
I think my strength as a researcher is that I can generate interesting and creative ideas. According to my advisor my works are creative. Also, I like to read others' papers and think about them in my head. I also like to write. Those things come naturally to me, although other people might also feel that way, and having a great skill set in coding and analyzing might be a lot more precious these days. Anyways, with all the job offers that I have to decide soon, I find myself worrying about whether I would be able to quickly pick things up in the new place, which is not a good sign. I will do my absolute best to strengthen my math and programming skills if I decide to give it another shot, but I am not sure if these things can be overcome. Also at this point, I might as well be happy outside academia.
I would like to hear what other people think about this situation. Thank you!
---
I am adding this after reading some comments below. Sorry if this was not general enough and considered off-topic. I am new to this StackExchange site and still figuring how to use it. My question, at a more general level, would be **whether postdoctoral training can improve one's poor quantitative skills**, especially given the fast pace of research that is required of a postdoc.
Thank you for all the great comments so far.<issue_comment>username_1: Based on my own interactions with graduate students and post-docs, I would suggest:
1. Develop skills that are useful to potential employers. This includes basic communication skills and a broad background in data analysis and modeling as well as buzz-word computer skills (R, Python, Deep Learning, etc.)
2. Develop cultural-competence for the corporate world. Learn how to dress and act the part, preferably by immersing yourself in the corporate world through an internship.
3. Have some examples of your work (besides your papers and dissertation) to show to potential employers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Another important factor here is choice of advisor. Look through the faculty profiles and see if you can find a good fit. This would be someone with industry experience, or that has managed to assign their students to industry jobs past graduation. It would be good to be advised by someone who'll be able to help you get internships at relevant companies and direct your research in the direction you want.
In my experience, math PhDs (with a smattering of CS/Econ/Stats) are highly employable in industry, even if they err on the purer side of research.
I know several people who studied pure math and applied their problem solving skills in internships with very good outcomes, let alone if you are learning applied skills on the way. Other soft skills that you acquire will be extremely useful in industry - writing papers, speaking skills, problem solving and so on.
PhD studies are also an excellent time to try out transitioning your ideas into startups. Most good universities have tech connections to help you do that, try to look into that.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Instead of thinking in vague terms about how your mathematical training can be applied in industry, I think it is much more fruitful to focus on problems in the real world that excite you. Most math PhDs pursue research problems by letting curiosity guide them. Things don't suddenly change just because you're going into industry. Particularly in the current era because of the tech boom, there are tremendous opportunities for bright, mathematically minded people in industry.
It isn't just power point presentations and talking to clients. Of course there's nothing wrong with that if that's the kind of thing you like. My point is just that mathematicians have a rare ability to think deeply and get to the core of a technical problem and many corporations are realizing the value they can bring.
If you haven't heard of them, two people to read about are <NAME> and <NAME>. Both started out as mathematicians and went on to become great figures in the fields of biology and finance respectively. It is notable that Jim started out trading in a discretionary manner and only later incorporated quantitative techniques. So rather than viewing "industry" as some monolith, think about what problems you want to solve and be confident that your mathematical training will give you a leg up.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I added a PhD minor in computer science to my mathematics PhD. It's helped market me for industry jobs. Every recruiter has mentioned it. One still needs to have the skills (and be able to demonstrate them in the interview) but the minor does seem to get you phone calls.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: As a former arithmetic geometer currently on the industry job market, here's some advice/observations, current as of 2021 (things in industry do rapidly change though, so stay vigilant). I'm speaking from a US perspective and don't know anything about how this changes in other countries. I'm also talking about the labor market in a big US city with a large tech sector (e.g. SF, Seattle, Boston, NYC, LA...) - regardless of where you get your PhD, you'll likely find way more industry opportunities for math PhDs somewhere like this.
General advice:
* networking is really valuable, both for general knowledge about industry opportunities and for finding actual positions. Keep up undergrad connections, try to meet people who do quantitative research outside the math department (stats, econ, CS...) e.g. by going to their seminars, and don't be afraid to ask your friends to introduce you to people in their network who might be willing to help. Your university's alumni network is also a good place to look.
* Industry is way more flexible than academia and evolves rapidly; as a corollary, it's much easier to pivot your interests than it is to e.g. change research specialties. Math is awesome because it's extremely portable and ubiquitous, so definitely don't talk yourself out of opportunities because you have the "wrong" experience.
* Work on the job application process early and often. Doing internships during your PhD is a great way to learn about job opportunities, try out a field, and maintain industry connections. Plus you'll make more money than you would doing summer teaching... Keeping an up-to-date resume and LinkedIn and reading about careers on the internet is great too. Many PhD students spend 5 years in a Faraday cage, only thinking about their specific research field: if nothing else, this isn't great for your mental health (ask me how i know...).
* Whatever you do, take the time to build and maintain solid competence in general "quantitative skills". This means statistics, basic programming, and basic data analysis (e.g. working with R or Matlab). Ironically, pure mathematicians might be some of the only STEM PhDs who *don't* have to do these sorts of things all the time in their research, and industry people don't necessarily get this. You can take courses (including ones for undergrads!), build solo projects, practice with stuff like Project Euler, LeetCode, or Kaggle, etc. Depending on what kind of research you do, maybe you can write some Sage libraries to do computations or run statistical models to test hypotheses, etc.
* If you pick a sufficiently applied research topic, this all could get a lot easier. For example, having an advisor with industry connections or even just a track record of students with industry jobs would be extremely useful. The industry job market isn't bad for math PhDs even if they study extraordinarily useless things like I do (nobody's launching a startup using perfectoid spaces...), but if you become an actual expert in something useful (even from a theoretical/academic perspective), you could open yourself up to a very elite tier of job opportunities.
* Don't sleep on your "soft skills". Mathematicians have tons of opportunities to get really good at technical writing and communication to folks with a wide range of backgrounds. Take the time to get good at teaching, volunteer to talk in student seminars, etc. This is a crucial skill in industry and will be tested directly in interviews.
* Job opportunities for math PhDs are certainly not at all limited to the sorts of heavily quantitative tech-y industry I'm discussing below. There's consulting, law/politics/policy, education, technical publishing/writing, just to name a few. You can really leverage those "soft skills" above plus the prestige of a math PhD and your analytical skills to do just about anything!
Specific industries hiring mathematicians:
* Quantitative finance: these firms often seem happy to hire math PhDs who can demonstrate strong skills in statistics and competent programming (e.g. being able to write some Python or C++ code to run a statistical model; software engineering background isn't so necessary). "Quantitative researchers", especially at small hedge funds/proprietary trading firms, often work in a fairly academic/research-oriented environment, sometimes even publishing papers. These firms care about pedigrees a lot, so the prestige of your program and university matter (unfortunately!). If you have Putnam or Math Olympiad background, that's very helpful (I've even seen companies ask about standardized test scores?!?). To a lesser extent, having a strong publication record might help. Very few people have studied math directly relevant to quantitative finance (derivative pricing, stochastic PDE, etc.), so doing a PhD in that area would set you up very well. Doing something related to stats or probability is also a big plus, but all sorts of mathematicians are attractive applicants. These firms are willing to invest quite a lot of resources into training and care mostly about finding the "smartest"/most prestigious people. Jobs are 90% concentrated in New York and sometimes Chicago (plus e.g. London and Hong Kong outside of the US).
* Data science: here, you're really expected to have some legitimate domain expertise when you apply, at least if you're looking at jobs with the word "researcher" in the name (lots of "data science" jobs are things like database engineering with a fancy name). Jobs involving a large amount of theoretical research on ML models (e.g. at somewhere like DeepMind) are particularly competitive, and you'll be competing with people with machine learning PhDs. If you can do actual research related to machine learning, even if it's 1-2 side projects/papers, you're in a very good position. You're very strongly encouraged to have built a non-trivial ML project and have the code up on GitHub, e.g. competing in Kaggle data challenges. Programming skills are important, but mostly on the level of being able to hack together a solid model in Jupyter or R. Coursework or a PhD minor would definitely be useful here, and you should at minimum take some machine learning courses at your university. Strong stats/data/modeling experience puts you ahead of a "non-quantitative" pure mathematician.
* "Defense"/government cryptography: the NSA and similar organizations (e.g. the "Center for Communications Research") seem to consistently hire very many mathematicians. Background in cryptography or applied/computational number theory is great but definitely not a requirement. These are institutions with deep and immutable sources of funding working over a very long time horizon, and they appear to be rather happy to collect talent and provide space for fairly open-ended research in a wide range of subjects as well as specific domain training. Some general competence with programming is likely helpful but not critical. Having a strong academic/publication record is useful. There are a number of "postdoc" type positions and some "tenure-track" type positions; unlike universities, the NSA actually has the resources to promote a large number of its junior researchers. Obviously, you'll need to pass extensive background checks, much of your work will be secret, and you may or may not ever know what your work is being used for.
* Software engineering: this is an *enormous* and very wide field which appears to never stop growing. Outside of "FAANG", there can be stiff competition among companies for qualified applicants. Math PhDs are attractive and will likely help you get interviews and possibly bump you up a pay grade relative to even fairly strong undergrad CS majors. But you'll be expected to do the same technical interview as everyone else, which requires you to be able to solve tricky coding problems on a whiteboard. Taking undergrad or grad CS courses at your university is very helpful here, and you'll be expected to be familiar at a minimum with basic algorithms and data structures along with decent fluency in a programming language of your choice. Advanced CS course work helps. Building some sort of cool project/app and putting it on GitHub helps a lot. Big tech companies like "FAANG" (maybe now it's called "MAANA"?) have a lot of competition for jobs but also have better hiring pipelines for PhDs and lots of experience training people without a software engineering background. Startups are more likely to expect you to be able to build something useful right out of the gate. Networking is helpful, especially at smaller companies, so it might be a good idea to hang out at the CS department and make some friends.
* Blockchain/industry cryptography research: this is a fairly new industry and will likely look very different by the time you finish your PhD. At the moment (fall 2021), there's a lot of demand for talent but not an incredibly large pool of people with specialized knowledge. This field is developing very rapidly and ideas often flow between academic cryptography and industry, so being able to read a research math paper is a useful skill. Doing a PhD minor or doing math research on the theoretical side of cryptography would make you pretty attractive. It would definitely be worth your time to take a course or two in the subject if this is something you're interested in. Contributing to open-source projects or otherwise participating in the "ecosystem" would be a good idea too. Basic programming skills are necessary, and some software engineering background could be helpful. [Warning: when I started my PhD in 2016, one might have said similar things to the above about the data science industry. Since then, the talent pool has exploded and the growth in demand for industry research has tapered off].
* Industry general research labs: e.g. Microsoft Research or Google Research. I've seen such institutions recommended a lot on this site as industry destinations that allow you to keep doing something very similar to academic math research. The caveat here is that the job market at these places is also similar to academic math research - these are basically faculty positions with a different funding structure, and they hire accordingly.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/18
| 1,115
| 4,822
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a third-year PhD student in Germany, and I have some issues with my supervisor.
To make a long story short, he does not read my research drafts but instead, he asks us to review papers he takes from conferences as a reviewer, and then he submits them with his name to make a reputation.
He also bans me from writing my thesis. Other students in the past including master students have had similar problems regarding their master thesis. And recently a PhD student quit after 3 years of working in his group and a few other cases in the past.
Anyways, the main reason I am writing this is that about two years ago he asked me to work on a remote project (with another group remotely) to have a joint research paper. After doing all the things that he and the remote professor ask me to do, my so-called supervisor now does not allow me to write my paper based on the result of this research, and I found that he (and the remote guy) are replacing me with another student on this project and are ignoring all of my works. I have been working on a private repository in GitHub, but I do not have a master user.
What are the possible solutions in this case? How can I defend my rights? Is there any way to collect evidence from the repository or emails? Can I bring these people to court?
I have tried to talk to my supervisor many times, and it doesn't work. Also, the head of our department does not want to involve himself in these jobs.
This is an update to the answers and comments below:
Thank you guys! I need to write this long response to Buffy and other people comments:
Indeed I am looking for a proper advisor. However, for now, I want to get my paper published (the remote project). Even though I must change my supervisor, still I devoted 2 years of my life on this work. So, I think it's my right to have this paper in my CV even if they write the paper separately.
It was a kind of deal between my so-called supervisor and me and his friend (the remote professor) to have a paper in the end.
1. How can I collect proofs regarding all the ideas and technical works I have been putting in this project? (for example, has Github any option in these situations? )
2. Can I write an abstract about this project with some details and upload it somewhere like Arxiv or Researchgate. Does it force them to put my name at least as a co-author for the paper?
3. Having some screenshots or recorded screen from the history of the repository can be helpful? (in case they kick me out of the git repository )
4. Is there any international, Europian or American student association or similar things to help people like me?<issue_comment>username_1: I'm surprised that you have found any reasons to stay. I don't predict that you can have any happy future if you stay in this situation. There is clearly a lack of respect, maybe both ways.
I can't think of any path to success whatever if you stay. Even if you can force better behavior, the resentment will come back to hurt you when you are ready to move on. I wouldn't expect any decent letters of recommendation.
None of what you describe is proper. I hope it is uncommon.
Find a better situation, even if you need to change universities. The head's lack of interest may make staying also impossible.
Unfortunately, this advice comes with a heavy cost since moving will be difficult and you may not be able to take your research with you. The *less* developed it is, probably the easier it is to carry it away and continue. But you need a supportive advisor.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This is unfortunate. In your third year, it is even harder to make up your mind to leave because you have put this much time in your research. However, if you want to fight, you do have the right to defend your rights.
In addition to @username_1's suggestions, if you do decide to fight, then find out who is your institution's ombudsman. They are a common entity in the US universities, and maybe in Germany they have a different title. They are supposed to investigate these kinds of matter independently. But be prepared to show them everything they ask. Then it is up to them to decide who is guilty. Be prepared to accept the outcome in any direction.
That being said, if you do win this fight, you might get your name in the papers and also might get to stay in your current lab to finish your PhD. But don't expect any words of appreciation from your supervisor when it is time to get letters of recommendation. That bridge will be burned for sure. I have a second hand familiarity of similar situation as one of my close friends was involved in this kind of situation. He ended up changing the supervisor and transferred to another campus of the same university. Good luck with any of your decision.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/18
| 3,978
| 16,322
|
<issue_start>username_0: Funding agencies in academia use peer review to assess the quality of submitted grant proposals and to decide which proposals should be funded. I have some doubts that this system actually works based on the following findings:
1. A recent [study in PNAS](https://www.pnas.org/content/115/12/2952) "found no agreement among reviewers in
evaluating the same application".
2. We have by ourselves performed boot strapping on reviews provided
for the same proposal submitted at multiple calls in multiple years
(yes, the guidelines allowed this) and obtained on average almost exactly the overall average acceptance rate of the calls.
My question is now in the opposite direction ... Given that the grant review and panel system is quite costly: is there hard evidence that the grant peer review system provides results significantly better than random?
E.g. Do studies exist where e.g. 50 proposals were funded based on the standard review process and 50 random proposals were funded at the same call and then 5 or 7 years later the number of high profile papers, citations or similar was counted? Or do studies exist were re-evaluations show the same outcome as the original evaluations of proposals?<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately, I don't know of such a study, so this is more like comment that was too long for the comment box:
Grants, especially big ones, also include a lot of politics. "Is this research topic interesting for the international reputation of our country?", etc. Thus, also the peer review is needed, because "I gave these guys 50 millions because a coin flip decided on that" doesn't sound as good as "a committee of experts discussed for 8 months and decided...".
I personally (without backing of any data or study) think that it is really hard to determine high quality (number of papers, etc.) before hand, so it might well be that random would be just as good; but as explained above, even if peer review is no better than random, we still need it for political reasons, and of course to prevent total garbage or spam submissions just to get funds.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: No such study exists.
You have to realize that the current model of funding research through grants is rather recent. Fifty years ago, research was funded with recurring credits: a lab/researcher got a fixed amount of money each year to do research as they saw fit. Only applied researchers got industrial grants to develop precise new applications, but this wasn't the core of their funding.
The current system arose due to the combination of two factors:
* The growing hegemony of the neo-liberal ideology in the 80s-90s and the commodification of society as a whole. According to this ideology, research as a whole is supposedly more efficient (for an ill-defined notion of "efficient") if researchers compete with one another on the global market of research funding. They will "naturally" tend to research what works in order to keep their funding.
* Politicians' will to govern research. Research, and especially fundamental research, is a notoriously difficult thing to govern: you never know where an idea might lead, or what new ideas will come up along the way. You don't know what will work and what won't. You don't know what will be applicable and what will remain a nice theoretical idea. Otherwise it wouldn't be research.
But rulers want their word in this: they want to tell their voters that their policies improved lives in a very direct way as a result of such and such decision they took. This is why words like "governance" and "steering" are becoming more and more prevalent in modern academia: administrators are not in the business of just helping researchers carry out their research, they are in the business of ensuring that researchers are researching what they are supposed to. And how do you force someone to do what you want, short of physical violence? Through economical violence.
Of course, this yields absurd situations, such as the fabled year when [the French National Research Agency spent more on administration than on research](http://www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/2012/ANR-rapport-annuel-2011.pdf). And such thinking paves the way for short-term research with zero long term goals, and especially not goals reachable in more than five years (the usual length of "long-term" grants). But these decisions are not driven by rational thought; they are driven by ideology.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: This will only be a supplement to the answer here of [username_2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/128343/75368). That answer discusses an interpretation of the actions of political actors. However, not all funding is from the government, so I'll write here about another option: private funding.
Back during the Renaissance, artists and scientists were funded by patrons, often kings and princes, who controlled vast sums. There is still a vestige of patronage now in some circles. Web comics can be funded now, for example, by [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/home), thorough which people (like myself) pledge a few dollars a month to support the creators of the comics. We, the patrons, have no real influence on what gets created as each is a small part of a larger whole.
But most private funding is from profit making companies, usually publicly traded companies who must justify expenditures. The rules of the game are that those deciding how to spend money have a *fiduciary responsibility* to shareholders that monies are properly spent in furtherance of the goals of the company. Therefore, money can't just be given out randomly, but requires some assurance that it will be well spent. This results in a pre-review of some kind, though not exactly the same as that required for government funding.
There is a review and it is similar, at least, to peer review. It could even be peer review, as most companies wanting to fund research in X normally also have research departments skilled already in X. If a company gets 10 proposals and can only fund 3 of them, it needs to do a cost-benefit analysis before it can award funds, even if the analysis is flawed. It has to appear to be valid on its face.
<NAME> and <NAME>, could, in principle use their own money to conduct a random experiment, but Microsoft and Tesla cannot. If the company gives you money they need some expectation that it will be properly spent and not wasted.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I don't know about such studies, but I have served on ~20 panels to review proposals. While I'm entirely willing to believe that multiple panels will not agree on the relative ordering of proposals, I am quite convinced that they will in general agree on which proposals are "good" and which are "not good".
In any given round, a panel (at the National Science Foundation) will review on the order of 20 proposals. What may not be obvious to outsiders is that of these 10 are pretty obviously not fundable. 3-5 are eventually rated as excellent and the remainder as "pretty good". I am pretty convinced that if you ran multiple panels on these 20 proposals, that this classification into three groups will be more or less stable. What I am also convinced of is that panels will produce different rankings within each group.
The consequence is that it is quite possible that different panels will results in a different set of proposals being funded, given that only ~4 proposals out of the 20 will be funded. But overall, the result will still be far from random. The top 3-5 are still likely to be funded, the bottom 10 will definitely not be funded, and it's a toss-up in between.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: There is another aspect to the question at hand. A random assignment of monies to projects can be expected to fail because the system in place, whatever it is, induces certain behaviors. One wants to design a system so that positive behavior is encouraged and negative behavior discouraged.
In a system of peer review those seeking funds are induced to give their analysis of why their proposed project *should* be funded and why it is *highly likely* to be successful. They know that their words will have consequences and that the review will be carried out by knowledgeable people who have assumed a certain responsibility.
But if the system were random, and known to be random, the behavior induced would be quite different. There would be no real need to spend the time and effort to examine and explain the background and methodology to be used and to guarantee that it meets scientific rigor. The consequence would be that many more proposals would be made and most of them would be junk.
With that background, note that the proposals that are actually made to funding agencies are pretty much all guaranteed to be at least adequate. So the peer review boards are choosing from among the best proposals that might be expected, rather from the trash that might be thrown out by charlatans.
This brings me to a thought experiment that I've used in other contexts. Suppose, in a system that repeats, you rank a set of things on some linear scale from best to worst, and you discard the worst. The worst is replaced. This is sometimes what happens in companies that rank employees on some numeric scale and fire the worst performer.
But, if you started out with the, say, ten best performers in the world, your system will only worsen your overall system, since everyone else will be worse than the ten you start with.
Thus the question asked by the OP doesn't occur in a vacuum. Nor, I suggest, can the various proposals be ranked in theory on a best to worst scale. There are too many variables and something better on one scale isn't as good on another. So, while the system has flaws, it is in the nature of the world that some flaws will exist. But a system that induces and rewards good behavior is, in principle, about as good as we can hope for.
The various judgments made by the review boards are, in the larger sense of things, relatively minor.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I do not know your definition of "hard evidence". But if it has any clause about anything needing to pass peer-review then you should think twice and realize the catch 22 in this situation.
username_7e trying to publish such a thing, do you think they would be afraid of not getting grant next time, maybe? I would not expect them to get renewed grants anytime soon as what they are trying to publish is undermining the influence of how the grants work.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: Your original question assumes that the denominator (i.e. the set of proposals submitted) is likely to stay the same (or similar) in the quality of submissions across both pools (peer-reviewed vs. random chance). But that may no longer be true once a program puts out a call with a 50% random chance - as the quality demographics could dramatically change at submission.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: **Short answer:**
Such hard evidence probably does not currently exist. Recently, however, a random "funding lottery" scheme has been implemented in New Zealand, and [is being studied](https://mbio.asm.org/content/7/4/e01369-16.full). However, the sample size is small, and it may take until at least 2026 before real data is obtained.
---
**Why there is a lack of evidence:**
In the RAND report [Alternatives to Peer Review in Research Project Funding: 2013 Update](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR100/RR139/RAND_RR139.pdf) it was noted that "the idea of randomly allocating research funding has been developed theoretically and is used by some institutions for small grants". While it's clear that the award of said small grants avoids some of the biases inherent in peer review-based funding and much of the administrative burden, the fact that the grants are small (e.g. some are appropriately sized for travel funding) means that the one cannot really infer anything about large-scale random funding schemes.
Things have evolved somewhat since. A 2018 paper titled ["Policy Considerations for Random Allocation of Research Funds"](https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/roars/article/view/8626/9290) by <NAME> notes that at least three major funding bodies have started allocating some funds using a degree of randomization. This includes
1. The Health Research Council (HRC) of New Zealand's “Explorer Grants”.
2. New Zealand’s Science for Technology Innovation's (SfTI) “Seed Projects”.
3. Volkswagen Foundation’s “Experiment!” grants.
HRC describes the Explorer Grants [as follows](https://gateway.hrc.govt.nz/funding/researcher-initiated-proposals/2020-explorer-grants):
>
> Explorer grants support transformative research ideas that have a good chance of making a revolutionary change to how we manage New Zealanders' health. They are available in any health research discipline and are worth $150,000 for a term of up to 24 months.
>
> ...
> Applications for explorer grants are assessed by subpanels within the HRC's Explorer Grant Assessing Committee to see if they meet the criteria of being both transformative and viable. Unlike with any of our other grants, the assessment process for explorer grant applications is anonymous and all applications that meet the criteria are equally eligible to receive funding. **A random number generator prioritises these applications.**
>
>
>
The HRC does not use this scheme for other grants, but [believes](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11622534)
>
> that random funding is a fair and transparent way to choose between equally qualified applicants, and it's particularly suited to Explorer Grants where it may not be appropriate to rank or score high-risk applications with less predictable outcomes.
>
>
>
The [SfTI Seed project proposals](https://www.sftichallenge.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-12/SfTI%20Seed%20Projects%20-%202019%20Call%20for%20Proposals.pdf) similarly undergo an initial assessment, and then a some of them form a special pool, from which proposals are randomly drawn. Proposals for the [Volkswagen Foundation's Experiment!](https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/en/funding/our-funding-portfolio-at-a-glance/experiment) are screened by an interdisciplinary jury that funds some proposals, rejects some, and leaves some for a funding lottery.
As such, HRC's Explorer Grants are the most interesting from this aspect, as all proposals meeting the minimum requirements go into the lottery. This is why they are currently being [studied](https://mbio.asm.org/content/7/4/e01369-16.full):
>
> A funding lottery creates a perfect randomized trial because we have equally worthy researchers who are funded at random. We can then track their careers from the point of randomization and compare them in terms of metrics such as publications, citations, and other funding, as well as perhaps more-complex outcomes, such as innovation. We are currently following researchers who applied for funding with the New Zealand Health Research Council and were randomly allocated funding (3); however, the sample size is small, and it may be at least a decade before we have accumulated enough data to show meaningful differences.
>
>
>
---
**Summary:**
In conclusion, there does not seem to be any hard evidence that the grant peer review system performs better than a process with random selection for proposals meeting *minimum* standards. (Like the other answer writers, I'm fairly sure a random system with no quality checks would lead to opportunistic low-standard applications...) The reason is that such randomized funding has basically not been attempted. The [same letter](https://mbio.asm.org/content/7/4/e01369-16.full) cited above hints at the real reason why this hasn't been studied more, despite lacking evidence for the peer review-based system:
>
> We have spoken with Australian funding agencies about using a lottery, and the reaction was strongly negative, with one staff member saying, “It would make it look like we don’t know what we’re doing.” A key concern is that politicians and the public would react negatively <...>
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/04/18
| 1,900
| 8,003
|
<issue_start>username_0: It has been a month since I received the rejection email. I gave it a long thought for a month, about whether to pursue another try at the position, while applying for other PhD and job opportunities. I would still like to give it a shot, and the following email is what I am about to send. Please let me know if it sounds okay :) I took out the part pleading for a lower position (i.e. research assistant), as some comments pointed out that it sounded too desperate.
>
> Dear Prof. A,
>
>
> Despite my big disappointment about the decision, I would still like to thank you for taking your time to consider my candidacy and getting back to me with the result.
>
>
> It took me some time to get back to you, because I just could not get over how much I find this project ideal for my research interests. Hence, after a long thought, I decided to make my last attempt in convincing you to reconsider my candidacy for the position.
>
>
> While I acknowledge that the "Z" project is a challenge, I also see it as a great opportunity to hone my mathematical training. I have proven records of success in facing such a challenge: I did not have solid mathematical or programming background for the Y master program. However, I put in a lot of efforts both prior to and during the program to thrive in mathematically rigorous courseworks (on my own and with the help of a mathematics professor affiliated with the Y program, Prof. X) and successfully completed a computational modelling project for my thesis. I am more than willing to do the same for the "Z" project, and I feel confident from the previous academic experience that I will not disappoint you if given a chance.
>
>
> You could also provide me a test problem/project, with which you can gauge my abilities to work on the project.
>
>
> In case you decide not to reconsider my candidacy, I would like to thank you anyways for the consideration and the close call again. I will remain dedicated to obtaining a PhD degree in the field of decision making under uncertainty and hope to meet you some day in a conference.
>
>
>
Below is the rejection email I've got last month:
>
> "...Unfortunately, I can not bring you good news. Among all candidates you were the one with the highest scientific ambitions which really set you a part from the rest. However, our concern remained that your mathematical training is not enough for the specific problem that is subject of this position. We wish you all the best and especially that you keep up your inspiring passion for science...
>
>
> P.S. If that helps you somehow: We finally concluded that none of the other available candidates fulfilled all necessary requirements and hence the position remains open."
>
>
>
This was my initial reaction to the rejection email:
>
> I really want to work on this project! Is it a good idea to tell them that I am willing to go down the hard road? (e.g. taking online math courses or working as an intern/assistant at their lab before the PhD studies to meet the mathematical requirements for the position)? Also, should I make a case that my master's program was in fact mathematically rigorous by outlining the course syllabi and requirements? I have already sent them a transcript for this purpose, but I feel that listing only course names and grades do not really tell them much about what kind of and how rigorous math I worked with.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: What you could do is to write them a (very) positive email outlining that you would see this position as a **great chance** to up your math skills and that is your **dream position** and that you are **willing** to put lots of **time** into improving your math (already before you actually start the position) and that you have not only succeeded before in doing **difficult things** but you have actually **thrived in** them (+example(s)) and if they would give you this chance **you will not disappoint** them.
Changes might be slim but worth a short - let us know how it went!
--- EDIT ---
Based on the comments below "dream position" used as phrase might be a little bit over the top but your email should transport the message that it is your dream position without explicitly mentioning it.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: What you wrote in a comment earlier (quote below) is a solid way to show your commitment and make the decision for your possible prospective supervisor easier:
>
> possibly by joining their lab as a research assistant/intern
>
>
>
Another way is for her/him to give you a trial-problem for you to solve. This way, the supervisor can gauge your ability to work with him/her and your working style (persistence, frustration tolerance, creativity, etc.).
PS: That is, you should show your earnest motivation and problem-solving skills by asking for a small trial-project for you to work on (in the lab or from home, without being paid).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Thanks for adding the text of the message you received. The text makes it clear that **this is a rejection**, and it should be understood as final. There is no point in following up to try to convince the professor that you should get the position; it will only annoy them.
The best thing you can do with this information is to improve your applications for **other** positions in the future. It suggests that you need to improve your mathematics background if applying for positions like this one, and/or to review your application materials to make sure that they clearly demonstrate your preparation.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: **Actions speak louder than words**.
It's clear from the professor's message that (s)he cannot be persuaded based on your credentials right now. What you need therefore is to actually acquire the math. Intention to acquire it isn't enough; you need to actually do it. How you acquire it is up to you, but before having acquired it, attempting to persuade the professor is probably futile.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: **This is a rejection** and you are unlikely to be admitted. Still, you have nothing to lose.
>
> Is it a good idea to tell them that I am willing to go down the hard road? (e.g. taking online math courses or working as an intern/assistant at their lab before the PhD studies to meet the mathematical requirements for the position)?
>
>
>
Emotional pleas about "going down the hard road" just make you sound desperate. If there is a specific weakness, you should plan to patch it regardless of this application. That said, you have nothing to lose by saying "I agree that I don't have a strong background in topology, but I'm planning to take a graduate-level course in topology this summer."
>
> Also, should I make a case that my master's program was in fact mathematically rigorous by outlining the course syllabi and requirements?
>
>
>
This should have been done during the interview. Stil, you have nothing to lose by saying "I can see how you might have that impression, but my background is actually quite rigorous -- we used X, Y, and Z books and I published Q paper."
If you decide to try either or both of these, it should be in the context of a brief, 1-2 paragraph e-mail. You should acknowledge the rejection, offer this additional information, and then state that you'd still be interested in being considered for this or other positions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Don;t get focused in so much on one opportunity. You need to apply to enough postings so you get multiple acceptable admissions. And you need to recognize that even from luck you may sometimes not get one particular one. This is even more the case with job interviewing (later).
Just say thank you, that you appreciate the close call, that you remain dedicated to getting a Ph.D. and are applying elsewhere. Definitely don't suggest cming to work in some reduced position (intern or the leak). That cheapens your market value.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/18
| 961
| 3,501
|
<issue_start>username_0: Several times I read or heard about the claim that there is a discrimination against theists in academia by atheists. For example the german newspaper ZEIT Campus ONLINE cites an anthropologist <NAME>:
>
> Für Akademiker ist es ganz einfach, sich zu diskreditieren. Sie müssen nur sagen, dass sie religiös sind
>
>
> For academics it's easy to discredit oneself. You just have to say you are religious.
>
>
>
([Source](https://www.zeit.de/campus/2018-01/gottesbeweis-glaube-wissen-naturwissenschaft-religion); translation by myself, I could not find the original citation)
I searched for surveys about that claim but could not find much, except creationists arguing against evolution theory.
So my question:
**Are there surveys about discrimination of theist people by atheists in academia?**
---
**EDIT**
I deletet the follow-up question "Is there discrimination against theists by atheists in academia?" because it is too opinion based and is probably answered within the survey(s) I am searching for.<issue_comment>username_1: Religion is a deeply personal topic that should be left out of scientific debate. If religion were to come up as a citation or reference in a scientific paper I doubt that it would be published. However I have never heard of someone being discriminated against academically solely due to their personal beliefs provided it doesn't taint the objectivity of their work. It would be unethical to discriminate against someone due to their theistic beliefs alone.
I have witnessed light hearted chiding directed at people who are open about their religious affiliations but their work and research were still highly respected in their fields.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Addressing the question in the context of the Unites States, it appears that it's questionable that any discrimination, and that if there is any such discrimination, it is a) not particularly strong, and b) highly entangled with other factors, such as conservative religious social and cultural activism.
