date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2020/05/26
| 2,393
| 10,170
|
<issue_start>username_0: One of my classes had a midterm scheduled right after we were all sent home due to Covid-19. The professor said that for this midterm, we were allowed to use notes, both his and our own, browse the internet, and talk with peers during the exam. While this seems abnormal, we, as a class, checked multiple times and he confirmed this policy every time. Thus, during the exam, about 2/3 of the class (~10 people) got in one video call and were talking during the exam.
For the final, the professor simply said that the rules would be the same as the midterm listed above. To our discredit, no one double checked what the professor meant and simply went with it. Of course, the same ~10 people got on the video call again and did the final. It was not an easy final, despite us collaborating and looking at notes, leading me to suspect nothing wrong. The professor also had not posted a note saying collaboration was allowed on the exam, although this was the same as the previous midterm, so I thought he had just overlooked this. Looking back, I see the fallacy in this, but it did not seem important at the time.
However, recently I was talking to an acquaintance from the class, one of the 10 in the video call, and I found out that he had indeed checked with the professor about peer collaboration on the final, which the professor explicitly disallowed (this was during office hours). This acquaintance said he did not tell this to us as he needed us helping him on the final to pass the class.
I'm conflicted on what to do now, as it has been over 3 weeks since the end of semester (4 weeks since the final in question) and most of the class was in on the video call. If anything, all our answers were EXTREMELY similar (most were exact copies) to the point that it would be obvious we were collaborating. On one hand given the above, it seems unnecessary to dig this up. On the other hand, I'm not sure that I'm not reasoning my way through having cheated. Please advise.<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming that the no-collaboration rule was really not communicated to you, then you didn't cheat. You followed the rules as you reasonably understood them based on the information you were given. There's no such thing as "unknowingly cheating"; it requires intent.
However, there is a substantial risk that the professor may *think* you have cheated, if he mistakenly thinks he made it clear to the entire class that collaboration was not allowed. So it is in your best interest to clear it up before any formal charges are considered. Just explain what you've said here: you were told that the rules would be "the same" as the midterm (if you have this in writing, better yet), and you later found out that other students were told something different.
The fact that the term has ended means nothing. It is entirely possible, in all academic systems I know of, to impose a punishment for cheating even after the term is over, perhaps months or years later. And it is not too unusual that investigations can't be completed before grades are due, in which case the professor may assign the grade based on an assumption of no cheating, but it can be changed retroactively if his investigation confirms wrongdoing.
So even if you don't want to "dig it up", the professor still can, and you will convey more honesty if you get out ahead of it. You have a good defense, but it won't look as good if you have to say "well, I found out afterwards there might be a problem, but I didn't say anything because I hoped you wouldn't notice".
Note that your acquaintance definitely *did* cheat, if he's telling the truth about what the professor told him: he'd been clearly informed that collaboration was not allowed and he did it anyway. Moreover, he did it in a way that placed innocent students at risk of being suspected and prosecuted for cheating. Many people would feel that you also have an obligation to report this to the professor.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: This is an uncomfortable situation.
Document your knowledge of the rules as you understood at the time of the final, and also the midterm (the rules to which were included by reference on the final). Save any emails or written explanations you received about the rules.
I would (somewhat painfully) recommend that you not bring this up with your instructor at this time. If they are as disorganized and reckless as this situation suggests, then I would not trust their capacity to process or deal with the mess in a reasonable way. By analogy: There are cases of people reporting software/system bugs in good faith who are then brought up on charges by confused authority figures looking for someone to punish.
Note also that you only have a report of this issue second-hand from a single student who is self-admittedly an unreliable source. There have been many times in my experience when a student says,"Professor X said [crazy thing]", and on tracking it down, turns out to be a misunderstanding or misrecollection on the student's part. Alternatively, people who tend to be fraudsters also tend to lie and cause anxiety for personal amusement. So you may be liable to bother or confuse your professor about nothing, and be embarrassed by that.
If the issue does come up in the future, then present your documented evidence honestly.
[Don't poke the bear.](https://writingexplained.org/idiom-dictionary/poke-the-bear)
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I agree with the answer by <NAME>, which quotes the famous saying "Don't poke the bear". Your description of the situation makes it very clear that you did not *intend* to cheat, and that you are proactively coming here to ask advice on how to handle the situation, which many would say is quite responsible of you to do, so there is only two reasons why you would want to poke the bear:
* If you *want* to experience what it is like to be involved in a university-level academic integrity investigation (trust me, you do not).
* The bear is more likely than not, to come after you anyway, so you wish to proactively "turn yourself in", which would improve your chances of having a happy ending to the situation.
Let's asses the second point in more detail:
>
> For the final, the professor simply said that the rules would be the
> same as the midterm listed above. To our discredit, no one double
> checked what the professor meant and simply went with it.
>
>
>
In my opinion, with only the information you have provided here, you were under no obligation to "double check". If the professor said the rules would be the same as for the midterm, leave it at that.
>
> If anything, all our answers were extremely similar (most were exact copies) to the point that it would
> be obvious we were collaborating.
>
>
>
This part would be seen as cheating in my opinion. Even if the professor said that "you can collaborate", **it is common sense that, on a take-home exam, "being allowed to collaborate" still means you have to write your own separate answers.**
If *you* did submit extremely similar answers to anyone else, then I personally would call it cheating, and you might consider telling your professor in advance, to mitigate any consequences you might have coming at you for it, except:
* You said it has been 4 weeks since it happened and nothing has been said of the situation, so I would guess that nothing will happen.
* You said that the class thought the rules were the same as the midterm: Do you
know if your group submitted almost identical answers during the midterm too? If you did and there was no consequences, it's unlikely (though not impossible) to be brought up now.
If you did not submit extremely similar answers to anyone else, then my personal advice to you is to relax and start to focus on more important things, such as your career goals or next set of academic courses.
**In the future: please do not submit what you described as "extremely similar answers" for anything, even if it is a take-home exam.** There is no excuse not to spend a bit of extra energy to make each answer your own, and if you cannot do this then you do not understand your answer, and should not be trying to give the examiner the false impression that you do. **This will keep you from having to deal with the stress of your current dilemma, ever again.**
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Focusing solely on the practicality rather than the morality; the die has already been cast and it will almost certainly make no difference to the outcome whether you speak up or not.
* The marker of the test knows that you have collaborated
* They will decide whether or not to accept this or report it
* If it is reported any sanctions will apply to the whole group
*The marker knows* - even if you're answers are not exact copies, but somewhat similar then it will be pretty obvious to whoever marks the papers that you collaborated, especially given none of you were trying to hide it. This person may or may not be your professor; depending on the exam/institution it may also be cross-checked by someone else potentially even from a different institution. You 'flagging-up' the collaboration won't make it any more obvious.
*They will choose to flag it or not*. This will depend on who has marked the paper, their integrity, and whether they accept that collaboration was allowed. If it is raised as an issue then this process could take several weeks and already be underway. Once again your involvement will not alter any ongoing process (although you may be given more information about the current status), but there is a very slim chance you could cause further investigation to be made.
*Consequences*. Any action taken by your university will almost certainly be applied to all students involved. It's hard to envisage an outcome where 9/15 students resit/retake/are expelled but one is given a pass because they spoke up several weeks after the incident happened.
In summary, you have nothing practically to gain by speaking up, but if you choose to you probably run a slim-risk of creating a worse situation.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/26
| 1,000
| 4,311
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently half-way through my graduate research program. I have two advisors, one that was supposed to be my main advisor (who
admitted me into the program) and a co-advisor. Over the past few months, I feel that my main advisor has all but abandoned my efforts.
1. We're supposed to have weekly meetings but the main advisor will
skip them every other week or so for various reasons. For instance, they skipped
meeting with me recently to continue to help another graduate student with making edits
for a final submission of a paper. I, however, had the same final submission deadline
and also needed assistance with making edits from reviewer comments.
2. Initially, I thought that the main advisor may have just been unusually busy for the year.
However, I learned that they will email the other two MSc students sometimes 3-4 times in a single
day with correspondence about ideas to try. That is, it seems that they are actively engaged in the other students' projects. Further, their meetings with the other 2 MSc students sometimes go for 3-4 hours or even late into the night.
Conversely, my meetings, if they take place, are ended at the hour.
The co-advisor still meets with me regularly but they have their own graduate students and so
I'm not sure that they prioritize my project. I feel this way because I almost always have to remind them what my project is about at the start of meetings.
I have some questions:
1. Should I communicate my concerns with them? If so, how do I communicate this without offending
them about their supervisory capabilities?
2. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive about being de-prioritized and this is a relatively
normal situation? Does that seem to be the case?
I would like to work on a PhD so I want to get the most I can from this degree.<issue_comment>username_1: Based on my experience and suffer I have now, I will strongly suggest you try another lab or even try to apply for a new university for your MS degree. I understand it is a hard decision (or you may think it is irrational or immature) for you now, but when I looked back, With the no or even wrong instruction given by the wrong professor, you will easily get in trap or trouble for science, and unfortunately, you might only enable to realize those problems after several years. Then everything might be too late. So trust me, if you still have time, change the lab. If you do not have time or are too close for the graduation, try to talk with your co-advisor as much as possible and try your best to make only one publication as perfect as possible. Then continue your academic life in a more productive lab with a more suitable supervisor.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: don't say "they don't believe in my ability as a researcher", it's self loathe and may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As a supervisor of msc and phds myself, I think research skills can be learned. Are they pointing you towards resources at the university, like training on research methods? Do you think you lack those?
I add that weekly meetings are a luxury at my university, so maybe your supervision is working fine, and you may have just a bit of envy of the extra attention your peers receive? Or do you think your research is really suffering and struggling to progress?
I saw you've been thinking about possible reasons above, but I believe there are more explanations like (4), maybe the subject area of the other students is closer to what the supervisor does, so they have more to talk; (5) your area is more advanced than what they do so they don't know the methods and don't have much to contribute. I believe that you can talk to the main adviser openly about your concerns. You can directly ask them what they think about your research and where it's going. You can also ask about the frequency of the meetings. It will be a delicate conversation but it's better said and resolved than let accumulate. But the main question is, do you believe it's a good project? Is it interesting and innovative? Are you on top of the literature?
And grab the opportunity of writing that a publication, obviously it's very good for your phd application but also can increase the interest and frequency of communications with the current advisers.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/27
| 535
| 2,342
|
<issue_start>username_0: Have you all ever had different results when repeating your own experiment? I did some work for my dissertation and am now redoing it for better images and hopefully for publication. The results are not replicating at all which leads me to think either an error was made before or is being made now. Would you think to repeat with more replicates and document those results instead of the initial results? It's just so draining, but I don't want to publish inaccuracies.<issue_comment>username_1: That certainly means that this material is not ready for publication.
No matter when the error (**is it even an error?**) was made (in the initial or subsequent experiment), one first has to figure out why the results are the way they are. From some angle, it is even a blessing that the results are mismatched: it forced to "bake the research" a little longer until it is ready.
I strongly suggest analyzing the experiments setup, experiment procedure, raw data, post-processed results in order to explain what is going on. Maybe, it's worth conducting a third experiment (if it is a viable approach).
While [*triple modular redundancy* adage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy) does not fit here perfectly as an analog:
>
> Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
>
>
>
the third (fourth/fifth/...) experiment might give you some insight into what is going on. And taking only one chronometer—just because it leads to a potentially faster publication—would be a wrong approach.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is difficult to tell without knowing the nature of the experiment. If you are using simulated data, discrepancies are normal. Perhaps both runs are correct but some simulated values caused the results to diverge greatly. Also, there may be a mistake or inadvertent change the second time. Perhaps both runs are correct or perhaps both are false and you need to fill in a practical or theoretical gap. You should double-check everything but in a meaningful, consistent way. "Why the results are wrong" might be the wrong starting point - try something like "what is different in the setup/ layout/ data/ process/ interpretation?". Don't focus on matching the results, focus on spotting the differences and then try to assess their effect.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/27
| 1,197
| 5,305
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Main Question:** Should someone gain good computer programming skills/experience **through a software engineering job** before entering a 5-year PhD program in Computer Science (Tentative specialization: Reinforcement Learning, Machine Learning, Deep Learning)?
**IMPORTANT NOTE**:-
The reason for asking about gaining programming skills & experience is:-
* **NOT from the perspective of resume/application strength** (i.e., whether one would get accepted to a PhD program or not), but rather from the perspective of **whether one would be more productive (hence faster) during computational research** in AI (i.e., running computational experiments).
* **NOT related to being or not being able to complete the research and get the PhD degree**.
As mentioned earlier, it's about whether having strong programming and software development skills would enable one to implement and test ideas more quickly. As some PhD students say that a lot of their time goes into implementing the ideas, during the initial months of their PhD.
Slow implementation of ideas → Slow progress.
Many (not everyone!) students interested in pursuing research and planning to get into AI research through a PhD program, have limited to no software development experience. Many of such students have only worked on research projects involving limited programming skills, often having no software development experience.
Clearly, such students would have limited ability to implement and test ideas, by running computational experiments.
So, would doing a software engineering job and gaining strong coding experience significantly help them during their (computational) experimental work in PhD?
**Please consider that the potential candidate aspires:-**
* To disseminate research findings or knowledge (during PhD and beyond) not just by (traditionally) writing papers or blogs, but by deploying models on the web like [<NAME>](https://twitter.com/karpathy) did through some of his famous projects like [ConvnetJS](https://cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/convnetjs/), [RecurrentJS](https://cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/recurrentjs/), [tsneJS](https://cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/tsnejs/), [ReinforceJS](https://cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/reinforcejs/), or by interactive visualizations like [Distill](https://distill.pub/), etc.
To be able to do so, I believe that one would need to be good at software engineering.
* Aspires to perform [reproducible research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility?section=4#Reproducible_research) and writing re-usable code, which can only be achieved by good software engineering practices, generally acquirable by working in software engineering sector.
To achieve such task, one would need to spend a significant amount of their time, during the initial PhD months, on getting good at programming and software development. Clearly, this amount of time and effort would have been better spent on doing research, and testing more and more new ideas.
So, that's what my question is focused on.
---
What advice/suggestions do you have on what should one do considering his/her current coding capabilities and above expectations from the PhD?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the answer largely depends on what role you are in.
If you are a professor on the graduate admission committee, and/or consider taking Ph.D. students, you are free to set your standards according to your opinions (that I disagree with, but irrelevant here).
If you are a student that is considering applying to a Ph.D. program in that area, or a Ph.D. student that is choosing research area now, I think it is unnecessary to delay the application process/research just to gain software engineer experience. While it is cool to write clean and nice style code, the software engineer skills, while still helpful, are unlikely the main focus in academic research. For the purpose you describe, I believe those skills can be obtained during the time in a Ph.D. program doing related research, and would not be too time consuming.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Sorry that I'm a bit late with an answer, I hope not too late.
I doubt that a software engineering *job* will get you closer to your goal. It might take you farther afield. You do need to be able to program effectively but that is different from working at a SE job. Your research work will, perhaps, depend on programming, though less if the research is highly theoretical than if it is more applied. But *you* will set the specifications for your programs, rather than having others do so. A SE job, on the other hand has you build things to the specifications of others and they may not be related to what you want to actually learn about software development in any way. And you might find it very boring.
Note that if your research is highly theoretical, then there may not be much required of actual programming. And you are unlikely to need SE skills at the level of "product" development in any case.
But if your programming skills are weak then it is likely that you have other weaknesses as well, such a algorithm analysis and complexity theory. You might want to find a way to address those. But a job won't advance you on that scale either.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/27
| 781
| 3,354
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student and I submitted a paper formally co-authored with my advisor months ago. The core idea of the paper is mine. During the first (major) revision, among other much needed, yet very time-consuming, improvements I had to implement, I had to take the methodological section over in order to develop a more compact, precise, and overall stronger argumentation. A further revision request, while appreciating my effort, now requires to hugely revise the (relatively small) part he developed and wrote. In spite of my great effort, the author order is established by my advisor as alphabetical and I feel I am not getting enough credit for my work. My advisor does not seem open to other options, such as specifying contribution in the appendix of the paper while keeping the alphabetic order of the authors.