It is an undisputed fact that in the United States there is a higher percentage of non-believers in academia than in society at large. The key and unresolved question is whether this is a result of self-selection (e.g., non-belief being correlated with interest in scholarly investigation as a career and belief being correlated with disinterest) or whether there is also some component of discrimination. One can find serious and respectable scholarly work both [arguing that there is significant bias](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12129-012-9282-y) and that there is [no significant bias](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12108-017-9366-9).
Even [articles strongly advocating that bias exists](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12129-012-9282-y), however, find that if any such exists it is not particularly strong (else it would not be so equivocal to study) and that it appears to be measurable only with respect to religious people who are a) strongly culturally conservative, and b) activists with respect to politically polarizing positions (e.g., opposition abortion, gay marriage), and also c) at very particular stages of career (entry to graduate school, possibly at tenure promotion).
In short: even amongst those studying and debating the question, it appears that even if any systematic bias exists in US academia, the vast majority of theists are not significantly affected.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/18
| 1,530
| 6,607
|
<issue_start>username_0: I graduated last year from a master's course where I was fortunate enough to graduate top of my class. However I was told this in confidence by one of my referees to a PhD programme, and they informed me that under no circumstances was I to put this on academic applications, as it would be against 'department guidelines'.
I also tried to enquire with the department directly concerning class rankings, but as expected they were unwilling to reveal this information to me.
I'm now considering applying for a job, and believe that the class ranking would be a good thing for my CV. However I really ought not to know this fact, as it was revealed to me in confidence by my referee, and I risk jeopardising my relationship with him if the department found out.
Am I overthinking this, and should I just put it down, or is there a way to resolve this in a less risky way?<issue_comment>username_1: So, you put it on your CV, the future employer does what employers do and phones the institution to check details of awards, years etc.
BOOM - the institution does not confirm you were "top of the class" as that is just not done.
Now the future employer is confused - what else may be wrong on your CV AND your referee is pissed at you as well.
Do you really want to go there?
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: Aside from the insightful advice given by username_1, I'd like to emphasize the importance of maintaining a good professional relationship with that referee. You would be compromising a seemingly valuable relationship by doing something he explicitly advised you against, and he will most likely include that information in some form in the letter/recommendation anyway. It is quite common for academic referees to state in their reference letters that the student is among top students in the course/class/whatever, for example, along the lines of "This student was among top 1% of students in the class". They have different ways and means of saying that, and I would trust that they know how to provide an excellent reference for an excellent student (it's an integral part of their job, after all). He trusted you, why wouldn't you trust him?
An action you could do that might be less contentious is to state your GPA for the course, but then you might want to adjust your CV accordingly (e.g., you'd probably want to state that for other courses). You could ask your referee about what they think of stating the GPA.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Honestly, if you have the skills and can prove to your potential employer that you are fit for the job, they will hire you even if you were an average student. I personally feel like it is an irrelevant thing to put on a CV. Employers really do not seem to care about this.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: For many jobs, willingness to keep confidential information confidential is essential, far more important than class rank. If a potential employer finds out during a background check that you disclosed something you were told in confidence, you may lose the job regardless of how well you did in class.
Class rank is not something I would have cared much about when I was interviewing, because it is too dependent on how other students did. For recent graduates, I did care whether the candidate got a respectable GPA for a relevant degree. Once someone has a few years work behind them, experience becomes more important. I have known excellent programmers with no degrees at all.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: This may not need to be a separate answer, but many people are pointing out that, if they were reviewing resumes, they would not be impressed with the placement because they don't know who you were competing against, etc. If what they are saying is true, then it's possible that the **value** of putting it on your resume is zero, while the **cost** (in terms of causing a rift between you and your referee (and possibly causing the referee professional issues if the leak can be traced back), or having the department refuse to confirm it and make you look shady, or whatever) seems to be very likely non-zero.
So **analyzing the risk/reward** would make adding this to a resume a questionable decision at best.
[For the record/intellectual honesty of my argument, I personally think being able to say I was "top of my class" is going to have a positive psychological impression on pretty much anyone that reads the resume, and it's a shame you can't use it. But it's knowledge you are not supposed to have, and it's good practice at the beginning of your career to learn not to be tempted to act on knowledge you aren't supposed to have.]
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: As suggested by your prof, this information is not appropriate on your CV or application. Even if there were no department guidelines or telling in confidence, you should not do what you suggest.
Your ranking will not matter when applying for a job in the "real world". You are not competing against your schoolmates. If you place it on the CV, you will just display that you don't understand irrelevance of the fact.
Regardin academic applications - if anyone cares there (doubt it) they will check it themselves instead of trusting your word. And you don't even know if this fact is true or the prof just said it out of mistake or to make you feel better. After all, you are the only person to whom your placing matters.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Most application rules require you to document any claim in your CV to be taken in account, and some of them may want to check those that can't be documented. Your claim that you ended on top of your class can't be backed by document or reference. As any unverifiable claim, yours is not worth much. At least, it isn't likely worth enough to overcome the drawbacks described in the other answers.
In summary: since any of your former classmates could make the same claim and the prospective employer couldn't tell it's false, don't expect any employer to value it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Ordinarily, the way details of your performance in your program would be
passed from graduate department to potential employer would be in a letter of recommendation. In my own letters of recommendation, I have often used
phrases such as "one of our very best students" or "the best performance I have
seen in several years," backed up by specific, relevant reasons for saying so.
I hope your discussions about this issue haven't damaged your relationship with your
adviser and others who write such letters.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/19
| 1,328
| 5,002
|
<issue_start>username_0: Hypothetical:
* I found an error which fundamentally kills a published paper and re-opens a number of problems the paper claimed to solve.
* Not only is there an error, but the results are actually wrong. Part of another publication (by a different author) proves this. Yes, I am 100% sure. Other experts have confirmed this in private communications with me.
* I have nothing new to add, other than I can show the second paper proves the first paper is wrong.
* I get no response from the first author when I let them know about the error.
What is my next step?
(A) contact editors of the journals with the incorrect results? and then what happens?
(B) post a paper to ARXIV?
(C) submit a paper to a journal?
(D) wait, do more research, and try to craft something more "substantial" for (B) or (C)
(E) do some or all of the above simultaneously? (please specify which ones)
I am not sure if my contribution thus far warrants (B) or (C), but I would like to receive some acknowledgement in print.
*Something* must be done because this error if unacknowledged will have a negative effect on future research.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I have nothing new to add, other than I can show the second paper proves the first paper is wrong.
>
>
>
If the second paper already refutes the first paper, then there is nothing to do. If you could write a brief, non-trivial paper explaining how the second paper refutes the first (and the consequences of this), that's a different matter.
>
> (A) contact editors of the journals with the incorrect results? and then what happens?
>
>
>
This may be field-dependent, but in general, I think this only be appropriate if the authors acted in bad faith (and thus the paper needs to be forcibly retracted). In this case, it sounds like the authors were simply wrong, so I wouldn't get between the authors and the journal.
>
> (B) post a paper to ARXIV?
>
>
>
Particularly in math and physics, all papers are posted to arXiv. It's not a bad policy for other fields as well (I post all my machine learning papers to arXiv). But it sounds like your results are significant enough that you should publish them in an actual journal or conference, not "just" the arXiv.
>
> (C) submit a paper to a journal?
>
>
> (D) wait, do more research, and try to craft something more "substantial"
>
>
>
If you have enough "substance" to publish now, then I would go for it (and post the paper to the arXiv while you're at it). If not, doing more research is necessary -- you shouldn't publish a bad paper, particularly one that "calls out" another paper (all the more so if the other paper is well known).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think it is appropriate to write a short (even 1-page) Erratum paper and submit it to the journal in which the original paper was published. However, before doing so I would make sure you try hard to contact the authors and get their feedback, and possibly even their co-authorship on the Erratum. If they do not respond in a reasonable time, it's OK (in my opinion) to submit the Erratum to the journal, and you can include a note to the editor that explains the sequence of events that led to this point.
Your Erratum will be stronger if you can show how to *fix* the error, not just point out the error. But I understand this might not be possible.
Keep in mind that your goal in all of this is to help the research community by pointing out this error, rather than adding a pub to your CV. It sounds like you are approaching it with the right attitude.
The community deserves to know that the original paper contains this error, if it is an important one.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Definitely do not contact the journals who published the incorrect results. Their interest is to reject, bury or delay the wrong results' denunciation. To get a fair and professional answer from them is possible, but unlikely. And it would probably require an unreasonable amount of time and effort from you. Quoting [<NAME>](https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/meet-the-new-bad-people-4922137949a1):
>
> How does “originally rejected without review, appealed, then accepted after 18 months, 5 rounds of reviews, and 6 reviewers” sound? Does that sound like something that would ever happen to a paper?
>
>
> Well, that’s what happens to criticism. Would it be more efficient to just upload it and get on with your life?
>
>
>
This leaves you with arXiv, if it is widely used in your community. (Failing that, a well-chosen website or social network could do.) Short rebuttals of papers on arXiv happen [quite often](https://arxiv.org/search/advanced?advanced=&terms-0-operator=AND&terms-0-term=Reply&terms-0-field=title&classification-physics_archives=all&classification-include_cross_list=include&date-filter_by=all_dates&date-year=&date-from_date=&date-to_date=&date-date_type=submitted_date&abstracts=show&size=50&order=-announced_date_first).
Upvotes: -1
|
2019/04/19
| 502
| 2,158
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have the following situation (I am in the humanities):
I am writing a paper. In that paper, I several times cite a particular scholar's book. Now, in that book, this scholar cites (not quotes) a particular historical primary source.
As this looked interesting to me, I traced down this primary source (a diary entry), but I found it in a source collection different from that cited by the author. Moreover, when looking at the original source, I discovered that it contains additional content not summarized by that scholar that is useful for me. So I went ahead and directly quoted the primary source (including bits not mentioned by the author) in my paper.
**Now, in the footnote, I am currently just providing a reference to the original source, not to the mentioned author where I first found a reference to that source. My question is whether this is okay?**
According to the Chicago Manual (my citation style) and sources on the web, my understanding is that I only need to provide an additional comment in the form of "Source X, cited/quoted in ....." if I do not actually trace down the original source. So, it seems to me that what I am doing is fine.
Still, as especially the advice on the internet is somewhat unclear and mostly jut designed to discourage citing of primary sources without having checked them, I thought I could also ask here.
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: If I'm understanding correctly, you are saying you read a secondary source, which led you to a primary source; then you cited material from the primary source that wasn't discussed in the secondary source; and your question is whether you need to cite the secondary source because it led you to the primary?
If so, I do not think you need to cite the secondary source. It feels polite to do so, sort of like using "via" on Twitter. But in an academic paper I do not think it is required.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You cite the source you use, so if you use the primary souce then you reference that.
If you cite both then you reference both.
You don’t cite sources you don’t actually quote.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/19
| 1,054
| 4,467
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Some Context:**
Over the past year, I have built relationships with 2 of the professors at my university. In this case, I was referred to Professor X by Professor Y. The professors work in two related fields (physics) and are friends.
I worked with Professor X on some of my research a few months ago and it went well. Professor X is allowing me to help him with his lab research over the summer and I am honored to do so. Of course, it would not be an every day thing and we will be working out a schedule.
Consequently, I spoke with Professor Y about a summer spot before starting my research with Professor X. Nothing was formalized here and I haven't spoken to Professor Y since beginning my research. However, I am very interested in helping Professor Y in her lab this summer.
**My Question:** Would it be seen as poor taste to ask Professor Y about helping in her lab this summer? In my email I would explain that I would also be working with her colleague.
I don't want to jeapordize my position or my relationship with either one of them, so, would it be considered "double-dipping" to help with both of them? If it is, would this have any adverse effects?
One option would be to ask Professor X if he would be alright with this. I am not sure about this option because again I don't want to put our relationship on weird terms.
This is undergraduate level, in the UK.<issue_comment>username_1: I think a lot depends on your position with Prof. X.
* If this is really "research", then it should require essentially unlimited time -- the more time you put in, the further you will get. In this case, even asking about working with Prof. Y shows that you don't understand this. While this may seem harsh, the fact is that hiring undergraduates is usually less efficient than doing the work oneself, so it rarely makes sense to hire a student that is intentionally reducing their productivity even further by working in two labs. That said, you are an undergraduate, so you should be able to ask Prof. X about what's appropriate without consequences.
* But this may not be really "research." You mention a "schedule" and that it won't be every day -- maybe this is more like an hourly labor position ("lab tech")? In this case, I see no reason why you couldn't tell Prof. X that you're looking for another position on your off-days...this would limit your freedom to accept additional work in Prof. X's group, should the opportunity arise...but maybe that's worth it to explore Prof. Y's group.
Edit: Leaving this up, despite the downvotes...while it would be nice if every undergraduate could work in dozens of groups before committing to a sub-field, the fact is that undergraduate research assistants take a lot of the supervisor's time and produce relatively little, so it just makes no sense for the supervisor to hire undergraduate research assistants that are intentionally dividing their limited time among multiple groups. As I said, the situation is completely different for "lab tech" type positions.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: In my opinion, you are overthinking this. As long as you are clear with both professors and work out a schedule that works for everyone, it should be fine. I have seen many students that work in two or more labs either as an hourly job or just for the experience.
One thing I want to emphasize is that **do not overcommit yourself**. Nobody likes a person who fills up their plate too much that stuff starts to fall over. So make sure you have the time to do perform in both labs. Otherwise, commit to one lab and give your best to that one. However, if you can do both it will be good for you to develop skills in time management, collaboration, and communication.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This shouldn't be a problem. The professors aren't your employers who demand 100% of your time - they might not even be paying you - so they are not likely to expect you to commit to their lab and their lab only (it'd also be unreasonable if they expect this). Meanwhile by working in two labs you're maximizing your exposure, which can only be a good thing for you.
The only serious consequence I can see from this arrangement would be that you might not be able to commit enough time to actually achieve something substantial. If you aren't going to get any real research done in both labs, you might as well commit to one lab only.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2019/04/19
| 2,258
| 9,803
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background:**
I have been applying for a PhD in the last three years to more than 150 positions, very much specific to my skills and background. I only applied when I found positions' requirements matching my skills and experience.
I got the same response for all those positions. I almost gave up and went offline. After few months, I noticed a couple of emails from a professor, who liked my profile very much and was very interested in contacting me. I responded and got interviewed. However, he didn't find me suitable for position and advertised again for the very same position.
After a couple of months I applied to another project/position of the same Research Centre, thinking I may have chance in this group, but as usual they rejected but they said I came second.
After a couple of months, they said they are advertising again and I should apply since I was in top three. However, as usual, they got better candidate this time as well.
---
**In a nutshell**, I have been rejected for more than 150 positions and only one group who found me very suitable candidate rejected three times. While I cannot describe how I am feeling I also don't know whether to take it as positive that they interviewed me three times or that even they didn't find me suitable for something which I was very much capable of.
**My question** Is if it's all normal, or should I give up on looking for PhD positions.
With every day I am not getting any younger and my chances are decreasing. It has been around 3.5 years since I have done my master's. With every rejection, I have been trying to rectify errors and mistakes and improvements but all in vain so far.
Thanks in advance.<issue_comment>username_1: You say you have been rejected a lot, but give no indication whatever of why that is. It isn't random, I suspect. I can suggest two possible scenarios and from them you can, perhaps, devise a strategy.
The first situation is that you are just applying to places that are so off the scale that no one is actually likely to be admitted. The top institutions normally have tremendous competition for slots and some of them have very few slots available. Dartmouth, in CS, for example is a great institution, but its doctoral program is very small. If they get hundreds of applications for any available position, then the likelihood of any particular person gaining admission is pretty miniscule. So perhaps you are just aiming too high. Since you have come close a few times, perhaps not impossibly high, but there are probably other options.
The second is that you are deficient in some way and need to improve either your technical or personal skills or both. That isn't criticism, since I don't know anything about you, but perceived issues are probably apparent to people once you get into the application process. Arrogant people don't find easy acceptance, to name just one personal "flaw" that some folks exhibit. At the other end of the scale, people who project extreme introversion often come off as less able than they are.
As for the technical side, you can work on that without formally being in a program. You can study and write in your field, for example. If you have the time and can expend the effort to do it effectively, you will improve the skills that others may feel you lack.
But, it is important, I think, that you also find a way to learn at least a bit about why you haven't made the cut. Perhaps someone you have corresponded with in the past can point you in the direction you need to go. Feedback can be valuable, not just about your final position in the ranking, but *why* you weren't higher. Find a way to ask.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Some big things that would generally affect your PhD applications are briefed below. These will definitely impact your application if you are applying to a US university, however, I still think that these can be applicable across different countries.
* Your GPA (or grades/percentage). It doesn't have to be extremely high, but should be above the institution's threshold.
* MS research (I am assuming you have an MS). What you did in your masters might also have an impact on your PhD acceptance. For instance, if you have an undergrad in English, but are looking to pursue higher education in molecular biology, you will have hard time. *This is not an exaggeration because I know someone who just did that, but it was hard for that person to get admitted*. This might not apply to you though.
* Your statement of purpose (SOP). Some also call it statement of intent. This is very important. It is an opportunity for you to stitch your past, present, and future together in your own words. How well you do at it, might actually have an impact on how your interviewer perceive you for a PhD.
* Communication skills. This generally applies to international students where language can be a barrier. Even though language can be improved, this might be another factor that initially can make recruiter think twice before hiring someone. If you can't understand what other person is saying then it is going to be a problem. Another thing, during interview, your confidence also shows somewhat how likely are you to succeed in PhD. The way you present yourself in the interview will be the proxy for your hiring faculty to test your presentation skills.
* Minimum supervision. Even though a PhD is still an education program where you learn things, most supervisors expect you to be somewhat independent during your PhD. If you show them, verbally or otherwise, that you will be requiring a constant supervision, then that is discouraging for the hiring faculty. On the flip side, if you can show you can not only work under minimum supervision, but can also supervise other undergrads or your peers, then that makes your application stronger.
* Finally, the letters of recommendation (LOR). To some, this might seem somewhat trivial. Some might think, if they have wonderful GPA, bunch of publication, and good lab experience, so nobody can stop them. But if referees wrote a bad LOR, then it is unlikely that your potential supervisor will hire you. My MS supervisor told me once that he interviewed 3-4 students for a position he hired me for, and one of other applicant's LOR from his supervisor said something like "he is good in lab, is punctual, and is goal oriented, but is arrogant and does not work well with others". So this is a red flag. Even if you are a good researcher, your future supervisor doesn't want to be your social coach. Science can be taught, but social behavior is a life-learning endeavor.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I am an international US-based PhD student, so have bias in experience and what I've heard.
Still, 150 applications and rejections seems pretty high to me to suspect that there might be some systematic error. I think that's a good news for you!
Unfortunately, you don't get a lot of feedback when PhD program rejects you (nor do we usually explain ourselves when reject PhD program :)
There are few ways to make sure that your applications are not lacking something fundamental:
* Ask your home undergrad institution to review your application and package and your target program. Your college is interested in your employment and success, that is one of their key metrics. Go talk to the Employment office or whatever your school provides. You can always start with the Undergraduate Adviser.
* Ask other experiences people inside the graduate programs. Find a professor that knows your field (doesn't have to be exactly in your field) to review your package and plan. They might not be experts in paperwork that is involved in admission but will surely advise you. Send nice email asking precise question and admitting that you might not understand something.
* Find a graduate student or a post-doc who went through the process, especially inside program you want to apply to. Social media here is your friend, you can address them directly or by posting something with hashtag like `#academia` or `#PhDchat` (on Twitter). Chances are you'll find a nice student to review your application (I have helped at least once to review cover letter and it is very rewarding)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Since most of the answers given have addressed only how to improve your application, I'm going to address the other part of your question: whether you should keep trying for a Ph.D. program.
Three and a half years is a long time to be applying consistently to programs without acceptance. It may be time to ask yourself some tough questions:
* Why do you want a Ph.D.?
* What do you plan to do after the Ph.D.?
* What do you want for yourself overall in life, and can you achieve that without a Ph.D.?
It may be that in answering these questions for yourself, you also figure out how to strengthen your applications; oftentimes applicants don't have enough clarity with their research and long-term goals and are rejected for that reason. Or it may be that you realize you don't actually want or need a Ph.D. If you've spent any time on this forum, then you're already aware that academia is a tough path to follow, and it gets narrower the longer you stay on it. I know more people who have quit academia and are doing something else that makes them happy, than people who stayed on the path and remained happy.
Depending on what else is going on in your life, it may be also be helpful to meet with a counselor, career coach, or older mentor. Try also talking to people with different careers you find interesting, not just academics, to get a fuller sense of what options you have in life. Everyone has an important role to play in society, and it's ok if yours isn't in academia.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/19
| 2,047
| 8,882
|
<issue_start>username_0: I missed my chance to attend university when everyone else did and I'm out of school for seven years.
Now I'd like to get a degree (BA History & English) through the Open University.
I've never been good at organization, though and I do not have even the slightest idea how academic studies work. I'm looking for tips, experiences and opinions on how to organize my studies and engage in a workflow that works.
Also, if anyone here happened to attend the OU, I would much appreciate a rundown on what to expect and how learning there works, especially regarding the fact that modules do have dates to begin and end, but studies are said to be flexible for time-management. (I am aware that the OU offers contact options as well, and I will reach out to them, too)<issue_comment>username_1: You say you have been rejected a lot, but give no indication whatever of why that is. It isn't random, I suspect. I can suggest two possible scenarios and from them you can, perhaps, devise a strategy.
The first situation is that you are just applying to places that are so off the scale that no one is actually likely to be admitted. The top institutions normally have tremendous competition for slots and some of them have very few slots available. Dartmouth, in CS, for example is a great institution, but its doctoral program is very small. If they get hundreds of applications for any available position, then the likelihood of any particular person gaining admission is pretty miniscule. So perhaps you are just aiming too high. Since you have come close a few times, perhaps not impossibly high, but there are probably other options.
The second is that you are deficient in some way and need to improve either your technical or personal skills or both. That isn't criticism, since I don't know anything about you, but perceived issues are probably apparent to people once you get into the application process. Arrogant people don't find easy acceptance, to name just one personal "flaw" that some folks exhibit. At the other end of the scale, people who project extreme introversion often come off as less able than they are.
As for the technical side, you can work on that without formally being in a program. You can study and write in your field, for example. If you have the time and can expend the effort to do it effectively, you will improve the skills that others may feel you lack.
But, it is important, I think, that you also find a way to learn at least a bit about why you haven't made the cut. Perhaps someone you have corresponded with in the past can point you in the direction you need to go. Feedback can be valuable, not just about your final position in the ranking, but *why* you weren't higher. Find a way to ask.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Some big things that would generally affect your PhD applications are briefed below. These will definitely impact your application if you are applying to a US university, however, I still think that these can be applicable across different countries.
* Your GPA (or grades/percentage). It doesn't have to be extremely high, but should be above the institution's threshold.
* MS research (I am assuming you have an MS). What you did in your masters might also have an impact on your PhD acceptance. For instance, if you have an undergrad in English, but are looking to pursue higher education in molecular biology, you will have hard time. *This is not an exaggeration because I know someone who just did that, but it was hard for that person to get admitted*. This might not apply to you though.
* Your statement of purpose (SOP). Some also call it statement of intent. This is very important. It is an opportunity for you to stitch your past, present, and future together in your own words. How well you do at it, might actually have an impact on how your interviewer perceive you for a PhD.
* Communication skills. This generally applies to international students where language can be a barrier. Even though language can be improved, this might be another factor that initially can make recruiter think twice before hiring someone. If you can't understand what other person is saying then it is going to be a problem. Another thing, during interview, your confidence also shows somewhat how likely are you to succeed in PhD. The way you present yourself in the interview will be the proxy for your hiring faculty to test your presentation skills.
* Minimum supervision. Even though a PhD is still an education program where you learn things, most supervisors expect you to be somewhat independent during your PhD. If you show them, verbally or otherwise, that you will be requiring a constant supervision, then that is discouraging for the hiring faculty. On the flip side, if you can show you can not only work under minimum supervision, but can also supervise other undergrads or your peers, then that makes your application stronger.
* Finally, the letters of recommendation (LOR). To some, this might seem somewhat trivial. Some might think, if they have wonderful GPA, bunch of publication, and good lab experience, so nobody can stop them. But if referees wrote a bad LOR, then it is unlikely that your potential supervisor will hire you. My MS supervisor told me once that he interviewed 3-4 students for a position he hired me for, and one of other applicant's LOR from his supervisor said something like "he is good in lab, is punctual, and is goal oriented, but is arrogant and does not work well with others". So this is a red flag. Even if you are a good researcher, your future supervisor doesn't want to be your social coach. Science can be taught, but social behavior is a life-learning endeavor.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I am an international US-based PhD student, so have bias in experience and what I've heard.
Still, 150 applications and rejections seems pretty high to me to suspect that there might be some systematic error. I think that's a good news for you!
Unfortunately, you don't get a lot of feedback when PhD program rejects you (nor do we usually explain ourselves when reject PhD program :)
There are few ways to make sure that your applications are not lacking something fundamental:
* Ask your home undergrad institution to review your application and package and your target program. Your college is interested in your employment and success, that is one of their key metrics. Go talk to the Employment office or whatever your school provides. You can always start with the Undergraduate Adviser.
* Ask other experiences people inside the graduate programs. Find a professor that knows your field (doesn't have to be exactly in your field) to review your package and plan. They might not be experts in paperwork that is involved in admission but will surely advise you. Send nice email asking precise question and admitting that you might not understand something.
* Find a graduate student or a post-doc who went through the process, especially inside program you want to apply to. Social media here is your friend, you can address them directly or by posting something with hashtag like `#academia` or `#PhDchat` (on Twitter). Chances are you'll find a nice student to review your application (I have helped at least once to review cover letter and it is very rewarding)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Since most of the answers given have addressed only how to improve your application, I'm going to address the other part of your question: whether you should keep trying for a Ph.D. program.
Three and a half years is a long time to be applying consistently to programs without acceptance. It may be time to ask yourself some tough questions:
* Why do you want a Ph.D.?
* What do you plan to do after the Ph.D.?
* What do you want for yourself overall in life, and can you achieve that without a Ph.D.?
It may be that in answering these questions for yourself, you also figure out how to strengthen your applications; oftentimes applicants don't have enough clarity with their research and long-term goals and are rejected for that reason. Or it may be that you realize you don't actually want or need a Ph.D. If you've spent any time on this forum, then you're already aware that academia is a tough path to follow, and it gets narrower the longer you stay on it. I know more people who have quit academia and are doing something else that makes them happy, than people who stayed on the path and remained happy.
Depending on what else is going on in your life, it may be also be helpful to meet with a counselor, career coach, or older mentor. Try also talking to people with different careers you find interesting, not just academics, to get a fuller sense of what options you have in life. Everyone has an important role to play in society, and it's ok if yours isn't in academia.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/20
| 2,188
| 9,521
|
<issue_start>username_0: My situation is a bit unusual: I plan to apply for a second Master's degree in a foreign university I did an exchange semester in. It is pretty well-ranked compared to my current one. The Master's is related to my current one, but contains more theory (from a computer science degree with data science courses to a machine learning degree).
I need two letters of recommendation, and I am thinking about asking professors whose courses I followed during my exchange semester. Since my application is borderline (good grades lately, less so in my first two years of bachelor's) and the program is competitive, I assume that a letter of recommendation from professors at the same university would give my application a much-needed boost, especially since they teach courses in the program I am applying to.
I don't know how to ask for letters. I have never done it, and while I passed these courses, I didn't have the kind of stellar results that would make them call me a genius in the letter, though I think that they would be willing to help if I asked.
Is a good letter from my current university a better bet than an okay one from the university I apply to? Should I send one letter from my current uni, and one from the one I want? Is it even a good idea to ask these teachers for letters if I didn't have a close working relationship with them? If so, how would I go about asking them for a letter?<issue_comment>username_1: You say you have been rejected a lot, but give no indication whatever of why that is. It isn't random, I suspect. I can suggest two possible scenarios and from them you can, perhaps, devise a strategy.
The first situation is that you are just applying to places that are so off the scale that no one is actually likely to be admitted. The top institutions normally have tremendous competition for slots and some of them have very few slots available. Dartmouth, in CS, for example is a great institution, but its doctoral program is very small. If they get hundreds of applications for any available position, then the likelihood of any particular person gaining admission is pretty miniscule. So perhaps you are just aiming too high. Since you have come close a few times, perhaps not impossibly high, but there are probably other options.
The second is that you are deficient in some way and need to improve either your technical or personal skills or both. That isn't criticism, since I don't know anything about you, but perceived issues are probably apparent to people once you get into the application process. Arrogant people don't find easy acceptance, to name just one personal "flaw" that some folks exhibit. At the other end of the scale, people who project extreme introversion often come off as less able than they are.
As for the technical side, you can work on that without formally being in a program. You can study and write in your field, for example. If you have the time and can expend the effort to do it effectively, you will improve the skills that others may feel you lack.
But, it is important, I think, that you also find a way to learn at least a bit about why you haven't made the cut. Perhaps someone you have corresponded with in the past can point you in the direction you need to go. Feedback can be valuable, not just about your final position in the ranking, but *why* you weren't higher. Find a way to ask.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Some big things that would generally affect your PhD applications are briefed below. These will definitely impact your application if you are applying to a US university, however, I still think that these can be applicable across different countries.
* Your GPA (or grades/percentage). It doesn't have to be extremely high, but should be above the institution's threshold.
* MS research (I am assuming you have an MS). What you did in your masters might also have an impact on your PhD acceptance. For instance, if you have an undergrad in English, but are looking to pursue higher education in molecular biology, you will have hard time. *This is not an exaggeration because I know someone who just did that, but it was hard for that person to get admitted*. This might not apply to you though.
* Your statement of purpose (SOP). Some also call it statement of intent. This is very important. It is an opportunity for you to stitch your past, present, and future together in your own words. How well you do at it, might actually have an impact on how your interviewer perceive you for a PhD.
* Communication skills. This generally applies to international students where language can be a barrier. Even though language can be improved, this might be another factor that initially can make recruiter think twice before hiring someone. If you can't understand what other person is saying then it is going to be a problem. Another thing, during interview, your confidence also shows somewhat how likely are you to succeed in PhD. The way you present yourself in the interview will be the proxy for your hiring faculty to test your presentation skills.
* Minimum supervision. Even though a PhD is still an education program where you learn things, most supervisors expect you to be somewhat independent during your PhD. If you show them, verbally or otherwise, that you will be requiring a constant supervision, then that is discouraging for the hiring faculty. On the flip side, if you can show you can not only work under minimum supervision, but can also supervise other undergrads or your peers, then that makes your application stronger.
* Finally, the letters of recommendation (LOR). To some, this might seem somewhat trivial. Some might think, if they have wonderful GPA, bunch of publication, and good lab experience, so nobody can stop them. But if referees wrote a bad LOR, then it is unlikely that your potential supervisor will hire you. My MS supervisor told me once that he interviewed 3-4 students for a position he hired me for, and one of other applicant's LOR from his supervisor said something like "he is good in lab, is punctual, and is goal oriented, but is arrogant and does not work well with others". So this is a red flag. Even if you are a good researcher, your future supervisor doesn't want to be your social coach. Science can be taught, but social behavior is a life-learning endeavor.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I am an international US-based PhD student, so have bias in experience and what I've heard.
Still, 150 applications and rejections seems pretty high to me to suspect that there might be some systematic error. I think that's a good news for you!
Unfortunately, you don't get a lot of feedback when PhD program rejects you (nor do we usually explain ourselves when reject PhD program :)
There are few ways to make sure that your applications are not lacking something fundamental:
* Ask your home undergrad institution to review your application and package and your target program. Your college is interested in your employment and success, that is one of their key metrics. Go talk to the Employment office or whatever your school provides. You can always start with the Undergraduate Adviser.
* Ask other experiences people inside the graduate programs. Find a professor that knows your field (doesn't have to be exactly in your field) to review your package and plan. They might not be experts in paperwork that is involved in admission but will surely advise you. Send nice email asking precise question and admitting that you might not understand something.
* Find a graduate student or a post-doc who went through the process, especially inside program you want to apply to. Social media here is your friend, you can address them directly or by posting something with hashtag like `#academia` or `#PhDchat` (on Twitter). Chances are you'll find a nice student to review your application (I have helped at least once to review cover letter and it is very rewarding)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Since most of the answers given have addressed only how to improve your application, I'm going to address the other part of your question: whether you should keep trying for a Ph.D. program.
Three and a half years is a long time to be applying consistently to programs without acceptance. It may be time to ask yourself some tough questions:
* Why do you want a Ph.D.?
* What do you plan to do after the Ph.D.?
* What do you want for yourself overall in life, and can you achieve that without a Ph.D.?