An author listing convention is not defined in my field: alphabetical ordering is not uncommon, although first authorship undoubtedly has a relevance.
Overall, I think I have contributed from 80% to 90% of the paper. I do not know what to do in order to get my effort more properly acknowledged (I strongly desire so), nor I know if anything can be done at all.
I do not even know if this matter is worth the struggle, or maybe it is better (as for our student-advisor relationship) to let it go.
**EDIT:** thank you for your detailed answers. I appreciated both of them. I accepted @Buffy's answer for the slightly more practical approach - which I needed most - to the problem. I also felt the sympathy in @Titus' answer, and I appreciated it very much.<issue_comment>username_1: The good will of your advisor is more important, I think, that fighting for a minor issue over one paper. Hopefully this isn't your last or best paper. If alphabetical is acceptable in your field then let it go.
You could fight it to the death, of course, but it would be you that is more wounded than your professor if you don't get a good letter to boost you to your next career level.
If you do the right thing and reach that next level, then you will have more control over things. But you have to get there first.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I suppose the alphabetical order is in favour of the supervisor. Unfortunately, if the excuse is indeed valid for the field you cannot do much. You can try and challenge it based on the practices of target journals, but you should be prepared for some confrontation.
An informal convention in many fields is that the PhD student gets to be the first author and the supervisors follow. It is within the power of the supervisor to uphold it but it is also violated both in favour of an undeserving student and to the detriment of a deserving one. Field conventions do vary, but as long as first authorship has weight and there is not a very good reason I am thoroughly in favour of first authorship going to the PhD student. I can only express my sympathy.
In my experience, a standard situation for publications stemming from a PhD is that the major bulk of the workload falls on the PhD student and supervisors undertake some rewriting (introduction/ conclusion/ discussion), polishing and getting the paper published. In that context, it is natural for the student to undertake as it is part of the learning process of the PhD.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/27
| 619
| 2,600
|
<issue_start>username_0: English is not my first language. My pronunciation and grammar are not perfect. I tried to write an essay in my own words. After that I asked for help from my friend to proofread the essay.
She told me I’m cheating to have someone help in this way, because when I submit the essay, the words and grammar will be different than what I wrote (the first version of the essay has too much incorrect grammar). That’s why she will report me.
I don’t think I am wrong because the tutorials in every school are still using proofreaders to help students.
The instructor just said that we should be using sources from class to do the essay, and to cite any other sources. The policies don’t say that I can’t use proofreading.
So what do I have to do? Will the report affect me in the future?<issue_comment>username_1: I assume in ELL courses it's your job to proofread, re-edit and re-edit more until it's polished. So put in more work to fine-tune your essays yourself. Even native English speakers need to do this. Edit your essay over and over again until you think it's the best you can do (or the best with the time available).
For the specific situation, perhaps ask the instructor yourself (hopefully before your "friend" reports you). If you were in the wrong, perhaps suggest an additional assignment to replace or at least slightly improve your standing in the class.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Well in my case in the past that's not a problem because I will always have my classmates, friends, relative or parents and sometimes my teachers proof read my essays.
Maybe now some teachers would punish there student but in the past your teacher would praise you for it.
Or as an alternative ask first if its okay or not to ask somebody else proof read your essays .
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: The only correct answer is to **ask your instructor.**
As a general rule though, **proofreading is encouraged.** In the professional world, proofreading (or copy editing) is a normal part of scholarship because the goal is to make the final paper as neat and polished as possible.
Sometimes it is appropriate to cite help you have had with a paper. If there is legitimate contribution and collaboration, this is often done with giving co-authorship. If a specific idea is used, this is often in the form of a footnote. **For proofreading,** this is sometimes in the form of an acknowledgement; sometimes proofreaders are not recognized at all.
Unless your instructor specifically prohibited proofreading, **this is not cheating/plagiarism.**
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/27
| 1,709
| 7,760
|
<issue_start>username_0: After an incident where a complaint has been submitted against my private social media profile by students (with whom I had no interaction, nor were my posts directed towards) I felt attacked in a way I didn't feel before. Since my research is the most valuable thing to me in my life, I decided that my reaction will be to shut down all of my social media interactions and kept quiet for the past half a year. I am considering the cons of reopening my social media accounts and would love some input.
When closing my accounts, what scared me the most was the idea that a part of my life that has nothing to do with research, would interrupt my academic reputation, which is hard enough to build on its own as you all know. Weighing out the different possible outcomes, I felt like I prefer focusing on my research than being the Rosa Parks of crazy posting online.
Things became most awkward when at some point, I felt like I was forced to explain myself to faculty who come from a different generation, with different perception of the nuances of social behavior now days, which is already a stereotypical issue in the field I come from to begin with. This made me very frustrated. I found it very uncomfortable when I tried to explain the situation to some professor whom these students approached in order to file an official complaint against me, and this Professor didn't even want to hear me out. Although our relationship has normalized since, I figured out that the more provocative social media interaction I take part in, the more I would find myself in the position of needing to explain myself to people without some necessary background or motivation to understand where I am coming from. This has led me to stop all of my social media interactions immediately after "the incident".
My advisor, which I absolutely adore, both as a researcher and as a human being, has advised me strongly against engaging in social media in any form since. He told me that time and time again he has seen people suffering from negative effects on their careers, and that it is not worth it. However, I do not feel like he necessarily knows all of the aspects in which I gain value out of participating in social media interaction, and besides, I should have the right to live my own private life outside the academia. My advisor says that as a T.A. in a university I am "half a public figure" and this forces me to some unspoken social code of behavior. However, I am not sure I am very fond of that unspoken social code. I understand why it is absolutely important to be sensitive and politically correct within the confines of the classroom, and when interacting with peers, students and superiors, but where is it said that choosing a research career implies that I must be PG13 within the confines of my own social life? Would you feel like you would personally want to opt out of having research interactions with someone that has a provocative YouTube channel or Twitter accounts? Do you feel that it is necessary for me to suppress my desire to express myself creatively online in favor of an academic career?
It should be mentioned that the faculty has revoked the complaint against me and has told me that their official response is that it is not anybody else's business what I do online. However, I do feel like there is room for extra care in such a gray area topic. I am curious to hear your thoughts on this quite personal contemplation.<issue_comment>username_1: Often, people confuse the protections of the freedom of expression in various forms as protection from judgment by others rather than protections from government (and sometimes employer) sanction. In a free society, you have the right to express the things you want to express on social media (with a few key exceptions), but you *do not have the right for that expression to not influence the opinions others have of you*.
It seems like you've run into conflicts based on not knowing the boundaries of this principle. Therefore, stepping back from social media seems like **good advice from an academic perspective**.
You'll have to weigh for yourself whether this advice is too stifling on your personal expression. Some types of expression may be too valuable. However, if you make that choice you have to understand that it comes with consequences.
Social media is not a venue through which you get to have a pulpit without taking a risk. You can reduce the risk through anonymous accounts or by sharing among friends rather than the general public, but things you post on Twitter are no different in principle from things you stand and shout on the street outside your university buildings.
I personally am not opposed to working with people who speak their mind publicly, but there are certain things, such as those that are racist or sexist, those that are homophobic or transphobic, those defending or supporting certain types of crimes, etc, that for the sake of my own expression I will not tolerate. Just as some will choose to use their freedoms to express those opinions, I will use mine to avoid working with them as long as I'm within the law.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: While I stay away from social networks myself, I have a bunch of friends in academia who are very vocal on certain issues which attract the attention of all sorts of people, many of whom are idiots or really nasty human beings who try to interfere with my friends' lives and academic careers.
So far, they are doing quite fine despite all the noise. If you decide to stay on social media, here is some advice based on their success:
Learn about privacy settings and use them
-----------------------------------------
Many social networks have detailed privacy settings which allow the user to keep good control over who sees what. The default behavior is usually to share with everyone because it brings ad revenue to the social network's owners. You can keep nosy strangers out of your social circle by restricting their access.
Use a pseudonym on your social networks
---------------------------------------
While unusual these days, it's still a good idea to use a nickname while on social media. Your friends and family will get used to seeing a nickname and if you do not post too many photos of yourself, you will stay under the radar of strangers.
Learn to argue your point
-------------------------
If you say controversial things on social media, be ready for a confrontation. If your arguments are watertight, you do not need to fear being questioned about what you said. In academic context, it's good to have them supported by research.
When later questioned about your statements, do not go into defensive mode immediately. For example, if somebody tells you "People have been complaining about your statement X on social media.", do not start with "But it's true!", but rather "What did I say that they have problems with?" to make sure that you are on the same page. If it's something crazy (as it often is when some social justice warrior accuses you of wrongdoing), you can respond with "That's not what I said at all, I said that [include your reasonable statement here]".
Be a decent human being in general
----------------------------------
Resist the urge to be nasty to people on social media. If your posts are calm and reasonable, people will generally not have reasons to complain and if they do, they will look like idiots. It is possible to say even controversial things in a way that makes it hard for anyone to accuse you of anything.
**In the end though, it is up to you alone to decide whether the additional stress, effort and potentially occasional drama is worth your presence on social networks.**
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/27
| 10,382
| 44,559
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am female and an early-career PI (principal investigator) in a discipline that tends to attract women, and people with high levels of anxiety (this is documented). In my first years as a graduate supervisor, I have selected a balanced group of men and women from a variety of backgrounds based on their academic potential and research interests.
I feel strongly about the PI’s role in reducing the stress and pressure of graduate school. Each student is fully supported financially and has a funded research project they declared and interest in and agreed to, and are encouraged to develop their own line of research according to their interests for subsequent projects. Some have a co-supervisor and all have a committee of PIs to support the training plan and help make important decisions. I encourage students to develop workload and project management skills, and am always available if they need help or to discuss, but I do not pressure them. I make it clear that I highly prioritize mental health and encourage them to only work 35 hours/week, take vacations when they like, to exercise/socialize, and to avail themselves of university services (of which we have many).
The men in my lab are doing very well. They occasionally need reassurance, emotional support, or an adjustment in tasks/approach, and then they are able to get on with their research and are well on their way to developing into independent, capable, and kind researchers.
Almost all of the women have turned out to have pre-existing mental health issues (anxiety, depression, and in one case PTSD). These students become overwhelmed, emotionally volatile, keep changing their ideas about what they want to work on (even though their funding is connected to lab projects), sometimes become jealous of other students' progress, and in some cases become entirely non-functional at intervals. I scramble to adjust their workload for example hiring undergrads to help with their data collection or doing it myself, investing hours in counseling and reassuring them, problem-solving with their committee/co-supervisors, and losing sleep when I know they are feeling miserable. I don’t see what more I can do actually change about their graduate experience while having them progress and be successful in their degrees, nor do they have concrete, stable ideas about how I could help.
So far, I am surprised that this seems to be a highly gendered issue. I feel ill-equipped to provide the needed level of psychological and emotional support for this kind of high-anxiety student – but nor can I run a lab and attend to my other duties if half of my students are taking 90% of my time and are making limited progress.
As woman and a person with a strong interest in equity, diversity and inclusiveness I am horrified at the idea, but I find myself considering only accepting to supervise non-female students until the lab is established and there is less startup pressure.
How can I avoid this terrible solution and live up to my ideals, while not going nuts myself?
---
Clarifications: I do not attempt to provide counseling(!), but rather refer students to mental health services for specific personal issues, which they can access free of charge. Some students choose to make me aware of their struggles, usually when they are in distress, in which case I try to work with them to rearrange practical aspects of their situation, and consult with senior colleagues if necessary. Students in my lab already have a lighter load than others in similar situations as they are fully funded without being required to serve as teaching assistants - they only have to do light coursework and progress on their own research projects. I am not trying to justify this practice, nor to assert that it is a universal problem (which is why I think it is not useful to defend my observations with specific statistics, though I have referenced several papers), but rather to find better solutions in my specific situation after having tried to make various changes and accommodations. I am not that worried about discrimination complaints and legal issues - selecting one person over another with the amorphous selection criteria we use and respondents have suggested can always be justified, which is why sexism and discrimination is such a difficult thing to remove from our system (but I am going to keep this anonymized).
Comment on my own mental health: I have some excellent mentors myself and am well supported by my colleagues, but I am admittedly in a difficult career stage. There is maybe a personality factor in that I have difficulty not being upset myself when people I am responsible for are in distress and I can do nothing for them, and they continue to disregard guidance and make choices that make things worse for themselves and others. In my opinion, some have no business starting a graduate degree with the unresolved problems they have. I would have difficultly finding the time and energy to support the drain that comes with people with pre-existing anxiety and depression, though will need to accept students occasionally to keep up projects and funding commitments. So perhaps I have no business selecting people for whom there is a higher risk of this problem, and whom I would not be able to optimally support at this time.
---
Final note:
My values are to support EDI and promote women and underrepresented groups in science and to treat people as individuals. My practical considerations are that I am having trouble during a critical early career stage supporting an unexpectedly high proportion of students with pre-existing anxiety and depression, and don't want to take on any more of them until I can be sure I can provide them with the needed level of support and that they will not cause problems for themselves or other people. I should note that other groups may have a higher prevalence of other sorts of problematic issues; this is just the one that is using most of my time and energy.
I think the best combination of answers is:
* recruit from amongst people I have had a chance to work with or a trusted colleague has (not just a letter of ref, which are often not very revealing)
* screen as selectively as possible for evidence of resilience, stress management, and coping skills with thoughtful interview questions
* make very sure students understand that it's going to be psychologically challenging
* be kind but reasonably supportive, but clear and firm about my role as a supervisor and what are non-negotiable expectations regarding professionalism
* accept that I can't fix people and I can only be responsible for their successful professional development if they want and let me
* ride it out, as the lab collectively gains more maturity the senior students and our lab culture will be able to help stabilize and support new people
Thanks everyone for your opinions and for remaining civil. I like to think that academic training equips people to examine controversial points and consider alternative viewpoints. For the most part this seems true here.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm in math, in the U.S., at an R1, and have for many years tried to be a good advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusivity.
Yes, in my several decades of experience observing (and managing) our grad program in math, I have certainly seen that onset of mental health issues is very significant for our grad students. No easy fix.
On the whole, our women have been more mature than the men, which is consistent with accepted appraisals of development.
Yes, in the U.S., women are not traditionally as discouraged from emotional expression as men. In my experience, the would entirely account (and more) for differences in observed expression of distress.
It may be statistically that the young people going in to math in the U.S. have a different psychological pattern than in other disciplines... but, in my several-decades observation of them, the women are generally more mature (if not necessarily more "happy").
So I do wonder about the interpretation of the events... considering my own experiences over some decades...
EDIT: Following @cag51's suggestion, I mean to suggest *not* changing admission policies in this regard until you have a bigger sample, as well as maybe seeing how things play out over longer periods of time. Adding yet-another platitude to my previous remarks, but which is very relevant here, the early-to-mid 20s is a very tumultuous time of life for many of us, and the person at 25 may be very different from the person who "went into that tunnel" at 22.
Also, in my observation, international students from many locations have, in effect, been "pre-filtered for toughness", by the system in which they grew up. There is somewhat less of that in the U.S. (although I am not competent to judge the situation for many traditionally-under-represented demographics...) Some of my colleagues have explicitly expressed preference for non-U.S. students, because "they don't complain". In my opinion "not complaining" is not a fundamental virtue, nor is "toughening people up"... by being a little mean or needlessly judgemental.
So, again, I'd *not* change admissions policies for now.
And, to be clear, some people who seem to have completely collapsed at one point *do* manage to get things together and do a good PhD and so on, while some people never seem to have issues but just don't finish. The real problem for *me* is that it is difficult to anticipate who is who... so some "gambles" seem to be necessary, to "give people a chance".
(And, again, this opinion is only based on anecdotal experience, rather than formal studies, ... as I've been a grad advisor and now-and-then Dir Grad Studies in Math, as well as paying attention to Diversity-Equity-Inclusivity for some decades...)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Should I avoid admitting female students for now?
>
>
>
No. Assuming the information you have posted is correct, using a gender filter is not ethical if implemented for the reasons you have given, as you seem to already know.
Actions you can take:
* Design a filter for prospective students that addresses your actual problem (bad behaviors).
* Stop providing counseling to your students. It is not ethical or effective to try and have both the counseling role and the supervisory role, even if you are trained in both. Supervisors can provide some support to students, but it sounds like you're going too far.
* Educate yourself further in managing students' problematic behaviors. This will include getting students outside support for their mental health.
* Be willing to terminate the supervisory relationship when it's not working. Obviously this is not a desirable option, but it needs to be available to you.
Reasons I am skeptical of the premise:
* It sounds like you've drawn a conclusion based on just the PhD students in the group of a "new prof", which is an unreasonably small sample.
* You say you cannot attract top students, but you think you are able to discard the majority of your applicant pool. This is not logically consistent.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: The situation the OP describes goes way beyond different behavioural patterns in male and female students. I am not convinced that gender/ sex is the defining factor but I can only speculate for the reasons, let alone any suggestions.
I would focus much more on any pattern in the topics selected by male/ female students, and if there is a discernible connection to their CVs or background. It is plausible that the OP's area of interest attracts students of a certain background who pick certain topics, and that association revealed itself particularly strongly in those particular female students. In fields like psychology, for instance, a prime motivator to engage in research on a specific area are personal circumstances. I am not suggesting in any way a violation of someone's privacy or gossiping behind a student's back, but keeping an eye out for similar situations in the department or elsewhere, discussions in a common room, press articles and academic papers and most of all any interactions with the students themselves might reveal a lot.
It could also be accidental and the OP is simply observing a bad run - it is impossible to tell without knowing the number of cases. If there is a trustworthy colleague with experience in supervision, or an appropriate point of contact, a confidential discussion might help. I understand the OP's reservations and it is difficult for a young academic, but the school will notice if students start abandoning their PhDs, and the situation might be quite worse.
Stopping hires of female PhD students is out of the question. It is much more likely that the OP has some sort of bias (in the statistical sense) in the selection process that needs to be corrected, or a pattern has not been acknowledged.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I think it is dangerous and prejudicial to suppose individuals of one category will perform a certain way. These are exactly the types of approaches that lead to all sorts of inequalities in the world, and *even if there is* an actual difference between men and women in your lab it is the surfacing of those inequalities (which are not simply escaped by entering a field where women are a majority); reacting to inequality by perpetuating it seems to be entirely in conflict with your stated goals.
If students under your supervision are having trouble with the stress and pressure of graduate school, then go ahead and take the PI's role you suggest and help them deal with that stress and pressure. You might find some of your approaches are counterproductive and revise them, and seek advice from others on how to better serve your students. Learn how to address some of the specific patterns you are seeing as problematic. But **treat your students as individuals, and don't use labels to disqualify them**.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> Should I avoid admitting female students for now?
>
>
>
**Absolutely not.** Excluding a entire group of student based on what is most likely legally protected characteristics such as gender, is unethical and maybe **illegal.** Students should not be discriminated against based on an inborn characteristic such as gender that they have no control over.
>
> I feel ill-equipped to provide the needed level of psychological and emotional support for this kind of high-anxiety student
>
>
>
Nice job on recognizing your limitations. The demands of research and graduate studies can be stressful and some students may indeed require extra support to cope. It would be advisable to refer these students to a professional such as a therapist / counsellor / psychiatrist who are trained to help individuals with their mental health / coping skills. In addition, being a PI puts you in a position of power and requires being **objective** to properly assess your students achievements. **Attempting to counsel your students at the same time can muddle the relationship and lead to being inappropriately close such that it would interfere with your professional role.**
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: No you should definitely not avoid admitting female graduate students. As others have helpfully answered there are many reasons for not doing this.
But,
>
> How can I avoid this terrible solution and live up to my ideals, while
> not going nuts myself?
>
>
>
Of course you don't want to go nuts. Graduate school is a big commitment for both the student and the advisor. As you note in your comments, it's not always easy to evaluate a candidate based on their written materials (essays, transcripts, test scores, etc.) and an interview (often done remotely). Letters of recommendation or other types of references can help, but don't always.
So what to do? In my experience, one way to have a chance to see if a prospective talent is a good fit for your lab environment and the type of research you do is to take her/him on as an intern. Even 3-6 months of working with someone can be enough to gain insight into someone's personality and for them them to know you and your lab. Alternatively, you may use a masters program as a lower-commitment way of bringing a talented student on, with the prospect of converting to a PhD following an evaluation.
Everyone likes the opportunity to "walk away happy". If you take a prospective student on an internship, and you are clear in advance that there are no guarantees about what comes next, you can cut your losses if you feel things aren't working out. If they turn out to be awesome, you have a great opportunity to recruit someone for grad school who is a known quantity. I am also finding that many highly talented students like the opportunity to try out working in a research/academic environment without having to make an immediate commitment to graduate school.
Internships can also be relatively inexpensive, though not all organizations have ready funding to support them. Startup, summer salary, and departmental/university funds may help with this. Some universities even have special pools of funding available to support internships from underrepresented groups.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: This is going to go into a bit of a different direction than most of the other answers, but ... have you considered that your expectations may be inconsistent?
You say that you
>
> encourage them to only work 35 hours/week
>
>
>
Yet you also discuss "startup pressure" and "top students", indicating to me that there still is the (quite normal) expectation of excellence and going above and beyond in your research group. So is it possible that some of your students are freaked out because not only do you want them to compete with the best of the world, but do so by putting in substantially less hours than their peers elsewhere?
The gender difference you are seeing may be (and I am purely speculating here) that different people deal differently with such an inconsistency - some will bang their head trying to make inconsistent expectations work, while others will silently ignore one part of the medaillion (e.g., tell you that they are really relaxed and working only until 5PM, while secretly working on the weekend).
The reason why I bring this up is because I see a lot of the same behavior here in Sweden. Work-life balance is valued very highly (which is good), but at the same time people are not willing to accept that something has got to give if you expect staff to work less. If you compare your students with students in labs with less healthy work-life balance expectations, can you point your finger at some specific, time consuming things you do *not* expect from your students? Otherwise, this is where the problem may be and what you need to change.
And the sad news is that there simply *may not be* a good change that you could do. Many expectations on students are things you as a lone PI will not be able to fix (e.g., you can't waive coursework for them, or reduce the minimum requirements on a dissertation even if you wanted to), and even if you could it may still be to the detriment of your students overall (e.g., even if you are ok with your students working less and not competing for top publications, these students would end up in a dramatic disadvantage once on the job market).
Circling back to your titular question:
>
> Should I avoid admitting female students for now (new PI question)?
>
>
>
No. You should revisit what the reason is for your students to get mental health issues (gender-independently), and see if this can be fixed. If it cannot, you are in the same boat as most of us - most of us have accepted that grad school is, and will for the forseeable future, remain a stressful and at times mentally taxing experience. You should still keep fighting the good fight whenever you can, but remain aware of what the realities today are. And then select for students that have the necessary mental state to deal with grad school as it is *today*, not what you think it should be (gender will again not really be a factor in this consideration).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: I can't comment, so I can't ask: do you have solid mental health support yourself?
This arrangement sounds incredibly stressful. In addition, you're taking on the burden of others' mental health.
In such a case, I would *strongly* recommend taking some time to talk to a mental health professional yourself. They can help you get and stay healthy and give you a safe place to release some of the pressure that you are under.
Without making judgments, you're probably putting some of this pressure on yourself. There's also a good chance that some of these behaviors are triggering a reaction in you that probably don't need to be triggered. Some childhood upbringings can make folks highly susceptible to *other* people's moods. The parenting styles that you were exposed to will translate into the management styles that you are using.
There's really no "good" or "bad" here... rather, look for a solution that is effective, fair and sustainable. The first place to look for that is within.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: You can have the desired result without doing what you proposed.
Before accepting a student(both m and f) explain to candidate that people who struggled had this list of characteristics (do not cause problems for your existing students by providing too much details!).
Explain to candidates that it is **in their best interest** to be honest with you regarding if they think this is a path for them.
Nonproductive collaboration is not in anybody's interest.
Some candidates will lie, but I *believe* most people are honest if you discuss stuff like this with them in private meeting.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: As you said it yourself in your own question, I'll just agree with you that discriminating based on gender is a terrible idea (not to mention that it is also illegal). But, if I take your problematic description (taking any gender out), I get this:
>
> Almost all of the *problematic students* have turned out to have pre-existing mental health issues (anxiety, depression, and in one case PTSD). These students become overwhelmed, emotionally volatile, keep changing their ideas about what they want to work on (even though their funding is connected to lab projects), sometimes become jealous of other students' progress, and in some cases become entirely non-functional at intervals.
>
>
>
Now, the first part, the pre-existing mental health conditions should not be a problem all in itself (and discriminating based on that is probably also illegal, unless there are specific reasons to require somebody with no such conditions). **The problem you are having** is that they:
* become overwhelmed
* become emotionally volatile
* keep changing their ideas
* sometimes become jealous
These are bad characteristics for any PhD candidate, and your interview process apparently does not do a good enough job of screening for those characteristics. What **you want instead is somebody who**:
* can perform well under pressure
* can judge situations rationally
* has independently developed a research idea or a larger project through to the end
* works well in a team
All of these characteristics have been assessed at interviews at all the levels of academic positions I have every applied for (from PhD to Lecturer positions). There are fairly standard interview questions for that (i.e. "Describe a challenging situation you encountered in teamwork, and how you came to a resolution").
---
Finally, I'd like to say that I think it's a great thing you're asking this question. You have actually identified the problematic PhD student characteristics fairly well (the above bullet-points), and then your **unconscious bias** stepped in. The best way to correct such behaviours is by acknowledging your unconscious biases and actively working to overcome them. As this experience has (I think, understandably) left you with a bias towards female PhD candidate, may I also make the following suggestions:
* make sure you re-focus your interview criteria to identify the above (un)desirable characteristics
* but have a second or even a third opinion when evaluating the candidates, to *ensure* that you are *evaluating the candidates based on their answers and evidence*, and not your *assumptions*
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: Summary:
* Gender is the wrong surrogate for "Do I want to hire this student?", not only for ethical and legal reasons, but also because it would prevent hiring women without psychological issues, i.e. *the* group in gender x mental health that is lacking in the group.
* Not everyone does equally well in all aspects at spotting whom to hire or not. You may have a blind spot for recognizing female students with psychological issues - or a bias in favor of them.
Also, having a hiring committee of several people and/or standardized/structured questionnaires may help.
* There may be a several possibilities available within the work-health system at OP's university/in OP's country to spot, mitigate and deal with the observed issues.
* Psychological issues are difficult, and you cannot expect to produce miracles.
* Networking: I'm sure you are not the only fresh PI struggling, and a peer group may help.
---
Long version:
### Hiring
As someone already commented, if you have a reputation of being nice to students with problems (or to female students with problems), your applicant pool may already have more than your "fair share" of students with problems.
But different people differ in how prominently they recognize different traits in others. And this may very well lead to varying *bias* in hiring decisions. *Bias* in the neutral sense of the outcome being on average hiring people with certain traits. Depending on the trait, we *want*
* a favoring bias (e.g. students who do well),
* a disfavoring bias (students who are in danger of becoming ill from that particular type of work, physicall or mentally doesn't matter; or students who do not have the required field-specific knowledge for sucessfully doing a PhD on that project),
* or no bias (gender, unrelated health issues/disabilities)
Actions that OP may consider taking:
* find out whether she happens to be
+ good at spotting male students with psychological issues (does recognize as not suited to do a PhD ...)
+ biased *against* male students with psychological issues (... and correctly not hire)
+ blind for female students having psychological issues (does not recognize)
+ biased in *favor* of female students with psychological issues (... or hires nevertheless)and then work to improve their decision making process
* have a hiring committee (2n eyes see more than 2)
* Work to develop/get a structured questionnaire that helps to arrive at good hiring decisions.
* Check for and work against unrealistic expectations on the side of the student already in the interview (see below).
* Where I am, there is a probational period also for students hired on a PhD position. This should be used by *both sides* to test whether student, group, supervisor and project are a good fit.
Seeing the overall numbers of mental health issues in grad students, I'm afraid the problem will not go away any time soon, though.
### Small sample size
[Strange events permit themselves the luxury of occurring.](https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/732/4598)
OP cites anxiety issues in 43 % of cis women and 34 % of cis men. For a group of 4 f + 4 m students (8 sounds a sizeable group to me for a early-career PI). That alone means a probability of 4 % to have at the same time 0 male students with anxiety and 3+ female students with anxiety. Also, of the two events 3+ out of 4 females with anxiety and 0 out of 4 males with anxiety, the 0 males are the more unlikely event under the cited probabilities.
At the same time it is of course good to get alert before you can show that there are statistically significant problems in the group.
### Work health
It is perfectly OK to hire based on expected performance. If a disability or disease means the student cannot perform well (or at least on an average level) in the position it is OK to not hire them (no blind busdrivers).
For mental health/psychological issues the line between objective inability to perform well and discrimination is very difficult, though.
In addition, there is the question of students developing health issues during their PhD. If a particular job would endanger *this* student's health, they should not be hired for that position.
Where I am, a prospective employer can (and often must) send the prospective employee to a medical examination to check that the employee is fit for the particular job. There are also regular checks later on. This may include pychological components of being fit for the job. The medical examination is confidential and the employer gets as answer only "OK", "cannot work this job" or "needs accomodations x, y and z".
While none of the examinations and check-ups I've had so far included psychological checks (at least I didn't recognize them if they had...), [psychological issues among postgraduate students are anyways a well-documented problem.](https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4089) so maybe it's anyways time to include them:
As employer, OP can and *should* talk to work health services about work-related health issues she's concerned about and ask them what she can and should do.
Maybe sending *everyone* (no discrimination) to regular work health check-ups would be an option?
---
Some more thoughts:
>
> These students become overwhelmed,
>
>
>
To some extent I think this experience is part of the normal experiences when growing up [professionally as a researcher].
* Personally, I found it extremely helpful when colleagues/supervisors *told* me in actual clear words that the PhD is an extremely stressful time for most students - including their own PhD experience. That at least avoids the additional stress of thinking one is the only one affected like this.
* I have met many students in what I call their "mid-PhD-crisis" when they realized their PhD thesis won't "rescue the world".
IMHO, this problem may be greatly worsend by the sales pitch of the project creating totally **unrealistic expectations** about what is doable in the particular scientific project, what impact the work will (not) have, and the likelihood of failure/that research consists of far more finding out what does *not* work than what finally does work. Part of this may be that students will not recognize a sales pitch by a professor - after all, they've so far met professors only as teachers telling them reliable truths (almost always), but never in the position of someone *selling* an idea.
I had a particular enlightning experience that showed me how optimistically biased I still was after 10+ years of professional experience so at a time when I had already told these "trade secrets" about realistic goals to many students: somenone from a funding agency for applied research told us that they fund only projects that they judge to have less than 20 % chance of success (!). (Higher probability of success -> no public money needed, industrial development project) These were the projects we were doing all the time, and the inner-academic point of view was that they are almost always successful!
>
> emotionally volatile,
>
>
>
This sounds to me like unacceptable behaviour? You may have to tell *some* people that they are expected to behave professionally at work.
You also have a responsibility to provide an acceptable working environment for the other members of your group.
Even a recognized disability or disease in the range of what still allows one to work excuses only so much misbehaviour (the same behaviour with a known and recognized reason is much easier to bear for the others. Think of a meltdown in the office by someone with a recent loss vs. a situation with a sneaking suspicion that there may be a tactical component).
Most students will cope with both points. But I think they do contribute to the stressful experience which proves too much for some - do you may want to avoid them.
>
> keep changing their ideas about what they want to work on (even though their funding is connected to lab projects)
>
>
>
This *may* be a symptom of a fundamental conflict:
* On the one hand, the thesis is exam-like in that it must be the student's very own work, and they will be judged on how well they do it and on what extent of supervision they did (not) need (PhD thesis prooves the ability to perfom longer-term research in a self-reliant way).
* On the other hand, project funding and employment relationship put them into a subordinate position and legally speaking they must do what you tell them.