It may be that in answering these questions for yourself, you also figure out how to strengthen your applications; oftentimes applicants don't have enough clarity with their research and long-term goals and are rejected for that reason. Or it may be that you realize you don't actually want or need a Ph.D. If you've spent any time on this forum, then you're already aware that academia is a tough path to follow, and it gets narrower the longer you stay on it. I know more people who have quit academia and are doing something else that makes them happy, than people who stayed on the path and remained happy.
Depending on what else is going on in your life, it may be also be helpful to meet with a counselor, career coach, or older mentor. Try also talking to people with different careers you find interesting, not just academics, to get a fuller sense of what options you have in life. Everyone has an important role to play in society, and it's ok if yours isn't in academia.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/20
| 937
| 3,985
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am giving my first course this fall and, as a LaTeX enthusiast, plan to prepare my slides in LaTeX for all the usual reasons.
For those of you who also do this, I wonder what resources you use to manage your slides for a semester. For ex., do you have one "master presentation" with different "chapters" for different classes or some other strategy?
What's your best practice?<issue_comment>username_1: So, I have small groups of slides (1,2, or 4 as necessary) about particular topics - then I can tailor a presentation level and content quite rapidly.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I use a different file for each topic. Each file covers 1-2 hours of teaching, more or less.
All files are in the same per-course folder, and their names start with numbers which define the order of the topics, for instance `1-introduction.tex`, `2-polynomials.tex`, `2.5-rationalfunctions.tex`, `3-analytic.tex`... If I have to insert an extra topic at the last minute (or in the next year), I can do it by adding decimals like in the example with 2.5. :)
Dates are a bad idea because if you want to re-use the same material the next year you have to change all file names. :) Lecture numbers can also be quite fragile, so I prefer to use topics like this.
I just copy the same preamble over to each file, because I don't change the preamble too frequently. If I had to make more frequent changes to the preamble, probably I'd consider a custom Latex class, but for now it works for me like this so I keep it simple.
I suspect that this works well for me only because I have a good set of tools though: for instance, a file manager that uses natural sort order and an editor that can compile Latex without clobbering the directory with lots of `.aux` and `.log` files.
Another tip is: sometimes you notice weak points and mistakes only after giving a lecture. If there is a chance that you will be giving the same course next year, keep a file called `notes` where you note down all the things you'd like to change.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: My courses are usually a mixture of blackboard lectures and slide presentations, and along the years I taught more than 10 different courses, with slight changes in each course from year to year.
Given the above, my slides are divided in subfolders by course/topic/year because I need to track of the differences from one year to another.
Some courses have a few topics in common, but there are always differences that justify the creation of different slide decks targeted to each course.
Overall, if you don't have disk space limitations, this structure is quite flexible, but indeed, many folders will contain replicated material.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: * Use \include and/or \input to insert repetitive latex code used in the slides. If you use chapters then you will still want to have a separate file for each chapter.
* Use git to do version control and backup your slides. This works well for changes through the years. If you put the slides into a public repository (github, bitbucket), your students/other teachers can help you fix typos.
* Subfolder graphics and other included files.
* Use a good latex editor that supports code folding and easy navigation of your documents. For example, eclipse (texlipse plugin) is organized into projects (with multiple files) and has a navigation/outline panel with the different sections/chapters/etc.. Even some commercial editors (overleaf) lack this feature! A good document/project navigation panel makes it almost irrelevant whether you use chapters or separate .tex files.
* \usepackage{beamer} is useful but not the only way to organize your slides. You may also simply write lecture notes and scroll through them while giving elaborations on the board.
* Make good use of packages like \usepackage{beameraudience} or \usepackage{versions} to distinguish between slides you use in class and the full lecture notes.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/20
| 3,559
| 15,422
|
<issue_start>username_0: My department has a number of courses we need covered by adjuncts in the next academic year. We were given permission to hire one (and only one) salaried adjunct and to cover the rest of the courses with per-course adjuncts. Salaried adjuncts receive benefits and are better paid than per-course adjuncts.
We received excellent candidates for the salaried position, only one of whom we can hire. After we close the search, (how) can I approach rejected candidates about teaching individual courses at the lower rate? Some career adjuncts have told me it would be offensive to offer a lower-paying and lower-status position to someone who applied for a better one, and I do not wish to offend anyone.
While the salaried position was publicly advertised, our institution does not advertise single courses. Furthermore, most of the candidates who applied for our salaried position were invited to by committee members or by our contacts, not because they were looking at ads.
**How can I get the best outcome for our students and for teachers who would be willing to teach individual courses?** I will continue to ask the administration for permission to hire a second salaried adjunct but do not expect to receive it. There is not much time to wait before starting our per-course search, as the current academic year is nearing its end (and our administration moves very slowly).
**Update**
Because each of the top two candidates seemed too good to reject, we proposed a second salaried position, which we made by cobbling together the remaining courses and one from a related program. To our surprise, the administration reversed its earlier decision to let us hire only one salaried adjunct, and we were able to make two salaried offers. While my question is moot, I will leave it up for future search chairs.<issue_comment>username_1: **Ask them.** What other option do you have? Not asking them I guess, but then you're making the decision for them. Personally, I can't imagine being offended if you explain it the way you did above. That said, I do agree that most candidates will react the same way other answerers have ("no freaking way!") -- all the more so because they were personally recruited for a permanent, salaried position.
**You should have a firm offer for a specific course** rather than just "inviting them to apply" for the lesser position. If possible, personalized mails or phone calls tend to be better received than form letters.
**Edit**: a lot of this discussion has focused on whether offering the lesser position is offensive. I think it's not, but beyond that, the question was:
>
> How do I get the best outcome **for our students and for teachers who would be willing to teach individual courses.**
>
>
>
Even if applicants are offended by being offered the lesser position, that has zero bearing on the students or teachers that OP is asking about. Frankly, it doesn't really matter whether the rejected applicants are offended -- this will have no real consequences. On the other hand, if even one of these applicants accepts the per-course position, that could have huge consequences for both the students and teachers in question.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Don't ask them. It's a smack in the face. Advertise the position in the same place you advertised the salaried one; they will see it if they are still looking, and apply if they feel they need to.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: **Yes**, you should ask them. Here is how I would suggest doing it.
Give detailed and meaningful feedback on the unsuccessful application
=====================================================================
Speaking as a PhD researcher who is approaching completion and who has applied (unsuccessfully) for various positions, the one thing that is most insulting is the lack of meaningful feedback. It is very demoralising to spend **hours and hours** preparing a job application, only to get a very terse and cryptic sentence or two of feedback loaded with clichés that give me no sense of how competitive (or uncompetitive) I am on the relevant facets of the position. Worst of all is the feedback that is largely or entirely positive, justifying the rejection only on some bizarre criticism or prejudice that gives me the impression that the interview was a complete waste of time (because the panel had already decided I was not "compatible"), even though I believed myself to be a serious candidate.
Get to the point quickly
========================
Everyone is overloaded with correspondence, and a person reading a message about a job application may be nervous/excitable/apprehensive. So, please make the key information crystal clear at the beginning of the message (personally, I prefer to see it even in the subject line -- for example,
>
> [unsuccessful, but we may have other opportunities for you] application for lecturer at Univ. of Academiapolis
>
>
>
-- some may find this too blunt, but it saves combing through the clichés of the message itself ("we had a lot of strong applications"; "we really enjoyed meeting you"), many of which can be found in both acceptances and rejections (I recently had a conference acceptance notice which looked like a rejection, because it started by talking about the very high standard of submissions and the difficulty in making selections, with the crucial point, "your paper is accepted", buried in the middle of the paragraph).
Ask permission to keep each applicant's *curriculum vitae* and application data on file
=======================================================================================
Depending on data-protection legislation, you may, strictly speaking, be obliged to delete the job-application records after having hired the chosen candidate, and may not be permitted to utilise them for other purposes. By asking permission to keep an unsuccessful applicant's data on file, you are treating him/her with respect, demonstrating implicitly an interest in hiring him/her for other opportunities, and **giving him/her an opportunity to indicate whether he/she is interested**. I would phrase it something like this:
>
> Despite the negative outcome of this application, we were very impressed by you. We also have some hourly-paid positions for individual courses, and wondered whether that type of work might be of interest to you. If so, please confirm whether or not you give us permission to keep your *curriculum vitae* and application materials on file, with the view to possibly offering you some hourly-paid work without the need for a further interview (NB: we do **not** advertise these hourly-paid positions). Obviously, we appreciate that you may find the lower pay and fewer benefits of such hourly-paid work unacceptable, so if we do not hear from you, we shall assume you are **not** interested.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: This sucks, but it is the reality of the academic job market. Basically, you want to offer them (hopefully), or ask them to apply (less nice, bordering on rude), the same job but now you are going to pay them less, likely substantially less, with fewer benefits and no long term security. Now, here is the hard part. If you don't offer them the worse job, they are going to walk away thinking they were not even good enough to adjunct on a per-course basis. I think that is worse than being up front.
You just need to be up front. Say "We cannot offer you the position you applied for." Then tell them you have a much less desirable position that they are clearly overqualified for, but if they are interested you would be happy for them to apply. If you actually want them to take the job, you also need to demonstrate that your department respects per-course adjuncts, despite the university clearly not respecting them. That is the hardest part. You cannot mislead them and pretend that there is a carrot (i.e., the job they applied for and the one you are trying to get them). It sounds like you care, but hopefully you have some evidence of why they should expect to be treated fairly.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I think everyone is looking at this wrong. *The same* people may take a permanent job for different reasons that they may take a temporary position. Someone who applied for a permanent position might still be happy to take a part-time role to build their teaching portfolio, or get some money on the side, or just to hang around a college a few hours a week when not working at their real job.
You probably wouldn't want to hire people who's prospects are so bad that they would settle for a life of adjuncting anyway. Unless they are nearing retirement and view it as a fun way to wind up their career or something like that. I'd prefer professions with careers and connections in the local industry, who bring a valuable complementary perspective to the department.
Offer it to the local applicants as the part-time gig it is supposed to be. "sorry you were not selected blah blah blah. However, we do have a need for someone to teach X Y or Z for the coming term. Please notify us if you are interested.".
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: There are at least two sets of people who would prefer the single course assignments to a full time job:
* People employed in industry who like teaching, and would like some extra money.
* Retired academics who do not want a full time workload.
To reach those people you need an outreach effort that should include advertising to fill your single course jobs. As part of that outreach effort, you could e-mail the full time applicants you did not hire: "Do you know anyone who would be interested in a part time job teaching one or more of the following courses: [list courses]". This does not presume the full time candidate is available for a part time job, but they can say so if they are.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: I'm not currently in academia, but as a recent job-seeker I'll caution you to avoid assuming how someone else will feel about a particular job. You don't know this person, or their situation, or what their goals are. You do them - and possibly yourself - a disservice when you just *assume* they won't want something and don't even let them know about it.
As an example, I had a recruiter tell me (well after the fact) that I was rejected for a position because it was located 200 miles away from my current location. The company I was applying to did not have the budget to pay for relocation, so they rejected me because I wasn't local. What they did not know is that I was perfectly willing to relocate at my own expense, as the job in question was close to family and a place where I had been trying to move to for several years. Instead of asking me about it, they made the assumption that I wouldn't find it acceptable and they lost what could have been their most valuable team member (I might be a bit biased...).
As another example, my wife applied for a job recently and did not get it. After the position was filled, she received a call from one of the managers who told her that while she lost out to a candidate with more experience, they were still very impressed by her and think that she would be a good addition to their team. They told her that they were anticipating another position opening up in a couple of months and while it wasn't the same as what she originally applied for, the work was similar and she would have opportunities to move from there to what she really wanted to do. This was a much better way of handling it, as my wife had wanted to work with this organization for a long time but it's nearly impossible to get your foot in the door. The manager didn't know that, so she politely informed my wife about the opportunities and let her make her own decision.
In your case, *how* you communicate with these candidates is key. It's unlikely that you'd offend someone by replying with a message like
>
> Even though we weren't able to offer you that particular position, we
> were impressed by your interview and still think you'd be a valuable
> addition to our team. There are several other open positions that
> should be getting posted soon. I don't know yet whether they'll be
> part-time positions or full-time positions, but some of them would
> definitely benefit from someone with your particular background in
> XYZ. Would you still be interested in working with us?
>
>
>
You're letting them know that you thought they were a top quality candidate, and you're simply asking if they would be interested in hearing about other opportunities. Be polite, and focus on *future opportunities* in general at first. Give them the chance to say "yes", "no", or "yes, but only if it's full-time" before you start talking about any specific positions. I've had many recruiters do similar things to me when discussing possible contract work (which is pretty much the industry analogue of the part-time positions you describe). Float the general concept and get a good feeling for what they're looking for before you offer them something specific that might be absolutely out of line. If they're not interested, don't push it and ask if you can contact them when a full-time position becomes available.
If you approach it like "we're low-balling you with this lesser position" then you probably will offend people. If you approach it like "we really do want you on board, and we're trying to find a position that can make that happen" (and you sincerely believe that), then you're likely to be received in a positive way.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: This sort of thing happened to me on several occasions. I applied for tenure-track jobs, specifically asking not to be considered for temporary jobs, and was offered a postdoc on more than one occasion. One time I even interviewed for a tenure-track job before getting offered a postdoc instead. This one was the only one that offended me since I actually flew out of town for the interview and the bait-and-switch was irritating.
The case at hand is somewhat different since it's a full-time adjunct vs a one-course adjunct at a lower wage, but I think there is some commonality. How offended they would be would likely depend on how demeaning you are about it. On one extreme, if the candidate interviewed for the job, was rejected, and then was offered a worse position, then there's a good chance the candidate would be offended. I've known one person who accepted such a job anyhow and he was miserable the whole time, thinking he deserved better. He didn't get along with the other faculty as a result.
On the other extreme, if the candidate simply was never contacted about the adjunct job, and then got a mass emailing from some university account alerting the candidate to the job opening, it's less offensive and you might get more interest. It just means the candidate was put on a list of people who might be interested. There's still some rejection involved but it seems to me it's less personal and less likely to be taken the wrong way.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: If it's not too late, bring this up in the interview: "If we don't offer you this position, would you be interested in these not-as-swell position?" I don't recall where, but I know I've been asked this question a number of times. Pre-emptive strike.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/20
| 2,441
| 10,319
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a 4th year PhD student in Mechanical Engineering at a Tier 1 University. I have joined the current research group due to funding reasons but never really liked the project. The project is not academic in nature (Not possible to get any decent publications, no design or innovation aspects), more like the sponsoring company had an engineering problem that needed a solution.
My advisor is a good person but he is not an expert in this field and not sure why he accepted the project. I have struggling for some time and my hate towards the project has recently increased and I feel that I cannot carry on with research anymore. I tried speaking to my advisor but he did not like the fact that I was belittling the project, and said I was ungrateful towards him even though he funded me.
That coupled with scare of poor job prospects in mechE have been haunting me. I am also sacred that if I tough it out and finish I might end up being overqualified for industry.
Did anyone else face a similar problem? Would like to know how acceptable is it to leave a PhD program in the 4th year and apply to a different program?
EDIT: Thanks for the answers everyone. I probably should have given more background information. I was unable to secure any funding in my first year (spent time doing courses on my own dime) and towards the beginning of my second year I was ready to accept whatever project came my way and chose this project when there was an availability.
The project was a collaboration between a simulation group (Prof. B) and a mechanical testing group (My advisor's, say Prof. A) and was already halfway through when I joined. Prof. B was the lead PI and had dictated the terms and I spent the next few years just doing the required testing for simulations. Regarding the project (can't name it due to privacy concerns), it has very little academic value, we were able to get out only one article in a low impact journal in the entire duration of the project of which I am the second author. People in my lab usually publish 4 journals for graduation. The project was also very hectic with meeting the sponsors twice a week. It felt more like working in a company and the skills I acquired are more of a master's level.
That is the reason I called it overqualified (a PhD with Masters level skills). I had tried a few times to change the project but was met with resistance from my advisor and I did not oppose strongly for fear of being fired. Now I am really scared of job prospects. I understand that I am responding very late. I did speak to a few people in the department and most are suggesting it is stupid to start another PhD at this stage. Another option I was suggested is quitting with a Master's and finding a job. Frankly, I am not sure what to do.<issue_comment>username_1: If you are scared of being overqualified for industry, then this is no good reason to start a PhD at all. The ratio of PhD students in electrical/mechanical engineering in comparison to natural sciences is very small, as there is not so much innovation potential left in mechanics apart from further optimiziaton of very specialized solutions/techniques. It's very common in engineering PhD projects to fulfill goals of the sponsor, that's the reason why PhD students at engineering institutes are often much better paid (partly by the funding of the industry sponsor) than in natural sciences and the project time is tightly fixed and scheduled.
So I don't think your situation is very abnormal or exceptional. It looks rather like you picked the wrong field and reasons to start a PhD, if you are mostly interested in innovative and creative science and many possible academic publications.
If you think about applying for another PhD position due to those reasons, then I think it is convincing in an job interview. Personally though, I never heard of someone who started 3 times a PhD, 2 times is already rather seldom (especially after 4 years into Phd)...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: My read of the question is, the headline question(s) are relatively answerable, but the underlying issues can only be answered by you.
It's undoubtedly possible to quit and apply somewhere else. Your program is bound to have a termination process, and the new place will have their application requirements which you probably fulfill (since you've already been accepted at a comparable program). Quitting and getting accepted somewhere else is a different matter. If you do this chances are extremely good the new place will wonder why you're quitting after four years. Time is a precious commodity, and you don't seem to be using your time well. Why do you think you'll be able to finish at the new place? Also, where are you going to get recommendation letters from?
As for job prospects, you're currently tasked with solving an engineering problem. If you can't do it, what makes you think you can solve the problems you'll get in industry? If you can't solve those problems, you wouldn't be overqualified, you'd be underqualified.
I don't think anyone can answer the latter questions except you, unfortunately.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes, it is is a bad idea. (I will give you a definite answer.)
You need to finish up. You are too far down the road.
1. It is very natural to be close to the end and look at your Ph.D. and think you could have done more ("I coulda been a contender.") But you need to resist the impulse. The first 3 years are sunk. You can't go back.
2. You have the rest of your life to do useful science. Just collect the sheepskin (even if your advisor wasn't that smart or your project that momentous.) You can go after good future work just as easily with a Ph.D. as without one. In many ways easier and at at least marginally higher pay.
3. Your goal is to be an independent researcher. It is normal for grad students to transition to this during their career. Some of them lag and still need supervision as postdocs, but some are basically great indepedent scientists halfway through the Ph.D. Do NOT hang out in the comfortable quasi-adolescent world of studentdom. Get that Ph.D. to show you are an independent thinker (it is the credential for that) and move on.
4. There are a LOT of ways that a new Ph.D. could go wrong. (bad advisor, money, experiments not working, etc.) Yeah, this guy is a nebish. But at least you are not working with a jerk (and there are plenty of tin pot dictators in academia). Count your lucky stars and just move on and do your own thing. Sure he wasn't the perfect father figure mentor. But you need to do your own thing. Maybe you can be a better mentor for others when it is your turn or you can be a better scientist/engineer.
5. It WILL look bad that you made this switch, especially at this stage in your career.
Net/net: let the dissatisfaction (very common, I had it too) to be motivation to *finish early*. Not to try to recreate a better experience and stay longer.
Anecdote: I had same feelings during my Ph.D. Was basically done with my work 2 years in but dissatisfied...advisor was nice but not a cutting edge scientist. We got along mostly but clashed at times since I really didn't need him for anything. He gave me one fair piece of advice (graduate early), but I failed to take it. Hung out for 4 years and did an extra project when I really could have been out in 3 (or faster). And I had money saved from previous work. And it is a nice lifestyle in some ways to be a grad student (beats working). But same time, it was a waste...should have moved on faster.
You are actually putting yourself in way more danger by moving to something new and having some 7 year plus of Ph.D. time. Even from a personal perspective you are not getting any younger and you won't have the same fire in your belly at 50 as at 30. Move on and don't spend your whole youth in student-dom.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: In the past in technical fields, a PhD meant you were extremely specialized and primarily a researcher, not a technical professional. Hence it was a risky career move. This has completely changed in the last couple decades especially. I can think of a range of reasons:
1. The huge increase in phd's, most of who have no option but to go into industry. Both due to domestic school training vastly higher numbers, and international phd's who are often not as qualified for research roles anyway. This just necessarily broke down the stereotyping, as every large company probably has some phd's doing software, sales, etc.
2. Rapidly-advancing technology requiring advanced skills that weren't even taught at the UG level, not just to develop and produce the new technology, but to even use it at the early stages.
3. Overall, big shakeups in industries replacing the old structure and its pigeonholes (jobs for life, degree requirements for roles, etc.)
So from what I've seen, a PhD is not at all a dangerous degree anymore, unless you try to do something very introductory. The years of salary lost are the biggest problem. And you are proposing to burn yet more productive years starting over.
As for your project not providing "academic" problems, I'm a bit skeptical that it's as hopeless as you suggest. Industry projects must ultimately face the same open problems as research. If your advisor isn't helping you find these, it is on you to investigate them yourself. And second, it isn't so much the problem that determines if something is engineering versus research, but the solution. You can propose to use a high-risk (but hopefully high-reward) new approach to solve even the most boring and practical old problem. By the way, they do need to allow you to publish your results. This is non-negotiable for a doctoral student.
Lastly, if you are really being used as a technical help, and this is taking greater than 20 hours or so per week, then yes find another advisor and project (it doesn't necessarily have to be at another school). This kind of thing seems to be getting more common lately. A lot of international students who are poor and desperate enough are being used as full-time technical help at grad student or postdoc "wages". But you shouldn't take that deal unless you get a lot more benefits for your career aside from the money.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/21
| 464
| 2,200
|
<issue_start>username_0: My question is that what improvement in introduction of a paper or other parts of paper the authors should do when the reviewers wrote the following sentence:
*The authors have missed many important state of the art references*
Thanks in advance<issue_comment>username_1: I think the statement is very clear. Wether your literature research was incomplete or the reviewer just wants two of his own papers cited once more, we cannot tell.
Make sure you can exclude the first possibility, then try guessing, and either be bold in your rebuttal letter, or cite some more.
(If the reviewer gave no hint to specific references, I'd suspect that you might have a somewhat grave problem: Either you paper is indeed crappy, or that reviewer just doesn't want it published, or wants it delayed, for his own good.)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I recommend that you do the following:
* Make a best effort to look up the most recent articles related to the parts of the article that the reviewer critiqued in their other comments. Most likely, their other comments would suggest the areas that they are most concerned with.
* Before you complete your revisions, write a direct email to the editor that is handling your submission and explain in advance your difficulty. Show them the list of references that you have additionally added (to prove that you have already made an effort), but explain that since the reviewer did not specify what they consider you are missing, you do not know if that would satisfy them.
* Do whatever the editor says.
The advantage of this approach is defensive: when you do eventually submit your completed revision, it would be very difficult for the editor to reject your article based on insufficient references. At the very least, if that is the only problem that would otherwise lead to a rejection, I would expect them to give you at least one more round to revise your paper according to the references that the reviewer would then explicitly list. (And if the reviewer still does not explicitly list the missing references, then you would be justified to politely say, "I have tried my best to respond.")
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/21
| 667
| 2,934
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a peer reviewer, I sometimes feel there are issues in the manuscript but I'm not sure how they should be corrected/addressed, partly due to my inadequate expertise in those exact issues.
I also sometimes find some words/terms are incorrectly used, but as a non-native speaker I can't easily suggest alternatives.
Should I just point to such issues anyway, or ignore them since I couldn't suggest solutions?<issue_comment>username_1: Does "peer review" mean *you* have to re-write the material, or just point out where the flaws may be and the author is meant to sort them?
I suggest it is the latter, so point them out and expect the author to edit / correct or justify what they meant.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you should point them out. You should point out solutions to problems when you know what the solution is but, at the end of the day, it's the authors' responsibility to write their paper, not yours.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: A story (and many other intersting ones) I once heard from an editorial board member of Physical Review Letters, who gave an overview talk on the editorial process of that journal at a conference, was that sometimes it happens that the reviewer switches sides and becomes a collaborator of the authors they reviewed initially.
While at first this sound strange (certainly did to me at that time as a young PhD student), I think this is more appropriate then outlining new solutions (which is nice but not necessary) the authors did not think of. I also don't think 1-2 major revisions are a good spot to discuss/recommend in-depth new solutions to a manuscript. It's common to request further data analysis/evaluation or additional measurements. But if there are major flaws in the manuscript/methodology, you should point to it, but personally I would advise/vote then to reject the manuscript for this reason.
Concerning grammar and language mistakes: The associate editor can reject publication of a manuscript, even if the peer reviewer don't vote for further revisions (due to content or language level). It's not your duty to improve the language and associate editors regulary recommend commercial english editing services, when the language level is below the standards of the journal. Personally, if I see a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes, I don't point the authors to every single one, I mention 2 or 3 to the editor and the rest is his job, not mine, especially if the manuscript is multi-authored.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You should definitively point them out, the editor might want to get an additional reviewer on those issues, and the authors can still write a *nice* rebuttal letter saying that the problem confusing you had been thouroughly addressed half a page earlier and they don't feel responsible for your short attention span *or* your incomplete grasp on English grammar. ;-)
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/21
| 355
| 1,429
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently published a book chapter with my supervisor. I just realized that I messed up two dates in the chapter. For the first one, the original sentence is like "xx policy decisions were published in 2004", but the year should be 2015. Another one "xx policy will be abolished in 2013 ", but it should be 2023.
The chapter is now published online and in hardcopy.
I wonder whether it's necessary to submit a Corrigendum? The book chapter is about reviewing the current literature on a specific topic (not an empirical study). I worry this will affect my reputation.<issue_comment>username_1: Leaving it unfixed will affect your reputation. Fixing it is much less likely to.
If you have a publisher, contact them with the correction. If self-published, you can just fix it and give a new printing (not publication) date.
Be careful, however, if you have given up copyright, and let the publisher handle the details.
If you have a web site related to your work, you can also publish a correction there.
Note that no one know why the error was made, nor who made it, so it really isn't a reputation issue unless left uncorrected. .
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: For minor corrigenda (such as this), some scholars merely put it on their web site. Likely many of your future papers will also have errors, so keeping a list of all of them in one place may be the best choice.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/22
| 1,347
| 6,018
|
<issue_start>username_0: My professors usually give solutions for part term tests. But it seems that, they never gave any solutions for the past final exams in any courses I've taken.
Does anyone has the same experience? Or does anyone know why it's like this? I personally believe that students could use past exam's answers to prepare for their own exams.
Edited: Wow, it's amazing that so many people shared their opinion here. I'd just like to clarify my question here cuz I see my question mislead few people, my apologize. Say, I am taking some course this year, and the professor would usually post some pasts term tests with answers and the past exams from previous years(with no answers, or sometimes they just post a link to the library website, where answer-free version of past exams can be found) on the course web-page.<issue_comment>username_1: I think this totally depends on the course or more importantly, the advisor. I've had courses where the final exams of previous years were discussed in the next years so that students learn from them.
As for why that can be the case, well, maybe the advisor intends to use similar questions and that's why they prefer not to reveal them (again, this comes from personal experience)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: They don ‘t give out those solutions as they use the questions in future exams.
If they handed out those solutions then that question bank is not longer useful.
Writing suitable questions to the correct level takes time.
They are well within their rights not to provide the solutions to those final exam questions. Those exam questions may not be officially available either.
They have provided practice questions with solutions for your benefit throughout the course.
Also, being able to solve questions without having a pre-prepared solution to refer to is a skill you need to develop.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: This depends on the institution & department and potentially the instructor/course.
The last two institutions I have been at (UK) have provided solutions to past exams. One only odd numbered years, the other all years.
I'm sceptical about the value of providing solutions to past exams for studying purposes. From my experience the temptation to look at the solutions instead of struggling through the questions is often irresistible for students, especially those who are struggling. This leads to the false impression of knowing how to solve the problems. Of course past exam solutions *can* be used effectively to study, for example by only using the solutions to check answers after completing the entire exam as practice. But I have rarely seen students do this.
Developing appropriate exam questions is difficult so instructors may also want to recycle past questions and therefore not provide past exams (questions or answers).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Most professors do not like to give out the solutions to exams (and the exams by themselves) because they do not want students to create collections of past exam questions. This is for two reasons:
1. Some questions might be re-used later. This is not only laziness but
there are usually a limited number of meaningful and unambiguous
questions that can be asked.
2. Professors want to stop students form
just learning past questions by heart and they want students to focus on the actual
content.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: In addition to some of the good reasons already given in other answers, here is another idea:
The instructor is trying to help current students improve in the course. Solutions to in-term tests can do this, especially if later course material builds on earlier, or if there is a cumulative final exam. However, the final exam is the end, and no further improvement in the course is possible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: It could be a lot of different factors. Trying to stop lawlerly debates. Reducing self study (it is competition). Re-use of questions. (This is not purely laziness or to restrict learning. I do agree that if you have learned all the expected questions you may have mastered the course. But in some cases questions may be reused for psychometric purposes, to compare instructors or classes. For instance the SATs reuse questions for this reason.)
Also, schools, courses will differ. So some may post the answers.
For what it is worth, I disagree with the idea to keep solutions secret for exams, homework, etc. If people can learn from drilling the materials, they should be allowed to. This is an area where things have actually become much more restrictive, less open than several decades ago when it was normal to post solutions after tests or have texts with answers to every single drill problem (not just the odds!) I have the discipline to decide how much effort to spend on problems before checking a solution (am a big boy).
In addition, I see tests as very high stakes practice but as a PART of the learning process. You learn preparing for the test, while doing the test, and afterwards reviewing it. So I think it makes little sense not to share the solutions. But obviously many academic gatekeepers disagree.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: There is a very prosaic answer that somehow hasn't been mentioned yet. The partial exam happens during the term, when the professor is dedicating a lot of time to teaching and wants to help their current students learn. The final exam happens at the end of the term, when the professor is done teaching and typically wants to spend time on something else.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: When I was teaching — I am now retired — I often posted old final exams, sometimes with answers. I wanted the students to use them to check their understanding, to answer the question themselves then compare their answer to mine. I tried not to put questions on exams after they had been webbed, because I didn't want the students to simply try to memorize the answers.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/22
| 638
| 2,658
|
<issue_start>username_0: My field of study is Computational mechanics and branch is mechanical engineering. I will be submitting my thesis in September. Subsequently, I will be submitting my 3 manuscripts to journals for publishing. At this moment, I have just one paper published. So, I was wondering what should be the correct time to apply for post doctoral positions in the US?
I also have an offer of continuing a small (7-12 months) postdoc position in my PhD lab till I get my pending papers published and get a position somewhere else. Also, I will get to work on a new project that would help me learn and implement a new numerical methodology. This will help me to expand the scope of my research interests (would make study of different length scales possible), which might help me to secure a better position.
What should I do? My mind says to stay with my advisor's offer and make my CV strong. Will that be a good choice?<issue_comment>username_1: Get the applications going now. After all, you will be finishing up SEP. It's coming soon. A lot of places are sort of geared to the academic calendar. (Postdocs can be a little more come and go, but still things may move by the ac calendar.)
Try to dress the resume up by listing some papers as "in preparation". Yes, it's not ideal that your pub list is so anemic, but it is what it is. Waiting for it to get better makes no sense. After all you can always hunt again in the fall, if needed, with the stronger resume. But I wouldn't stop from looking for a gig now.
Also, it's not at all clear to me why you can't submit the papers now so you can list them as "in review". This would be normal (publishing pre-thesis) in math, engineering, and hard and soft sciences. But perhaps this is different in humanities if your thesis will be published as a real book.
Of course your research may be dependent on colleagues or shared apparatus time or the like. But in that case, I would not be sanguine about hitting SEP thesis and fall paper timelines. Things can always go wrong. Try to carve off pieces you can publish now.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Start applying for postdocs about six months before you would like to start the job. You need six months because most of your applications will fail. Once you succeed, it takes several months to complete a contract and organize your move. If you need a visa, it could take much longer.
In my opinion, a postdoc in your PhD lab harms your record because it indicates you were unable to get a position elsewhere. Fair or not, it is simply traditional to move for your postdoc.
Submit your papers as soon as you can.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/22
| 1,097
| 4,943
|
<issue_start>username_0: I met a faculty (from a university in the UK) at a conference. She liked and praised my work and we are in touch after conference. She has an impressive profile and her research work is similar to mine. Is it okay to take a recommendation letter from her to seek postdoctoral position overseas? Will it help?<issue_comment>username_1: You can definitely ask her for a letter of recommendation. It cannot hurt I assume.
However, considering that the person does not know you much, the letter **might** not have much weight in the eyes of whoever reads it.
Since there is not much to lose, ask for the letter. If you receive it, use it as you see fit. There is no guarantee whether it will help or will be useless.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There's nothing stopping you asking for one. However, you need to consider what would be written in such a letter.
In short, you can ask for a letter, but be careful how you use it. What could the person say on your behalf if a potential employer contacts them to get more information about their assessment of you?