This conflict, in particular if the project does work out well (see unrealistic expectations) may create the symptom of a student trying to "break out" with their research topics when the supervisor tries to nail them down on the prescribed topic, without any mental health issues at all.
>
> jealous of other students' progress
>
>
>
To me that's very much in the undesired behaviour category above, but I think it may help the whole group to make clear that a very few successes only once in a while is to be expected. (Wondering what happens if breakthroughs become celebrated group events? Obviously, either on cake that the successful one brings, or on group/project money)
>
> become entirely non-functional at intervals.
>
>
>
over here, that should trigger your employer duties of care for the employee. In other words, you'd have to send them to a medical doctor or the work health services since there *may* be a medical problem.
>
> I scramble to adjust their workload for example hiring undergrads to help with their data collection or doing it myself,
>
>
>
Please don't micromanage.
For one thing, for some this can create tension and stress them if you take away their proper work (see conflict between thesis and employee above). It can also rub in that they do not perform adequately.
Others don't have any issues with this, and will be happy that they can train you to do their work. Which is not what *you* want.
(There is nothing against doing a bit of your *own* research if that's what you like to do, but please don't pirate your students' projects)
>
> investing hours in counseling and reassuring them, problem-solving with their committee/co-supervisors,
>
>
>
Management of your employees/students is your main job as PI. *Treating* their health issues is not.
>
> losing sleep when I know they are feeling miserable.
>
>
> not going nuts myself?
>
>
> I feel ill-equipped to provide the needed level of psychological and emotional support for this kind of high-anxiety student
>
>
>
It is your job as employer to recognize that your students have problems with their job. If we are talking actual mental health issues, though, your job ends where you send the student to work health services. After that, you have to respect their privacy. And you anyways cannot have a professional employer - employee, supervisor - student *and* psychological counselor - patient relationship at the same time.
>
> How can I [...] live up to my ideals
>
>
>
It may be that some ideals will have to go. I don't think gender equality is one of those, though. But I suspect you are overestimating what a supervisor and organizational measures *can* achieve.
The linked paper reports
* high correlation between bad work-life balance and mental health issues. Of course, bad work-life balance may cause mental health issues. So it is good that you do not encourage unhealthy work practices. On the other hand, bad work-life balance may also be caused by pre-existing psychological issues. In the latter case, one cannot expect measures to restrict working hours to work miracles.
* >
> strong, supportive and positive mentoring relationships between graduate students and their PI/advisors correlate significantly with less anxiety and depression.
>
>
>
Again, bad relationship may cause/worsen mental health issues - but such a correlation can also be caused by an underlying mental health issue that prevents the forming of a good professional relationship between student and PI. And in that case, there is again only so much that you *can* do.
### Networking/PI Peer group
Except for the size of the problem you describe, they don't sound all that unusual to me.
I'm sure there are sufficiently many fresh PIs around that would be a suitable peer group to share problems, ideas, expertise and experience.
Such a group may exist already. If not, maybe it's time you start one?
(Unrelated field, related technique: I'm in a "self-help" group for freelancers that is one of the activities of my professional society. The group is small (< 10 people from all over the country), and works under a strict confidentiality agreement. For a while, we further organized ourselves in subgroups of 2 - 3 partners that mentor each other.)
A similar idea would be to look around whether there is mentoring for fresh PIs. Or even ask some experienced professor whom you trust whether they'd agree to mentor you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_12: Extending on the aforementioned answers:
**Between yes and no.**
You should not implement policies that exclude a gender.
But if you filter out certain quantifiable and problematic traits, and those simply happen to be more common in females, keep to those filters.
While it is easy to abuse my previous sentence to hide intentionally gender-based filters, the fear of such abuse should not result in abandoning those filters.
To give an example: I once worked in a company that assessed certain mathematical problem-solving skills. In case of that company, it resulted in 80% of the workforce being male. As the assessment was relevant to the task at hand, it was ethical to conduct.
**So your task is to find out what traits, that seem to correlate with gender, cause the problems, and how to assess them.**
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_13: The answer to the question in the title "Should I avoid admitting female students for now?" is simple and almost obvious: **Yes**!
The reason is the following:
1) You claim as an empirical fact that the probability that a female grad students is going to cause you trouble is very high.
2) You claim that you want to avoid this trouble.
Thus, assuming we accept 1), and you certainly do, then the answer is clear: yes. Avoid admitting women for now.
---
Clarifications:
This is a question of values. You have your values, and others have their own values. If you ask this question whether to admit female students to your lab, it means I think that you are not *entirely* against implementing this strategy, hence you can live with such a decision, value-wise. Therefore, there is almost only one logical consequence in this story: do what helps you.
Comment: my answer is a formal answer to the simple question. I do not promote doing anything, or not doing anything, or any specific value system. I simply answer the question asked based on the most rudimentary logical reasoning. I am also not a law official, or an ideological cop. I am not in charge of telling people what to value, or what is the law. They can do whatever they want as far as I'm concernend. I can only warn them if they are going to get in trouble if they do something dangerous. But here, if the OP conceals the fact that she refuses to admit women to her lab, she will not be in trouble as far as I am aware of.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_14: >
> ...nor can I run a lab and attend to my other duties if half of my students are taking 90% of my time and are making limited progress.
>
>
>
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Rather than ceasing to hire females as new students, it would be much better to deal with the *existing* female students that are giving you problems. There are requirements on all students to meet the standards required of their program, and if you think they are not doing this then there are mechanisms to put those students on notice for unsatisfactory performance, and ultimately remove them from their program if they cannot meet the required standard. The starting point for this is to put problem students on notice of their unsatisfactory performance and let them know what is required to improve to meet the requirements of their work. PhD candidates have regular formal reviews that act as checkpoints on their candidacy --- if they get an unsatisfactory review then this usually requires them to improve up to standard by the next review or they can be removed from their program.
If you deal properly with your existing disfunctional students then one of two things will happen: for each of those students, either the student will improve up to the required standard of work (in which case your problems will diminish), or they will have to leave their program (in which case your problems will diminish). Either way, you should be able to improve the functioning of your laboratory, and you will free up a lot of the time you are presesently using to deal with disfunction. It is likely that your present proposal (to avoid accepting any more females) comes out of stress and fatigue at dealing with difficult students, and ironically, you may be about to make a bad decision yourself due to your own stresses. If you remove or diminish that problem, you will be able to look at things with a clearer perspective.
As to the goal of hiring good candidates in the future, it would be worth making a greater effort to assess each candidate's past work history, since if they are difficult in your lab then they may also have had a difficult history. You might be able to successfully weed out bad candidates if you are more inquisitive with their referees, but obviously this is something where there is no infallable method of selection. For many reasons, I don't agree with your proposal to simply exclude female candidates. (One reason to bear in mind is that this is likely to be unlawful,\* but even setting this aside, it is not a good proposal.) Instead, try to develop good review methods during hiring so that you take on candidates with a proven track-record of working collegially in lab settings even when they are under stress. You can also use the candidature review mechanisms available to you to ensure that new candidates meet program requirements.
Try to bear in mind that you owe a duty of fairness to new female candidates, just as with all other applicants. They need to be assessed on their individual merits, as best as these can be ascertained from the available information. What you are proposing here is a species of what is called "statistical discrimination", where you are using an observed statistical correlation (females in your lab have more mental-health problems) to make an inference about other females outside of the observed group. This kind of discrimination can certainly be rational in cases with highly limited information. However, in a hiring process you have plenty of avenues to obtain detailed information on candidates, and so this specific individual information usually over-rides outside statistical correlations. (In statistical parlance, the *conditional* statistical correlation, conditional on individual candidate information, becomes low, and so the inference is then weak.) It is likely that you can obtain information from candidate referees that will identify good and bad applicants based on their past education and work history.
---
* Depending on your jurisdiction, it is important to note that anti-discrimination laws generally prevent sex discrimination in hiring and acceptance to educational programs, other than in a narrow set of exempted cases. There are also exemptions for "special measures" (i.e., affirmative action) in most legislation, but what you are describing does not sound like it would fall within an exemption. Consequently, if you were to cease hiring female candidates, it is likely that this would be unlawful, and the university could be sued for it.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/28
| 367
| 1,568
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am going to apply for a visiting lecturer position at a US university. The job posting is mentioning that applicants should send (email) CV including a summary of teaching experience, and a teaching statement. I have two questions.
1. I am confused about the part "CV including a summary of teaching experience". Does it mean the usual work experience part in the CV, or do I need to send a separate essay of "summary of teaching experience" along with CV?
2. The posting is not mentioning anything about a cover letter. Do I need to send a cover letter anyway?
Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: 1. From the wording, it sounds like the usual work experience section in the CV should be fine, but you should really contact them and ask.
2. Always include a cover letter.
Never hesitate to contact people who advertise jobs for more information. It can't hurt. If anything, it helps them remember who you are.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Besides asking them about more clear instructions, I would suggest having two separate sections in your CV:
* Teaching Experience
* Work Experience
from that, it would be clear which positions are the teaching ones, and which are research/other.
For this type of applications, it might not hurt to expand the *Teaching Experience* section with slightly more details on the courses taught, like
* title
* graduate/undergradute
* approximate # students
* whether you developed the course content/course materials
Your teaching statement is a separate document.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/28
| 249
| 1,199
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am doing a systematic review of the medical field. I am looking for the current definition of exacerbation in CF patients used in the literature.
my question is..
Should we include a book in the data extraction process of the systematic review?
Or just include the primary research articles?<issue_comment>username_1: Like many answers on this site, that depends on a lot of factors. For instance, you might need to determine whether the book contains original research that was not published elsewhere. Most often, material contained in books has originally appeared elsewhere in other forms (as technical reports, research articles, etc). However, in some fields some books are occasionally on the cutting edge of research and might contain truly original material; this is true in technical fields like engineering.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: An important part of a review paper is introducing the reader to the topic you're reviewing. Even books that are not at the cutting edge of the current research can be extremely helpful as introductory texts in case the reader wants to learn more. From this perspective, it may make sense to cite them.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/28
| 1,353
| 5,935
|
<issue_start>username_0: I wanted to know your opinion about this: I had interviews (separate) with three professors that they know each other. One of them which is not my first choice has accepted me, the others still have not answered. How should I reply to his email? Is it okay (=accepted) to tell him I am waiting for other professors' answers? I am asking since the fact that he accepted me I see it as a favor, so I am not sure if it is polite or nice to tell him I am waiting for other professors' decisions. What do you think?
P.S. The reason that I contacted all of them at the same time is that they have a deadline for choosing students, so if I had missed them or none of them took me, I would have to wait sometime with no supervisor.<issue_comment>username_1: I think it's perfectly ok to let the professor who's accepted you know that you are waiting to hear back from another opportunity before deciding what to do. There's no need to be any more specific than that. Ask the professor if there's a deadline that you need to tell him your decision by. If it's soon, you could even let the other professors know that you have an offer in hand and need to decide soon. This may speed up their decision.
Don't worry that the professors will think negatively towards you for this. It's a very common situation to be in, and academics understand that students will have their own preferences for who they want to work with. Just make sure you are polite and not pushy in your communications with them.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is totally reasonable to communicate to the professors that you are considering working with others in the Department. I would further argue that being able to communicate transparently about difficult things is a good signal to faculty that you might be good at communicating with your supervisor generally. Because these professors know one another, probably collaborate together, and would have probably developed relationships, I would assume there is a level of comradery among the faculty. If there isn't, this would indicate to me a potentially unhealthy work environment for your graduate studies.
Consider then the following couple of cases:
**1) You accept the first offer that comes your way from professor A**
In this case you secure a supervisor and your path forward, for the moment, is clear. The opportunity cost of accepting the first offer that comes your way is that you may potentially lose the offers from the other professors with whom you're more interested in working with anyways. The reason for the lost offers could range from professors B and C not wanting to try and "steal" you away from their colleague or perhaps professors B and C could also each accept a student in the time it takes you to decide; there are many ways that situation could evolve. Whatever the case may be you run the risk of restricting your options right away. An additional risk is that you might accept the offer and then find that you'd rather work with another prof once they give you an offer letter, which puts you in the position of now having to retract your acceptance from prof A and for some people this could be really hard to do.
**2) You hold off until all of your offers come in**
In this case by waiting out for the offers from B and C, you run the risk of potentially losing supervision from A if a student more suitable to their interests and research needs comes their way. The benefit, however, is that you might secure a spot with a professor who you are more personally invested in working with. If you think that an offer letter from B and C is likely, then you should weight the risks according to your risk tolerance.
At the end of the day what is the most important thing for a graduate student is having a supervisor that you are able to tolerate (but ideally enjoy working with), a supervisor that is invested in your growth as an academic and individual, and a project you can find some excitement in for a long period of time. Working with a supervisor that you don't really want to work with for 1.5-2.5 years (masters) to around 4-5 years (PhD) is a slow hell that you probably have been exposed to on this forum and is a scary reality for many people.
Just because you were given an offer letter right away does not mean you have to accept it right away. Expedience can sometimes be the death of long term happiness, and in graduate school (particularly a PhD) you want to think what will give you the most joy (academically, professionally, and personally) on average over the course of a 4-5 year basis.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I believe it is totally fine to tell the professor who chose you that you are waiting for a response from other professors. You could mention also that you are more interested in the research topics that the other professors do.
It happened to me once. I applied for a research assistant position at my university and in a space center. I was accepted into the space center first, so I took it. After a few weeks, I was offered the position at my university and it was more preferable to me! I simply talked to my supervisor at the space center and I explained things to him very politely. It was just ok for him.
I think professors went through all of this before and they just understand the situation.
GoodLuck!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Don't tell the Professor that you are waiting on another professors. This is bound, with some chance, to hurt their feeling or cause some sort of disappointment on their side (this is possibly dependent on many factors, countries, discipline, etc., but with high probability will come off as something disappointing).
Tell the professor that you are very happy about this, but you need to sort out some things before officially confirming your choice. Without explaining precisely or going into detail.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/28
| 1,478
| 6,494
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently found a mistake in a mathematical proof of a result I published in 2016. In a nutshell, a subtle error led me to claim that two conditions were equivalent. Unfortunately one of the two implications is not true. Luckily, the main result of our paper relies only on the correct implication so the main conclusion of the paper is correct. How should I handle this?<issue_comment>username_1: Update the preprint on the arXiv. Make it clear that the new version supersedes the published one.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Please. I beg you. Do **not** update on arXiv a paper that was formally published years ago. This is a recipe for disaster.
Once a paper has been published, a significant number of people will only look at the published version and not bother downloading the arXiv version (because clicking the "DOI" link on mathscinet takes you there). A significant number does the exact opposite and just downloads the arXiv version without bothering to go on the publisher's website, maybe because they don't have access or can't bother looking for it.
So a portion of your readership will be aware that the result is incorrect, the other half will not, and they have basically no way of knowing that others are (un)aware. When they collide, e.g. when one cites the (in)correct version of your theorem and someone else only has the other version: things can get very confusing! I once had a referee essentially call me an idiot because I cited a Lemma X.Y from some paper, and they said the paper's lemma were unnumbered: well, the published version's was numbered, while the arXiv version wasn't... This took a while to sort out. If this happens for something as trivial as lemma numbering, can you imagine what would happen for mismatches in results?
I would also say that most people hold the view that the published version is the "definitive" version of a paper (I certainly do). Once it's published, the paper is done, and anything new goes into new papers. A few years ago, someone's name was floating for the Fields Medal, but they were not chosen. One of the rumors about this disappointment is that the researcher in question keeps putting out updated version of papers/books that were published, tweaking the results, the proofs... So one was never really sure what was correct and what wasn't in the papers. I wasn't on the Fields committee, obviously, so I don't know for sure, and there were certainly a truckload of politics involved, but this definitely seems like a plausible argument. (I won't say who the researcher is. Those who know also know that this researcher isn't otherwise lacking awards, anyway.)
---
So, what to do? As I see it, you have a few options, in order of severity:
* Do nothing. I strongly advise against that. People are going to read your paper and some will not notice the error.