For instance, it doesn't seem that you have a professional relationship - you haven't co-authored papers, nor have you worked together in the same institution, nor have you served on the same committees, etc. Any of these things is not necessary, of course, but these are the sort of things a referee would cite as evidence that they are in a position to recommend you or your work.
However, it sounds like your contact does know of your work. However, are they a world-leader in your field? Do they have the respect of your community? When they say good things about you or anyone else, do others pay attention?
How will a reader interpret a reference letter that is based only on a familiarity of your published work, and a single meeting at a conference?
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Most reference requests come, implicitly or explicitly, with the expectation that the referee will describe in what capacity and for how long she/he has known the candidate. As a result, references from people you’ve met recently or only have passing acquaintance usually do not carry much weight.
Ask yourself how you would start a reference letter if the situation were reversed.
>
> Dear Selection Committee,
> I write supporting the application of [candidate]. We met once at [this conference] a few weeks ago and exchanged emails afterwards. He seems quite reasonable and full of good ideas but I’ve never seen him in a lab, I have no idea of his academic performance, cannot comment on how well he works in a team *etc*.
>
>
>
and how you would react receiving such a letter.
It might make a difference in a post-doc application if the position is offered by a colleague of that person, so that this person can supply a final supporting opinion to other strong reference letters.
The situation would become different if you were to have conversations with this person over an extended period of several months, were invited to her lab for some sort of visit or internship, started a project or co-applied for some grant, and generally develop your initial meeting into something much more substantive.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It’s best for people applying for postdocs to have at least one letter from a well-known researcher in the field who *is not at their school*. It is quite typical that this person has only seen you talk once or twice and has read your work. Of course your advisor’s letter will have more detail and first-hand experience, but an outside perspective on the value of your research is a valuable addition. You should definitely ask for a letter from this professor!
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: All the answers here assumed that this recommendation letter is for graduate school and if someone doesn't know you very well, its weight maybe is less than someone that know you very well such as your adviser. But, I want to look at this situation from other views, which is not very familiar for all academic people. I believe if that professor will be convinced to sign off on a recommendation letter for you, it means you have a really good scientific reputation that resulted to that someone as an independent researcher endorse your scientific work in a recommendation letter and I think it has even more weight than a recommendation letter from a dependent person (e.g. your advisor). But be cautious cause this is not the generally accepted view in routine academia specially for applying to graduate school but it may have some advantages for other purposes. This other purposes could be convincing someone outside of academia to understand your research and be convinced that it has substantial merit. But again it depends pretty much on your special purpose from getting this recommendation letter, which is not specified explicitly in your question.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/22
| 1,044
| 4,422
|
<issue_start>username_0: Are there any research/study/survey that tried to analyze whether industry-sponsored papers contain more incorrect results than papers that aren't industry-sponsored, and if so, to what extent?
For example, if a drug company publishes a paper about the efficiency of one of their drugs, some readers might suspect results are more likely to be positively biased than if the paper was published by an academic lab with no funding from the drug company. I wonder if these kinds of suspicion are actually grounded.<issue_comment>username_1: I think your hypothesis is implausible that industry-sponsored research is more incorrect or less reproducible than non-industry-sponsored. Or can you give some reasons for this assumption?
On the contrary looking at many of the meta-surveys (partly conducted by industry, because non-industry-sponsored research maybe is less reproducible to their experience) that investigated the [reproducibility of academic research in the recent years](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/12520/48038), rather the opposite is maybe the case and known within industry.
Additionally, I don't see how it makes a difference if money financing a PhD student comes from industry or not? Wouldn't the rationale rather be, if money is spent by industry, then rather PhD scientists/Professors are hired for a project than cheap and still learning PhD students pressured by publish or perish? And to my knowledge more of the spotted scientific misconduct has been caused by untenured researchers. Again, publish or perish
And when [industry research can't reproduce 70–90% of academic laboratory findings,](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165614717301979) then a better question is probably if most of the research projects are funded by industry or not and what kind of researchers are on average hired for industry-sponsored projects (PhD students, PhD's, tenured)
What maybe sounds plausible, that researchers carrying out industry-sponsored projects tend even more to make up results or buzzy headlines ("new battery technology allows charging up within 10% of normal time" which I read every month or so), is rather implausible to me, because important and valuable results in industry-sponsored research projects are often rather published as a patent than a paper.
More importantly, there is a clear correlation that research in branches being strongly entangled with industry (engineering, physics,...) is much better reproducible than weakly linked branches (social sciences, psychology, biomedical,...). Most of the meta-surveys are in such fields.
To take up your case of drug development, such only become legalized after 10 years of clinical trial, so I think the incentive for some PhD student is not significantly higher and often the PhD students have no clue if the money financing them comes from industry or public. And professors being biased by the funding source mostly don't conduct and evaluate the experiments and would have to alter the results ([which also happened](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Hauser), but rarely)
Summa summarum I think there is no such study (my googling didn't find one but many meta-survey on reproducibility partly published by industry companies), as your hypothesis looks very implausible to me. There is probably a good virtual database with so much meta-surveys and the necesssity to name funding sources in a paper, still to me the important question would be, which kind of researcher (students, tenured,...) are typically hired for non-/industry sponsored projects? Because, the conclusion from the published meta-surveys in social sciences, psychology, biomedicine and the low reproducibility to be drawn is not that researchers in such fields tend to be more biased, tricking, cheating and therefore more incorrect results are published, but rather that industry is not much interested in such results and the level of scientific rigor is much lower than in hard sciences like quantitative physics or engineering, for which I didn't find a single meta-survey.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: What is a "result"?
Many industry papers I've seen do not contain any hard results anyway, but just report some andectodal evidence how they improved some software they used. I doubt there can be anything "wrong" there.
It's not as if they contained plenty of wrong proofs.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/22
| 1,128
| 4,812
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm working on my research paper. My subject is quite original and I even had difficulties to find a supervisor. In short, I found a fairly recent book on the Internet (2017), which is exactly what I am looking for, but it is not available in the libraries of my country. Could I ask the author to send it to me by email or even to send me some chapters?<issue_comment>username_1: Certainly you can ask. There is nothing wrong with that. If you explain a bit about your use and the restrictions you face it might make it more likely that the author might *try* to help you.
But the author might not be able to comply with your request due to contractual arrangements with the publisher (if any). So, you might get a reply that starts out "Sorry, but..."
On the other hand, I'm surprised that libraries don't have access. I would guess that if you take your request to the librarian him/herself, you might learn that copies of nearly everything can be borrowed. Librarians have a vast, legal, network of sources for academic/scientific works. Even my town library, which has no formal relationships, can find just about anything I need, though the sources are usually all in this country.
But there are no ethical issues about asking. Etiquette only requires politeness and being honest about your needs.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I recommend, as others have, starting with a librarian. I'd follow up with looking for papers by the same author. Sometimes, the reference list of books is available, and you can pore through that getting works that are seminal.
I'm not sure where I am with respect to asking. I lean toward not doing it. "You can always ask" is certainly true, but sometimes, merely asking is rude. I don't know where I draw the line. I just asked an artist for permission to use a particularly apt cartoon, with attribution, in a course lecture. The artist was absolutely thrilled that I asked for permission, and sent me a higher-res copy! That said, here's an artist, who makes a substantial part of his living doing this sort of stuff, and I asked him for a free use. The way I justify this in my head was "I don't really need this, and it's not something I'd pay more than a few dollars for, and if he says no I just won't use it (and I wouldn't!)" Perhaps the better way to have done this was to contact him with the question "Is there a reasonable way I can license this for this low-volume use?"
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If the book is that important to your research, you should be willing to buy it from a store or online retailer. If the book is not on sale, it may be reasonable to ask the author where/how you can buy it.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Someone asked me once if I could send them a free digital copy of a book I had published recently and I was happy to send it to them for a few reasons:
A.) I'm happy that someone actually wants to read it as I put a lot of time and effort into writing it.
B.) If the person likes it, they might tell other people and so get good publicity for it.
c.) It's only one book. The amount of money you would get for selling one copy of a book is negligible, so you are not really losing anything by giving them a free copy, especially if the person seems genuinely really interested and respectful.
So I would definitely just ask, they might even be pleased to send you a free copy.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Working for a university library purchasing resources, I am asked this question by students and academic staff fairly regularly.
As others have implied, one of your options in getting access to the ebook is to contact the library with which you are affiliated, whether this is via an InterLibrary Loan request, an email to its resources department (which exists in all libraries in some form or another) or a question at the front desk. From my experience, these requests eventually get funnelled to a librarian, who is usually tasked with asking a book supplier to make the ebook available for purchase online, or directly asking the academic whether a copy could be made available to the library.
Importantly, the library will have the money to make a purchase for you, if necessary. However, whether it will pay for you may depend on its purchase and lending policies. Moreover, if copyright issues arise or the library decides that they'd like the book to form part of their collection (and therefore available for others to use), then they'll be in a better position to negotiate these processes on your behalf.
Of course, there's no harm in contacting the academic yourself... In similar situations in the past I've contacted academics expecting a hefty fee only to find they're all too happy to provide their materials for free!
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/04/22
| 955
| 4,193
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a reviewer, when would it be appropriate to reject a paper (rather than recommend "major revision") for publication? I am interested in views from seasoned reviewers/editors who served for journals with moderately high importance factor (IF > 4.0) - primarily in engineering/science fields.
Thank you,<issue_comment>username_1: First, I'll take the position that if a paper *can* be salvaged, then the author should have the opportunity to try to salvage it. However, some situations are beyond help.
**Situations that call for rejection**
The paper is out of scope for the journal/conference. But usually an editor will recognize this and send it back.
The results of the paper follow trivially from well known facts.
The result itself is trivial. That is, not worth the paper it is written on. Obvious. Sometimes the question, itself, is trivial.
The author seems unaware of recent work that impacts on the results. Here, it may be a judgement call about how much was missed. Naive author.
The methodology is unethical.
The methodology is inadequate to answer the question posed.
The results don't follow from the methodology.
The results can be shown to be wrong. Or dangerous.
If revision has been offered and the author is overly argumentative about revisions.
Plagiarism or other ethical lapses.
**However**
My personal view is that poor expression/writing should not be grounds for rejection as long as the author can find a way to make the presentation clear enough for a professional reader. However, writing can be so poor that the reader can't make a connection between the methodology and the result. If you can't understand the paper as a reviewer, you may not be able to make any helpful suggestions. Then, you may be forced to reject.
I might have missed a few cases, of course, and it depends on the field. But generally, leave it to the editor to make fine-grained decisions.
---
Note that I don't think the answer to this depends, really, on the level of the journal. I think the "scope" qualification covers that aspect pretty well.
I don't think that there are a lot of "questionable" cases here.
The implication is that one prefers to suggest revision unless one cannot.
---
Actually, I think a much harder situation is one in which a paper seems "obvious" for rejection but has some gem of insight in it that requires tweaking out. This might imply a truly huge revision and acceptance of something in the future. These are hard to recognize, of course, due to the limits of the review process.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As a referee of a scientific or engineering paper, you should recommend rejection if you do not believe that (1) the paper makes a contribution that is worthy of publication and/or (2) the paper is not a good fit with the quality or mission of the specific journal.
Sometimes referees want to be encouraging and therefore suggest major revisions for papers that may not be likely to ever meet the bar for publication. When a major revision recommendation is not focused on how the existing results are presented but instead on developing new results (or proposing significant new experiments, or new models, or new hypotheses, etc), then it would have likely been better to simply recommend rejection.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In the end, the decision is made by the Editor and you can only give your opinion. Unlike the Editor, who **has** to chose at some point, you are allowed to be in doubt. In your review you can say "I am struggling to give a specific recommendation because on the one hand -positive comments about the paper-, but on the other hand -negative comments -". Just be careful because in most journals I have reviewed for, these specific recommendations are supposed to go to the Editor only, not to the authors.
The editor will average your comments with the ones from the other reviewers. For high impact factor journals, the difference between recommendations for rejection and major revision might not even make much of a difference: they receive so many articles that they can just reject anything beyond "minor revision".
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/22
| 772
| 3,108
|
<issue_start>username_0: If I want to use diagrams I created using GeoGebra in a dissertation or paper, how do I properly credit/give attribution? The terms of service say:
>
> We grant you permission to use the Website Content under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-ShareAlike licence (version 3.0 or later), the current text of which can be found via [this link](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode). Attribution (as required by that Creative Commons license) should take the form of (at least) a mention of our name, an appropriate copyright notice and a link to our website located at <https://www.geogebra.org>.
>
>
> Use of existing "authored" materials published on our website are similarly subject to attribution, to include the name of the author(s) and link or hyperlink to the material itself. For example, "Created with GeoGebra, by [name of author of material]".
>
>
>
It would seem tedious and distracting to write "Created using GeoGebra (www.geogebra.org) under CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0" in every figure caption. Would it be acceptable to include a note on the List of Figures page, either mentioning the specific figures or just "some figures were created using..."? Or the Acknowledgements page?<issue_comment>username_1: You just add yourself as the source (Like - 'Source: Self elaborated with X software using data from...') in the citation and then in the methods you mention which software you used.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: In terms of academic integrity, if you:
* created a graphic yourself
* using a software tool
then you would not cite the software tool.
For example, if you prepared your paper in Microsoft Word, possibly using the drawing tools, you would not cite Word or give Microsoft credit.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Let me preface this by saying I am not a lawyer, and everything I say is just my interpretation of the license they give based on my experience with open source software licensing.
First of all, you have to look at what is being licensed. In the license term you posted (which is term 3), it is referring to "Website Content" as being under the CC-NC-SA 3.0+ license. In term 2 of the license, the term "Website Content" is defined to be:
>
> The materials on our Websites, such as documents, files, text and graphics ("Website Content") are protected by copyright laws, trade mark laws and treaties around the world, and all intellectual property rights in the Website Content are the property of GeoGebra, Inc. or a third party associated with us. All such rights are reserved. "GEOGEBRA" and other proprietary marks are trade marks of the International GeoGebra Institute or GeoGebra, Inc.
>
>
>
So in my reading, license term 3 only applies to items posted and provided for you on the actual GeoGebra website that were created by others (such as GeoGebra themselves or other contributors). That means I don't think any works that you create using the tool will be included in that license term, and therefore not subject to the CC-NC-SA 3.0+ they used.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/22
| 484
| 2,127
|
<issue_start>username_0: Does it count as plagiarism if a student pays a professional transcription service to transcribe an audio recording of a social science interview/focus group for the appendix of their written assignment?
Note that the appendix is not graded as part of the assignment.<issue_comment>username_1: I doubt that it would be plagiarism per se, as long as the student cites the source. If you cite something properly, it isn't plagiarism. If you quote the work, make it clear that you are quoting. Make it clear that both the ideas and the words come from the cited source.
It might, possibly, be copyright infringement, depending on who has rights to the interview and whether/how it is licensed. You are copying something, even if changing the media and it might be covered or not. One difficulty here is that you might want to copy the thing in whole, rather than just excerpts, for which different rules might apply.
But a professor might still consider it to be academic misconduct, depending on the rules set for the course. The professor might be expecting you to make the effort at transcription, for example. To know the rules, you need to check with the professor.
---
Note also that the fact that you paid a service for the transcription has nothing to do with plagiarism. The source of the interview would be the issue, not the mechanics of transcription.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: What is important here is to check the experimental protocol for any data protection/privacy issues.
Because you conducted an experiment involving human subjects, there should have been an approved protocol that tells you how the data can be handled. It is important to see if it can be sent to a third-party service, and what precautions are necessary.
In some cases, the recordings have been anonymized and nothing sensitive is discussed, so it may be OK. On the other hand, if there is personally identifiable information, or sensitive medical information is disclosed, laws, like HIPAA apply and special agreements and arrangements are necessary with the transcription service.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/23
| 1,312
| 5,325
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a second-year PhD student at a well-ranked university, and am seriously beginning to feel that I'm an imposter in this place. My lab group is filled with people who ranked in the top 0.01 percent of examinations in their home country, have won olympiads and international competitions, and published an insane amount while maintaining a 4.0 GPA during grad school, while here I am with a scrub 3.5 GPA in undergrad and no publications.
I honestly think that admissions screwed up somewhere with my application and that I really don't belong here. I really want to get a PhD and I love academic research, but feel that I just can't compete against such people.
Has anyone ever gone through these feelings? I feel that I can't speak to anyone else about it because everyone seems so accomplished, and it'd only reinforce my feelings of inadequacy.<issue_comment>username_1: **Own it.** Channel these feelings into finding what makes you competitive and happy.
As an impostor that continues to 'make it', I have accepted that I bring something different. My undergrad GPA was 3.6, exactly, at a no-name school. I was accepted to a very good school for my PhD, and opted for a lower ranked school on the basis that I would 'have a better chance'. Likely, that was an error: I have since held a postdoc and now a faculty position at a high ranked school, with offers from other high-ranked schools. People puzzle over my CV, which is all kinds of nontraditional, but they also see evidence there that I do some things very well. I do, and these things make me competitive with the 4.0-olympiad-never-made-a-mistake crowd. Indeed, the fact that I continually make mistakes is itself a competitive edge; I'm inherently more fearless than my well-heeled peers. This strategy has led to a career that some of my 'perfect' classmates have openly wondered at. I wonder at it. I mean, I'm still a scrub, just a highly effective one. ;)
So, go do that.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You need to look at the future, not the past.
You suggested that admissions may have made a mistake in letting you in. I doubt they have made a mistake if the institution is highly ranked: it is possible that your CV stands out for something else than purely the grades. If they indeed did a mistake then that's your golden chance to prove that you deserve to be there. By the way.. Probably no one will ever know they did a mistake (if indeed they have).
You need to look at what you can gain from your situation. You say you are among very smart people.. Possibly smarter than you. That's excellent, you can only improve from there by staying with them, understanding what they do better than you and why. If you stay positive, humble and willing to learn you can surely improve your weak spots.
Do not try to compete immediately face to face with people in their area of expertise but rather try to learn from them. If you are in a position where you are forced to compete, then try to steer the evaluation to your strong points until you improve your weaker ones.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: *"My lab group is filled with people who ranked in the top 0.01 percent of examinations in their home country, have won Olympiads in international competitions, and published an insane amount while maintaining a 4.0 GPA during grad school, [...])"*
Yes, those people exist. But they probably aren't representative. That you think that "everyone" else is cleverer *is likely a symptom of the impostor syndrome*.
Here are is a task for you: Take a large enough, unprejudiced sample of PhD students around you. Then, count the proportion of those who you certainly know to have two of the distinctions you just mentioned, i.e. gold medal at a competition *and* top 0.01 percent, or 3 peer-reviewed publications over 10 pages long *and* 4.0 GPA during all of grad school. Be scientific, hearsay doesn't count, nor does your gut feeling.
Now look at the many people who are "normal". Very likely, those are actually a bigger proportion. Don't compare yourself to the few highly successful ones. Actually, as a rule of thumb, don't compare yourself to anyone at all. If you really need to compare yourself to others, compare yourself to the median of the distribution.
But instead of comparing yourself to others too much, just look at your work you are presently doing and ask yourself whether you're doing solid, good work. Don't worry about not having published anything yet. You're a PhD student, you're not expected to have published yet.
*You don't need to compete during your PhD. Just do your work well.* This is all that one can reasonably expect from you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Pff, what you describe is not being an impostor. Lots of skilled PhD students come from mid-range or what some people would claim "no name" universities.
Being an impostor would be dressing suspiciously well, not showing you have any deeper understanding but knowing very well what hip words and phrases to use. Knowing the names of the cool algorithms but not showing understanding. Not showing any actual work or theory but lots of fancy pre-made professional-level poster pictures. If you are good you could probably pull it off with a bachelor in behavioural science or psychology.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/23
| 1,434
| 6,076
|
<issue_start>username_0: I applied to PhD program and gladly received official admission offer on the 29th of March. They guaranteed me four-year funding. I accepted the admission offer and was preparing for obtaining student visa.
I accepted the offer on the 13th of April, declining two admission offers from other institutions.
However, my application page suddenly changed that my admission is rejected. A staff of the department said that they decided to rescind my admission offer on April the 22nd. What can I do now?
I received [this message](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6M6Qe.png) this morning:
>
> My sincere apology for this unfortunate admission circumstance. There was a misunderstanding after the initial admission process, and the initial determination of "Deny" for your application made by our faculty was indeed the decision that should have been maintained. Later, due to a misunderstanding, we reversed the admission decision from "Deny" to "Offer". After this change was made, the faculty who had considered your application - and who denied your admission - confirmed their denial of admission due to lack of funding available to support you. For this reason, we needed to change your offer of admission back to the original "Deny" status. Yours was a very competitive application, and I am sorry to have to rescind our offer of admission. We therefore ask that you disregard our offer of admission and funding, which were made in error.
>
>
> My sincere apology for this misunderstanding, and best wishes to you as you pursue other graduate program offers,
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: I would recommend the following:
1. Contact the other universities and ask if they might still be
willing to admit you (this might be your easiest way out). If the
answer is negative make sure to keep their answers for the later
points.
2. Write to the university that revoked the offer stating (in a
friendly tone) that you turned down other offers due to their offer
and that this situation leaves you (and them) is a suboptimal
situation. If the result of point 1 was negative then add this
information too. **Ask them for a solution.** If the mistake was made
just on your application then they might consider admitting you to
avoid a law case. If they wrongly offered to all applicants (e.g.
software bug) then they will not be able to do this.
3. If point 1 and 2 do not lead to anything then write to them a second
time threatening with a law case in order to cover your damages
caused by their mistake. But still in friendly words along the lines that you would prefer not to etc ... (Many people in the comments below suggest to skip this step and go for the lawyer right away *"Never threaten to sue. Either do it, or don't"*).
4. Get a lawyer to discuss further actions.
Other points to consider:
* How long was their offer there? If it was just there for 30 min it
might be different to being there for days and they decided to revoke
weeks after you accepted.
* Was the offer conditional on anything?
* Assume you win with the help of a lawyer - do you want to spend the
next 4-5 years of your life in this environment? I am not saying yes or no - it is just something to consider.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I wouldn't bother with the legal threats. Call the institutions that made the other offers as soon as possible. Probably one will come through.
It's unfortunate and makes the uni look bad. But in reality things like this happen some small fraction of the time. Just like job offers get pulled a small but noticeable amount of time. It's part of why I am on the side of people who find things have changed substantially and decide to go somewhere else (job, school) even after acceptance.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Allow me to respond from the point of view of the head of academic support teams. We generally have contingencies in place for occurrences such as these, which happen from time to time. It's pretty unlikely to have occurred due to a computer system error, although that's been the case in the past. This sounds to me like human error.
It is part of our protocol to explain the issue to the affected applicant in a way similar to the snippet you quoted. In most cases in fact, I write the letter of apology since I oversee operations.
Before we write to you, we would have considered your case in detail. In my institution, that would mean an automatic review by the admissions academic, program head PLUS the head of the school. This is because of the gravity of the mistake. We would review not only your application, but also the admissions data, the admissions academic's notes AND the process that was undertaken. One of the considerations is whether there are reasonable grounds to accept you due to our error. In most cases, unfortunately, there aren't. This is because there are pretty clear reasons for upholding the original decision to deny an application. For example, it might be a weak application that does not meet our criteria.
Availing yourself of legal advice is, of course, your prerogative. However, I think the other responders overestimate the effectiveness of pursuing a legal case and underestimate the costs. Universities have legal teams themselves for just this situation (and many more besides). They also have deep pockets. The question really isn't whether threats to sue be successful. The question should be whether any legal action will be successful in the long run. By that I mean do you have the resources to match the university's?
Is there reputational risk to the university in a situation like this? Maybe, but it's not likely to be substantial. There might be more reputational risk by accepting a weak application.
I've handled cases in which an appeal has resulted in the acceptance of the applicant following a communication sent in error. In my university, I am not aware of any legal suit that has resulted in a reversal of the admissions decision.
I hope that this gives you more information about your options.
Good luck to you.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/23
| 1,286
| 5,324
|
<issue_start>username_0: Every year are published around a dozen of books **directly** related to my research. By directly I mean on the same topics of my research, normally by authors I am familiar with, and potential reference sources for my current or future research. Some are fairly technical, but others can be of more general interest, or, for example, more on the policy side. I think it is not controversial that one uses "normal working hours" (e.g. whilst in the office) to read these books.
However, my problem is with books that are not directly related to my research, but which pertain to topics that might be indirectly related to it, or which I think might be interesting to explore in order to foster interdisciplinary work, or which are of another sub-discipline I don't research on, or books that refer to academia and science in general, or to teaching. Naturally, there are hundreds of these books published every year, and I do not aim to read them all. But some are of particular interest to me.
Is it socially acceptable for one to use "working hours" to read these books? Or are these expected to be read only outside work, e.g. on weekends, or holidays, or so? What's your experience on this?
Context: I'm a standard "early career researcher" in academia, with both research and teaching responsibilities.<issue_comment>username_1: It's socially acceptable to do (almost) whatever you want during academic "free time". Ultimately what matters are the results you produce, and as long as you're able to do that most people will not care if you're reading general interest books, drinking coffee, or answering questions on StackExchange.
Of course, if you have assigned duties (e.g. teaching duties) then using that time to read books is not going to be permissible.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is perfectly okay to read books at work as long as you are able to do your assigned duties. Once <NAME> said,
>
> A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies . . . The man who never reads lives only one.
>
>
>
I have personally felt it. Reading books gives you the imagination and power of thinking out of the box. You would always find top class CEOs or CxOs reading books during their free time. Reading is essential for those who seek to rise above the ordinary. Reading your interesting books also provide you overall satisfaction and personal experience which ultimately increases your performance and attention at the job. Moreover, long story in short, The man who does not read good books is no better than the man who can’t. Keep reading and be happy.
Amen!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: General workplace answer goes something like:
>
> Ask your manager, and be ready to argument for whatever you plan to do. But it is manager's prerogative to specify and prioritize your workplace activities.
>
>
>
Academia is a special case of workplace, so asking is always a good idea. I imagine that worst case scenario would be your boss saying:
>
> Sure, not problem, as long as that doesn't interfere with your responsibilities. And maybe not at your desk, so that people passing by have no desire to stop and chat about the book [*in case of open space for example - aaaa*]
>
>
>
On the other hand, academia is a *special* case of workplace so I doubt anyone would care if you read a book even at your desk. Even if it is not directly or even tangentially related to your work. As long as you fulfill your duties.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Research is such a variable area that you never know WHAT is coming down the road next. You may not need something right now, but spending some time trying to maintain a big picture when your own work is a tightly cropped photo often pays off. Reading stuff outside your own area will make you a better researcher.
If you're worried about the time you spend doing it, budget that time. For example, set aside a few hours a week for such a purpose. If you think it's important, don't skip this time. Conversely, if you think about 2 hours a week is right, don't spend three or four.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: You mentioned that your responsibilities include *teaching* as well as research. A good teacher will often go off on brief tangents designed to raise student's interest (although a bad teacher will get lost there). An example from my own field (mathematics) is that I regularly teach a course in cryptography. Almost everything in classical cryptography is technically irrelevant in modern cryptography. Nevertheless, whenever I teach cryptography, I sprinkle my lectures with tidbits from military history involving code breaking, including lesser known ones such as the breaking of the German ADFGX cipher in 1918 and its role in halting the German Spring Offensive. The only way I know about such things is that I *read* about them, sometimes even in semesters during which I am not currently teaching such a course, in books which are only tangentially related to my discipline. I've never felt it inappropriate to read such books in my office but instead leave them scattered around in plain sight. A certain amount of outside reading is not only appropriate, but is indeed almost essential if you are to be a well-rounded teacher.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/04/23
| 922
| 3,852
|
<issue_start>username_0: Part of my post-doc has involved organizing a series of workshops. At some of these workshops, I end up with many roles. As an example, for the most recent workshop I wrote the proposal to get the funding, served as organizer, gave a talk/tutorial related to my research, and gave a (teaching) tutorial on some general skills useful in the field. (These workshops are more like schools: teaching grad students and post-docs about best practices.)
My question is: What parts should end up on my CV, and where? It feels ridiculous if some workshops show up 3 or 4 times (under headings for funded proposals, workshop organization, and talks). On the other hand, it was all a lot of work.
In addition, there were some workshops where I only gave a talk, and some where I was an organizer, but didn't write the funding proposal. It seems weird to include a talk from the one where I wasn't an organizer, and not include a talk that served the same purpose when I **was** an organizer.
What's the standard/recommended practice in this case? For context, my work is at the border of chemistry and physics, so to the extent that a lot of CV stuff is domain-specific, those are the relevant domains.<issue_comment>username_1: Maybe you can create a heading for "Workshop Experience", "Workshop Facilitated" or something along these lines. Then include all your workshop experiences there. You may have responsibilities such as:
* Wrote the proposal for the initial funding and organization of the workshop
* Gave a talk on ... (if needed to include the talk's name)
* Reviewing submissions
* Serving on committees (or lead sessions)
* Coordinating and organizing events and conferences
* Making ...
* ...
You may also modify the format above and in front of each activity, name the workshops where you did that task.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Disclaimer: I am not from your field so YMMV.
Assuming that you are applying for an academic position, the first order of business in any CV should be awards/research, followed by teaching experience, followed by professional service. What you're describing sounds like it falls under professional service. Did you have an official title in these workshops? If so, I'd list it as
Workshop of Physical Chemistry
* Title1 (2017)
* Title2 (2018)
and so on. If you chaired a workshop, and it's a known/prestigious workshop in your field, then just knowing your role would give people all the information they need (in my field chairs manage the program, decide the schedule, invite speakers etc. so I don't need to start detailing my roles, it's common knowledge). If it's not a very well-known workshop or doesn't follow the standard in your field for some reason, I would either not list it since it's not sufficiently important, or perhaps (if you feel it's important enough) say one sentence.
I would not put teaching roles in professional workshops as part of your teaching experience (unless they're really a summer school mini-course). You can reflect ad consolidate these things in your teaching statement.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Group *funding* and *organizer* into a single title, list them under the *service* section of your CV (which will also include reviewing activities, for instance), and describe your role there.
Whether you list *research* and *tutorial talks* depends on whether you have a *presentations* section. Both can be listed if so. Alternatively, both could be listed in the *publications* section, if they were accompanied by manuscripts that appeared in any workshop proceedings.
As careers progress, *presentation* sections get dropped and *invited talks* sections get added. (If either or both of your talks were invited talks, then list them in such a section, they're considered prestigious.)
Upvotes: -1
|
2019/04/23
| 2,408
| 9,710
|
<issue_start>username_0: A person I know cheated through most of their science classes while an undergrad. They literally had someone else take the exams, write reports, and do most of the homework. They then took their stellar GPA and not so stellar GRE score and got admitted to a not so great PhD program.
A new significant other at grad school wrote a lot of their papers. This person ingratiated themselves with the head of the department – they are a schmooze king. They gained favor by doing physical work that very few of the other grad students would do. Their doctoral thesis was weak and the defense round wasn't difficult. They were awarded their PhD. Mind you, they still can't explain to me nearly anything about basic chemistry, organic chemistry or biochemistry concepts. I'm talking like sn1, sn2, benzene rings, buffers, etc...
This person now has a job with a pharmaceutical company doing anything but real science. They're basically a pharmaceutical rep out selling drugs to various physicians in a territory.
Do I tell their employer? Do I tell the university? Do I let it go? I have no way to prove anything. I'm sure none of those people that took the tests in their place will come forward and tell the truth. This person has gotten away with fraud.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> He literally had someone else take the exams for him
>
>
>
If you wanted to speak out, that was really the right time, not so many years later when damage is done and every accusation is virtually unprovable.
>
> His doctoral thesis was weak and the defense round wasn't difficult.
>
>
>
There are many weak PhD theses around, and it's up to the universities and to the defense committees to decide which level of weakness is acceptable before rejecting a candidate (gosh, if we were to object to any "weak" degree...).
>
> Do I tell his employer? Do I tell the university? Do I let it go?
>
>
>
You let it go because, as you said, you've nothing to prove your accusations (and the university would have no interest in undertaking an investigation after such a long time without any evidence to start with). And he is now in industry, and it's up to his employer to decide whether to promote or demote him according to his work performance and to decide whether the PhD title is just a vacuous document in his hands.
Different is the case where, for instance, you can prove that a student cheated by plagiarising other works. Here, there is evidence that can be used to revoke a degree, as it happened in some cases.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: You should stop beating the horse, because it is dead now. You had a chance but you lost it when you were in school and when something could have done about it. Right now, I believe you don't have any option other than letting it go. I can imagine your frustation in seeing him moving up the ladder (probably higher than you). If you didn't say anything when it actually could have changed anything, you should make peace with it now.
Even if you tell his employer now, what proof do you have to prove your allegation? University probably won't have any interest in pursuing this now. Honestly speaking, I sense jealousy in your post that he is doing good after all this. What you call "schmooze king", is actually a desirable skill in industry. More connections you can make, better are your chances to move up the ladder faster. So I would say, stop being obsessive with his success (with fraud or otherwise), and focus on your career.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with others generally regarding your specific question about telling the school(s). You missed your chance to really stop him when you should have, at least if you cared about him not getting undeserved degrees.
However I strongly disagree with some of these "let it go" answers, at least in terms of their lack of concern. An unqualified chemist who doesn't know the fundamentals (that their resume claims they know) can literally kill people. Stories abound of such idiots in chemistry-related industries. As for the answer extolling "hard work". A person who worked hard to be a fraud sounds like a more dangerous type of fraud to me.
A pharmaceutical rep shouldn't be in a position to do any damage, *if everyone else does their job properly*. But with those credentials he is especially dangerous as people might be more trusting of a phd's claims. And let's not forget this is a guy who doesn't care about silly things like "rules" or doing things the right way.
Your concern needs to be about the damage he can do now. And the people who would care about that are his employer. However this is beyond the scope of this forum and I really don't have an answer how to address that. It is much more specific and legal question to your situation. Generally, others are probably right that there's not much you can do at this point from afar.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I mean there is nothing actionable you have now, but this dude clearly doesn't care about rules, and I'm sure he cheats in some capacity again, so you catch him in his most recent round of cheating (seems like a lot of work) or you just reveal his basic lack of chem knowledge somehow (also seems like a lot of work).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> I have no way to prove anything. I'm sure none of those guys that took his tests for him will come forward and tell the truth. He has gotten away with fraud.
>
>
>
If you have no evidence of wrongdoing then, even if you decided to do something, there is really not much you could legitimately do. Allegations of the type you are making are serious, and would require evidence. If you are confident that you would not be able to obtain corroborating evidence of your assertions, then there is really no reasonable prospect of any successful action against this person. So yes, in the absence of any evidence of the asserted wrongdoing, he has gotten away with it.
As to the possibility of telling his employer, if you make adverse allegations in this way, and they cause this person employment damage, this could potentially give rise to a legal action against you for defamation. There is a "defence of truth" in such actions, but this requires to person making allegations to prove these on the balance of probabilities. If you are considering doing this you should first seek legal advice.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I think an important point is clearly missing in the other answers:
**If the goal of a PhD is to make science going forward, he reached the goal !** Perhaps in a non standard way and, in my opinion, by far not the easiest way. Nevertheless research went (a bit) forward thanks to his ability of making other people work for him.
So, not only you should let it go, but I think you should also respect the fact that he could "cheat" a whole study plus PhD which sounds like an almost impossible task for me.
Maybe you should suggest him to do a degree in management. Sounds like it would really fit him.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: Relax. His cheating has earned him nothing except a worthless piece of paper. He knows he doesn't have the skills to do scientific research, and most likely his employer has worked it out too.
All he's done is waste a number of years when he could have been climbing the corporate sales ladder. Someone with those smoozing skills and lack of ethics could have started as a commission-based shop assistant, moved to used cars or real-estate and then a big corporate sales department, or even politics. He'd be a lot richer and more senior if he'd concentrated on the things he was good at.
I wouldn't even worry about his clients. No one expects a salesman to be particularly knowledgeable in their field (or they'd be in research or operations rather than sales) or to be particularly honest.
Be happy that he's found a job that suits him, and for all the research scientists who don't have to work with him.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_8: >
> I have no way to prove anything.
>
>
>
Then it is unclear to me why you are asking years after you could have done something,
like tipping off people who would be involved in his defense.
>
> He has gotten away with fraud.
>
>
>
A lot of people do.
A friend of mine is a laughing stock within his family because it took him years longer to finish his degree than his cousin who did it in four years (plus summer school).
*Except* that the cousin didn't finish in 4 years, in fact *he didn't even finish*.
Their university allows people to "walk" in May if they can graduate using summer school.
He registered for the summer school courses, invited his family to see him walk, walked (with them watching), dropped the courses, and got his parents money back.
He doesn't have the degree like your relative does, but since everyone in his family thinks he does it is kind'a the same thing.
Let it go.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: If he was capable of getting both a masters and a PhD by ingratiating himself, going the extra mile and convincing others of the quality his not so good work - being a sales rep at a pharmaceutical firm sounds like just where he should be. He took his meager skills far, well done to him. Stop being a child, mind your own performance, mind your own path. Where do YOU want to go?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: First, at this point you could only tell his employers. Imho this would be commendable. But I'm bitterly afraid that pharma companies do not expect anything good in terms of morality from their reps, so you'll probably only help in promoting him.
Upvotes: -1
|
2019/04/23
| 1,283
| 5,407
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got accepted into a PhD program, but I wasn't offered any funding through assistantships. I emailed a person in charge, and I was told that if I receive good grades in the first semester, it would be possible to get funding. The email also seemed to suggest that there is still a chance that I could receive funding, but it's hard to understand since the email was strangely written.
I really want to go through with this, but I need to eat. Not only will I be out of state, but I need to start living like a human being. I don't even have a car for goodness sake. I finished paying off my undergraduate loans, which were significantly smaller because my family helped me out with that. But no one will help me with the graduate program.
What do I do? Do I be really upfront and clear that I need funding? I emailed the person back to make sure that if I get good grades that I'll get funded, and not just a vague potential of it. But I haven't asked about the possibility of getting some funding right off the bat (since they said I haven't been considered yet for it, and I don't want to be a nuisance).<issue_comment>username_1: I'm going to have to guess that it might be best to consider taking a pass on the offer. The possibility of funding under these circumstances seems slim, and aren't likely to improve.
If you are willing to take the risk, you could just inform them that you would be unable to accept their offer without adequate funding. They might well withdraw the offer and you would need to look elsewhere.
But, unless you think this is the best offer you are going to get, it might be time to reassess, look elsewhere, and try to build up your finances. It might be a longer, but possible, path to your goals.
But if you start and don't get funded, then you are already on the longer path. Think carefully about the risk and the options.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: My advice for "typical" students seeking a Ph.D. degree is that you should not pay tuition for the degree and that you should receive assistantship or fellowship funding to compensate you for the time you spend working as a research/teaching trainee with a faculty advisor or advisors.
Reputable doctoral programs have access to one or both of the following types of assistantship funding: teaching assistantships funded by the department, college, or university; and/or research assistantships funded by individual faculty or sometimes by the department. Fellowship funding might come from the university or from external sources.
If a department or faculty advisor has not committed funding for your Ph.D., then this means that other students (new or continuing) have been selected for funding ahead of you. When they tell you that you might receive funding if things go well, it usually also means that either someone else must leave the program unexpectedly early or that they will commit some of next year's funding to you instead of to an applicant in next year's cycle. This sometimes does work out but puts all of the financial risk on you, the student. This is not fair. For this reason, my department does not allow unfunded Ph.D. students. Do not take an unfunded offer of Ph.D. admission.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In the U.S., in mathematics, if you are accepted to a Ph.D. program without funding, there's already something suspicious... Most good places do not do this any more, though 30-40 years ago it was more common.
At best, if you enter that program, you've already been appraised as not as promising as the people who *are* funded. Given the limited staffing for advising/mentoring and supervising research, you're starting out at the very back of the line. And, indeed, staffing for scientifically expert mentors and so on is one of the not-so-publicized difficulties in graduate programs.
At least in mathematics... absolutely only go to a PhD program that will pay your tuition and give you a stipend. Even if you're "accepted" to an allegedly better program without funding, the odds are strongly against your coming out of that stronger program in a good situation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I have some experience: I got into a PhD program in mathematics without funding (this was in 2006). I had a bad undergrad GPA, mediocre subject GRE scores, but good grades in my math courses and some strong letters of recommendation. So they were willing to take a chance by admitting me, but I had to "prove myself" to get funding. I was able to impress some people with my work, and pass preliminary exams quickly, so was offered support in my second semester.
As far as whether you should: This is a really big risk. You need to think carefully about what your chances of success are, and what financial possibilities your degree will open for you. Are there well-paying jobs available outside of academia? Also, if you don't get offered support your second semester, do you stay one more? What if you don't get offered support in your second year? When do you cut your losses?
I would really only do this if you feel like you have not been performing up to your full potential for some reason leading into grad school (health problems, youthful mistakes, etc.). In this case you have a good chance to prove that you are in fact capable of being a successful student worthy of funding. Otherwise, I would pass.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/23
| 1,029
| 4,460
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an amateur mathematician. I have trained myself on math-related websites and other resources. However, the lack of technical knowledge, methods, and sociological culture usually shared by professional mathematicians has prevented me from going further and publishing rigorous and interesting results.
Many amateurs, often outside areas where universities are easy to reach, face the same hurdles. I know a lot of them are cranks but not all of them are: some have extremely good computational skills, an extremely original vision of maths and sometimes a lot of time on their hands.
**What can be done to bridge this gap between amateurs and professionals**? How can we give amateurs the codes and techniques needed to enrich the corpus of mathematical results with new, fresh and interesting contributions?
For example, could retired professions create a free resource that links universities and labs to amateurs? In this way, the retired professionals could act as "pre-referees," teaching the amateurs how to write a paper, and collaborating on the research itself? There could even be a magazine in which publications resulting from this are published.<issue_comment>username_1: There are many ways to contribute to a scientific body of knowledge without professional training. Nowadays it's actually much easier via platforms such as SE and ArXiv. If you have an amazing new idea - write it down formally, put it on ArXiv/MO and you'll get plenty of reviews (on MO) and a platform to showcase your work (ArXiv). If your idea is good and is related to something that some mathematician is currently studying, I am certain that sending the paper to them will at the very least elicit a reply and possibly a discussion.
In my opinion, the reason you don't see a lot of these bridges being built is that professional academics don't see a need to build them. They already have access to rigorously trained students and fellow professors: why spend time trying to figure out which amateur mathematician is worth talking to? Many amateur mathematicians are simply not rigorous enough and do not produce high-level results. The cases where it does happen are just too rare and not worth the time and effort required to find them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: First, I can't help but notice your complaints are extremely vague and the language is evasive. You don't like *"sociological culture usually shared by professional mathematicians"*, but it's hard to guess what you mean by that, and what are specific *"aforementioned issues"* you have problems with. Put it into plain words, please.
However, I can give a general comment. Amateurs might indeed have brilliant ideas, and this is true for all branches of science from history and linguistics to maths and chemistry. Amateurs can write papers and submit it to journals/conferences as we at universities do.
The problem is usually in, as you say, *"lack of technical knowledge and methods"*, which in practice means that these papers are often poorly written (I had to review some) and aren't ready to be published. Your idea of "bridging the gap" by effort of retired professionals is rather popular among amateurs: we might have brilliant ideas, and all we lack is just knowledge of *some technicalities*, so we just need someone to take care of them, so we can focus on the *big things*.
Unfortunately, working in science is a full-time job, and dealing with "technicalities" takes most time. I would go as far as saying that understanding the methods and being able to write a decent paper is as important as having bright mind full of cool ideas.
Potential "gap-bridgers" should 1) be good in several wide areas (while academics usually specialize in narrow fields); 2) devote a lot of free time to find grains of brilliance among 99% waste generated by amateurs; 3) do the hardest and least rewarding work by turning mere ideas into something publishable; 4) neglect own interests in favor of pursuing someone else's agenda.
Summing up, an amateur doesn't necessarily have to undergo a formal training and get a PhD. However, having good understanding of methodology and paper writing is vital. There are books devoted to this subject -- take your time and acquire the necessary knowledge rather than waiting for someone to do the job. If you still need help, try to collaborate with people having more experience and write a joint paper.
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/04/23
| 2,307
| 9,757
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the middle of the current semester, a student in my large lecture class (of an undergraduate course) asked me for a letter of recommendation, to supplement his application to transfer to another, much stronger, school. (In case this matters: this is in the U.S.)
He is one of the quiet students: while he doesn't actively participate, he doesn't cause any trouble either. So during that first half of the semester I didn't have any personal communication with him, and therefore I didn't really know him; I mean I didn't have anything to say about him as a person. But he attended class, and his first two midterm test grades were A (90+ numerically). So I told him that I agree to write the letter, but it would be short because I can only write what I know about him, which isn't much: I could only say that I've known him for half of the semester and that so far he has been performing really well. The student said it's fine. So I wrote and submitted a letter of recommendation.
This was a month ago. Fast forward to today, and by now he's like a totally different student: he's still quiet and doesn't cause any trouble, but he often skips classes, and his third midterm exam was an F (50 out of 100).
I know that it's not about me, and I don't take this personally. It may sound like he changed his ways as soon as he's gotten what he wanted from me, but that would be silly of me to assume. Probably it's just that he believes that he's already in the other school and doesn't care about this school anymore.
But my dilemma is that now I know that he is not the kind of student that I described in my letter and recommended to be accepted to the other school. By putting my name on the letter I effectively vouched for him and his ability to perform at a certain level. To me, it's as if I made a promise to the other university, but now I see that I misled them (albeit unintentionally).
Do you think it's a good idea to contact the other university and request that my letter of recommendation be retracted from his application package? Any thoughts or advice?<issue_comment>username_1: I think you should do nothing.
(Nothing with respect to the letter, that is. You may of course want to consider intervening with the student as you would with any other student whose performance suddenly drops off. As <NAME> says, he may be experiencing some sort of academic or non-academic problem.)
>
> By putting my name on the letter I effectively vouched for him and his ability to perform at a certain level. To me, it's as if I made a promise to the other university, but now I see that I misled them (albeit unintentionally).
>
>
>
I don't see it that way. You couldn't possibly make promises about his future performance, and the receiving university will not have interpreted it that way. They are well aware that "past performance is no guarantee of future results". Provided you made an honest assessment based on what you knew at the time, your letter was in no way misleading, and you have no obligation to correct it.
Proactively sending a followup unrecommendation would come across as somewhat vindictive, and I think it's sort of an ethical gray area. The student consented to having you send a letter, sharing his academic progress, at a particular time; I think it's a little questionable whether that consent extends to having you send additional letters. (However, if the other university should contact you to ask about him, I do think it would be appropriate to give them an update on his more recent work - but to me that feels different.)
That said, I don't think the student is really likely to profit from this anyway:
* Your initial letter, saying "I've known him for half a semester and so far he's doing fine in this one class", can't really have done much good for his application in the first place. If the other university is "much stronger", having such a letter, in place of a very positive letter from someone that knew him well, may have sunk his application from the outset.
* If he does receive an offer of admission, it will almost certainly be contingent on continued satisfactory academic progress. The other university will review his final transcripts before he actually starts in the program. If he receives a poor grade in your class, they may very well revoke his admission. Indeed, discussing this possibility with the student may encourage him to shape up.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Based on your statements, all that you vouched for is the performance of the student **at that point in time**.
* What confidence can you provide in the new behavior of the student being his "true" character (rather than a sign of an unknown external pressure)?
* In what way would you retract your letter that will not cause you to appear as being vindictive?
* What reason can you give to retract your letter that is not covered equally if not better by the outcome that this student is on track to earn a lower final course grade on his transcript?
With so many unknowns, your first instinct should not be to retract the letter.
* When you care first to know why the behavior has changed, call the student for a visit and give him a chance to explain why.
* When you care first not to be seen as vindictive, call the student for a visit, explain to him that you face such a decision, and give him the chance to defend himself.
* When you want nothing less than a recognition that your letter then was only for his performance at that point in time, allow the student now his time to complete his own record of his performance past that point.
To conclude, [this link from an article in Psychology Today Jan 2013](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/witness/201301/the-best-predictor-future-behavior-is-past-behavior) also provides background for my summary of the opening statement to relate current behavior as a predictor of future behavior. Other citations could likely be found branching from this.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: A recommendation letter is/should as close as to your perception of the truth as possible as to the time of writing.
If you have sent it, retraction would be inappropriate (unless you got notice that the student achieved his marks by cheating).
Of course, a future recommendation letter may be not that brilliant, and you should let the student know that you'd rather not send another one if he asks you for it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Why not use this as a chance to open a conversation? "Hey, I noticed that you stopped participating after I wrote your recommendation letter. Is everything okay?"
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> Do you think it's a good idea to contact the other university and request that my letter of recommendation be retracted from his application package?
>
>
>
No. Because revoking a letter of recommendation suggests something extremely bad has occurred (as people very rarely do this AFAIK) - much worse than a student getting a couple of poor grades. More generally, unless you were misled into providing a letter, or if its contents is patently false (which is not the case with your letter) - I wouldn't even begin to consider acting to retract the letter.
>
> Any thoughts or advice?
>
>
>
Yes. **You should not have written a letter of recommendation for someone you don't know** beyond a few numeric grades. Other than attesting that person has not misbehaved in class nor shown themselves to be incompetent - you can't really say anything meaningful about them. But a letter of recommendation says *a lot*. It imputes meaningful acquaintance with the recommended person. It suggests you know them and vouch for them, generally.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: You should not retract the letter. If you wrote it honestly, it represents the accurate picture of the student at the time of writing. There is nothing wrong with it, except as someone noticed, it is not a very strong recommendation, but this is not your fault.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: You should not retract the letter because it is perfectly correct. It was at the of writing, and it still is. The facts did not change, because the date on the letter specifies up to which date it applies. Regarding it's effect, I see no reason they will or should not trust the letter. They can assume his behavior changed in correlation with the transition to another school, which is correct. Whether it is caused or at all related with the transition is not clear at all, it may be completely for independent reasons.
Independent of that, I could imagine that the change is caused by the transition, but completely fine: He may have no use for the grades and the actual content of the lecture, because he knows he will have more in depth lectures in he topic soon, or because he lost interest in the topic earlier, changes his topic, and is no longer forced to learn it anyway. He could be the "previous student" in the new school.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: Let it go. I think there is a little bit of a logical/philosophical/character flaw in many academics (so valuing precision over a more Bayesian view of the universe) to want to regulate things around them. (We see the same things with reviewers that think they control if a paper is accepted or not, rather than just being advisors to the editor/author.)
You wrote a valid letter. Going out on your own to write ad hoc (not requested) negative letters is uncool. Settle down and be more phlegmatic, more Stoic, more Zen.
And don't you have something else to work on? To worry about? Go invent a room temperature superconductor or solve a Millennium Problem or something.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/23
| 260
| 1,159
|
<issue_start>username_0: Just wondering if anyone has ever been asked this question during a PhD interview: If you get a place without funding, would you be able/willing to self-fund?
My interviewer said that it was compulsory to ask this question.<issue_comment>username_1: Short answer: Yes.
Slightly longer answer:
Some programs that aren't able to guarantee fully funding their students often ask this question just in case they run across some issues with securing funding from the school. Some programs ask this question during the interview but from my experience, most ask during the application process. For me personally, the question usually asked how much money I would be able to take out of my own pocket to pay for tuition (I always just wrote "0").
Since I'm not on the faculty of whatever program you applied to, I can't speak for your program, but they may take your answer into consideration for whether to accept you into the program or not.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I have not heard of this question, but I come from a university and discipline with perhaps more stable grant funding support for studentships.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/24
| 848
| 3,428
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in engineering in an university in Canada. I am close to completion of my thesis but I am not very proud of my work. I have couple of publications from my work, all in decent journals. I feel that I have not utilized the opportunities available to me and wasted time in personal activities that did nothing to my CV.
Owing to my inadequate performance during PhD. I am constantly regretting my decision of pursuing higher studies. I was never a star student. My undergrad was from a very low ranking school where I had received very average grades. However, I somehow got into the top graduate school where too I struggled in getting average grades. My research there was very unimpressive and not a single professor urged me to pursue PhD. My master's advisor even expressed shock when I had asked for his recommendation for applying to PhD school.
However, luck struck again, and I got into a reputed PhD program. My advisor has had a lot of patience with me. She is a hands off kind of person, but she has never complained about my performance till date. Now as I am completing my thesis, I am confused about my future career trajectory.
I feel like I do not belong to academia or research industry as I don't possess the necessary skills (sound technical skills, exceptional analytical skills and focus). I feel like a failure who is in a wrong profession. I really don't know what to do now.
My only reason for pursuing PhD in my current field of study was that I loved the process of researching. I loved finding reason behind why a physical phenomenon occurs. But, I now feel that just love for research is not an adequate reason for doing PhD or master's degree.
In short; I have realized that I am not not suitable for academia or research industry as I don't possess the necessary skills for pursuing research. I should have taken the engineering job after my undergrad as I was never built for a life in research.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't want this to sound wrong, but those "star" researchers / inventors need support and there are many places where competent people are needed.
The other thing you don't touch on is teaching - do you enjoy seeing others benefit when you explain something? If that gives you a buzz, then check out that direction.
Best wishes anyway.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: So you are going to finish your PhD soon and you are thinking about what to do?
I understand your regrets, but they don't help you (as you probably know yourself).
The question remains: What are your options now?
First of all, you do not make a decision for your entire life. You can start a research position and leave it after three years, it is not really helpful to try to plan for 30 years of more. You can either try to get a research position after your PhD, and if you get one, decide again after two to three years. Or you can look for challenging positions in the industry. Both approaches are entirely sensible.
Just don't consider leaving academia as a failure. Most people leave academia sooner or earlier and many find an interesting, good job.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You say
>
> My only reason for pursuing PhD in my current field of study was that **I loved the process of researching.**
>
>
>
There. That's the core. Do what you love. If you won't, you'll regret it for the rest of your life.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/24
| 767
| 2,872
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently engaged in some volunteer data work with a charity, I would like to create a write up of the work that can be shared with a few partners who do not have full access to the data.
The write up will be mostly statistical overview, which is not sensitive. The statistics are drawn from data-sets which are GDPR protected. In order to illustrate the data pipeline a few examples would be useful, so I will create a small fictional data-set with the same form as the real data.
To avoid any confusion, I need to declare that the examples are fiction (illustrative only) but the statistics are real. Is there a standard way to go about this?
It will look like;
>
> The result of the data pipeline will be to tranform mixed type data
> into a float vector the input is .... Output fields are .... For
> example;
>
>
> "Joe
> Bloggs|Carmarthen|06:00|Negative|1995|May|Finance|271946"
>
>
> will become
>
>
> "267.3|82.|168.|-35.|.0777|1648".
>
>
>
Note the example is *not* an anonymized record drawn from my data, it is pure fiction.<issue_comment>username_1: How about " real data, but the names / labels have been changed"
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It is common to use words like "fictitious", "fake data", and even a footnote explicitly saying "these are not actual values" or "values for illustrative purposes only". It is even more common to just pick values intentionally that are obviously fake, so that no reasonable person will think they might be real, such as "<NAME>|Gotham|01:11|1999|Jan|Accounting|12345" - etc.
I will however note that there is a way to handle this specific case that is even more high-level, which is just not to do this at all, because most stakeholders couldn't care less, much less even know what a float vector is or how they are suppose to interpret it. Telling people details they don't need makes many people think it must be important so they try to latch on to any random interpretation they can think of - because why are you even telling them if it doesn't matter? So if they are not a very specific type of user, just leave this out entirely.
If they are in the tiny, tiny minority of stakeholders that care about this incredibly low-level amount of detail, then it is reasonable to assume they will recognize obviously fictitious data even if you don't say it, and if you really are worried you can just give an asterisk and say its fictitious - but that's already excessive. If you need to demonstrate for some sort of officious bureaucratic sect, declare in the footnote that the data is fictitious for illustrative purposes, persuant GDPR section blah subsection blah blah blah. Give the lawyers something to smile about, if that's your audience, but you shouldn't let it take over the rest of the presentation of the work.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2019/04/24
| 5,592
| 23,667
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an international, teaching at an American university, and I have an accent, which can be strong at times. I'm working hard at it, have always been, but still, the accent is there.
This has never been a problem in my career as a researcher because I was most of the time working with senior researchers and grad students. And even if they were native, they've never expressed any concern about my accent.
I'm sure that several times they didn't understand a specific word I was saying but they catch the meaning from the context. Sometimes, people asked me to repeat in an informal way by simply saying "what's that?" or "say it again".
Last year, when I started to teach undergrads, which are unlikely to have experienced different accents, I had some issues.
Some students asked me to repeat and I gladly did. My concern is related to those students that didn't ask, either because they are shy or because they thought that by asking I would be offended.
This next semester (yes, I'm going to teach in the summer) I'm thinking to tell my students in the very first minutes of the first class about my accent and tell them that I'm totally fine if they need me to repeat some words.
I'm not sure about it, because I've read that the first 6 minutes with a new class are the most important ones, and by showing this "weakness" they will conclude that I'm not capable, knowledge-wise, to teach them.
A mentor of mine told me I should talk openly about my accent, and add that in addition to English, I fluently speak two other languages and can understand two others. Trying then to make a balance between my "weakness" (my accent when speaking English) and my knowledge with languages.<issue_comment>username_1: A difference isn't a weakness. Don't think of it that way. You may find difficulty in communicating because of that difference, but it is just that, a difference. People in the US from Alabama and those from Boston speak English with different accent and different idioms. Eventually we get used to hearing a different accent so the effect lessens.
In fact, you and I would have a lot of trouble communicating since I am quite deaf and technological solutions are only partial. Even it the best of situations a speaker sometimes needs to repeat or - better - say an equivalent thing with different words.
But the first few minutes is, IMO, a good time to introduce yourself and how you speak. In fact, it can be fun if you "put on" an extreme version of your accent, just to show the range. Cockney slang, for example.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Accents are tricky, especially in large lecture halls where students hear you over a mic, and can't see your lips. Different regions might have different opinions on what accents are difficult, depending on what other native language groups the undergrads may have been exposed to.
In my opinion, it would go a long way for your undergraduates to say something like:
>
> As you may have noticed, English isn't my first language. I know sometimes that makes it hard to understand certain words. Please don't hesitate to ask me to repeat something.
>
>
>
This might help with students who are shy or don't want to offend you by asking.
If you like, you could mention the other languages you're familiar with to encourage speakers of those languages to connect with you, or just as a fun fact (personally, I'd be curious to know). I wouldn't mention it to make yourself seem somehow *better* than them, as that could needlessly add feelings of resentment.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with others that it would be good for you to address your accent. In fact, I would suggest that you add a statement to your course syllabus offering help and encouraging students to speak up if they can't understand you.
As an academic advisor at a university that has a high first-generation population, I often talk with students who are struggling to succeed in a class where the professor has a strong accent. When I ask whether they've spoken with the faculty member about the issue, they often reply that they have been too shy or thought it would be disrespectful to do so. Having a written statement in your syllabus offering asking if they can't understand you (as well as speaking about it verbally) may then make them feel empowered to help themselves by asking for help! :)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You certainly can, as other answers have suggested. But if you get the feeling - over one or two semesters of teaching - that this is impeding your work in class, don't consider it beneath you to try to get some professional assistance in practicing your diction. Very often, people are taught foreign languages with almost no training in pronunciation and diction - which can be quite challenging depending on your native language. (As a personal example - I find the tonal pronunciation requirements in Chinese horribly difficult!)
Also note that even if you tell your students it's ok to ask you to repeat yourself or speak more clearly - some students would still feel embarrassed or that it's out-of-place for them to do so; plus, after asking that two or three or four times, more students will begin feeling embarrassment of making such repeated requests.
If it's not that bad then forget everything I said :-)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm Australian and teach, 9 years, Engineering related subjects in Australia to students of a wide range of International backgrounds. In the process of introducing myself at the start of the semester I ask the students to put up their hand if they know what a *dunny* is. Most do not. I then explain that although I try to keep to *normal* English, occasionally I slip into colloquial Australian English. Due to this the students should show NO hesitation in asking me to explain/repeat/expand on anything I'm talking about. They will not offend me by doing so.
I emphasise that I do not want anyone failing because they could not understand me. For some students this appears almost liberating, to others, they still just sit there, eyes rolled back in their head, as per normal
In closing, my advise, if you are confident in your knowledge and are fine with the occasional question from the students, put it out there at the start of the semester and the students will respect you more.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Don't make a fuss about it, just tell them to ask if there's something they don't understand due to the accent - I had lectures in multinational group - neither me nor students being using english natively, everyone with different accents and noone had any problems asking again to repeat stuff, me included.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: My answer goes against the other ones here (including the accepted one).
**Before I explain why**, however, I commend you for even thinking about this. If you have identified this as a weakness, and something that affects the quality of your lectures, then **you are already one step ahead of the game**. My experience with most educators in the same situation is that they do not seem to consider it *their* problem. The mentality seems to be that they've spent years learning the language, and possibly even consider themselves highly proficient in the grammatical sense, having written many academic articles in pristine English, so there's nothing wrong with *their* English, and if people don't put the effort to understand them then that is *their* problem. This completely disregards the fact that **if as a listener you're expending an unusual amount of focus and effort simply to *decipher* what is being said, you're unlikely to be able to focus on the nuances of a lecture**. My own feeling when I attend lectures where the presenter has a bad pronunciation is that I leave feeling drained and having retained nothing despite having, in theory, deciphered all the words being spoken in the lecture.
Also, I would like to make a distinction between having a strong "accent", and effectively having incorrect "pronunciation". **A strong accent that does not harm pronunciation is typically a positive thing**, giving a lecturer a unique personality and charm. Therefore, the problem isn't having a regional "accent" per se. An "accent" **only becomes a problem when you are actually pronouncing things 'wrongly'**, forcing your listeners to backtrack and figure out what you meant. Errors in pronunciation (and sometimes even grammar, or unusual expressions), could be due to your own language learning background, making it difficult for others who do not share this background to understand you. The corollary of this of course is that, you will find that people of your own linguistic background will probably find you easier to understand when you mispronounce things the same way they are used to. If your university offers pronunciation training, then it would be something worth looking into.
**WHY IT'S A BAD IDEA TO START BY APOLOGISING**
>
> I'm not sure about it, because I've read that the first 6 minutes with a new class are the most important ones, and by showing this "weakness" they will conclude that I'm not capable, knowledge-wise, to teach them.
>
>
>
This is 100% spot on, and supported by literature. **It's a very bad idea to start your lecture with such an 'apology'**. It's absolutely fine (and encouraged) to **make students feel safe** by encouraging interruptions and asking of questions if something is missed or not understood, but you should separate this from the context of an 'apology' relating to **negative first impressions about your own shortcomings**!
From personal experience, and as you correctly suspected yourself, I would strongly advise you to avoid any opening statements that **directly imprint in the students a lack of quality of what is about to follow**. Linking to pedagogical literature, this relates directly to Maslow's hierarchy of needs in terms of feelings of psychological safety, as well as studies showing that teacher attitudes of 'defensiveness' and 'diffidence' **can directly affect student motivation and engagement**. This is particularly true in the case of externally motivated and extroverted students, who may feel you are actively about to risk their chances of obtaining their external goals, and may speak very vocally indeed about it.
If you start with such an apology, **you may be actively sabotaging the rest of the lecture, and possibly even the term**, if you fail to recover from that first impression. Furthermore, it may seem to you that such a 'fair warning' is respecting the students, but if you think about it, **the students are more likely to feel *disrespected***, in that they will feel that their personal agenda and goals is being disrespected by being unnecessarily put at risk because of *your* accent, and that you're basically now telling them they'll have to work and focus twice as hard. I.e. your opening statement will effectively plant in their head the negative thought that "Great, they've lumped me with a teacher who I won't even be able to understand most of the time", starting them off with a negative experience from the outset.
Worse, **they may even feel that you're effectively asking for permission to not bother** making the effort to speak more clearly than you would have if you hadn't warned them about it!
Your apology can also very easily backfire by turning into a **self-fulfilling prophecy**, where students will have a lower threshold to losing focus because "they've been warned you'd be hard to understand anyway".
Similarly, it could backfire by instead **deterring students from interrupting** and asking relevant questions, rather than encouraging them, if they feel uncomfortable that doing so would be effectively perceived by you as being called out on your accent, e.g. "great, the teacher has already shown to be self-conscious about their accent, it was literally the first thing he / she said, I don't want to be the guy that's going to keep pointing their accent out to them by saying I couldn't follow the point they're making".
Instead of words, act. Show you respect your students by actively being aware of it and seeking ways to work around it. E.g.
* while 'reading off slides' is generally not recommended, in your case you could make sure that anything you say that is a crucial point or contains jargon, is always also pointed out in words on a screen
* you could record your lectures and go through the effort of subtitling them after the fact, giving learners the opportunity to revise with subtitles
* you could consider an 'inverted classroom' format which relies more on advanced preparation followed by more personalised inputs at the lab
* ensure you have appropriate formative and summative feedback throughout, so that students can flag their own strengths and shortcomings, and form an impression on the quality of your teaching based on *that*, rather than any psychological feelings you managed to instill on them during first impressions.
Finally, do continue being aware of it, and ensure you make an effort to speak clearly during your lectures, and if possible, try to seek professional pronunciation coaching in the meantime. The worst thing you could do is apologise at the start, and then do nothing more about it. Your students will lose confidence in you straight away.