* If you can find a relevant place to do it, mention in a new paper the error and write down the correct version of the theorem. At least people can cite and link to the correct version. But this is not very discoverable.
* Put out a corrigendum. This can just be a note on your webpage if you want, as you seem to have already done. You can also just post something on arXiv with the title "Corrigendum for *title of your article*" and explain what was wrong and how to correct it. You can also ask the journal to publish the corrigendum alongside the paper to make sure people see it. In all cases, when you do this, it is fine to update the arXiv version, not to change the text (which should stay as it) but to add a note in the comments section with a link to the corrigendum.
* If the error completely kills the paper, ask for a retraction. This is somewhat extreme, so I'll leave it up to your conscience. This doesn't seem to be the case here if I read you correctly.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: The most important step to take is to **contact the journal and tell them that you wish to publish a corrigendum to your article**.
Journals have systems in place for making the existence of a corrigendum clear to readers who search for the original journal article. (So does MathSciNet, by the way—which reviews journal articles, not arXiv articles.)
When people cite articles, they cite the journal versions (when they exist, such as in this case). Therefore people who are reading a future article that cites your journal article will believe, quite reasonably, that they will be accessing the best version of the scientific record if they go to the journal article. A correction on a personal web page or the arXiv does not accomplish this important contribution to the scientific record, causing all kinds of problems (as username_2 mentioned in their answer).
username_2 also makes the valid point that publishing in a venue where somebody disinterested in the article has version-control power over the article (that is, editors of journals) is very important for establishing what is and isn't the definitive version of the article—which is again crucial for the scientific record. A corrigendum is the process by which an author can convince an editor to use their version-control power to update the definitive version in rare circumstances (and the rarity, and necessity for a disinterested party to agree, are features and not bugs of this system). Precisely *because* authors can update their arXiv and personal web page articles any time they want, such updates cannot ultimately be considered trustworthy in the careful, scientific sense.
By all means, also correct the arXiv version (with a clear explanation of what has changed), as well as the version on your personal web page—but only as *supporting actions* to the crucial one, which is to correct the scientific record by updating the journal article itself.
(One could imagine a world where later articles cite arXiv papers even when journal articles exist, and where arXiv has some structure in place to prevent frivolous author updates; in that hypothetical world, one could reevaluate the relative importance of the above steps. However, in our actual world, where citations are invariably to stable journal articles, I stand by the above statement.) (One can also reasonably criticize the limited-access and even financially predatory nature of many mathematical journals—I have done so myself—but that discussion about the optimal relationship between academia and capitalism does not alter the facts above.)
Upvotes: 5
|
2020/05/28
| 2,055
| 8,630
|
<issue_start>username_0: When giving grades to students, I often find it interesting to disclose some information about the grades distribution. I imagine that it helps to know where one is situated in comparison to others.
I usually don't want to disclose the maximum grade and the minimum grade, the latter obviously for keeping the students that didn't perform well motivated.
I usually end up giving the mean (or the median, should they be significantly different).
Can one do better? Information about quartiles maybe? What are your practices?
If relevant, I am teaching in France where the grades range from 0 to 20. I am interested in different situations: small class (~20) or whole group of students (~200), regular assignments or final exams.
--- EDIT ---
I am interested in keeping the students motivation high. Are there any (research backed-up) studies about that question?<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest a mean, a standard deviation and some bands, e.g. Fail (<10), 10 - 15, 15 -20. Quartiles would also help, but two quartiles below the mean are not helpful. That should be more than enough. Personally, I discuss but do not report the percentage that fails and the maximum.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I can't speak to whether disclosing the minimum or maximum grade motivates or demotivates anyone, but Canvas, a learning management system (LMS) common in the US, displays a boxplot with mean, IQR and upper/lower bounds.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wnL9M.png)
(Image credit to St. Mark's School)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: First, as to the overall question about posting information about grade distributions on assignments: I do not do it. More below.
>
> Can one do better? Information about quartiles maybe?
>
>
>
One problem that you may be trying to solve to give better information to students on how to map a score to a true course grade. In other words, you may be trying to avoid the anxiety of a "hidden" curve grading system from the perspective of the students. Taken to an extreme, you are wanting to avoid the case where your students don't really know where they stand against your grading metrics until you post their final course grades.
Is this is where you are trying to do better? If so, perhaps you should just post the equation that says directly:
Assignment Score --> Assignment Grade
When this is still unknown for some reason, then at least post a statement to the effect:
Assignment Score --> AT LEAST this Grade
This is NOT the grade distribution of the students in the class at that point on that assignment/exam. This is how you will map any given score to a likely future grade going forward.
Perhaps better still, fix the curve on the assignment grades before you report/return the score on the assignment. Add offsets or rescale. For example, rather than returning an exam with a 50% "hidden curve" grade and having to report that 50% --> B, rescale the exam scores so that 50% becomes 85% up front on the exam.
In short, when you are trying to avoid causing undue anxiety in students because the truth in your curve grading system is "hidden" to them, then stop using an after-the-fact curve grading and start reporting a "truth in grading" score.
Another improvement that you hint that you are trying to make is in your approach to motivate individual students to do better. Let's presume that you are solving this problem separately from the above problem. In other words, let's presume that, when a student gets a score of 85% on you exam, that student knows unambiguously that they have a B on the assignment. Correspondingly, a student who gets a score of 67% on your exam knows unambiguously that they have a C- on that exam. Let's presume that both students know that these grades are not subject to any future "hidden" curve grading (leaving aside case-by-case benefit of the doubt situations for borderline scores).
In this case, I must say that, I have never heard nor believed in a philosophy that a posting a grade distribution does any good or even more good than harm to motivate an individual student to do better *compared with other options*. In some cases, e.g. small class sizes, I even fear that posting a grade distribution, even in part, gives enough information for students to reverse-engineer grades for other students in the course. Being in the US under the guidelines of [FERPA](https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html), I tend then to just avoid any possible downside risks, in this case that Student Joe will be able to figure out the grade for Student Sally. I do not post the grade distribution at all. You asked about practices as a function of class sizes. Perhaps this counter thought will give you also some insights to the potential harm.
>
> What are your practices?
>
>
>
My first practice is to follow a "truth in grading" philosophy. I post the grade metrics before the course. I state where the cutoffs are for the various grade levels. Finally, I state that all problems on exams will be graded for completeness using the given grading scale.
What happens in practice is interesting. At times, I give somewhat easy exams looking back. I leave the scores fall as they do. On the next assignment or exam, I may push the boundary a bit higher for performance. At times, I give rather difficult exams, in some cases perhaps to a degree beyond what was appropriate. At that point, before I return the exam, I rescale all exam scores for that exam. In class, I state that I rescaled the exam because, taken on a wider perspective, it was more difficult than appropriate. I do this also on individual problems on exams, dropping or adding points back because I realized that the specific problem was (in hindsight) too difficult.
The net result (after many years of practice) is an ability to grade assignments and exams with final scores that are not subject to a need for a "hidden" curve to be applied later. This practice still allows for benefit of the doubt considerations for borderline cases. However, again by truth in grading, I am adamant to tell students that they will never get a lower score than what they have directly calculated, although they may (in borderline cases) have shown initiatives to obtain a higher score.
My second practice is a message to students that they are not in competition with each other or anyone else but themselves in my course. By specific example, I state that an 85% is a mid-B grade and, should this score be the highest returned grade on a course exam, then that is what the highest grade on that exam will be. I also purposely turn off the ability for students to see the overall course grade distributions in our learning management system (Canvas).
My final practice is a message to students that individual initiatives matter. Along this line, I am apt in junior or lower level classes to give bonus points for office visits.
>
> I am interested in keeping the students motivation high. Are there any (research backed-up) studies about that question?
>
>
>
I too would be curious to hear whether giving out grade distributions motivates students or not. I would especially be curious to hear in the case that "hidden" curve grading is removed as a factor in such studies.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_1: I can only speak from a U.S. student's perspective, but I found the canvas model shown above to be motivating when I was a student. Granted, I was usually toward the top of the curve, but that can improve confidence and keep students motivated to perform their best. The students toward the low end are typically the ones who aren't putting any effort into the class and don't care if they're at the bottom. And if they do care, then seeing their rank may motivate them to study more or attend tutoring etc.
As long as you're not posting their names, it's okay to show the top and bottom score. Again, I think it has more benefits than drawbacks.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Old question, but here's my $0.02:
The distribution and other stats are useful for the instructor but counterproductive for students because it sends the message that their classmates are competitors. It doesn't matter that they ask for it.
As for providing feedback about performance, it's better to give a scale for what score ranges *in absolute terms* correspond to excellent, good, etc. as <NAME> suggests. I cannot think of a single pedagogically valid reason to inform students of their relative ranking within a class.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/05/29
| 4,204
| 17,520
|
<issue_start>username_0: Despite experiencing a lot of drama and negativity at my university, I love my city and hate the idea of relocating. Sometimes I even think of reapplying there just so I could stay in this city (this is its only university) and still attend grad. school, but the negativity would be a lot to deal with. There's another program that seems like a good fit for me, but I think I'd be miserable in another city, even if I enjoyed the program itself.
However, is relocating a necessary part of academic life? For example, with the job market being so tight, I've heard that you have to be willing to move almost anywhere for a job. I've also seen posts where Ph.D. advisors suggest their students apply to specific post docs/jobs etc. Can you specify that you refuse to move from a specific city? Is it even realistic to pursue an academic career if you're not willing to relocate (perhaps even multiple times)?
Edit- I'm from the US<issue_comment>username_1: No, relocating is not necessary in Academia.
However, not being open to relocation **significantly** reduces your opportunities. In most cases, rendering them effectively zero.
With a huge competition for academic positions, one rarely can afford to lose openings in other cities/countries/continents—simply because the opportunities (academic community/research programs/grants/etc) that those positions offer outweigh (in their eyes, subjectively) the problems connected with relocation.
If for you relocation-related issues mean more—that's ok. Nothing wrong with that. You still might have something happening in your city. But it would not be productive to think that it must happen or that one is entitled to have the opportunity like that. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the reality is the way it is now.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There are exceptions in some specific fields (for example accounting) where corporate jobs are much more attractive than academic ones, but, in general, an academic considers themselves *very lucky* if they can find *any* academic job *at all*, let alone one in a particular city.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: Let's say you're completing your PhD in Underwater Basketweaving. If you're going to carry on in an academic career without relocating, you need two things to happen: first, the university needs to be looking to hire a tenure-track Assistant Professor of Underwater Basketweaving at just around the time you're ready to submit, and then you need to actually land the job.
The problem is, the university already has someone who does something rather similar to you - your advisor. Nobody needs *two* Professors of Underwater Basketweaving! So, you need them to leave, or at least be on the cusp of retirement, for a position to become available. Let's say that you get lucky, and something comes up. Then you have a second problem: there are lots of other bright young things in the field of Underwater Basketweaving. And from the committee's perspective, your job talk is all stuff they've heard before (because they're your colleagues!), whereas the external candidates have Exciting! New! Ideas! Oh, and Prof. Jones is still bitter that your former advisor got that corner office back in 1983, so will argue against hiring you. Your odds aren't good. That's not to say it never happens, but it's not something to bank on.
That said, plenty of people stay at their PhD institution in other roles: as technical staff, in research support, or in academic administration. So it is not necessarily all-or-nothing.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: The question does not specify a country or a discipline. This answer is from the perspective of the Nordic countries and mathematics.
The higher up you go, the greater the pressure to move
======================================================
Getting a bachelor and master at the same university is very common. Continuing on to do a PhD there is completely normal. For a postdoc, one is expected to move, or maybe get a short one at the home university before finding a proper one elsewhere.
If you get serious funding you can maybe stay longer at your home institute, but getting a permanent position is very challenging.
Furthermore, many grants require experience at a "research environment" (other universities or research institutes being the typical way of achieving this) other than the one where one is intending to use the grant. International experience is also valued, but is usually not a hard requirement.
Some formal, but maybe not the informal, requirements can be met by extensive long-term visits to other universities.
More prestigious universities require more
------------------------------------------
If your home university is distant or not very good, or at least if your discipline there is not strong, they are likely less selective. Still, you would be a stronger candidate after having been elsewhere for a while.
Relocation teaches things
=========================
There is a different focus on research, sure, but also teaching and the social life of the faculty is likely organized in a different way. This broadens one's horizons.
It may be easier to move when younger
=====================================
Commitments, such as children, partner (who can have their own commitments), old parents you need to take care of, ownership of a house or car or other such things, etc., make it harder to move. It might be a good idea to consider if the amount of commitments will increase or decrease with time.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Something that some of the other answers are alluding to but not explicitly stating is that your home institution may purposely have a policy not to hire *any* of their graduates without good reason, not just when a spot in their domain is open or not. The intention is that by having done your education at that university under that faculty, you don’t bring anything new to the university. In essence, though this is obviously not 100% true, the idea is that your academic knowledge is a distillation of the knowledge of the current faculty. This policy is colloquially sometimes referred to as “academic inbreeding.”
There of course are always exceptions, ranging from an advancement of research focus since attending the university, to being a breakout star right out of the gate, etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: "However, is relocating a necessary part of academic life? "
No. It is not necessary in any formal manner. It is however **highly probable** that in your career, if you want to have a reasonably good research career, you will need to relocate.
I do not know the precise probability (nor anyone), but my rough estimate would be something like 90% that you would need to relocate to have a good career in academia.
In fact, I have seen indeed only 1 out of 20 or so academics that got a lasting career in academia that have not relocated. (This may be even more rare in some fields.)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: Factors that increase probability of needing to relocate
========================================================
* living in an area with a low density of universities
* living in an area with poor transport links
* living in a country with a low population density
* applying for jobs in a country where there is a culture of helping new employees relocate very proactively (e.g.: providing accommodation; spousal hire)
* teaching-only or research-and-teaching positions (because you will be timetabled to teach classes on campus regularly, so it is harder to get away with living far away from your employer)
* working in a lab-based discipline
* working full-time (because full-time employees are expected to be available on any working day)
Factors that decrease probability of needing to relocate
========================================================
* living in an area with a high density of universities (because there are more jobs on your doorstep)
* living in an area with excellent transport links (because it makes commuting to a distant university easier -- [this is **very** common in the UK](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/commuting-life-sentence-academics))
* living in a densely populated country (because there are more jobs generally)
* applying for jobs in a country without a culture of helping new employees relocate very proactively (in the UK, spousal hire is illegal, so employers are generally more sympathetic to requests for remote working due to "personal reasons"/"family reasons"/"two-body problems")
* research-only positions (because it is easier to get away with not being on campus so much if you are not giving classes)
* working in a non-lab-based discipline (provided you have access to a decent academic library within commuting distance of where you live)
* working part-time (because you do not have to justify not always being available, provided you do not mind staying at hotels regularly)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: StackOverflow says that you are a new contributor and to be nice. So I won't say what I feel like saying first off after reading your post.
You have left a lot unsaid, I feel.
Unsaid about yourself, your field of study, your career intentions - even your nationality. I raise nationality as your approach to this question is not the usual US approach to such things. Even Europeans don't want to micromanage their career like you seem to want to. There's also a very strange deference to the viewpoints of senior colleagues - something that has gone by the board for decades in the western hemisphere. *Maybe* you are first generation Indian-American, Pakistani-American or Chinese-American and have been doing what your parents advise up to now. That excess regard for older people's views on *your* life decisions no longer washes in today's world. Believe me, the one thing you need to do in academia is to be your own man and trust in your own experience, your own analysis and your own decisions until events show otherwise. In other arenas like business, industry, even the professions, you can get by on group-think and following-my-leader. But the stark individualism of academia (in research moreover) makes it vital to determine your own perspective soon after your PhD starts. Mistakes made from your own analysis plus your own experience are *honest* mistakes. You shouldn't be too proud to make them or too embarrassed to acknowledge learning from them. So, love and respect your parents but make your own decisions. And *try* to respect faculty members' viewpoints on their field of expertise - but draw a line on their input to *your* career. I'd personally only listen to those professors who have shown that either (a) care for all students welfare or (b) care particularly for your future. But even here you must take the full responsibility and decide yourself.