---
PS. Also, I completely disagree with your mentor's advice. If people are having trouble to understand you in the first place, and you counter that by saying you speak more languages than them, all you'll achieve by that is to frustrate them even more. It's totally unnecessary and irrelevant information. Not only will they not 'sympathise', but you risk giving the message that it's not really *your* weakness for not speaking correctly, but *their* weakness for not being 'linguistically literate' enough by your standards.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_8: Similar to the accepted answer:
>
> English is not my first language, in fact it is my third.
>
>
> Sometimes students have difficulty with a word or phrase that I use.
>
> Sometimes this confusion disappears because they understand the larger point I'm trying to make - but sometimes it doesn't.
>
>
> If you find yourself having trouble with what I'm teaching, I know it is a large class, but feel free to ask me to repeat myself - especially in the first few weeks.
>
>
> You may be helping someone else who is unclear about the concept I'm presenting.
>
>
>
You **are not apologizing** for your accent.
You are just **encouraging students** who are having trouble following you **to speak up** in a lecture hall. (For their own good)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: Have you considered enlisting help from a student before the first lecture?
If you arrive in the classroom with enough time before the first class, you find a student and ask them for a favor. You tell them that you want to encourage people to do as you have already described, ask a question or repeat something, and so you want them to specifically ask you to repeat something in the first few minutes of the lecture. They already have permission and know you want them to ask.
You can even create a specific sentence as a cue like "When I say XYZ, please ask me to repeat it".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: As someone who can still have issues understanding strong accents and feels embarrassed about it, I think a disclaimer like "I am aware I have a strong accent and will not be angry if you need me to repeat something or slow down" could go a very long way.
I often don't want to ask people to repeat things over and over and over because I don't want to seem like I don't understand or that I'm not learning their accent. Someone reassuring me (especially ahead of time) would definitely make me feel more comfortable asking.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: There's no need to think of clarifying procedures as a sign of weakness or apology. Keep it simple; you want this to be heard and understood, even if nothing else is. Simply start this way, in a strong and confident voice:
>
> Hello! I have an accent! If I say something you do not understand, I want you to tell me so! If you want me to repeat, then ask me to repeat! If that still does not work, then come to my office hours! In this class, we will be covering [syllabus etc.]
>
>
>
That's pretty much it -- again, keep it short, simple, and strong. The point is to clear their frustration and yours right at the start so you can all get on with the work.
(Most students will recognize the "hello" no matter how bad your accent is, and in that first moment their brains will start calibrating for what comes next. In the third and fourth sentences, you are repeating the same information in two different ways; most will get the meaning. Most will recognize "office hours" in the fifth sentence, and will understand that meaning as well. If you go over the syllabus next, and if they refer to their own copy or one up on the screen while you speak, then that continues the calibration process.)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_12: I once had an instructor who had one of those thick Chinese (I'm pretty sure) accents where not only was the pronunciation of some sounds quite jarring, the grammar was also just not quite there (random pluralisations, weird ways of asking questions, a couple overused set phrases). The worst part was, the teacher also spoke ridiculously fast. Like, imagine listening to a couple normal-speed sentences, and then hearing a jumble of syllables and maybe picking out a word or two. All in all, it was really hard to understand this person if you hadn't heard them before.
But the teacher had a good approach to it. At the beginning of the term, the teacher pointed out the accent, telling us that if we couldn't understand something that was said (or written: it was really obvious which assignments had been written by the teacher, since anything with no grammar mistakes couldn't have been original content), we should ask. And ask we did! The accent barrier could have been a huge problem, but the teacher largely eliminated the problem via those clarifications (e.g. "Sorry, what kind of function did you say that was called again?" "Oh, it was sinusoidal").
So, I believe that the teacher did a couple things that helped alleviate the situation:
* Ask students at the beginning of the term to not hesitate to ask for clarifications.
* Not admit any fault or weakness, but be sympathetic to confusion, especially during lectures, when words might get missed.
* Repeat things of importance.
* Beyond that, it shouldn't be an issue as long as the students are respectful about it (and frankly, if they aren't, you might have bigger problems).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: I would perhaps invite the students to feel free to interrupt you anytime they have troubles understanding what you say, but I would start mentioning first that it could be when they find a passage particularly hard or even obscure, and add that they are welcome even when trouble arises because of your accent.
Sound pride of your accent when saying so. Say that you know that sometimes is difficult as you must, or had to, speak and switch between several languages. You can even mention when and where it happened, as a way of presenting yourself.
(Speaking more than two languages, especially if learnt later, isn't trivial. And most students surely recognised it).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_14: American instructor (midatlantic) at a local university -- many words I know first from reading, not from hearing them, or technical terms I may completely misuse. I always asked students to let me know if I said something wrongly. So it's not just a non-native thing.
When doing readings for Librivox.org, I would always have m-w.com and a few other pronunciation guides open in different tabs, and if an upcoming paragraph seemed tricky, I'd check out the words. If you have a few words that are consistently misunderstood, I'd advise doing the same.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_15: ### As an international instructor, should I openly talk about my accent?
Of course, there is nothing to gain by refusing to talk about your accent. The students will hear it, anyway. If you talk about it, you may satisfy your students' curiosity and (maybe) create a better understanding.
### Should I talk about my accent in the very first minutes of my course?
This is an entirely different question, but I think that you should do so. In the first minutes, you'll likely say who you are, where you studied, how much experience in teaching you have, what you expect from your students,.. That's the right moment to solve the riddle of where you acquired your accent and to encourage the students to ask, whenever they don't understand you.
You won't damage your authority by evoking your accent: **A student who judges a teacher's quality by their accent is not qualified for university!**
You could make it clear that English is not your native language or maybe not even your first foreign language, but I wouldn't discuss the number of languages that you speak. It doesn't matter!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_16: I'll just add a couple anecdotes.
I once had a prof (a fairly young guy), with a pretty thick accent, begin the class with, "I will be teaching this class in language somewhat resembling to English." He sort of earned pre-forgiveness with that.
Second, I had another prof who was Italian and had a not-too-bad accent. But somehow he used it to his advantage. I'm not sure how, but I think maybe this was part of it: Native speakers tend to think of foreign speakers as simple-minded. I think this guy adopted a kind of simple-minded personality for the classroom, and the students' natural tendency to help the underdog made them more tolerant.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_17: **1.** A useful thing to do is to write key words and phrases on the board/display as you introduce them.
E.g. Today I would like to talk about polymorphism.
This way the students will not miss the most important words. Connecting words are easier to guess.
Incidentally I have a friend who has a very strong accent. It took me a while to understand more than a few words. Now that I have grown used to his way of speaking, I can understand. Of course your students will not want to wait for the 10th lecture before understanding, so ...
---
**2.**
In English perhaps the most important factor is not accent but **where the stress lies in the word.**
**Anecdote**
I had an encounter with a server when I was visiting Spain. She asked if I would like, keCHOOP. I had no idea what she meant. In fact she became irate, "You must know keCHOOP, you are English!"
Eventually she showed me the bottle and I said, "Oh, you mean KEtchup!"
This simple misplacement of stress made a common word unintelligible. Apart from that I had no problem with her Spanish accent.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_18: We all have accents. You are already very considerate regarding if the students will have any problems understanding your speech. I would have appreciated if my professor mention that they speak X dialect or X accent which would help me to know more about that variety/accent. Additionally, if you think there are words that you think might be challenging for them to understand or challenging for your to pronounce, you can always use visual help (e.g., writing, pointing out, images).
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/24
| 1,385
| 6,098
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently, one of my articles has been accepted in Frontiers. At first, I thought, Frontiers' journals are reputable and they acted like a reputable journal by just assigning an associate editor and then 2 reviewers to take care of my article. Last month, they sent the reviewers' comments. It was easy overall for both reviewers' comments. I sent the revised version and it got accepted. You know, Frontiers show the name of reviewers after that article is accepted. I checked the profile and research interests of both reviewers, but unfortunately none of them had any interest or published materials in the field of my article. Even one of them was from a really distant major that I study, which makes me think that their comments were easy cause they did not have any expertise in this field. Right now, I have a really bad feeling about it and want to know does it have any bad effect on me when someone looks at my article and see it got reviewed by some people without knowledge about this field? Any suggestion or recommendation is appreciated.
**Update**
I used financial hardship ground to withdraw my article from publishing and thanks to not paying their publishing fee as well as not approving the proof version of article and not transferring copyright to Frontiers, it seems they accepted to withdraw my article. In fact, they act pretty much like a predatory journal. I checked several published or accepted articles in that particular journal: "***Frontiers in Materials***" and indeed it seems there is no connection between peer-reviewers background and the reviewed articles. Also, the interesting thing, which I'm not sure how to interpret, is that usually the peer-reviewers of their articles are from same country or even same university as authors that might introduce high chance of conflict of interests... Anyway, I have a plan to submit it in a more prestigious journal in my field (definitely not OA).<issue_comment>username_1: The short answer is, you shouldn't be too worried, but you should make some deliberate choices with your next submissions.
As @BryanKrause mentions, the quality of *Frontiers in* depends on the specific journal. Some have better editors than others, who will/are able to recruit better reviewers, and therefore have a better review/editorial process. I have heard *Frontiers in Neuroscience* maintains higher standards.
Frontiers seems to revolve around 'special issues', so you will always need to consider who the specific editors of the issue are. I have noticed in some cases, these special issues are used to create an 'easy' venue for a specific community to generate papers out of a workshop or symposium. In other cases, the special issues can be considered quite serious.
Overall, *Frontiers in*, and the open-access publishing model in general, is very young. They are also trying out some rather radical ideas for the review process. Many people will be skeptical for a while, regardless of the quality. Some will embrace it, and also have a better opinion of others who embrace it. My expectation is that in the long term, Frontiers (or some other open-access journals) will win out, but this will take some time.
As a consequence, I'd say it is unfortunate if you published your best work in a *Frontiers in* which isn't of the best quality. But if you have other publications in more established venues, it is unlikely to count against you with a future hiring committee. My advice is to make sure your next paper or two are in very established journals, after which it is up to you if you want to push the open-access model more again.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: **Probably not.** The people assessing you can be divided into two broad categories: those who think Frontiers is predatory, and those who don't.
In the former case, they are likely to consider you a victim. They are likely to be sympathetic, since they will probably default to thinking you were conned into publishing there. Even then there's a good chance that if they are able to read and understand your paper they will do that instead of judge by the publisher alone.
In the latter case, the question of whether they'd think less of you for publishing with Frontiers doesn't arise in the first place.
The only time there might be damage is if you're talking to someone who considers Frontiers predatory, and you make it clear that you don't consider Frontiers predatory & you willingly published there. Then they might start questioning your motives, investigating you for undeclared conflict of interest because who else would defend an (obviously, to them) predatory publisher, etc. [Example of similar situation with MDPI](https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/02/25/mdpi-and-beall-further-comments-from-a-brainwashed-brit/). Still since you aren't defending Frontiers, this probably won't happen to you, and you have nothing to worry about.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I submitted a paper to Frontiers in Earth Science. I have published over 100 papers in reviewed journals and many in the best journals in my field. The Frontiers reviews were extremely rigorous and we went through many exhausting iterations. The reviewers were not familiar with the exact area I was working on, but their comments and requirements substantially improved the ms.
I have been asked to review many papers for Frontiers and some have been well away from my areas of expertise. It was quite easy to decline the invitations. I would recommend Frontiers in Earth Science but be prepared for some rigorous iterative reviews.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I am a mathematician. I have published articles about a mathematical object called the "Swiss-Cheese operad." Today, I was invited to be a reviewer by an editor of "Frontiers in Microbiology" for an article on the effect of some protein on cheese quality. I will let the reader be the judge of what this says about the quality of this journal, and what impression a paper published in such a journal would leave in someone's CV.
Upvotes: 4
|
2019/04/25
| 999
| 4,281
|
<issue_start>username_0: 1.Candidate is to teach 1 out of several topics given. Should there not be any preferrential topic to be taught in the eye of the interviewers? Is there any disadvantage not to choose the hardest topic?
2.In a real classroom, it's better to make the class interactive and ask students to come on the board to solve hands on problems. But as part of the interview, there's little time to do this. I can surely ask quick questions to the audience. How to balance between interactivity and time limit?<issue_comment>username_1: 1. If you already know which topic is the most desirable one to the selection committee (perhaps, it's a subject they are not offering right now or willing to commit to a full-time instructor instead of a part-time one), I suggest choosing that topic. Also, if you know that your teaching material and/or approach for a specific topic is relatively unique and could be of interest to students (e.g., applied discussion of theories or real-world case studies), you might go that way. Other than those, I suggest sticking to the topic with which you're most comfortable.
2. I think Observing time limits during interviews is important and neglecting them could make you nervous. So engaging with the audience is OK as long as you don't waste time or enter into a heated discussion.
Good luck with your interview.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Candidate is to teach 1 out of several topics given. Should there not be any preferential topic to be taught in the eye of the interviewers? Is there any disadvantage not to choose the hardest topic?
>
>
>
I find it unlikely that they are suggesting "worse topics" to see whether you know to avoid them -- that does not sound like a good faith effort to learn about the candidates' teaching skills. I think you should assume good faith, which in this situation means that they are equally open to a talk on all the topics they gave you. Having made that assumption, I think you should rule out topics on which you have less than complete mastery (if any), and among the remaining topics you should think a bit about what kind of talk you would or could give. Then you should pursue the topic on which you feel you can give the best talk.
In my experience (in a mathematics department at a large research university), when your teaching is being observed / evaluated, it is usually for courses that serve the broadest teaching needs of the department. E.g in a mathematics department this would often be calculus. It tends to be taken as a given that if you have a PhD in subfield X, that you will do well (or well enough) in teaching an advanced course on topic X. The reason for this is that in more advanced courses the students are (generally!) more interested, more independent and more mature, and so they need (or so we tend to think) more of a subject area expert than someone with mastery of particular teaching techniques. So I see no particular advantage in selecting the most advanced topic unless you really think that (i) this is a subject the department needs a new hire to teach, (ii) you know the subject extremely well and (iii) other candidates may not.
>
> In a real classroom, it's better to make the class interactive and ask students to come on the board to solve hands on problems. But as part of the interview, there's little time to do this. I can surely ask quick questions to the audience. How to balance between interactivity and time limit?
>
>
>
I think it's definitely awkward to try to interact with the people who are hiring you as though they were students in your course. On the other hand, "How to balance between interactivity and time limit?" is a question that is just as important when you are actually teaching a course! If you are being given a full class period, I would plan out a full lecture, including time to do whatever interactive activities you think best. You might say "At this point I would ask the students to spend a couple minutes trying to solve X" and then see to what extent the faculty interviewing you want to play along. If you are being given less time, you have to plan accordingly, and you may want to ask what the expectations are given that you have less than a full lecture to give.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/25
| 1,063
| 4,539
|
<issue_start>username_0: The proposal I’m shopping around revolves around three broad topics and I’m coming across a lot of academics who are experts in one or two of these areas and I have only been able to find one who hits all three, but working with him is not going to happen for various reasons. I have not been able to find a university that has, even multiple academics who can collaboratively meet all my specialties.
My question is, is it advisable to do your PhD under academics, who together aren’t experts in all the main topics you’re researching.
Also, if you’ve gone through a potential supervisor’s research and they have only ever used the quantitative method and your proposed study will be using the qualitative method, can they still adequately supervise you?<issue_comment>username_1: 1. If you already know which topic is the most desirable one to the selection committee (perhaps, it's a subject they are not offering right now or willing to commit to a full-time instructor instead of a part-time one), I suggest choosing that topic. Also, if you know that your teaching material and/or approach for a specific topic is relatively unique and could be of interest to students (e.g., applied discussion of theories or real-world case studies), you might go that way. Other than those, I suggest sticking to the topic with which you're most comfortable.
2. I think Observing time limits during interviews is important and neglecting them could make you nervous. So engaging with the audience is OK as long as you don't waste time or enter into a heated discussion.
Good luck with your interview.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Candidate is to teach 1 out of several topics given. Should there not be any preferential topic to be taught in the eye of the interviewers? Is there any disadvantage not to choose the hardest topic?
>
>
>
I find it unlikely that they are suggesting "worse topics" to see whether you know to avoid them -- that does not sound like a good faith effort to learn about the candidates' teaching skills. I think you should assume good faith, which in this situation means that they are equally open to a talk on all the topics they gave you. Having made that assumption, I think you should rule out topics on which you have less than complete mastery (if any), and among the remaining topics you should think a bit about what kind of talk you would or could give. Then you should pursue the topic on which you feel you can give the best talk.
In my experience (in a mathematics department at a large research university), when your teaching is being observed / evaluated, it is usually for courses that serve the broadest teaching needs of the department. E.g in a mathematics department this would often be calculus. It tends to be taken as a given that if you have a PhD in subfield X, that you will do well (or well enough) in teaching an advanced course on topic X. The reason for this is that in more advanced courses the students are (generally!) more interested, more independent and more mature, and so they need (or so we tend to think) more of a subject area expert than someone with mastery of particular teaching techniques. So I see no particular advantage in selecting the most advanced topic unless you really think that (i) this is a subject the department needs a new hire to teach, (ii) you know the subject extremely well and (iii) other candidates may not.
>
> In a real classroom, it's better to make the class interactive and ask students to come on the board to solve hands on problems. But as part of the interview, there's little time to do this. I can surely ask quick questions to the audience. How to balance between interactivity and time limit?
>
>
>
I think it's definitely awkward to try to interact with the people who are hiring you as though they were students in your course. On the other hand, "How to balance between interactivity and time limit?" is a question that is just as important when you are actually teaching a course! If you are being given a full class period, I would plan out a full lecture, including time to do whatever interactive activities you think best. You might say "At this point I would ask the students to spend a couple minutes trying to solve X" and then see to what extent the faculty interviewing you want to play along. If you are being given less time, you have to plan accordingly, and you may want to ask what the expectations are given that you have less than a full lecture to give.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/25
| 593
| 2,419
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently took my Ph.D qualification exam. Out of the 4 exams I took, I passed 3 and I failed one. My professor failed me because I failed the written one and because of that, I failed the oral exam too. I asked my professor if I can see the written exam, and I found out that there were 2/3 questions I answered right, but he marked it wrong. I showed that to him and he said he is not going to change the score.
I do have a chance to retake the exam later, but now I am bit afraid, If I retake it, is he going to do the same again on the new exam. Any advice would help<issue_comment>username_1: It is not clear what you want advice for. You could try to rephrase your question.
Moreover, we can not really help you as we don't know the professor and also not the institution.
In some places, you could appeal the exam by going to higher ranked people, in other places, students appealing are always ignored.
It could be possible that you do the exam with another professor or not, that he does the same in the next exam or not, but we cannot say.
My advice: Talk to people which know both the professor and your institution. (For example, your student union.) Ask them if you can do something and if yes, what.
(For what it's worth, while I've met some blanantely unfair professors (women shall not pass the exam; after the exam no points will be added if there where errors in the marking), most professors listen to reason.)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It is your characterization that the evaluation is unfair. An alternate explanation is that it was a judgement call and that overall, the prof decided you weren't well enough prepared.
I can't make a judgement call here, of course, but in reality, you may not be very successful with an additional appeal - especially if it is confrontational.
My best advice is to study hard for the re-take and do well enough so that any judgement calls are in your favor. If you can arrange for an oral exam with more than one professor, however, you are at least partially protected from any bias. You might even be justified in asking for a different examiner.
If this were the last attempt at the exam, you might need to worry about appeals and such. But most of your faculty would probably suggest that you just do what it takes to pass. You aren't likely to get a pass when you have open the option of a retake.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/25
| 1,283
| 5,372
|
<issue_start>username_0: If one is doing a PhD in an area that is on the borderline of a few areas (see the specifics below), would it be harder for them to find a job in academia after graduating?
To be more specific, the fields of linguistics (formal semantics), math (natural logic), and philosophy of language are closely connected. There is even a Dutch term which stands for the joint study of the three (which I cannot remember). Assume that one's PhD dissertation would be in that area(s), and the PhD itself would be a "dual" (double major) PhD in math and linguistics.
On the one hand, such a background suggests that more academic positions may be available (in applied math departments, or in linguistics departments, or in philosophy departments). On the other hand, being between the fields may be a disadvantage because the person doesn't actually belong to one specific field.
And a related question: what should that person do to make the process of finding postdoc positions easier?<issue_comment>username_1: We can't really make general statements about one focus of research being better than another. Maybe in this hiring season there are 6 jobs out there perfectly suited to someone doing X, while there are 7 that specifically want (or just prefer) someone doing X+Y. And another year the ranking of numbers might switch.
Certainly "interdisciplinary research" has a strong positive connotation. My guess is that is because it most commonly entails the combination of a traditional (perhaps stagnant) old field with some sexy new field. The idea is that you are progressing toward "the future" where the field will be evolving in these new directions. While the old pigeonholing of research into particular categories becomes increasingly outdated.
On the other hand if you just combine a couple overcrowded fields that have been around forever you may not gain anything.
One possible drawback I can think of would be in teaching. Even when the hiring committee looks for someone with a lot of breadth, they still may require a lot of depth in their main field. They don't want to be stuck as the only one who can teach that boring old core required course forever.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think the question calls for opinion, mostly, but I can try to give some perspective to your thinking.
For research, it is mostly narrowness and depth that is valued. That may be wrong, but it is how people are used to looking at new academics. But it is especially wrong on some questions. <NAME>, for example fundamentally changed (part of) the study of linguistics through his application of formalism. He also added greatly to the study of computing languages. He was able to bring disparate ideas together and do something significant in both realms.
But, I suspect that those sorts of opportunities must be relatively rare, or academics would be more comfortable making judgments about the value of research that crosses lines. Applied math is, of course, better about this that theoretical math.
But, if you want a career primarily in research, and want to stand across multiple disciplines you will have to find ways to make it especially clear about the value of what you do. Every academic has to make their own case about their research, of course, but you will need to find ways to overcome this bias toward depth and narrowness.
If you want a career in teaching, primarily, the situation is a bit different. As others have commented (and answered) there is perceived value in interdisciplinary work among teaching faculty. But you can't be seen as heater-skelter in your interests. Your goal shouldn't be to say that you can teach either math or philosophy, I think. But your cross discipline insight can, and should, be a strong force in motivating students to think deeply and advance on multiple fronts at the point in their education where breadth is, perhaps, more important than depth.
I was once able to visit one of the colleges at Cambridge as an invited guest. After dinner the faculty gathers for discussion (and a spot of Jerez, of course). But the colleges at Cambridge are multi disciplinary and so the discussion was among people with very wide interests, from philosophy to computing. It was an enlightening experience. We seem to lack that cross discipline contact in US universities, and I think it is a shame. The BIG problems are solved by people with a wider view, perhaps. An part of the reason for that is that the wider view helps one see what is truly important.
However, at the end of the day, it is you that will need to make the case for the value of what you do. I think it can be made, but it may not be an obvious case to everyone.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Interdisciplinary PhD education comes with great potential and great risk. If you do it right you will achieve a lot but you can also fail fundamentally (both is possible in a "normal" PhD as well but extend is often more extreme in an interdisciplinary PhD).
You might want to read [Ten simple rules for surviving an interdisciplinary PhD](https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005512) for some deeper background. Computer/Math/Biology is not exactly what you are searching for but I think it is similar enought that most rules should apply to you as well.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/26
| 3,915
| 16,953
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a second year Ph.D. student in a North American university who is mostly working on applied mathematics with a supervisor/advisor/PI. I have been troubled by a pattern of my own behaviour that seems to go against the seemingly correct way to succeed in research and I wonder if I have some sort of an "anti-research" personality.
Here are the problems:
1. I study whatever is interesting and cool (within a reasonable range of my discipline) and this causes me to lack a solid focus. It seems to me that people who wind up obtaining a PhD learn to abandon so-called academic freedom early on and drill into a tiny research area. For example, while other people's research could be about different types of seahorses, my research would be about seahorses, pipe fish, shrimps...you get the picture.
2. Since I work in applied math, therefore I often demand more proof of applicability, where my supervisor is totally happy with toy models. He thinks it is completely sufficient for publishing a paper while I think it is fake applied research. This seems to generate some conflict between us and usually I am the one who gives in at the end and do some simulation on these toy models to make him happy - I never care about these problems. Most other people in my field only simulate toy models as well, not really "real-world" applicable in any sense, but hey, it is sure pumping out a lot of papers.
3. I never collaborate or ask for help from my peers no matter how stuck I become. I often see my colleagues collaborate with each other in the office. A part of me is jealous that they are taking advantage of each other's knowledge, another part of me almost thinks that this is like cheating. I feel that my thesis and my ideas wouldn't be mine if it was interfered or influenced this way. It wouldn't feel authentic
4. I move on to a completely new topic immediately after I finish my old one. Usually the way I see how other people work is that they try to do something tangentially similar to what they have done before, i.e., blue-tailed seahorses, then yellow-tailed seahorses. I jump to studying pipe fish immediately after I warp up my research on seahorses. I think my advisor must dislike me immensely for starting from scratch after every project.
5. If a problem seems to have an easy or existing approach that solves it, I find the problem less attractive to the point that I get physically sick from reading about other people's approach. However, a lot of times in research I find that other people would simply adapt other people's method for their own problem and then publish a paper that way. I try to solve it in my own way every time and most of the times it gets to a point where my supervisor intervenes and tell me to do whatever other people are doing. Again, I give in at the end.
6. I don't even try to follow my advisor's vision of my project. My advisor seems to have his own vision and ulterior goals that are not completely aligned with mine. I think a good PhD student should just listen to him like a father-figure and do whatever I am told. But I don't agree or sometimes don't even care about his specific vision. For example, why should I do a research on the dorsal fin of a seahorse (for your "dorsal fin grant") when I can study pipe fish instead? I understand that he is the one who is funding me, but I also care deeply about my own academic freedom.
Given these habits, am I doomed to fail my PhD? Do I have an anti-research personality?<issue_comment>username_1: 1. Having a broad set of interests and knowledge is fine, and can lead to some 'outside of the box' solutions. Yes, you will find periods where *anything else* is more interesting than your PhD work, irrespective of how interesting your PhD work actually is. You'll find that as you come closer to the end of your PhD, your concentration on the problem at hand will sharpen, and while a PhD deadline isn't quite as good at sharpening a mind as an [impending duel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89variste_Galois), you probably will find your ability to concentrate improve as the ending comes into sight.
Furthermore, don't assume what you're researching your PhD on is what you'll be doing for the rest of your life. Having a wide set of skills and a shallow knowledge of many things will often help you out when you (most likely) realise you don't have the desire to become an academic, and need to search for a different job (which, let's face it, given your background means probably going in to Data Science)
2. I don't know too much about the culture of applied math to make an informed comment on this, but in general, finding a good real-world application of a concept, and carrying it out, is difficult. It can involve a lot of time mucking around with real world datasets, which are often messy. You have an obligation to show that your results and methods are useful, but to what degree is up to taste, and I don't think is an issue with any kind of 'anti-research' personality.
3. **This sort of thinking is by far your most serious problem**. If asking fellow students for help and collaborating is cheating, then so is using Stackexchange or reading from a textbook. Modern civilisation rests on the ability to record our thoughts so every human doesn't have to derive all the rules from scratch. There is nothing dishonourable about asking for help. If someone gives you helpful ideas, thank them in your thesis. Even if they do clever novel work on your problem, you still have to at the very least understand it and synthesize it into your own work.
There is a certain kind of person who is reluctant to ask questions. I would count myself as one. If you feel uncomfortable doing do, I recommend **working on that skill until you do feel more comfortable**. Stackexchange is the perfect place for that - even if it isn't a question about anything to do with your research.
4. This behaviour is fine. One can get a certain fatigue when working on certain projects for a while.
5. & 6. It does really seem like you have a need to derive and understand everything from its foundations. In real life, this is rarely necessary.
I did a PhD in organic chemistry. After that, I decided I didn't like chemistry anymore and went on to be a Data Scientist. At first, I would spend a lot of time trying to mathematically understand the techniques I was using, and I wouldn't feel comfortable using them if I didn't understand the underlying linear algebra. Then I slowly got more comfortable using techniques whose underlying mechanics I don't understand. We by and large don't understand the inner workings of a car or computer. We *do* know, roughly, its outputs when given certain inputs. The inner workings are a problem already solved by someone else.
As you grow older and read more, you'll be continuously struck by the *sheer quantity* of stuff out there that people have figured out. The sheer amount of knowledge that goes into, say, building an aeroplane or a computer game or a treatment plan for a specific disease or a skyscraper or a hadron collider. Letting go of the need of having to understand all aspects of a certain thing is an important skill. Practice triage with the information you receive and the problems you encounter. Trust in the expertise of others who have come before you. Know when to expend your brainpower, and know when to conserve it.
So in summary, apart from issue **3**, I don't think you have any significant "anti-research' personality issues.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Let me preface my answer by challenging an unwritten assumption of yours: that you have a fixed "personality" which is hampering your potential as a researcher. This simply is false. **Nobody is born a good researcher.** It takes hard work to become one. Sure, some people have predispositions that help them. But in the end, you cannot avoid doing the work, including work on yourself.
You have discovered that you lack certain skills, or that your aptitude for them is currently insufficient. Blaming this on your personality as something that you cannot change is *lazy*. It is up to you to improve in these areas. If you refuse, then *you* are to blame, not some god-given "personality" that was forced upon you.
I will now answer point by point, but if you are honest with yourself, you already know what I am going to say.
1. There is a common saying: "jack of all trades, master of none". In math, you are studying concepts that other people have been studying and refining for decades if not centuries. You are not going to master them by studying them for a few months and moving on to the next target. You are now at the bleeding edge of research, and it takes hard work to get up to speed. Your PhD is the occasion that you get to demonstrate that you are able to become a true expert at something and make improvements to the state of the art. It is unlikely that you will manage that by working on something for six months and moving on to something else afterwards.
However, getting interested in other things is not just fine, it is mandatory if you want to have a successful career after your PhD.
2. You seem to be confused about what applied math really is. Math that you actually apply in the real world is usually called engineering. It is a one-in-a-million occurrence for something in applied math to find a real-world application. But since you don't know in advance what will work, you have to start somewhere. Toy models are where it's at. You start with something simple. Maybe it works. Maybe you realize it's more complicated than what it appeared (the most common occurrence). Maybe it turns out to be useless. You don't know, because you are not an oracle.
3. There is nothing "fake" about getting influenced by others. Here is another common saying: in academia, we are standing on the shoulders of giants. You are reading papers, aren't you? You didn't discovered all of applied math by yourself from scratch, did you? Aren't these papers influencing your research, your way of thinking? Have you never read something and thought, "hey, I never thought about it like that", or "wow, this unrelated topic gave me ideas for my current research"? The difference with face to face conversations is that it's happening in real time. That's basically it.
And here's another saying, as I like them: alone you go faster, together you go farther. Other people have a different way of thinking, a different skillset, a different knowledge of the literature, different ideas. By pooling your resources together, you will probably be able to solve bigger problems than if you were on your own.
Finally, collaborating is just fun. Try it and you will see.
4. See #1. If you are happy with making tiny contributions to the state of the art all the time, good for you. (This is especially at odds with your apparent disgust for people who "pump out" papers, but whatever.) Meanwhile, someone will study seahorses for ten years and revolutionize the field by realizing that seahorses are aquatic poneys, rendering most of your previous research mostly useless.
5. Solving things on your own is fine and valuable. Being able to use other people's ideas to solve your problem more quickly is an extremely valuable skill, however. While you will be reinventing the wheel, others will go around the world in a plane.
6. This is something between you and your advisor. As a PhD student, you are supposed to transition from supervised research to autonomous research. If you really feel this way, talk about it openly with your supervisor. Maybe you will be surprised. Maybe your supervisor even thinks that you are not ready for unsupervised research because of your other points (unability to focus, to collaborate, to make use of other people's ideas and applying them to your own problem…) and this is why he is still asking you to work on something where he can directly help you and direct you in your research, instead of letting you work on something with less direction and help.
So yes, if you continue with the mindset that there are certain things about yourself that you cannot improve due to your "personality", you will have a hard time, in academia and elsewhere. You will continue to give up at the first obstacle and never amount to much. And you can continue to think that nature, your personality, your upbringing… is to the culprit, in the end, you are the one who has to live with the consequences.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: The only problem is the issue you have about networking/collaboration. There are different styles of research and approaches, not everyone "processes" things in the same way. Having a large survey level knowledge of the field is actually very important and its a skill that often some people don't have. I recommend to acquire professional level skills on something practical and useful across fields (programming, probability, numerical methods) and then you can always apply that skillset to different problems.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Short answer to complement other longer good ones here.
You do seem really to care about the seahorses of all colors, and the pipefish and the shrimp. So focus now on learning whatever you can in your current environment. Continue reading stuff that's not directly applicable. Do collaborate. Finish your PhD (toy models are sometimes good places to start). Then look for a postdoc with someone whose philosophy and style better match yours. When you run your own lab, look for students like you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.”—<NAME>.
Obtaining a doctorate is much more about the second aim than the first. Your advisor understands the practicalities of this, given the finite limits of time, human ability, and other resources.