*I've also seen posts where Ph.D. advisors suggest their students apply to specific post docs/jobs etc. Can you specify that you refuse to move from a specific city? Is it even realistic to pursue an academic career if you're not willing to relocate (perhaps even multiple times)?*
I feel that you are not telling us the full story here.
I get the feeling that your viewpoint on your career (perhaps even on life opportunities in general) may have prematurely crystallized. Your comments above betoken a naive trust in a self-chosen 'orthodoxy' - albeit one occasionally supported by instances where a supervising academic may act with immoderate or ambiguous interest where an ex-student is involved - that isn't really the norm at all.
Let's get something straight here.
You're **not** going to get any interview or appointment on the back of playing your supervisor - however subtle an operator you may think you are. Even if you did it would be so much the worse for you: the high expectations of your new employer/supervisor and the likely lack of commitment on your own part having got the opportunity without real personal effort would soon lead to disappointment on the other side. Then where do you go ?
So, you may have read that Prof X suggests some internship/fellowship to student Y but this is very much the exception rather than the rule. And God help you, if you think you can specify the location of a job that you are prepared to consider your professor recommending you for then you are in cuckooland and damn well you know it ! On the last question, I know that some colleges appoint many of their ex-undergraduates and many of their doctoral students to their staff. As other posters pointed out, sometimes there is a brief low-level sojourn at another college until they 'return' to their alma mater. But look hard at the *quality* staff in your own college, even your own department. Not just faculty but those in support positions. There are always lots of foreigners among this group. In my own experience, the only genuine educators I met in my own country were foreigners. They were the ones who broke the old mold of bad curricula, boring lectures and mindless assignments and projects. Having got their positions mostly through familiarity with senior faculty, the native staff were naturally unwilling to appear disloyal by pushing for changes that they may privately have favoured. So I don't think it serves the students well to have faculty who are ex-students of that same college and certainly not also natives of that city. To me, a university's ranking for educational quality is synonymous with its commitment to new blood faculty appointments - the alumni just don't want the social hassle, if they care at all.
*Despite experiencing a lot of drama and negativity at my university, I love my city and hate the idea of relocating. Sometimes I even think of reapplying there just so I could stay in this city (this is its only university) and still attend grad. school, but the negativity would be a lot to deal with. There's another program that seems like a good fit for me, but I think I'd be miserable in another city, even if I enjoyed the program itself.*
You're saying 'drama' and 'negativity' but not what you mean by that. Drama in everyday life can be good, e.g. colorful characters, vigorous debate, horseplay or humor, or bad, e.g. personality clashes, bad feeling, psychological warfare, workplace politics and worse. Negativity can be as innocuous as a thickly conservative approach to all things or as soul-destroying as those individuals who dedicate every breath of their being to stomping down other people's sand-castles. If it's the latter end of these spectra, you know you have to go elsewhere if you want to have an academic career. Even if it's something less severe but still a drag on your humor and appetite for the workplace and those in it, you have to go. Firstly for your own nerves' sake as events outside work will present their own problems and no one can fight wars on 2 fronts. Secondly (but to the wider community this is the primary reason) you owe it to others - particularly students and their hard-working parents - not take on a task on their behalf that you have no real zest for yet still choose to do just so you have a secure status in your home city. If you do, you'll become a part of that negativity and drama that you claim to dislike.
You have been in just one city and one college in your life - yet still fear the challenge of another. Don't dress it up as being content in this community and doubting if another city could provide that same sense of congeniality. Good cities don't allow bad colleges. The colleges are the one hope for social advancement in most cities. All the important questions about what's wrong in the local community are raised there, many by newly arrived faculty from other parts of the country or world who have experienced better organized situations elsewhere and ask why not here too.
The thing I just don't get here is how someone could aspire to an academic career but still not have a strong appetite for new experiences, new people, new opinions, ideas and most of all new cultures. Don't you ever get tired of the men or womenfolk in your home town ? Don't you ever get the urge to get off your ass and do something radical about it ?
Higher learning (i.e. learning not just for economic advancement) and relocation to new community have always been inseparable. Christ, even astrologers put both higher learning and distant travel into the 9th House with theology and philosophy.
If you want to be a serious academic, you've got to embrace this happily - otherwise you won't be positive to the spotty teenager asking the awkward question one frosty November morning in your first semester as assistant professor.
If you can't resolve this, you simply aren't cut out for this profession - it's just the security and conveniences of it that are attracting you.
EDIT
====
Gemini, having read [this post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/149670/did-my-rapport-with-my-professor-sour-over-my-work-or-the-complaint) I would categorically say that you have no future in your current college until you prove yourself elsewhere. And you know that this situation is entirely of your own doing. I also agree with others' point on getting some help on self-awareness, as opposed to awareness of others behaviour which you seem to [analyse](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/97962/friendship-with-professor-okay/149855#149855) quite well.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/05/29
| 326
| 1,318
|
<issue_start>username_0: When I was presenting a paper at a conference ~3years ago, a researcher (who also happens to be a professor) gave me her business card after discussing with her after my presentation.
Now that I’m almost done with my PhD, I’d like to approach her to see if there could be a possible job opportunity at the research institute mentioned in her business card.
I was wondering if it would be appropriate to send her my CV along the email? Or if it would be seen as if I am “forcing” her to read it, especially that it has been almost 3 years since we met?
Would it be better to start with an introductory email first, and then send her the CV only if she asks me to?
I also thought about including a link to my LinkedIn account in my email signature, so that she can check my profile (if she wants to), without me explicitly sending my CV in the email.<issue_comment>username_1: Why not just a simple email asking if she has any opportunities and reminding her that you met at that conference.
Include the cv as an attachment and she can open it, or not, as she wishes.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Short answer - yes.
I think that's a big part of what conferences are for.
Also don't overlook using Linked In as a means of starting the conversation.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/29
| 409
| 1,748
|
<issue_start>username_0: During my PhD thesis, I supervised the creation of Bachelor's and Master's theses. The official supervisor was always my own PhD supervisor (since I am officially not yet allowed to do university-level teaching on my own), but in practice I did almost all of the supervision. Topic and technical approach were usually my ideas (and related to my own thesis topic) and I coached students closely during implementation, analysis and writing. These were research-level theses, so the students simply lacked prior knowledge and experience to come up with really useful conceptual contributions.
I am now in the process of writing up my own thesis. What is the correct way to incorporate these results - which have already been written about in student theses but not yet published - in my own thesis? Essentially, all of the relevant technical details were proposed by me, so I really don't feel like it would be fraudulent to include these in my thesis. However, I must, of course, give credit to the students. Would it be fine if I simply add an acknowledgement in the corresponding section of my thesis and cite the student's thesis? I for sure don't want to be accused of plagiarism in the future for doing this.
I'm in an engineering field at a German university, if that matters.<issue_comment>username_1: Why not just a simple email asking if she has any opportunities and reminding her that you met at that conference.
Include the cv as an attachment and she can open it, or not, as she wishes.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Short answer - yes.
I think that's a big part of what conferences are for.
Also don't overlook using Linked In as a means of starting the conversation.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/29
| 2,836
| 11,772
|
<issue_start>username_0: HI everybody I am a physics PhD student working in the field of theoretical physics. I am currently in my third year. I am currently at a point where I am thinking of quitting my PhD. I have no ambition to continue in academics and the environment I am working in (including relationship with my advisor) is making me unfortunately very unhappy and extremely stressed. I tried a lot to fix this (therapy, talking to advisor, sports, taking a break,….) none of them seemed to help leaving me with the only option left: quitting.
Considering leaving the PhD I am concerned about the consequences. I don’t think I was a bad PhD student (I have 7 publications , teacher several courses and have a government funded PhD grant). So my questions are:
* Will it give a bad impression?
* Will it have severe consequences on my further career (for example in industry).<issue_comment>username_1: I really, really understand what you're going through.
From my own experience, I would say it's very unlikely to get any better if you're already feeling that way.
* "I am afraid it will give a bad impression to people in general."
To be completely honest, I also worry about that. I think we shouldn't lie to ourselves about it. If we judge it without any context, this is definitely going to give a bad impression to most of the people. Only the very few (well, actually not that few) that were in more or less the same situation will really understand this decision. But I don't think this will have a significant impact on your potentially new career in the industry. In my opinion, you should worry about it only if you take into account staying in the academia (or returning to academia).
If you already have your bachelor and master degrees, and especially if you have the skills required for your new job, it really shouldn't matter that you quit your PhD. I tend to think that in industry it's much more about what you can do, and much less about awards and titles. Just focus on developing the skills that you will need for your future career.
I know it's hard to make a decision like this. But think about it... Is it really worth it to be stressed out all the time, to be constantly unhappy, to feel this resentment? This will eventually have a bad impact on our health, and, in the end, is it really worth it? (I am also asking this to myself all the time). But if you're going to make such a decision, it's better to make it as soon as possible, otherwise you will later have even more regrets. Being in the third year (out of five), I personally think it is still not that late for you to quit.
Hopefully, other people with more experience than me (in the academia and/or industry) will try to answer this question. I am also looking forward to hear other opinions.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Will it give a bad impression?
>
>
>
Lots of people quit their PhDs. It's not a big deal. But I suppose finishing makes a better impression of yourself.
Quitting your PhD creates a negative impression of your university and supervisor. However, that shouldn't stop you from doing what is best for you.
>
> Will it have severe consequences on my further career (for example in industry).
>
>
>
Only if you want a job that requires a PhD. Most industry employers do not care if you did not compete your PhD.
>
> I have 7 publications
>
>
>
You should consider if you can complete your PhD in a very short period. Most PhD students do not have seven publications.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I bet it's hard to answer to this question with any solid proofs, so I believe you're just calling for opinions. Thus, here is my humble take on the issue.
I think few people in industry would care about your PhD, and few jobs really require it (and perhaps you won't be interested in "research-oriented" jobs that do). However, over the course of my working life I am coming to the conclusion that there are more brilliant people around than people who can get things done.
This was a counter-intuitive conclusion for myself, as I always thought it's much harder to prove a theorem or write a research paper than to finish a mere technical report in due time. However, it seems to be the case.
So, while I think it should not be a great concern for you, and your finished papers hopefully prove you can "get things done", still there is a non-zero chance that your case will be evaluated by someone like me who might treat it unfavorably. Just consider it as one minor point that might ring bells for someone.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: First of all, I am so sorry for you and having to face that! I can relate, but I think mine is unbelievable, I was forced to leave my first PhD after completing one year because of racist supervisor and luckily I was accepted to another program and I thought finally I found the good combination supervisor and topic and guess what I just quit on my own last month and now I am in a third one and let's see how it would end.
**Disclaimer:** I am somehow knowledgable in the subject and love research, however as we know academia not only based on meritocracy and that's why I argue that someone would view you badly you seem intelligent researcher, but simply your mental health is overwhelmed by the environment, so I guarantee one hundred this isnot true and who tell that is an idiot.
Coming to the second point, you dont want to be in academia. I am a tenured TA at home country of east Asia and I traveled for sake of knowledge, I was so much appreciated since I had the position, but guess I didnot enjoy it, it also corrupted and physical and mental health back then was low.
Now, honestly every day I am asking myself what I want to, I dont want industry per se. I love research, but I want to make it in a new beyond the lab and staying hostage for your supervisor.
***If I were in your shoes, I have two option:***
1. Negotiating with your supervisor to set a date and finish since you
did a lot of work
2. Find another supervisor who can host you and finish in a short time
**Lastly:** If you find a job of your dream and you feel you found it go
for it and quit.
I hope this might be helpful I am also reconsidering my options everyday, but what I am sure about ignoring yours dreams is a crime and accepting the status quo will lead no where, you have to think deeply for a last time and having an honest with a trust worth person to reflect.
Good luck and hope you would take the right decision.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: Your question reminded me of my own situation during my PhD. I share with you my experience and hope you can relate to it, and maybe learn something. I was also in third year, physics PhD, with published papers and lot of presentations at conferences. But still I was constantly thinking about quitting. The thing which made me to think like that, now I look back, was not actually the research or academic component, but was the environment and the situation I was in, and the relation with my advisor. Plus some exhaustion due to lot of work I did in 2 and half years. I had a strange relationship with my advisor. I was depressed for sure, tried student counselling, doctors, tried to make friends ... and at one point I was thinking of even committing suicide, believe me it is true. The next day I called the helpline and told them that I was suicidal. These type of thoughts never came to my mind before or after that. People almost stopped talking to me, if they talked they talked with strange reactions. I was lucky enough that there were couple of colleagues, to whom I could talk normally. I was not in my home country, and it was really hard to make contacts outside the work. There were some racial people around also, doing subtle racial comments now and then, intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know. All these little factors contributed and made me think to quit. The amazing part was that it was the research which kept me engaged and interested, and I kept pushing forward. Deep down inside I was damn determined that I have to finish and finish as early as possible, because if I do it late, I am going to get medically ill for sure. So I made a plan. I started writing my thesis without telling anyone. I showed my stuff to my thesis committee and couple of other professors. I talked to an emeritus professor who was serving as kind of a student counselor. Before my next committee meeting I made a nice draft and submitted to the committee before the meeting. I convinced the committee that I can write my thesis and they recommended to submit in the next six months. This time I did not listen to my advisor who was suggesting otherwise. I did additional work, edited my thesis carefully, and submitted. Arranged my defense. My defense was extremely hard. One of the member in the panel was a great researcher, senior most professor of our institute, and was often very hard when it came to scientific discussions. Hard in the sense that he was a brilliant thinker with enormous experience, and was well known worldwide for his contributions, very dedicated, very bold when it came to criticism, but enjoyable if you like to fight. I stood my ground. Finally I passed. Easy said than done.
My advice for you is the following. If you have even a tiny bit of hope that you can finish on the basis of your work, go for it like it is a war, and you have to defeat the enemy with great valour. Its a battle for your 2.5 years of work with great publications, which is at least 3% of your life span, and you do not get the life twice. DO NOT give a second thought. You are going to get so much respect for yourself, whether you stay in academia or not. Remember -- your work is going to decide if you are going to get a PhD, not your supervisor, feed this to your mind and fight for it. Fight for it like its your territory and you are invaded. Believe me you can succeed.
There is a very subtle stage in this process. I believe that a PhD student starts thinking quitting when there is no external approval of the work which the student has done. Such a student does all the work but thinks that nobody cares about it. The
truth is that actually NOBODY cares about it. You have to care about it and you HAVE TO follow your gut feeling when you think that you are ready to finish. Nobody is going to tell you. And that's where the student is most confused. In addition, when student decides on it, there come stages like convincing people, editing your thesis again and again and again, and fixing a date to which all the members agree to. These are loopholes and take dedication to get through.
Finally, if you have a medical condition, be very very careful. DO NOT take more stress no matter what happens. If needed, compromise with your research output a little bit, there is nothing wrong in it. If you take more stress in such a condition, it can affect your upcoming life. Take care of yourself. Slow down. Meditate. Exercise. There are ways you can get through this. Recognize what helps you and what causes problems for you. Avoid the latter. Don't be afraid of people judging you, you are here for yourself. Again, I stress that be very careful if you have a medical condition.
I did not quit, and so I can not relate to such a situation. Consider taking into account suggestions from people who already took the decision of quitting.
One more thing, I tried almost all the options you mentioned for help -- therapy, taking break etc, they surely help but the effect is local in time. I suggest you take the challenge head on, and use these methods as your support system. Again, if you have medical condition you have to be more careful.
Best wishes.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/29
| 536
| 2,464
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've had a really bad relationship with my supervisor since I started. I've even had to take time off to get a mental reprieve from everything that was happening. At this point, I really want to go somewhere else. This is not an American university, and I'm in the social sciences. In order to apply for admissions, you have to have the support of your prospective supervisor. I know the person that I would like to have as my supervisor at the other university and they sponsored me as a visiting student at their uni for a semester. However, this person has a strong relationship with my current supervisor. My concern would be that the prospective supervisor wouldn't want to jeopardize their relationship with their colleague by taking me on and that reaching out to them will jeopardize my ability to get a recommendation from them after I graduate. I'm also concerned that this would further strain my already intolerable relationship with my current supervisor, as I'm guessing that the prospective supervisor would reach out to the current one. For background, my research is progressing, and I don't have research or academic-related problems. It's really that my supervisor and my department are unsupportive to downright abusive.<issue_comment>username_1: Your concern is correct: If your prospective supervisor supported your application and adopted you as a PhD student, that might put a significant strain on their relationship to your current supervisor. It seems unlikely that your prospective supervisor would want to risk that. You can talk to them about your idea, but be prepared for a negative response.