I sympathize with you, in that I like to study what interests me—occasionally drilling down deeply when I come across something *really* interesting and sometimes jumping off to look at something different. Thus I am quite unsuited to studying for a doctorate, as perhaps you are.
You can't have it both ways. Either knuckle down and take your supervisor's advice, for a chance of getting a PhD, or follow your nose (as I would do). Another quote from <NAME>:
“Make up your mind to act decidedly and take the consequences. No good is ever done in this world by hesitation.”
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: From a research psychologist: there is no anti-research personality. You did a good job identifying various barriers to specific goals, such as completing your PhD. It's up to you whether those goals are worth adjusting the approach to the barriers, either through behavior modification or changes in how you view the problems, e.g., through cognitive behavioral therapy. Such a practice would be helpful to most anyone, regardless of their mental health status. Reading your whole question carefully, it sounds like there are two struggles: 1) not meeting your expectations of concrete goals, and 2) managing negative feelings that might secondarily impede your goals (and reduce your quality of life in the process). It might be worth considering what strategies could help you continue to make constructive progress with understanding your approaches and likely outcomes. You're already doing a good job on this path by asking these questions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Few small points about 2 and 5.
2) Toy models probably are often applicible as an inspritation. For example, say you want to change the whole US college admission methodology to better. There is a model for that, i.e. Stable Marriage Problem. Is it applicable directly? No. No one can make a preference list of all schools that one is interested in. But you can apply it in some sense. You can make all the applicants to make a small list, maybe with 10 schools each, and then you can proceed with the ordinary prosedure. What the "toy model" teaches us is that this process is stable if everyone lists every school in order based on desire. Increasing the list length will make it more likely to get everyone in a stable matching.
5) I will only adress a small part of this as it has many issues. It is completely fine to start from scratch ignoring all the previous research. I have heard a similar anectod concerning a famous mathematician. It turns out, when starting on a problem that researcher would ignore all the previous research and would try to solve it by himself for a while. If he fails to make it work then he would read the literature. I don't think there is something inherently wrong with tring to work on the problem without reading others'. The issue with what you say starts, as pointed out by others, when you don't want to read others' work no matter what.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/26
| 1,877
| 7,708
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a second year US PhD student in applied math. For the last year I've been working on one project with my advisor and another one of her students. We have also started a collaboration with a professor from another university on an unrelated topic. Both of these project are progressing at a fairly expected rate.
Recently, I have made headway on a "personal" project, which I expect to publish as a single author paper. As a result of this, I've been in contact with some people I met at a conference, and am planning to work on the follow up analysis with them and my advisor. I think this paper and the subsequent analysis will be significant enough that it could serve as the bulk of my thesis. However, I'm not that interested in this topic, and definitely don't want to spend my career on this problem.
I also just reached out to a new professor in our department about some projects which could be much more aligned with my personal interests.
At this point my main goal is to get a good postdoc and then a good tenure track position. I'm fine with grinding through any work for the next few years if it will help me get there, so my question is whether it will be more beneficial to continue with the personal project on which I've made the most progress, and end up with a very focused and "citeable" thesis, or to pursue problems I find interesting, and end up with a broader but perhaps less impactful thesis.
In either case I expect to work fairly closely with my advisor and one early career academic from outside my university, but if I pursue my personal interests, I'd probably end up working closely with at least one additional person.<issue_comment>username_1: Best for questions are pretty hard to answer, but ...
I think if the options are *merely* personal interesting VS. career-building, then the answer is obvious. (pick career-building or quit imagining academia will be your career).
What makes the answer less obvious is if the personally interesting is just *less* career-building than the "strong thesis". Here, the complications are two-fold: a PhD or any post-PhD research project both takes up several years of your life and determines the direction of your further research by marking you as an expert in something.
So if your choices are PhD in Basket-weaving which is highly employable or PhD in Cross-Stitching which you love.
**Basket-weaving PhD** = several years of weaving baskets *and then* as an expert in basket-weaving continuing to weave baskets for the rest of your life.
**Cross-stitching PhD** = several years cross-stitching *and then* if employed continuing to cross-stitch for the rest of your life.
I guess my point here is that the monotony of picking the supposedly employable side can really get to you in a way that taking an undergraduate class on quilts won't. You have to do this like a job day in and day out for years. Moreover, you're signing yourself up to keep doing it because that's now your expertise. If you slowly start to hate it, you may find yourself in a weird place.
To get solid advice, you should talk with people in your field (not just in your lab) and figure out if cross-stitching has the same job prospects as basket-weaving or if you'll never get stable employment.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I would advise to go for your interest.
There is not much point in having good publications in a (sub)field you do not want to work in. It is the same as with students who are forced by their parents to study something "prestigious" (e.g. medicine or law) that they are absolutly not interested in. What's the point in having this eduction if you don't want to use it later?
EDIT: If you have the possibility, ability, time and energy you can of course try to pursue both (as suggested by username_3) but be aware not to fall between two stools.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I suggest that you separate long and short term goals. Don't think of your dissertation as your final work or your best work. It is your first work (more or less). But it is better if it has some impact than if it does not.
You won't be a student for your entire academic life, one hopes.
It also isn't necessary to give up everything else in your research life to produce one thing. If you have broad interests it is a good thing. If you can build up a research program for yourself by keeping a notebook of work in progress it is a good thing.
However, your advisor should count for something here as s/he has the potential to give you a good strong start in an academic career. It is often a good thing to follow their lead for the thesis, while putting other ideas (somewhat) to the side *for a while*.
Once you finish your degree you will have much more freedom to set your own goals and follow your own path to attain them.
You seem to be in a good place, actually, with plenty of ideas. If you are working on the main thing (dissertation) and get stuck a bit, you can take up one of your other ideas as a kind of mental break. You may advance that a bit, but you may also free up the mental clog that left you stuck.
---
The snark in me wants to answer the headline question "Yes!! Yes it is!!".
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: It is like with love. If you dont believe in your personal project 100%, dont go for it. It **can** distract you so much you even quit your PhD. But if you do believe in it, there is only one right thing to do. Go get 'er.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: The papers are more important. They have way more impact than thesis. Especially on technical fields.
Your thesis will be pass fail usually. May be written up just because advisor says you are ready to go. This us different in humanities.
Depending on your results you may even have to be creative and mash a snowball together from scattered work. Assigning a theme even if there isn't quite one. Not ideal. But happens.
It can also happen if you are strongly productive to just pick one part of your work time be the thesis. It is also not uncommon to see students do a couple areas and eventually abandon one usually the first. Often because it has more results. This can even happen quite late in grad school.
The dirty secret is that the thesis is just a school drill. But papers for the literature? That is playing with the big boys.
A different question to ask is if you will produce more by sticking to one area or moving around. Really you need to make your own guess on efficiency and how target rich the areas are. In all cases you need to consider what to invest time on. But I don't think of it as thesis versus papers. It's always papers. Just on what topics. Thesis is just a glorified term paper.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Given your desire for an academic career, I would have to advise maintaining the easy-coming, useful but not interesting topic for as long as it takes to find if the interesting topic yields any substantive fruit or not.
If you reach a point whereby a choice has to be made, e.g. due to time demands, I feel it's always better to be safe than to be sorry - so keep the productive but uninteresting subject as your thesis topic. To do otherwise would risk your planned future.
But if you start to get interesting results from the interesting topic then it's time to discuss with the supervisor if you should focus on this: will there be enough time to get more substantive results, what are the risks/rewards involved, etc.
Your dilemma is a small one compared to other students who are finding it hard going to get *any* topic to yield substantive results. So don't smoke too many cigars ruminating on it.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/26
| 1,297
| 5,414
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am working on a collaborative project between different parties, and there is a senior researcher who underestimates constantly what I ever propose or speak, and he tries to illustrate that I am doing nothing new.
Although I have proven for the second time that there is a limitation in the study, he doesn't listen. I have witnessed that he respects and appreciates Asian students more than me.
Of course this just my side of the story, but I know many people from his country do not like women wearing traditional clothes as I do.
I don't know how to solve this problem, but I am not the only case. Many others are being judged by him based on their complexion, appearance, and garments.
I am kind of frustrated, trying to be amicable. Of course, there are other members in the project who appreciate me, but this senior researcher has clout over them.
What I should do in that case?
**EDIT**
I know I cannot change some people opinion about people from specific religion or ethnicity, what I can do psychologically to override that, I am trying to do my best as much as I can, but still, I had the same behavior.<issue_comment>username_1: In the comments you mentioned that getting an ombudsperson involved was not an option for you. However, your advisor does not necessarily need to know that you talked to the ombudsperson. Ombudspersons are often required to keep discussions confidential unless you explicitly tell them otherwise. You of course need to check that before with your ombudsperson before you go that route. Just discussing your options face to face with another person who has to treat that discussion confidentially is probably of enough value in and of itself. And maybe (s)he can do even more.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The first step in solving this issue is going to be convincing a senior third party that there is a problem. This third party could be:
* The head of department
* Your supervisor (if you have one)
* An ombudsperson
* A faculty member of the same ethnicity as you
Tell them you have a personal issue and need their help and their confidence. Odds are, they will be willing to help you.
Be warned that evidence will be paramount in this kind of dispute. The odds are high that he'll deny he's discriminating, and he might even be able to provide some evidence for that (for example, perhaps he's supervised a student of the same ethnicity as you, possibly wears the same clothes as you, and that student had a positive experience). You will need convincing evidence of your own. As of time of writing, there's nothing convincing in the question statement.
If you don't have that evidence, start collecting it. For example something like this:
>
> On 27 April 2019, I approached him with [solution] to [problem]. He laughed and said in the presence of other students that it's not surprising someone of [your ethnicity] would come up with something that will not work. I later proved him wrong by showing that the solution indeed works.
>
>
>
The more such incidents you can document, the more compelling your case will be.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I am kind of frustrated, trying to be amicable. Of course, there are other members in the project who appreciate me, but this senior researcher has clout over them.
>
>
>
First, it's important that you maintain these good relations with the people who appreciate you. If you feel comfortable with it, you could try to discuss the issue with them: this way you would get a more neutral point of view, and if they confirm your feeling of being discriminated against you have a more solid reason to act on it. Assuming some of them are more experienced, they can also provide you with advice knowing the specifics of the situation.
>
> what I ever propose or speak, and he tries to illustrate that I am doing nothing new.
>
>
> Although I have proven for the second time that there is a limitation in the study, he doesn't listen. I have witnessed that he respects and appreciates Asian students more than me.
>
>
>
Second, I would suggest that you try to assess this potential bias as carefully and objectively as possible by being "extremely professional" yourself. This is not easy, but it's worth clarifying the nature of the bias, especially if you consider making a complaint but also simply for your own peace of mind. The idea is to be extremely rigorous in whatever you present to this person. For instance when you have an idea to propose, prepare a written report with the points you want to make: what is the main problem, why it matters, what is the solution that you propose, all of this preferably backed by references in the literature and showing the novelty (btw this can also help you write a paper or your PhD later). By doing this you take the discussion to a professional level, as opposed to the grey area of intuitions/opinions. This will make your arguments clear and precise, so that it's harder for the senior researcher to dismiss them without themselves making the effort of replying in detail. It also shows effort on your part, so it would make any bias in favor of other students' ideas much more obvious comparatively. Finally, there's even an (admittedly small) chance that your efforts would cause this person to realize their bias and change their behaviour in the future.
I hope this helps.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/26
| 1,029
| 4,523
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted a paper to a mathematical journal, and recently received a Minor Revision decision from the Editor. One of the reviewers suggested an alternative and much simpler proof to my main theorem. The suggested proof greatly shortens my paper. Now, I am in a dilemma.
1) Should I retain my original proof, which I must admit in hindsight, was overly complicated? And then simply acknowledge the reviewer...
2) Should I write down the shorter and simpler proof suggested by the reviewer, and explicitly mention in the acknowledgemnts that I have used one of the reviewers' proofs?
The reason I ask is that I am worried whether going with Option 2 reduces the value/contributions of my paper (the revised one is not my proof after all!), although the Theorem and its implications stand nonetheless. Do I have a better chance of acceptance with Option 1? Is not seeing a simpler proof a ground for rejection of the paper? Any suggestions are welcome (since its a minor revision, it's due in a couple of weeks)!!<issue_comment>username_1: Ideally option 2 is better and it need not lessen your impact, unless that was the main theorem in the paper. However, in order to use the reviewers proof you need to be able to credit it properly and it may be hard to do that with blind review. Perhaps the editor can put you in contact with the reviewer for this purpose.
One way to present it (one I've used myself) is to give the reviewer's proof, with proper citation-attribution and then follow it with a statement that your own proof is omitted here for reasons of length.
But, I hope you are also aware that in many ways the proof technique is as important as the theorem itself as it may suggest approaches to other problems. So, it may be that your own proof is interesting in itself, even if complicated.
But, for the paper, say that you have an alternate, longer, proof, than the one presented. I see no real downside as long as you can properly cite.
---
If you can't use the other proof for reasons of citation, then present your own, if the editor agrees, but say that a shorter proof was suggested by an anonymous reviewer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would not worry about the paper getting rejected one way or the other: The reviewers gave you a shorter proof, but did not suggest that the theorem is obvious or trivial. This isn't going to change once you put their proof into the paper.
So the question is how to acknowledge the reviewer. It is not uncommon in mathematics papers to show the shortened proof and then, in the acknowledgements say "We appreciate the contributions of reviewer 2 who provided the shortened proof of theorem 4." On the other hand, if you think that coming up with this proof really required some hard work even though the reviewer has seen your proof, then maybe it *is* appropriate to ask the reviewer (through the editor) whether they want to become a co-author.
The final option may be to show both proofs. If you think that your proof is interesting *despite being complicated* because it shows connections to other areas that are of independent interest, then it's worth keeping it in. In such a case, it may be useful to show the alternative and shorter proof given by the referee in an appendix, and explain why you think it's worthwhile to show both. Remember that a paper isn't just about showing a result, but also *teaching others* how that result came about and what it means and implies. As such, there is a place for papers with two independent proofs of the same statement.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: You said that this theorem is the main theorem of the paper. I'll assume that means it's a very important part of the paper. (That's not automatically the case. A paper could present a single main theorem and dozens of consequences, and the latter might be the main point of the paper.) If my assumption is correct, it seems appropriate to offer the reviewer (through the editor) several options: (1) become a co-author of your paper, with the new proof replacing your older one, (2) allow you to use the new proof in your paper with only you as an author but with appropriate credit ("I thank the referee for greatly simplifying my original proof of Theorem 4 and for allowing me to include the simplified proof here."), or (3) insist that you use only your own proof (e.g., in case the referee wants to publish the new proof, perhaps as part of a larger study that led to it).
Upvotes: 3
|
2019/04/26
| 978
| 4,120
|
<issue_start>username_0: My first three year postdoc was almost over and no good publications came out. The thing is that my carefully crafted papers are getting rejected again and again by decent journals (not that good ones). Knowing how bad the academic job market is now, I have a feeling that I may not make it in academia. I could do another postdoc after my 3 year contract or probably choose to quit.
If I am bad at research, I would quit now for sure. It is just that somehow my mentor has been supportive of me staying in academia and she is very famous. She can't be too wrong, right? Also, I got many projects going well. I think I am pretty good at research. I hope one of those projects will end up in a good journal. But, it has been three years after my phd.
I came to Europe to do a phd as a poor Chinese guy. At the time, I didn't know much about English and only learned my current major though a 3 year master program in China. I worked hard and learned fast to catch up. But, things just wouldn't click. I did my job but the journals just wont accept my papers. Bad luck? probably. Or, something wrong with my topic or approaches.
If I do another postdoc, I will be way over 30. My life already suffered from my research career. A lonely Chinese guy in a foreign country. No money. No nothing. Just my research. Another postdoc without much hope of making it in academia could cause damages to my life, from which I may never recover.
Shall I finish more projects and try my luck to do another postdoc ? Or just quit, even though people say i am good. Being good isn't very useful in academia I guess. Only papers count.<issue_comment>username_1: You write "My life already suffered from my research career." This is worrying.
Think about this: what do you need the most for a satisfying life? Is it being close to home? Having a fulfilling relationsship? Having a garden? Living in China? Living near the sea? Being a researcher? Find out what it is for you and focus at first on that. Then find out what else you can do while realising your first priority.
Don't get too hung up on Academia. Being a researcher is not a higher calling from some God, at the end of the day it's just a job. There are many good and satisfying jobs out there. Find out what else the world has to offer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There isn't really a question in your post we can answer -- you're having difficulties in your job and your life but what you should do is a very individual question: what is it that matters to you.
But I'll try to address one part of your post: Your papers are getting rejected. Most of the time, you will have gotten feedback of some sort on these papers. What do reviewers say? That the paper has a good idea but is poorly written? That the paper has a good idea, but that others have already done that and published a few years ago? That the paper does not have a good idea and that, while well executed, the question the paper tries to answer is simply not very interesting? In all of these cases, there is something to be learned from the feedback you get, and it should inform your future approach to both research and paper writing. I am a bit surprised that none of this feedback has found its way into your post.
So my suggestion is this: There is a saying in English that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome". So sit down and think through what feedback you got on your manuscripts, and how you would have to change your approach to writing papers and, maybe more generally, doing research. For example:
* If reviewers say your papers are poorly written, then start writing papers with co-authors who are good writers.
* If reviewers say that your papers do not show anything new, then start reading more -- pick the newest issues of the journals in your area and just read random articles related to your work to see what others are doing.
* If reviewers say that your ideas are just not interesting, then have more conversations with your adviser about whether something is worth pursing or not.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/27
| 535
| 2,291
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose you want to obtain a faculty job at a particular time. When should you start searching for job ads? When are they advertised?
Answers describing different customs in different countries and disciplines are encouraged.<issue_comment>username_1: In the United States, many permanent faculty jobs are advertised around September. Applications are due in December or January. The positions start in August, nearly a year after the position is advertised.
Lest prestigious universities advertise later. In some cases they may advertise only a few months before the job begins. Temporary jobs also have reduced lead-time.
Practices can vary widely.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The field of academia is hypercompetitive due to the excess amount of PhD-students and Postdocs vs a low number of faculty positions ([read this](https://www.pnas.org/content/111/16/5773)). Even people doing postdocs at top places have difficulties finding faculty positions and apart from a network also luck becomes an important factor if there are >100 applications for a faculty position.
Therefore you should start searching for a faculty position at least **2 years** ahead (no, this is not a joke).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In Operations Management, for US universities (or Canadian, European and Asian universities following the US system), most jobs are advertised in forums and websites (like Operations Academia, the INFORMS communities, the M&SOM forum, and the POMS society website) mostly from August to early October, for tenure-track jobs to begin on the following July to September. Our big conference, INFORMS, where the short interviews occur, is in late October or early November. Applications are due a couple weeks before this big conference. Most campus interviews occur from early December to late February, and most offers occur in February, but some offers are given in December and some are in late March. This is a field where there are almost as many tenure-track jobs as there are job market candidates, so we usually only go on the job market on our last year in the PhD program.
Now, this timeline varies **hugely** by field and country. (Even within my field there are huge variations, like late April job offers.)
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/27
| 2,972
| 12,129
|
<issue_start>username_0: ------ NOTICE ------
*The above put box "This question already has answers here: [Why are journals used in modern scientific academic research?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/86686/why-are-journals-used-in-modern-scientific-academic-research)" is wrong and void: it has a title that sounds similar to my question but the question goes into Arxiv and the answers are in regard to Arxiv ("Arxiv is not peer reviewed") which is not the issue discussed here. The question here is why "peer-reviewed government funded alternatives" are not used.*
---
The field of science is under-funded but we follow a publication system that has two major (expensive) options for publishing:
1. **Paywall journals**: Scientists do the science and write the papers
(using mainly tax money). Scientists act as editors and reviewers
check the quality (while paid with more tax money). Once years of
work have gone into a paper the journal takes it without paying the
authors, academic editors and/or reviewers a single cent and puts
the paper behind a paywall. Now universities have to pay the journal
huge amounts of money (exact numbers are usually not available due to NDAs) to access the paper to which the journal did
not contribute anything (apart from minor formatting issues and
putting a pdf on a webpage maybe).
2. **Open access journals**: Same as above (scientists do all the work) but
authors even pay the journal a substantial amount of money which can
easily go up to 6000 USD in "respected" journals (I am not talking
about predatory open-access journals here – the 6k is for example
for the journals of the American Chemical Society which publishes a
few of the leading journals in our field). For this amount of money
the journals do the minor formatting issues mentioned above and
upload a pdf on their webpage. There is just no relation between
their fees and what they do for it. Here 60-100 USD would be more appropriate than 6000 USD.
Is this not fundamentally wrong that scientists do the work and journals skim off the profit? Why do scientists (and tax payers!) still put up with this?
I do understand that historically :
* Journals made sense as someone needed to print the
articles into books to make them accessible to everybody and
layouting might have been something non-trivial but nowadays this is
not the case any-more.
* Scientists have brought themselves into a dead-lock due to a
publish (in high impact and "respected" journals) or perish in
which you have to publish in certain journals in order to be seen
as a good scientist.
But would it not make much more sense to have tax-money funded web-portals that use editors and reviewers to assess quality of articles and make them available for download as journals do it currently? That would cost a fraction of the paywall and open access fees that journals make money from at the moment.
Why does science still stick with journals? My feeling is that the field of science does not need the journals at all anymore - what am I missing here? I have never really gotten a satisfactory answer from other scientists (mostly things like "this is how things are and we can not change them") therefore I am asking here ...<issue_comment>username_1: A very simple reason is the fact that the cost for advertising the papers beyond the scientific audience and readership is internalized as publication costs/fees. And there are many non-scientists reading nature & Co, but also smaller journals. I think your question overlooks that non-scientific readership.
Of course you can question the profit margins and personally I also think they are much too high. At least in Germany I read some universities don't subscribe anymore to cost-intensive publishers and open-access journals have been founded, although rather in scientific niches for which also advertising would not increase the audience much.
For publishers like IEEE which also organize many reputable conferences from physics to engineering and award "medals" and such, the cost will be even higher to establish their brand.
But if your publication and results also have implications outside of your scientfic community/journal (the famous and expensive "impact" journals), then several journals with a matching scope compete in advertising costs. Plain economics. Of course this explanation is also used by some publishers to increase the publications costs more and more. So apart from founding open-access journals the option you personally have is always to publish your results in the journal of a competing publisher with lower publication costs. Or you simply don't review anymore submissions to such journals to lower their impact.
A related problem is the judgment of researchers/research quality by impact of the journals they publish in. the question/problem to me here is, how to externalize that the research of a average joe researcher has more impact (because his topic is trendy) in comparison to someone who proves the poincare conjecture like Perelman. Isn't it funny he left academia and the publish or perish arena to manage to do this?! At least it made me think this. But as long as this impact measures exists and universities who in the end hire scientists do not come up with something better on their own instead of using the cost-intensive impact mechanism established by the publishers, not much will change. So your question is very right, but I wouldn't put most of the blame on the publishers. They have to compete in a free market, increase margin further and further and as much as possible, otherwise ending like the competitors of google and amazon. The problem is rather that now the public funding system and universities just start to develop their own publishing and judgement system for scientific research and somehow no one feels responsible.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: There are many businesses which are inefficient in the sense that you judge publishing by. There is nothing requiring markets to accomplish some collective endeavor efficiently. Instead, markets are only efficient in terms of people being able to pay for things they want. For example, whether avocado toast is good nutrition is irrelevant to the market. But if you want to pay $15 for it, and if there is someone else willing to give you an avocado toast for $15, the market will certainly provide for that exchange.
Likewise, your arguments about how the current publishing system is inefficient are tangential at best. It so happens that a lot of people (in the current world, not in some fantasy post-journal world) want to publish in journals, and read what is published in journals, which is why the journals exist. You point out some important reasons for this and say you understand this, but
>
> would it not make much more sense to have tax-money funded web-portals
>
>
>
Well, no, it wouldn't. If there is demand for service A, why would the market fail to supply A and instead supply only service B which doesn't fill the same needs? The answer is that a free market wouldn't. You could have government force the market to not provide service A and only service B, but then you have a non-free market. Which isn't the end of the world, but it so happens that most people in charge of government these days favor free markets, barring corruption.
That's the most direct answer to your question: The current publishing system is in place because that's what the free market came up with, and implementing your system would require government interference in the market. It is not politically expedient to implement such interference. This is all for today, mind. 20 years ago open access was a pipe dream, perhaps 20 years later publishing will change completely. But we can only speculate about the attitudes of the future.
---
I'd also like to point out some inaccuracies in your question.
>
> Scientists act as editors and reviewers check the quality (while paid with more tax money)
>
>
>
Actually editors often get [paid by journals](https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Nature-Publishing-Group-Senior-Editor-Salaries-E221876_D_KO24,37.htm). Also, [not all research is publicly funded](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50).
>
> Now universities have to pay the journal huge amounts of money (exact numbers are usually not available due to NDAs) to access the paper to which the journal did not contribute anything (apart from minor formatting issues and putting a pdf on a webpage maybe)
>
>
>
[These days](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_open_access), a lot of research is made freely available after a few years, the university is really paying for *quick* access (and also access to very old papers).
>
> Here 60-100 USD would be more appropriate than 6000 USD.
>
>
>
No, it wouldn't be, because no journal would bother. $60-100 USD would buy you maybe 1-2 hours of work from a single skilled person in which they must:
* Read the manuscript
* Finding reviewers and keep bugging them to submit reviews on time
* Read reviews and decide if they make sense, then pass them on to the author
* When revised MS is in, work with reviewers to decide if the revisions address the initial concerns
* Work with authors to get it formatted and proofread
It is not realistic for a single person to do a single one of these in a few hours, much less all of them.
>
> Is this not fundamentally wrong that scientists do the work and journals skim off the profit?
>
>
>
There's nothing more wrong than any other for-profit enterprise. The only thing you can criticize here is the entire concept of seeking profit, but I don't believe there are currently significant contributors to science that are opposed to profit seeking. The closest thing that comes to mind is China, but they have for profit journals also, and a lot of Chinese research is published in western, evil capitalist, journals anyway. Now that you mention it, when the USSR was around I think they did have government run, non-profit journals. But it is not considered "fundamentally wrong" by most governments today.
>
> make them accessible to everybody and layouting might have been something non-trivial but nowadays this is not the case any-more.
>
>
>
No, it is easier, but still non-trivial. Even just writing a manuscript purely for yourself takes some work to get all the equations, figures, citations and so on to display correctly. But if you had a journal where you want a uniform formatting from many articles by many different authors, it is a lot of work to come up with a system that works for everybody and also get the authors to follow it.
>
> That would cost a fraction of the paywall and open access fees that journals make money from at the moment.
>
>
>
Government [can be notoriously wasteful](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/the-air-forces-10000-toilet-cover/2018/07/14/c33d325a-85df-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html), so it's not a given that it would be cheaper. Perhaps the cost might be spread out over everyone via taxes, instead of being born by individual universities, researchers and those poor souls who actually pay $30 to download a PDF. But then the first two are already covered by tax money.
You have to also consider quality of service and not just cost. The classic US example of government-provided service is the DMV. It doesn't make sense to be a realist on private publishing and an optimist on public publishing.
>
> My feeling is that the field of science does not need the journals at all anymore - what am I missing here?
>
>
>
Well, I suppose we can say you are missing the trees for the forest. Science is not a single person. Individual scientists obviously do need journals. Nowadays, thanks to the internet, they don't need them to publish - but they still need the credibility of being peer-reviewed and the visibility of being in a highly-read journal. They also need them for the mundane reasons of justifying job and grant applications.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/27
| 1,275
| 5,771
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a high school student and I am trying to publish my first research paper in mathematics.
However, I have already had my full paper posted without author information on the website of another organization. Now this paper (in pdf) can be found by Google. Does this prevent me from publishing the paper in a journal because of plagiarism-check issues?
I can prove that I am the author in the following way: that organization where I posted the paper can provide proof that I uploaded it and that the paper contained no significant plagiarism because it was checked by Turnitin.com's software before upload. The plagiarism-check report and the paper were posted online at the same time. How can I provide a proof like this to a journal? (I have not submitted the paper yet.)
(For lack of experience, I did not know that I should not have done this.)<issue_comment>username_1: There are two complicating factors involved here. It may or may not be possible, but it depends on these issues at least. Even if it is possible, there may be some "risk".
When the "organization" published your paper, did you assign your copyrights to them? It is possible that you did, and also possible that you retained all rights and just gave them a limited license to publish. The outcome is very different for these two situations. What did you sign or implicitly transmit to them to make it possible for them to publish. If they hold copyright or an *exclusive* license then there are things you cannot do yourself. Copyright law varies widely from place to place but is generally becoming more restrictive.
The second issue is that many places won't publish anything that has already been published. Many of them actually want you to sign over the copyrights and don't want to be limited by some prior license that you gave to another organization. This is very strict with some of them. But it is a limitation imposed only by their now policies and these vary. It would be a mistake to try to publish with such a journal without informing them of the situation.
But even if neither of the above considerations apply, you might have difficult *claiming* that a work is yours. If the original publisher makes the claim then it will be believed (most likely), but if only you make the claim it might be open to dispute unless you are backed up. In an ideal world (not *this* world, unfortunately) this would be a simple matter.
Therefore, the place to start is with the original publishing organization. You don't describe its nature. I worry about reputable organizations publishing the work of students anonymously as you have stated unless the is very controversial and you need some form of anonymity for personal protection. But you don't describe the circumstances.
But is that organization that holds the key. If you ask and they say no, without a legal reason, then you proceed with some repetitional risk.
An additional complication is that if you simply reuse what you previously published, without citing it properly, you can still be accused of self plagiarism. Normally one cites and quotes ones earlier work, rather than just reusing it.
---
By the way, turnitin isn't a sufficient check to prove the absence of plagiarism. Plagiarism is much more complex and subtle than what can be judged by an algorithm.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think journals actually use TurnItIn to check for this, the methods they use may be more or less effective, but if they do find out you published somewhere else, the TurnItIn saying it's not plagiarized won't help your case.
Journals tend to not publish articles published elsewhere. However, their concerns here is being second fiddle to a competing journal. They don't actually care that much about you keeping your research a secret until the moment you submit. You can go to the journal's website and read their publication guidelines and policies to learn exactly what they allow and don't. For example, many journals are okay with research being published in arxiv.org or as a thesis. If in doubt you can always email the journal, say where you published and how much the text changed since then, and if they say no that settles it. I wouldn't try to lie about it, because not only could you get caught while in review, but if you are found out after being published the paper could get retracted, which could look even worse than not being published at all.
The real problem is that it was published anonymously, so from their point of view you might be trying to steal someone else's work. But you say you can get the other organization to confirm your authorship, so it shouldn't be an issue. I would proceed like so:
1. Submit the paper normally
2. If the submission form asks whether the paper was published before, link to the article and explain what sort of organization published it and point out important ways in which your manuscript is different from the version published there (if it doesn't ask, you should probably mention it in the "other comments" box)
3. If they ask about proving that you published the other one, then provide your proof from the other organization
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Assuming you didn't actually publish it - you only posted a preprint - then the answer is **no, it does not**. However you will need to prove that paper is written by you and therefore not plagiarized. Submit the proof together with the paper, or you are likely to receive a desk rejection. You could for example upload the proof as a source file, and add an explanation in the cover letter.
If you did actually publish it then the answer is **yes**. Journals generally do not republish already-published papers.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2019/04/27
| 779
| 3,472
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently preparing an article for a very good journals in mathematics (AMS, Acta, Advances, etc.). I have never had a result worthy of these journals until now. I would like to know whether I can count on the editors to at least read my one-page introduction before making a decision. Or could they stop after the abstract? The reason I ask is currently my abstract is very short and gives zero background. If someone were to only read it, they could undervalue my paper.<issue_comment>username_1: No, there's no such guarantee. A top journal gets an awful lot of submissions, and you can expect them to be aggressive in rejecting papers which do not make a strong case for their importance, in the way that involves the least work for the editors.
If the editor, after reading the abstract, does not understand why the results would be highly interesting and significant, I would fully expect them to reject the paper without reading the introduction or any other part of the paper. (I can even imagine cases where they could make such a judgment by only reading the *title*.) As such, your abstract definitely should provide motivation for your results, such that a reader who is generally familiar with the area can see why they are of interest.
If your abstract just states the result ("we show that every snark is a boojum"), then it had better be such a well-known topic that every reader in the field would *immediately* know why it is of interest to know that every snark is a boojum. If that is not the case, then your abstract should briefly explain why people should care, perhaps relating it to previous work. ("Previous work of Smith showed that every reticulated snark is a boojum. In this paper, we show that the assumption of reticulation is unnecessary, thus resolving a conjecture of Jones.")