Your best bet would be to look for another supervisor who doesn't have any noteworthy relationship to your current one.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This is unfortunate, and I would advise you not to collaborate with the potential PhD supervisor. At best, it will lead to awkwardness, at worst to your current situation to deteriorate rapidly. You should find someone neutral.
However, you should maintain careful contact with the potential supervisor, as his/her behaviour towards you sounds decent. The contact can be useful and after you move your former supervisor does no longer affect you. Some information may seep towards him, and I fully understand the difficulty of being honest without disclosing the real situation, but it can also be beneficial in the mid-term.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/29
| 1,995
| 8,868
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the current state of the technologies, what ways can be used to track clear yet directly untraceable cases of academic misconduct specific to students who post questions from and view answers to a take-home exam using on-line (homework) sites?
My case is specific to Chegg, although answers related to other on-line sites would be certainly welcomed.
As a background, I have a list (from Chegg) of the email address, log-in times, university affiliation, and question posted / viewed. I can clearly correlate the posting information to being from my exam during my exam. I can directly correlate some cases because the email address is ... surprisingly ... the student's university email address or their personal email address. What I do not have in some cases is a) a valid or directly representative email address and b) a full name.
I have a roster list of students and have diligently checked their email addresses against the offending emails to no avail. I will pass the roster and list to our administration to review against their (larger) database of email accounts. However, I can only imagine that an email address could be from a neighbor or friend or roommate or ... someone entirely untraceable in the full university email database.
After a formal inquiry to obtain the above list, I have an email response (from Chegg) that tells me that I will get no further help to obtain any other information. I will be glad to hear about other levers that can be pulled to get better information.
I can accept that at some point I may have to conceed that I am simply out of luck to track the real perpetrator. But, before I do so, I have to wonder whether this community has insights to additional resources to help solve my problem.
To help also focus the discussion further, I am not interested to learn about the ways to avoid this problem in the future. I have my own insights and plans to move forward on this front. I am also not interested to spend time trashing Chegg or equivalent sites, deserving or not.
Finally, in addition to the specific question on additional effective methods, I am also interested in one other broader aspect of the problem. I am curious to hear from like-minded individuals who have initiated or are aware of actions being initiated for a larger academic community stand against the problem. I make this latter statement especially as we faculty are all most likely to have to face yet another round of on-line teaching for the coming Fall 2020 semester.
In summary, I hope to hear about approaches that others have used that could also help me solve my problem to track perpetrators of cheating who, up to this point, are essentially directly untraceable.<issue_comment>username_1: I can think of a few approaches that might help. I'm not sure pursuing the sites used will be very fruitful. There are always disposable emails they can sign up with, Tor exit nodes they can route traffic through etc. It's a fool's errand.
**Oral interviews post-exam**
Ask a random sample of students for an interview after they've submitted their answers. With the script in front of both of you, ask them about their thought process when answering the question and evaluate the extent to which they can confidently discuss the subject.
Cons: time-consuming, potential for false positives from students who forget most of the content after taking the exam/have other assessments to study for/don't cope well with the interview pressure.
**Issue unique questions per student**
If you have control over the online assessment platform, you may be able to issue unique questions per student to catch out blatant copy-pasting of the question text in order to publicly outsource an answer. I am not proposing that a paper is manually put together per student; this seems like something you'd want to automate.
Cons: the ability to do this *well* will vary from subject to subject. It might be easy to generate lots of linear programming problems of comparable difficulty if your exam e.g. assesses the student's ability to apply the *Simplex* algorithm. But, explanation questions may be more difficult and lead to a perception that some students unfairly get 'easier' or 'harder' papers.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To handle the current situation, I would have two suggestions:
1. Notify all students that you aware of cheating during the exam and that you are in the process of collating identifying evidence (be as specific or vague about the website, email address as you see fit). State the consequences for those who are found to have cheated but that these may be lessened if the students come forward on their own accord. This is unlikely to faze a determined cheat, but may bring forth others who made a critical mistake in the heat of the moment and importantly may know the owners of the email addresses you have been unable to identify.
2. Send an email to each of the addresses you have found along the lines of 1. letting them know that the address has been implicated. Again, this is really just a scare tactic but might bring a few of the unknowns to light.
I think if you have a well thought-out cheat who used a truly disposable email address and did not communicate their actions to any of their peers then you are unlikely to be able to catch them in retrospect. But, as you have already observed, not all students are that shrewd.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Invest your time in adapting your exam questions rather than searching for people cheating.
Searching for people who are cheating is bound to be a frustrating an time consuming endeavor. As you've already noted there are many methods which could be used (both online and offline), and I can guarantee you a devious student can out-cheat your sleuthing skills.
Think carefully about the purpose of the exam and what you are certifying with a pass/top-grade. For a minimum pass threshold, consider explaining your syllabus ("By the end of this course student should be able to... "), to the next teacher of your class and what you think they'd expect based on that. For a top grade you're probably assessing a more general skill, do they have good written communication, are they able to extract the core information effectively from text.
Depending on the size of your class, how well you know each student, and amount of time you're willing to invest you may want to pursue different exam strategies. In person interviews (via-video call) are often the gold standard, but they are time consuming, difficult to standardise and vulnerable to bias.
Consider 3 categories:
1. Minimum-knowledge questions, which you expect most students to get correct. You should probably be able to scrape a pass answering only these questions.
2. Long-form questions, where the best students can shine
3. Coursework, like an exam, but longer.
Final thought; be clear before the exam what the structure is, particularly if it has changed from previous years. Surprising students and testing exam technique is no fun for anyone involved.
EDIT: Writing good exams is a skill, but like any skill it's something you can get better at if you invest time in learning about it. There are plenty of resources, articles and books written on the topic and even reading a couple of articles will give you some good ideas. I included some examples below, but realised I was basically writing a book so I'll leave expanding this as an exercise to reader.
Some examples:
*Statement questions* e.g. state X's theorem, define Y
These questions are hard to cheat on, since it's usually just quicker/easier to know the answer. They can often be overlooked in open-book exams as 'you could just look it up in the notes', I would argue that that's fine. A good student will just write the answer down and move on, a poor student will spend time looking it up. In either case they will be able to do so in a real world situation.
*Multiple choice*
These are hard to cheat on for the same reasons and above, guessing is not a valid strategy in non-trivial exams, so no need to worry about that. You can use these questions to quickly test linked knowledge (they have to understand the terms in the question and how the options relate to it). I would avoid "trick" answers and follow-up with an "explain" question.
*Short-essay questions*
For small classes where you know the students these are hard to cheat on, because it should be obvious to you if the style is inconsistent. These are a chance for your best pupils to show their general written communication skills and their ability to apply the course knowledge to a specific problem. Be clear about how much text you expect (~X words) and keep them relatively brief, personally I believe long-essay questions are better suited to coursework.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/29
| 616
| 2,511
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know this question has been asked before but here is the Covid-19 Pandemic Edition:
I emailed my professor asking if they would consider writing me a LOR almost a month ago and haven't gotten a response. Normally after a week or two I'd sent a follow up email but email etiquette seems a little different right now due to the Covid-19 pandemic. I don't want to pester them or seem out of line but I would really like a response and am not sure what to do. I'm not sure if I should ask again because this professor is not planning on teaching next semester and I would imagine is busy working on other summer projects. And, like most of us right now, is probably trying to deal with the many uncertainties brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. I did very well in the class but the last month of the semester was very disrupted due to coronavirus and all classes had to be made entirely virtual, so I'm not so sure that I'd stand out as a well-performing or memorable student as much as one would under normal circumstances, but I'm not sure who else to ask at this point. I need the LOR in the fall so the deadline is still several of months away. Should I wait another week or two and see if I get a response? Should I send a follow up email now or just assume that no reply means no?<issue_comment>username_1: There doesn't seem to be a rush and people may be especially busy with end of term. You can afford to wait a bit unless this is the most important letter and you need a commitment. In your follow up, say when the deadline is and ask if they would like a reminder as it approaches. If you haven't already done so, ask if they would like a CV. If there is an easy place for them to see a photo of you it might also jog their memory.
People are busy with both end of term and in prep for coming terms that may also be still disrupted by CV-19.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Send a follow up email reiterating your request and the deadline. It's likely the professor has just lost your email in their inbox. It happens, pandemic or not.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Send another email reminding *politely* the professor.
The pandemic has probably no effect here. On the contrary, academics have mostly more time on their hands now.
The professor either forgot, or didn't care to answer, and if you remind them they will answer, or is trying to decline without saying anything (low probability). Hence, sending a reminder is your best move.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/05/30
| 849
| 3,673
|
<issue_start>username_0: If you are been accepted into a Master's program which grants a scholarship to its participants, they just send you a letter outlining the scholarship in a brief manner. Is this common in academia?
**Question:**
Is it common in academia to not have any written "contract" when you get a scholarship?
**Edit:**
I am mostly interested in Europe (in particular Germany if it makes a difference)<issue_comment>username_1: EDIT: Answer not updated for changed question.
Yes, the letter often functions as a contract.
If the position is unionized, the contract between the union and the university applies to the person who accepts the letter.
This is not legal advice, and this is not the law stackexchange.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Caveat: A US view, and there are exceptions even here as noted below.
There will, I think, always be an "agreement" even if it isn't a formal contract. It probably isn't something that is negotiated, with the student having any say. But accepting such a scholarship is a formal agreement to abide by some set of rules, that may be just statements of policy somewhere, perhaps visible on a web site. All the details may be spelled out in the letter of acceptance, but it is more likely that the student simply makes agreement to obey the rules in force.
The most common "rule" is that the student maintain "good standing" which involves something about GPA, perhaps, and not being sanctioned for misconduct. Whether it rises to the level of a "contract" however, depends on too many things (local law,...) to have a definite answer here.
I suspect that in many cases the (informal) contract can be modified by the university without explicit consent of the student. The student's only likely recourse is to accept the new terms or stop receiving funding.
Note also that this differs (drastically) in some places and some situations. It also depends on what you mean by "scholarship". If there are specific duties attached (not the common case in US) then the contract is more likely to be a formal one. In particular a TA position has certain duties and so additional requirements.
If a scholarship has no duties attached then it is probably also possible for the university to terminate it for many reasons, including financial ones. But the student can also leave the university (possibly needing to return pre-paid funds) without penalty. This might be different if there were a *formal* contract.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I have had a scholarship in Germany where the letters (their offer and my acceptance letter) together were the actual contract.
A scholarship in Germany is a mostly one-sided contract: the funding agency grants the scholarship. There are almost no strings attached for the recipient of an academic scholarship since the purpose of the scholarships is basically to give the recipient carte blanche to pursue their research/studies (usually there is a requirement to write a reports about what was done/achieved every so often, there may be requirements to present your work/achievements if asked to). But the scholarship cannot enforce working hours or the like (that would make it an emplyoment contract), and also no outcome (that is not even possible for an employment contract).
Since scholarships are exempt from income tax in Germany, it may make sense to take the grant letter to the local service desk of the tax office and have them check that it fulfills their criteria.
They'll tell you (at no cost) whether any further information is needed, and whether you need to submit a tax declaration/where to put the exempt income.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/05/30
| 407
| 1,516
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been using Mendeley for a while to create my bibtex files and use them in Latex. However, recently I came accross some papers such as [this](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.09252.pdf) one, which have math symbols in their titles and when I try to create an entry in Mendeley and use it in my Latex document the title gets messed up. How can I create a Bibtex file containing papers with math symbols in their titles via Mendeley?
I've tried to type the code on the title section on Mendeley but it doesn't seem to work. Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: I am not a Mendeley user, but have you tried putting the math formulas inside braces, e.g., `title = "A new proof of {$a^2+b^2=c^2$}`"? This is the proper Bibtex syntax to include math in paper titles.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Mendeley defaults seem to be to automatically escape LaTeX special characters, which can mean math mode text gets mangled. In my version (`1.19.4`), this can be changed by going: `Mendeley Desktop -> Preferences -> BibTeX` and unchecking `Escape LaTeX special characters (#{}%& etc.)`
Edit: once you've done that you can include math mode markup in your titles, as suggested by @username_1, e.g. `{$2^2$}`, and it will not be mangled by Mendeley.
This will mean that all special characters will not be escaped, so you'll have to do it by hand otherwise your compile will likely throw errors. For instance titles including `&` will need to escaped manually (e.g. `\&`) in Mendeley.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/05/30
| 905
| 3,865
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been accepted into a Ph.D. program at a school that is a decent top 50 on the US News. Has anyone had any experience with 'trading up' after one gets their terminal master? At my undergrad, there have been cases of students entering the Ph.D. program and then transferring after 2 years to a better institution after getting their terminal master. Would this be a feasible plan?
For example <https://mathematicsgre.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=836&p=4603&hilit=trade+up#p4603><issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it is a feasible plan. But it's not straightforward.
Things to keep in mind:
* the PhD advisor in the first school might have different expectations. One might consider being open about the plan to get only a Masters's degree. Otherwise, it is both unfair to the advisor and can lead to many issues.
* to get to a different PhD program, one will need good letters of recommendation. Thus, the relationships with your original PhD advisor are important.
* expected prolonged graduation times: residency requirements, different courses schedule, and in general B.Sc. + Ph.D. usually (!) are faster than B.Sc.+M.Sc.+Ph.D, especially when different levels are completed in different educational institutions.
* you might get better or worse financially but getting qualified or disqualified for some scholarships. This is strongly dependent on the individual factors and exact policies of educational institutions.
* change (drastic/slight) of the research topic, which can be also a good thing or bad depending on the individual factors.
* in case the PhD application to a new program fails, one might have already burned some bridges, and certainly did not help themselves in the pursuit of a PhD.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This is mostly advice, but to make it a formal answer, yes, it may be possible to do this, though it may not be desirable. It may add to the time required for your degree and, the switch has a nonzero chance of putting you into a difficult situation that you could have avoided. Not everyone succeeds at any given institution. There are many stories on this site about top level advisors abusing students, sometimes just by ignoring them in favor of their own research.
But, for the advice:
I suggest you take the offer you get that seems best to you. But rather than looking at the ranking of the institution, look at the faculty there who have proven interests in what you see as your chief likely research trajectory. More than one such faculty member would be advantageous for a few reasons. One is that they may have a small research seminar with those faculty and a few students. The other is that when you need an advisor, you are more likely to find a good one. Not everyone accepts students every year.
The second part is to constantly evaluate your experience at that institution and only leave if you become dissatisfied in some important way. There are reasons for being dissatisfied: not enough challenge, abuse, other opportunities that seem better.
Do what you can while you are at that institution to work as closely as possible with those faculty that have similar interests. Don't be invisible. Ask a lot of questions. Do good work. And figure out who would be the best advisor for you there and work to get accepted by them.
And note that relationships established in grad school can last a lifetime.
Then think about whether it is worth "trading up" given that you will be leaving relationships behind and still have to meet all requirements at the new place, but starting as a "newcomer" unknown to the faculty.
My personal view, but maybe not yours, is I would only desire to move if I found myself insufficiently challenged. But my experience was that having the right advisor was the most important single thing in my success.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/31
| 1,098
| 4,664
|
<issue_start>username_0: Say someone wants to enroll in two unrelated disciplines: e.g. a Ph.D. in, say, *Arabic Literature*, and Ph.D. in, say, in *Math Education*.
I am not going into the capability of the candidate, or whether it is reasonable to seek multiple PhDs.
Is it **logistically possible** to work on two research projects at the same time?