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To my knowledge search engines for scientific publications like SCOPUS or ISI Web of Science don't even index any words of your manuscript apart from the abstract and the title (google scholar is indexing everything). Therefore, if the online submission system or journal guidelines for submission don't allow you to write a submission letter to further explain, why you think your manuscript is of high importance, then, as Nate pointed out, only title and abstract are read at all.
Therefore, writing a concise abstract and putting the right keywords into (-> search engines) it is crucial to get at all one foot into the review process.
On the other side I have read abstracts which consist of not much more then 1-2 lines/one sentence. The author is then mostly a famous professor who knows that he is known and his paper enters the review process. Still, I think when then a 3-4 pages manuscript is following for the sake of finding his manuscript via a search engine with some keywords, it would be nice to write a longer abstract.
Top journals are also more inclined to take a deeper look on a submission if the topic is trendy and more researchers care about it or work on it.
I also doubt that manuscripts are read in a linear way, from title to conclusion. With so much literature to choose and to read, the editor might overjump your introduction and look into the conclusion first. That's how I read published papers, I rather overfly the whole paper (conclusion paragraph, graphs,...) before deciding to read it completely from the beginning.
Upvotes: 2
|
2019/04/27
| 1,041
| 4,437
|
<issue_start>username_0: Consider a qualitative question on a physics exam such as, draw the path of an object's center of mass as it is dropped. I have included a graphic here:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mB5Ya.png)
Would it be considered cheating in practical terms if I were to make a mark in my pencil and drop it on my desk to observe its path? This is just one example of something that could be helpful on a mechanics exam.
**In general**, would a professor consider the act of carrying out a small physical experiment during an exam as cheating as long as it is with reason and does not interfere with other students? By *experiment,* I mean something of the nature of what I mentioned earlier; I am talking about something that can be done with the instruments you are allowed to have during the exam. I do not mean using lab equipment.
To clarify, I something like this would be to gain a physical intuition of a solution. For the example listed above, simply dropping your pencil can give you an intuition as to the path its center of mass takes. This isn't intended as a substitute for work for a more complicated solution.
I ask because I doubt and am currently unaware of any rule that prohibits this.<issue_comment>username_1: **No,** this is perfectly fine. In physics, it is common to see students making odd motions as they think through the problem or apply rules like the right hand rule. The usual caveats apply: you must not be distracting or obnoxious, must not broadcast data that other students could use to cheat, and must follow all announced regulations.
Yes, like with anything else, there are a million corner cases and caveats and unreasonable proctors that we could have fun trying to anticipate -- but I suggest we find more productive ways to spend our mental energies.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Like with all variations of the question "is X considered cheating" the answer is that it comes down to what the professor in your current course decides, so check with them before the exam. There are no universally applied rules for exactly what qualifies as cheating and what doesn't.
That said, if you can carry out your simulation in a quiet way that doesn't disturb others, then I and (I think) most others would be totally fine with it. To me it falls under the same umbrella as using the right-hand rule, or rotating an eraser/book to check the effect of compound rotations. Basically, I don't have an issue with students creatively using items they're allowed to bring anyway. Now, if you start bringing lenses and prisms to a geometric optics exam so you can experiment with light rays, well, that's another story.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If it's qualitative there probably won't be a problem unless the rules of the exam explicitly prohibit it, similar to how some exams prohibit calculators.
That said if it's a quantitative problem you can expect to lose marks. I remember a math exam with a geometry problem which said something like, this length is A, this length is B, this is a circle, etc, what is this angle? A student who solved the problem by constructing the diagram and then measuring the angle would not get full marks.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: If there isn’t any rule that prohibits it, it isn’t cheating. It’s the university’s job to make the rules, and it’s your job to follow them - it’s as simple as that. A professor who complains because you solved a problem using a creative method that they didn’t think about should be more careful the next time they write an exam.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Any scientist who would consider performing the *very defining action of their art* as cheating would actually be quite much of a contradiction...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: If it's a closed book exam I consider it cheating to do physical experiments (unless specifically authorized) as you are consulting an external source. I also differentiate a physical experiment from turning your fingers to do three finger rule as you are not consulting the physical universe but doing an implicit mnemonic versus getting external info.
P.s. I realize this answer is contrary to the other forum responders, but you should think about my point. Sometimes you learn more from a contrary argument than from several repeats of the same argument.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/28
| 228
| 1,047
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted a paper to Journal of comparative physiology-B. After major revision, two reviewers gave me minor revision (only change one word) and the editor was pleased to consider publication. After re-submission, the status changed from "under review" to "decision in process". However, the status was then back to "under review". What does it mean?<issue_comment>username_1: The question presupposes that the behavior of such an editorial system has a meaning. Granting that presupposition, my first guess is that the editor got the reviewers' reports and was about to make a decision ("decision in process") but then noticed that something was unclear in one of the reports and asked the reviewer for a clearer report ("under review").
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: From the perspective of a reviewer, it's just a button you press. Sometimes you accidentally press one button, even when you meant another. In your situation, the change it status might now mean anything and it's still under review.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/28
| 984
| 4,134
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Ph.D. student works in theoretical computer science, I work on the area which is related to rings and my work is to design algorithms for problems related to rings. I did my bachelor in computer science not in mathematics.
I have a **strong interest** in this area, despite the fact that I have been told and suggested by multiple people to not pursue research in this field; I did it because of my interest. Due to my strange choice, I did not get much collaboration. I have been able to publish just a couple of research papers (not in the top tier) and will graduate after two semesters. I worked very hard, but the output I got is not even a fraction of what I have invested.
I still like it, but the problems is that job opportunities, collaboration, and funds are very scarce. There are funds but only for those who publish in the top places. I am trying to publish in top places, but till now I was not successful. Many people around me have told me that my work is average. Some senior researchers advice me to be patient as it takes time to mature in this area.
Keeping the future in my mind, I see myself on a very different track as compared to others. My goal is to continue the research as well as get in some decent institute after my Ph.D.
My question is it possible to be a successful researcher in this kind of area? What does it mean to do some significant research? Is it okay to work in a very old research area?<issue_comment>username_1: I personally know **many** people (whose names I cannot disclose before consulting them) who work in the field of theoretical computer science and deal with pretty "old fashioned" problems.
**However**, each of them has a common characteristic: before purusing the research area that lies in their heart, they firtst published numerous articles in so called *hot topics*.
So, I believe that you can be a truly significant researcher in the area of your interest provided that you keep your current research as a *side project* and not pose it as your main area of ineterst while applying to jobs, fundings, etc.
I would also remark that (again, according to my own experience) people who stick to old-school problems and do not dwell into the hot topics are above-the-avarage scientists.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You have discovered a fundamental trade-off. If you work in an obscure field and do something significant it may be harder to get recognized, but you have the field to yourself and a few colleagues. But if you work in a popular area you might just get lost in the crowd and even get scooped in your latest findings. Neither is ideal. But either can be a path to success.
However, you need a base from which to work. But so does everyone. In looking for an academic job you need to match yourself to requirements and also show that you have the potential to stand out, at least a bit. If you are competing with 40 other people just like you in background and research interests it will be difficult to stand out. But if you are unique you will raise questions about how you will fit in. It is, however, your case to make.
It is easier, of course to do what you want when you are already well established (tenured). But you have to do what it takes to get tenured. But I don't think you need to defer doing what you like. You just need to do it well.
Personally, I find your interests intriguing. But that is because I studied math but worked in CS. I'm certainly not unique in that. Being able to collaborate across departments might be seen as a plus in some institutions. So might joint appointments between two departments. Everything is a tradeoff.
But spending your working life on things that don't much interest you just because they are "hot" seems like a waste of talent. Since you don't seem to be one of those fighting to get into one of the top ten institutes in the world, but can, perhaps, have somewhat more modest goals (top 50?, 100?) I think you can do fine.
So, yes, you can be a successful researcher, but you will have to make that success yourself.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2019/04/28
| 1,670
| 7,348
|
<issue_start>username_0: Teaching assistants (TAs) often have the task to compile exercise sheets for the students and need to come up with new problems for such sheets.
Let's assume that in the lecture, two methods for a certain use case were presented, and a TA is supposed to write a problem that should make the students use the second method. The first one should be cumbersome to use, so that the students can figure out themselves that the second method is the one to use in this case. Also, the problem should be somewhat motivated by an arbitrary problem from practice, so that solving the exercise sheet problem also teaches the students that the second method has its use in practice.
Now some TAs will be naturally good at such tasks, and others do not know where to start, despite knowing all of the relevant scientific results. **How to teach TAs the creative skills to performing such tasks?**
---
*Note:* This is a follow-up question to an [earlier question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/129611/how-to-teach-puzzling-skills-for-coming-up-with-examples-to-phd-students) on a related topic, which went without answer ideas. This new question may be of more universal interest, and I suspect that if good answers can be given, they are the same in both cases anyway.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure why you find this to be a special problem. We basically know how to teach people things. Just do it in the ordinary way.
If no framework for understanding how to do a task exists then you need to develop one. If you know how to do it, but are unique, then you need to capture what you do in some way that can be transmitted.
Then you "teach" it by presenting the framework and giving some exercises so that it can be practiced and giving some feedback on how people do.
It is a standard teaching problem.
If *no one* knows how to do it, then you need to do something like research to discover how it can be done and then operationalize that research. Again, a standard problem, with a standard solution.
But, one thing I would suggest is that you use some sort of team learning so that those who do it naturally can pass skills to those who struggle with it. Pairing is a good approach and one I often recommend for such tasks.
Beyond that, it will likely take the examination of good and bad examples, using discussion (by the TAs) of why some things work and others don't.
But it is *practice and feedback* that are the key to learning almost anything, hence key to teaching it.
---
Don't take the word "framework" too literally.
Also, the task itself is ill defined here. Expect that no one will be perfect at it and that the "examples" created will sometimes fail. But there are ways, such as pre-testing or other evaluative methods, to deal with that as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: A bit of background, so you can see where I am coming from:
I recently created exercises for two courses on applied physics:
* one about a subject I was mostly very familiar, where I had to create exercises from scratch,
* one about a subject that was mostly new to me, but for which I had with an existing collection of exercises targeted at a different audience for inspiration.
Almost all the exercises I created came into being via one of the following:
* I simplified the hell out of a prominent scientific application of the topic.
* I took an existing exercise and modified it for the target audience.
* Through my knowledge of the first subject, I could almost immediately recall a bunch of examples for a given topic, and could choose something fitting for an exercise.
Note that I would consider my knowledge here to go beyond “knowing all of the relevant scientific results”, since it also involved being familiar with applications, not so prominent results, etc.
Not seldom these were cases where I had already thought that the case would make for a good exercise years before.
Also, some of these examples directly came from my own research.
Fun fact: Some of these cases were problems I had first encountered in SE questions and in one case debunking a wrong SE answer.
* Somebody experienced with the subject suggested a topic to me.
* Discussing the topic in general, rejected exercise ideas, etc. with somebody knowledgeable about the topic.
Note that *thinking very hard about the topic* is not on this list. If it were in the case you are outlining (relevant applications), one could easily come up with a new research topics just like that. Instead, my standard workflow for the second course would be to delve into the topic at hand, reading the lecture notes, textbooks, online material, papers, etc. – for the first course I had already done this and at worst had to jog my memory. In particular, creating exercises for the second course was considerably more difficult, even though I had more material to work from.
Once I had recognised a good topic for an exercise as such, fleshing it out to an actual exercise was mostly legwork.
So, in your case, the following may help:
* Consider if it is subject knowledge that your TA is lacking. If yes, encourage them to spend more time on studying the subject.
* Suggest topics to the TA and task them with finding out whether the topic is suitable for an exercise and, if yes, fleshing it out. This relieves your TA of the problem of finding suitable topics and trains their skills in recognising good topics as such and doing the legwork.
* Discuss the topic with your TA. If there are no exercises to discuss about, talk about what skills you want the students to learn, etc.
Finally beware that creating exercises mostly from scratch is a considerable time sink and may cost more time than your advisees can reasonably spend on teaching.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Creating an exercise is a harder task than solving it. Creating an exercise with restrictions on how a solution should go is even harder. The skill comes only after
you get really proficient in *solving problems* and that requires a few years, IMHO, so it is hopeless to try to teach it in one semester or so. When you look at a typical medium level exercise, you see in a split second what techniques should be applied and in another split second which approach is most promising (though it may take you some noticeable time to actually carry it out). Some graduate students are like that too and then they can play the problem design meta-game of going from an approach or a combination of approaches to some particular setup, but some others are still at the level of "I can figure out how to use this method of solution on this problem, but my only way to figure out which method to use is to randomly try all methods I remember until I either get through with one of them, or get stuck on everything". Those are just not ready for problem composition and, IMHO, won't be ready for it until their problem solving skills improve dramatically. So for them I would assign a simpler task of choosing an appropriate problem from a set of textbook exercises (which requires just solving the problems and seeing whether the method you used is the one that was specified). In the worst cases, just compose the exercises yourself and give up on the hope to teach in a few weeks the skill that takes a few years to develop.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/28
| 1,796
| 8,134
|
<issue_start>username_0: Conventional research almost always involves the research of only one aspect, problem. But sometimes, I feel, there is need for integrative, holistic, synergistic research projects. Let's consider artificial intelligence and neural networks. Almost always the individual research is around the specific problems - e.g. about implementation of one specific logic in neural networks, implementation of specific language model in neural networks, implementation of visual recognition in neural networks and so on. But the practice invites use to consider the whole system, cognitive architecture, e.g. that can use the synergy of common language/visual/auditory/tactile semantics to complete multiple tasks. Such synergy can lead to improved results and hence - it is welcome from the Science as well. There is indeed the research about cognitive architectures but it is far, far less in amount and gaining far less support than the research of specific themes.
My question is - what considerations should be taken into account when one chooses the integrative projects as the theme for his/her master or PhD thesis. What can go bad? I have heard about specific requirements, advice for the doing the systems research, maybe more warning and more suggestions can be made about the acceptable and good integrative research.
I guess, such integrative research of end-to-end systems is actual not only in the cognitive architectures, but also in systems biology where one is eager to consider multi-scale models of full organisms of even full ecosystems. Maybe such research should be done in late career only? But what about the cases when internal drive, interests and perception of topicality make one to choose such theme for master of PhD thesis and nothing less is enough for keeping the momentum of drive and flow.
p.s. with the advent of the category theory there seems to be the right toolbox for such integrative research and so, maybe today, where so much facts and ideas are gathered, maybe today is the right time for doing good integrative research.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure why you find this to be a special problem. We basically know how to teach people things. Just do it in the ordinary way.
If no framework for understanding how to do a task exists then you need to develop one. If you know how to do it, but are unique, then you need to capture what you do in some way that can be transmitted.
Then you "teach" it by presenting the framework and giving some exercises so that it can be practiced and giving some feedback on how people do.
It is a standard teaching problem.
If *no one* knows how to do it, then you need to do something like research to discover how it can be done and then operationalize that research. Again, a standard problem, with a standard solution.
But, one thing I would suggest is that you use some sort of team learning so that those who do it naturally can pass skills to those who struggle with it. Pairing is a good approach and one I often recommend for such tasks.
Beyond that, it will likely take the examination of good and bad examples, using discussion (by the TAs) of why some things work and others don't.
But it is *practice and feedback* that are the key to learning almost anything, hence key to teaching it.
---
Don't take the word "framework" too literally.
Also, the task itself is ill defined here. Expect that no one will be perfect at it and that the "examples" created will sometimes fail. But there are ways, such as pre-testing or other evaluative methods, to deal with that as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: A bit of background, so you can see where I am coming from:
I recently created exercises for two courses on applied physics:
* one about a subject I was mostly very familiar, where I had to create exercises from scratch,
* one about a subject that was mostly new to me, but for which I had with an existing collection of exercises targeted at a different audience for inspiration.
Almost all the exercises I created came into being via one of the following:
* I simplified the hell out of a prominent scientific application of the topic.
* I took an existing exercise and modified it for the target audience.
* Through my knowledge of the first subject, I could almost immediately recall a bunch of examples for a given topic, and could choose something fitting for an exercise.
Note that I would consider my knowledge here to go beyond “knowing all of the relevant scientific results”, since it also involved being familiar with applications, not so prominent results, etc.
Not seldom these were cases where I had already thought that the case would make for a good exercise years before.
Also, some of these examples directly came from my own research.
Fun fact: Some of these cases were problems I had first encountered in SE questions and in one case debunking a wrong SE answer.
* Somebody experienced with the subject suggested a topic to me.
* Discussing the topic in general, rejected exercise ideas, etc. with somebody knowledgeable about the topic.
Note that *thinking very hard about the topic* is not on this list. If it were in the case you are outlining (relevant applications), one could easily come up with a new research topics just like that. Instead, my standard workflow for the second course would be to delve into the topic at hand, reading the lecture notes, textbooks, online material, papers, etc. – for the first course I had already done this and at worst had to jog my memory. In particular, creating exercises for the second course was considerably more difficult, even though I had more material to work from.
Once I had recognised a good topic for an exercise as such, fleshing it out to an actual exercise was mostly legwork.
So, in your case, the following may help:
* Consider if it is subject knowledge that your TA is lacking. If yes, encourage them to spend more time on studying the subject.
* Suggest topics to the TA and task them with finding out whether the topic is suitable for an exercise and, if yes, fleshing it out. This relieves your TA of the problem of finding suitable topics and trains their skills in recognising good topics as such and doing the legwork.
* Discuss the topic with your TA. If there are no exercises to discuss about, talk about what skills you want the students to learn, etc.
Finally beware that creating exercises mostly from scratch is a considerable time sink and may cost more time than your advisees can reasonably spend on teaching.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Creating an exercise is a harder task than solving it. Creating an exercise with restrictions on how a solution should go is even harder. The skill comes only after
you get really proficient in *solving problems* and that requires a few years, IMHO, so it is hopeless to try to teach it in one semester or so. When you look at a typical medium level exercise, you see in a split second what techniques should be applied and in another split second which approach is most promising (though it may take you some noticeable time to actually carry it out). Some graduate students are like that too and then they can play the problem design meta-game of going from an approach or a combination of approaches to some particular setup, but some others are still at the level of "I can figure out how to use this method of solution on this problem, but my only way to figure out which method to use is to randomly try all methods I remember until I either get through with one of them, or get stuck on everything". Those are just not ready for problem composition and, IMHO, won't be ready for it until their problem solving skills improve dramatically. So for them I would assign a simpler task of choosing an appropriate problem from a set of textbook exercises (which requires just solving the problems and seeing whether the method you used is the one that was specified). In the worst cases, just compose the exercises yourself and give up on the hope to teach in a few weeks the skill that takes a few years to develop.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/28
| 1,110
| 4,473
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a genuine problem in waking up early in the morning. My advisor prefers to walk in my office whenever he wanted to. Lately, he started to complain to me about not showing up in the morning. Even the way to
he used to come to my office has changed, he started to open the door without knocking and then the first thing he checks my computer screen.
I tried to tell him that about my difficulties and suggested scheduling meetings instead. He told me these are the rules of the institution and I have to follow them.
Long story short, I started to come early in the morning but I can barely get anything done.
---
**Update 1**: I reviewed the contract, it explicitly mentioned that working time starts no later than 9am. My contract is with an institution not the university directly.
**Update 2** : I consulted a doctor and I have been diagnosed with depression. Besides the medication that was prescribed to me, I was asked to take a rest from the school.
Thank you, everyone, for sharing your thoughts.<issue_comment>username_1: As a fellow night owl, I feel your pain. Normally I would suggest concisely explaining your difficulties and suggesting a work-around to your advisor, but it sounds like you've already done that. Sadly, your advisor does have the right to set working hours, so **you have no real recourse** other than finding a different advisor.
The situation might be different if you have a medical diagnosis/disability -- but I don't think "night owl" will qualify, since waking up early is not harmful to your health (not sure about French law though). What I've done in similar situations is to use melatonin to fall asleep early and caffeine pills to wake up -- probably not the healthiest solution long-term, but it does the trick for me.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The advisor of my first postdoc also demanded this... The point is, if he doesn't respect your needs and instills this torture from you just because he can, he is probably unhappy about something else, thinks you are lazy, or just is a dick. And you torturing yourself is just not worth it. Better leave. I so much wish I left that first postdoc boss ...
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> He told me these are the rules of the institution and I have to follow them.
>
>
>
I've done my PhD and two postdocs in three different universities in France and I've never heard of such rules. On the contrary, my experience is that the standard in academia working hours is whatever works for you.
The problem is to avoid a confrontation with your advisor, as you probably don't want to have a bad relation with them. You could try a slowdown strategy (*grève du zèle*): you abide by their rules but you follow all the rules, that is working no more than the legal 35 hours a week, not answering emails or doing anything outside working hours, etc. Hopefully after a few weeks of this your advisor will realize that it's better to let you decide yourself how to organize your working time.
I'd say that's the French way to deal with it... sorry for the stereotype ;)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: There are lots of jobs where you have designated hours. One of the nice things about grad school is a bit more freedom on hours (at the cost of drastically lower pay). But my advice is to just start working normal hours.
You CAN do this. Start going to be bed earlier (take a hot bath to help). Also start exercising in the late afternoon, early evening (before dinner, before getting diverted to TV or Internet). A little bit of physical tiredness helps with making it easier to get to sleep.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm currently working at my third postdoc, which is a collaboration between a company and a university, and I am based at the company.
I am required to keep the company's hours; they do have flexi-time, but considering the core hours are between 9am and 4pm, it's not that handy. When I started, I decided to work 8am to 4pm, to avoid a busy and stressful commute.
This was a bit of a change from my previous postdoc, and I've found the best way to implement it is by sticking to a schedule - wake up at the same time, catch the same bus to and from work, leave at the same time. Not massively exciting, perhaps, but it's working for now.
I do feel this sort of schedule is, to some extent, a detriment to creativity and efficiency, but thems the rules.
Upvotes: 1
|
2019/04/28
| 1,620
| 7,107
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student in Computational Materials Science in the US with just one publication in a Q1(according to Scimago Journal Rank) or Q2(according to Journal Citation reports) journal. Another as co-author in a Q1 (according to both) journal. I have manuscripts ready for two works with finalizing one more work and will be submitting them by July end. My advisor isn't available at the moment to work on my manuscripts. So, hopefully will get them done in July. But, I will also be submitting my thesis this August and hopefully defend in October. I will be looking for postdoc positions soon. But considering my poor publishing record, how should I approach prospective postdoc P.I's?<issue_comment>username_1: Whether you are in a good place or a bad place depends on too many things to be definitive. The simple number of publications means very little. A few high quality publications answering difficult questions is more impressive than a lot of simple results easily obtained.
Approach getting a position the way anyone does, no matter what their record. Make your best case that you are just exactly the right person for the position and that you have the skills required and plenty of ideas to carry you through. Tailor your applications to the positions offered, rather than just having a generic application that you send out randomly.
But it is also valuable to have a lot of "work in progress", so that the potential for future publication is there. Keep a notebook of research ideas that you can draw on, so that if you get blocked on one project you have others that might be advanced a bit. Add to it as new ideas come to you.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Towards the end of PhD with just one publication. What are my options?
>
>
>
Well, your options are the same as everyone at the end of a PhD :)
If you are interested in continuing as a postdoc, you should definitely apply.
As username_1 said, you should mention your work in progress in your applications. If possible, you can also give a link to a preprint version of your papers.
The only problem with a low publication record is the competition for a particular position: if in your field PhD students usually publish significantly more than you, all other things being equal a PI will choose another candidate who published more than you. But all other things are rarely equal in research, the PI usually wants to find the right person for the job, not only somebody who has published a lot.
Obviously a position in a major university or with a famous researcher in your field will attract many applications, so it's mathematically harder to get accepted. So
in the unlikely event that your publication record proves to be an issue (something you will know if your first batch of applications are rejected), you could try to adjust and target some less competitive positions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Perhaps a low number of publications is common in your field. I cannot comment on that. In my field (engineering), I would have students target a goal of 1 paper (conference or journal) per year at high quality conferences/journals. I think that is a reasonable number.
But this is not all your fault. I view the job of reviewing students papers as one of the primary responsibilities of an advisor. Your advisor choosing not to review your manuscripts for a couple months is negligent. I would try to get your advisor to change their stance on this point. I would express your concern with them by stating that you view having more publications as essential to your future job prospects, and so these remaining months are extremely valuable to you.
For what its worth, it is not uncommon for students to be most productive in their final year... You are finally at the point where you have a good handle of the field, and are in a great position to make some impactful publications.
Now how to make the best of this situation on applications...
If you don't have a lot of publications, then you will simply need to highlight your skills well on your resume. Postdocs are expected to publish quite a bit, and to be able to work quite independently. Through your cover letter, you need to convince them that you have the skills to do this.
I think the most effective approach for you moving forward would be to start work on 2 papers as if your advisor will be able to review them. Presumably if you are writing a dissertation, then you have enough material. If your advisor does not have enough time to review them, then you will include this material as part of your application. As part of the cover letter, you can then explain that you do not have many publications because your advisor could not review your material for several months, showing the papers as proof.
If your advisor does get around to reviewing the papers, then you will have 2 more publications. Win win...
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: This question depends entirely on what the publishing curve in your field looks like. In some fields, its very normal and expected for graduating PhD's to have multiple publications. In others, its rare if they have a single publication.
Also, being ahead of the publishing curve does not necessarily mean you will get a tenure track position at an R1 institute. It increases the likelihood but does not ensure anything. Sometimes there is little rhyme or reasoning for hiring committees.
If you are worried about your publication record, I recommend on securing a postdoctoral position. If you can land one at a top institute, thats even better. As a postdoc at Duke, I had postdoc colleagues who published in Nature/Science to those who had not yet published their dissertation. It just depended on the field.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: That kind of output is low. It's not that hard to make the spaghetti (band diagrams).
Seems like there are a couple issues. One, your own level of work/initiative. Two, the advisor dependence. My advice is to literally write papers as if you were going to submit it ON YOUR OWN. Make it as perfect as you can (writing, style, etc.) Then your advisor is only reviewing "staff perfect" documents.
In addition, after having submitted such level of quality papers, you should feel confident about being a squeaky wheel and just tell him to mail the things in (or to let you). After all, the whole point is for you to become a functioning independent researcher and you are practically done with the training period.
Note, that I'm not saying to immediately go nuclear. But definitely change your attitude to more of one of captaining your own ship and of the advisor as more of a gatekeeper, extra hurdle, etc. If he can add some value great. And don't be too obvious about it. But definitely write papers that you would literally send in on your own (polished, perfect) and after that don't accept "don't have time to review for months". That's UNSAT when you are doing all the work and he is writing grant reports and adding his name onto the lab group's papers.
Upvotes: 0
|
2019/04/28
| 2,363
| 9,030
|
<issue_start>username_0: In 1926, the article titled [*“On a certain minimal problem”*](https://www.math.uni-bielefeld.de/documenta/vol-ismp/30_nesetril-nesetrilova.pdf) was published. Nobody could guess what it was about, from the title alone.
Nowadays, one may expect something more descriptive, such as [*"Workspace Augmentation of Photon Impingement Through Impurities Removal"*](https://twitter.com/anilalur/status/193242505599401986).
I'd be interested when and why did the titles change, from the allusive style of the early 20th century, to the descriptive titles of today.
Was it a gradual change? Was it prompted by some notable event or influence? Was there a period when journal articles (or "letters" as it was then) did not have titles?<issue_comment>username_1: I have no evidence for this, but I'd guess that a significant factor is that at one time, people used to subscribe to particular journals and read, or at least skim, every article in every issue. So the title of your article wasn't necessarily a big factor in whether people read it or not.
Now that the volume of published research is much larger, and especially since the rise of computer-based searchable indexing of journals, readers will instead search for articles on a particular topic. In a listing of search results, the article's title is the first thing you see, and people use it to decide whether to go on to read the abstract or the paper itself. Thus, it is now more important to choose a descriptive title; if a researcher cannot tell from the title that it is (at least potentially) relevant to their interests, they are probably not going to read it at all.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: There's an interesting discussion of this in the introduction to *Titles are "serious stuff": a historical study of academic titles* by Salager-Meyer and <NAME> ([link](https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?id_clanak_jezik=162614&show=clanak)). One point they argue is that titles (as well as abstracts) increasingly need to be more informative given the growing production of papers, in order for readers to make quick decisions on whether to read them or not. If this is the main factor, the information content would be expected to increase similarly to the size of the relevant academic community.
However, there's something I find much more interesting hidden in the introduction:
>
> Other scholars have stressed that titles should be as informative as possible in order to facilitate the process of storing, searching and retrieving the information (Black 1962; Mitchell 1968; Tocatlian 1970; Feinberg 1973; Manten and Greenhalgh
> 1977; Hodges 1983; Diodato and Pearson 1985).
>
>
>
The [paper by <NAME>](https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/eb049899) (IBM British Laboratories) is titled *The Keyword: Its Use in Abstracting, Indexing and Retrieving Information* and discusses how
>
> Librarians have been accustomed to using systems, schedules, thesauri, lists of headings, etc., to define and classify the literature which comes into their keeping. They use these same methods to retrieve and disseminate this literature. However, within recent years these methods have begun to show signs of strain, and in some cases breakdown, due to the tremendous increase in the volume and complexity of technical literature.
>
>
>
Specifically, Black showed that a 1960s era (punch card) computer can be used to extract [keywords](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Word_in_Context) from a title to achieve a similar efficiency as manual classification, but for significantly cheaper cost, and allowing better scalability. Black also writes
>
> While the index may be practical and usable, we still do not know precisely how efficient it is. In its present form, the efficiency is dependent on the author's choice of title. <...> before long the engineer, scientist, or mathematician will realize that if his title is not descriptive enough his paper will not be used as much as it might be.
>
>
>
Of course, if this automation of title processing is the main factor, one would expect to see a significant increase in the information content of titles starting some point in the late 50s, or early 60s. A 1970 paper by [<NAME>](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.4630210506) called *Are titles for chemical papers becoming more informative?* looked at precisely this, by comparing measures of information content between papers published in 1948, 1958, and 1968. (1958 being the year the [KWIC index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Word_in_Context), or Key Word in Context, was introduced.) As Fig. 1 below shows, they found no significant difference between 1948 and 1958, but very different results for 1968. Here the measure A, for example, is defined as the total number of substantive or informative words. On the other hand, Fig. 2 shows that titles with few substantive words might have started being eliminated before the introduction of the KWIC index.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/S5L1X.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/C696P.png)
---
I don't know if there is similar evidence from other fields that the introduction of automated indexing was an important development, but it strikes me as likely that the same mechanisms would apply elsewhere too. So, long story short, a growing number of publications and the introduction of computers may have driven a large part of the push towards more descriptive and informative titles.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I don't know that this is actually a trend, but to the extent that it is - here a few possible contributing factors:
* Can't use the same pun/quip more than once per field: After somebody publishes "On a certain minimal problem", you can't publish "On a certain other minimal problem".
* Less familiarity and cultural commonality in research communities: It's easier to presume people you know, or whose cultural background you share, would enjoy, accept or appreciate a more creative or whimsical title.
* Relatively fewer authors who speak English natively: I believe/guess/assume that when writing in a second language, you are less likely to creatively phrase things, particularly titles.
* Relatively fewer works by individual authors: A group of people is less likely to collectively have the idea to use a create or whimsical title (though not entirely unlikely I suppose).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: One aspect that I don't see mentioned yet is the change from academia as an upper-middle-class middle-aged white male club to a broader, more diverse group of people (that still needs to be more diverse). Clubs have in-jokes, secret handshakes, common interests aside from their common profession. Professional groups don't.
(Since comments suggest this isn't clear, I'm talking about the 1950s, not the 19th century. If you're not familiar with the Old Boys Club that made up academia in the first half of the 20th century, look at photos and count the women, non-white members. Look up the Jewish quota, which was still *officially* in place until the 1960s in some places in North America - and unofficially, in many places.)
When you could assume that most people who would look at your title had a similar background to you, you could be pretty confident your clever little pun would register in the context you meant. Today, hopefully, that's not the case.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Why didn't you title your question "On a certain trend in titles"? Because you wanted people to know at a glance what your question is about and click on it. In my field, there are at least a dozen new arXiv preprints a day. If the title doesn't look even slightly interesting, I pass. Giving an "allusive" (I protest at the qualifier "creative") is fine if you're a superstar, otherwise, you will just get lost in the mass of academic literature.
One thing that others have not mentioned: it's *pretentious* to give such a title to your article. If you write an article entitled "on a certain minimal model", it better be the definitive article on minimal models. If you don't, then you are embarrassing yourself by implicitly claiming that your text is on equal footing with other great texts entitled "On..." as was common at some point in math when authors wrote treatises.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I see this as the result of online presence of people as we are more dependent on internet for any prior peice of informtion. So people search for results and google work starts here google bots pick most relevant and trusted content and produce as result for the users. Here comes bunch or results now users pick the most descriptive easy and picky titled post.
So there is a hunch in market to get more and more traffic resulting more **descriptive** or say **over optimised titles**
Upvotes: -1
|