What difficulties/barriers may come?<issue_comment>username_1: Well, anything is *possible* that isn't impossible. But the obstacles would make it extremely unlikely if they are quite different fields. It would also probably result in work that is less than superior, which the same sort of person might achieve had they focused on one field (at a time). Some obstacles:
A single university would have a hard time accepting it, so you need to deal with that. Two different universities permitting you to pursue degrees simultaneously? Maybe you need to hide each from the other. This could lead to problems if either becomes aware.
A given advisor would be likely to oppose it, thinking that the person isn't giving enough to studies in that field. Do you need, again, to hide what you are doing?
You may need to pay for at least one of the programs as getting TAs or whatever in two fields is both hard and would require too much time in itself. (Varies by country, of course)
You need to do what ever coursework is necessary in both programs to be able to pass two very different sets of comprehensive exams (many/most places).
You need, of course, to do the required research in some narrow area in two non-synergistically aligned fields.
And, if your "friend" just wants to do it as a challenge, sure, why not. Spend six or seven years (more?) chasing a crazy goal just for the hell of it. And possibly fail at both. Seven years older, deeper in debt.
Now, having succeeded, you need to find a job, probably abandoning everything you did in one of the fields. This last is what actually makes it sort of foolish. It would be a difficult (impossible?) quest to get multiple appointments in a single university and many universities wouldn't permit you to hold a regular appointment at another.
Some people do get multiple terminal degrees, though usually more closely aligned. Some people find themselves dissatisfied in the field they first qualify in and move to something else. But even these cases are pretty rare.
Fun as a thought experiment, though.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Is is logistically possible? Probably, but as username_1 pointed out, most universities are unlikely to allow it because it's infeasible. Even assuming that your friend was intellectually capable of handling two Ph.D's, can he afford to fund both of them, including all the travel for research/conferences etc.? (I doubt he'd get funding for two programs.)
At the very least, completing two Ph.D.'s simultaneously sounds insanely stressful.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Harsh perspective? Frankly its not a good look to have two PhDs that are the same kind of qualification - even if they are on two completely different topics.
Professional accreditation is a bit different (I would prefer my doctor to have a medical degree rather than being an expert on Heidegger's later works (*The Question Concerning Technology* notwithstanding)).
And sure you could collect 10 PhDs at the same time if you really wanted to (I hear mail-order degrees are great for that ;-)).
Rightly or wrongly PhDs are regarded as opening a door to advanced work in a particular discipline.
The harsh take on that would be to wonder why they kept opening doors and not walking through them (i.e. building their career in the relevant discipline(s)).
However - fundamentally education is about opportunity. If the student needs the opportunities they will have access to through doing a second PhD then I'm all for it. I would never recommend it. I don't think an applicant should be rejected because they already have the same qualification (although this may be an issue in some countries regarding entitlement to tuition subsidy).
Most institutions have provisions in their terms of candidature that specify some kind of commitment in terms of workload and availability. So technically in that respect two part-time degrees might work.
Consider also that in each case there will (or at least should) be a panel of at least three academics. That means six academics signing forms for two projects. If the idea is to enrol concurrently, surely there could be one sensible project proposal which bridges both fields of research and gets the candidate where they want to go?
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2020/05/31
| 4,036
| 12,658
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the comments to the question
[Methods to track behind cheating on exams using on-line sites?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/149811/methods-to-track-behind-cheating-on-exams-using-on-line-sites)
, <NAME> states that cheating is considered a felony in Italy (see
<https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1925-04-19;475>).
This seems interesting to me as I had never heard of this. So I am asking: In which (other) countries is cheating in university exams considered a felony (and thus punishable by law)?
Note that I only asking about the existence of such a law, not if it has any implications in practise.
Also note: I am really asking about "classical university exams" and not about plagiarism when writing a thesis.<issue_comment>username_1: In **Italy** cheating in a public university can be punished with 3-12 months of imprisonment.
The relevant law is almost one century old, but it is still valid today.
From <https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1925-04-19;475> :
>
> LEGGE 19 aprile 1925, n. 475
>
>
> Art. 1 Chiunque in esami o concorsi, prescritti o richiesti da autorita' o pubbliche Amministrazioni per il conferimento di lauree o di ogni altro grado o titolo scolastico o accademico, per l'abilitazione all'insegnamento od all'esercizio di una professione, per il rilascio di diplomi o patenti, presenta, come propri, dissertazioni, studi, pubblicazioni, progetti tecnici e, in genere, lavori che siano opera di altri, e' punito con la reclusione da tre mesi ad un anno. La pena della reclusione non puo' essere inferiore a sei mesi qualora l'intento sia conseguito.
>
>
>
My attempt at a translation (excuse the convoluted 1925 Italian syntax).
>
> Law no. 475, April 19 1925.
>
>
> Article 1: whoever presents as his/her own a study, dissertation, publication, technical project, or, generically, a work that is made by someone else, in an exam or selection, prescribed or requested by authorities or by the public administration to confer degrees or any other sort of academic or school qualifications, or for habilitation to the practice of a profession or to teaching, is to be punished with imprisonment from 3 months up to one year. This penalty cannot be lower than six months when the attempt is successful.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In Canada there is [a section of the Criminal Code](http://www.criminal-code.ca/criminal-code-of-canada-section-404-personation-at-examination/index.html) (equivalent to US Federal law; but there are no Provincial "criminal" laws) called "Personation at examination" that deals exactly with this:
>
> 404 Every one who falsely, with intent to gain advantage for himself
> or some other person, personates a candidate at a competitive or
> qualifying examination held under the authority of law or in
> connection with a university, college or school or who knowingly
> avails himself of the results of such personation is guilty of an
> offence punishable on summary conviction.
>
>
>
And yes, it's been used: There was a [case in 2014](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/alleged-exam-cheating-leads-to-fraud-charges-against-2-students-in-waterloo-1.2877980) in which a forged identity document was allegedly used to allow a PhD-level student to write an undergrad's exam for hire. This resulted in charges reported as "uttering forged documents" as well as the one above. Note that as the law is worded, both the actor and the willing subject of the "personation" can be charged under the same section.
("Personation" seems to be an archaic form used in law; it's not a widespread Canadianism for "impersonation".)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: **In France**, see the [law of December 23, 1901 related to fraud at exams](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000314853).
**You risk 3 years of jail by cheating at exams.** Even at the [Baccalauréat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baccalaur%C3%A9at) (end of high school at age of about 18), or competitive exams for entrance at any [Grande École](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_%C3%A9cole) (some of which, including [Écoles normales supérieures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_normale_sup%C3%A9rieure) or [École Polytechnique](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique), giving you a civil servant status and pay when studying there; I was very happy to be graduated from [ENS Cachan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_normale_sup%C3%A9rieure_Paris-Saclay) and paid there, with the contractual obligation to serve the State for ten years or else reimburse part of my salary as student & civil servant).
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how often is that law applicable in practice.
But you certainly forbid yourself from any State related employment (so hospitals, army, police, research, education, law, defense or space industry, or even Airbus ....) if you are condemned for cheating. AFAIK, cheating at Baccalauréat (and been caught) forbids you to go to University for several years, and could be written on your [criminal record](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_record) ("casier judiciaire").
I made nearly all my career at [CEA](http://www.cea.fr/) and I would be forbidden to be hired (in 1985) if I ever cheated at exams.
I taught and gave exams at University, and cheating is a very serious thing there. Anyone teaching at university and permitting (on purpose) fraud would have a lot of trouble (similar to some kind of sexual harassment on students).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Besides explicite laws about cheating, some education organizations also use the concept of affidavits/declarations in lieu of an oath, which have a legally binding state. Especially used in final works like master/diploma works. They are mandatory part of the submission process (for example in Germany).
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: In the German state North-Rhine-Westphalia cheating in university exams is a contravention (*Ordnungswidrigkeit*) and can be a crime if the university demanded a declaration in lieu of oath.
In the North-Rine-Westphalian law on universities ([*Hochschulgesetz*](https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_bes_detail?sg=0&menu=1&bes_id=28364&anw_nr=2&aufgehoben=N&det_id=450702)) § 63 V says:
>
> (5) Die Hochschulen und die staatlichen Prüfungsämter können von den Prüfungskandidatinnen und Prüfungskandidaten eine Versicherung an Eides Statt verlangen und abnehmen, dass die Prüfungsleistung von ihnen selbständig und ohne unzulässige fremde Hilfe erbracht worden ist. Wer vorsätzlich
>
>
> 1. gegen eine die Täuschung über Prüfungsleistungen betreffende Regelung einer Hochschulprüfungsordnung oder
> 2. gegen eine entsprechende Regelung einer staatlichen oder kirchlichen Prüfungsordnung
>
>
> verstößt, handelt ordnungswidrig. Die Ordnungswidrigkeit kann mit einer Geldbuße bis zu 50 000 Euro geahndet werden. Die Hochschulen können das Nähere in einer Ordnung regeln. Zuständige Verwaltungsbehörde für die Verfolgung und Ahndung von Ordnungswidrigkeiten nach Satz 2 Nummer 1 ist die Kanzlerin oder der Kanzler sowie nach Satz 2 Nummer 2 das staatliche Prüfungsamt. Im Falle eines mehrfachen oder sonstigen schwerwiegenden Täuschungsversuches kann der Prüfling zudem exmatrikuliert werden.
>
>
>
So it is a contravention finable with up to 50 000 € to intentionally violate the examination regulations on cheating (sentence 2 f.). The details can be ruled by regulations of the universities. I have never heard of someone fined under this rule, but this does not mean it never takes place.
Additionally the univiersities can demand a declaration in lieu of oath that the examined took the exam without forbidden foreign help (sentence 1). This only applies to foreign help, not to "cheat sheets" and similar. Giving a false declaration in lieu of oath is a crime under §§ 156, 161 [StGB](http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1531) both done intentionally and negligently. Such declarations are requested regularly for *Hausarbeiten* (papers written by students at home) but not for exams done in university.
>
> **Section 156
> False declaration in lieu of oath**
>
>
> Whoever falsely makes a declaration in lieu of an oath before an authority which is competent to administer such declarations or falsely testifies whilst referring to such a declaration incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine.
>
>
> **Section 161
> Negligent false oath; negligent false declaration in lieu of oath**
>
>
> (1) Whoever commits one of the offences referred to in sections 154 to 156 by negligence incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine.
>
>
> (2) No penalty is incurred if the offender corrects the false statement in time. The provisions of section 158 (2) and (3) apply accordingly.
>
>
>
By § 159 (in combination with § 30) StGB it is even a crime to try to abet to a false declaration in lieu of an oath punishable with up to 2 years and 3 months at prison or a fine (§§ 30 I s. 2, 49 I n. 2 StGB).
>
> **Section 159
> Attempt to abet false testimony**
>
>
> Section 30 (1) and section 31 (1) no. 1 and (2) apply accordingly to an attempt to abet false unsworn testimony (section 153) and a false declaration in lieu of an oath (section 156).
>
>
>
There may be similar rules in other federal states of Germany (the rules on universities are made by the states). I looked only for Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg where a declaration in lieu of an oath can only be demanded for PhD thesis and there is no contravention-rule.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: In Australia, the *Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019* is currently being considered by parliament.
In [a speech to parliament](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F34f93d4b-9708-46e2-9d02-c339e62ee4de%2F0035%22) the Minister for Education explained:
>
> This bill is aimed squarely at providers of cheating services, and not at students who might use such services. Students who cheat remain subject to their institutions' own academic integrity policies, processes and sanctions. Students who cheat are not subject to the penalties this bill creates; only those who help them cheat are at risk.
>
>
>
He goes on to explain it only outlaws commercial cheating, and that the universities preferred to take an "educative approach" to unpaid cheating.
He also states:
>
> Promotion of cheating services to students has become widespread in recent years through on-campus advertising, email and social media. Students are being inundated with targeted promotions for cheating services highlighting their ease of access, minimal cost and low risk of detection, while downplaying the ethical dishonesty involved.
>
>
> While many aspects of these services and their use **are already subject to criminal and civil penalties for various offences such as fraud or misrepresentation**, these can be complex and difficult to pursue. They also provide little deterrence as there is no specific law that clearly and simply says the provision of cheating assistance is wrong.
>
>
>
So, commercial cheating is already against the law - perhaps at the state level, rather than the federal level. I suspect the question of whether a new federal law is necessary to make this behaviour prosecutable is as much political as legal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I found a local newspaper article from 2008 reporting that four people had been convicted of fraud (in the UK) for cheating by personation in university exams. (I won't link to the article, because it names individuals whose convictions may now be spent.)
I also found an [article](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/cheating-university-students-criminal-records-plagiarised-essays-copy-a7591236.html) from 21st February 2017 mentioning that the UK government was considering legislating to make the use of essay mills a criminal offence, but it appears that by the time of the [House of Lords debate on the Higher Education and Research Bill](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-03-13/debates/3918310D-2240-4FF6-B1F7-ECFADA8B2163/HigherEducationAndResearchBill?highlight=plagiarism#contribution-5B0DE22F-6151-4980-823C-E1396932AA38) on 13th March 2017, the government had decided against any such legislation.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/01
| 3,406
| 14,773
|
<issue_start>username_0: Earlier in the semester, I was informed by both an advisor/academic counselor and a professor at my university that it is a good idea to connect with professors on LinkedIn if they have interests in the same area as me.
I sent a connect request to one of the professors I had last semester (along with some other profs, most of whom accepted) and he just wrote back to me saying it is extremely unprofessional to be trying to connect on LinkedIn for a student/prof relationship. I am confused - how is this unprofessional and how can this be handled better in the future?<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds to me that this is just the reaction of that particular professor, and so there's not much you can do about it. Perhaps the professor only likes to use LinkedIn to connect with other researchers and professors, but personally I don't believe that it's unprofessional or inappropriate for university students to connect with professors. You are both adults and the site is intended for networking in the professional context. I myself added many of my lecturers on LinkedIn while I was an undergraduate, with no problems.
If you'd added him on Facebook, that might have been a different matter, as many people want to keep their work and personal lives separate and would regard such a friend request as overstepping that boundary. However, all you can do now is move on. In the future, perhaps only add professors that you have got to know quite well, as then they will recognise you if you request to connect, which in turn will hopefully mean they are less likely to refuse.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Yea that's rubbish - most academics have **huge networks** on Linked In. Many of their contacts are former students who have remained active in their field. This is particularly the case among **graduate students** and academics in their department.
Personally I think if an undergrad made the effort to connect on Linked In I would take that as a sign that they were **motivated** and keen to continue working in whatever field it was that prompted the connection.
If an academic is chastising a student for trying to build their professional and academic network - frankly I would just call them an *idiot*.
**Don't be deterred!** Keep building your network but seek out the enlightened people who thrive on making connections. Avoid the morons that refuse them...
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: It is totally fine to connect with your professors on Linkedin. You don't have to chat with them or comment on every post they upload but it is good to stay connected via social media in a professional way. I used to get requests from my professors on Facebook and LinkedIn, so I knew that they like to stay in touch somehow with good students. But again, try to not chat with them or comment a lot on their posts.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Another vote here. There is nothing wrong with it, since it is a professional network. Other academically oriented network tools are also fine, and many academics have a strong preference for Twitter for communicating work. I would avoid facebook, Instagram etc.
Don't hesitate to add other academics and don't fret over a strange reaction. You did well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I agree with the answers here stating that LinkedIn is fine for creating a professional connection (as opposed to Facebook, Instagram etc.)
One important point- when sending an invite request, make sure you write a personalized note. Explain that you want to connect on LinkedIn for the purpose of developing network of professionals in your field, which currently (while you are a student) consists of your professors etc. Write some sort of intro along these lines.
This may sound stupid- after all, it's your professor who already knows you! Why do you need to write such a request?
But lots of people, especially students who are just joining LinkedIn, view it as just another social media platform. They don't understand that LinkedIn tries to keep a more professional focus.
Instead you have people who treat it as just another platform, and act like they do on Facebook. This includes negative aspects like trolling, or sharing inappropriate personal information etc.
It's possible that this professor has had negative interactions with students on LinkedIn and therefore is against connecting with them.
By writing a note along with the actual invite request, it shows that you are actually interested in using LinkedIn in a professional way.
it might not help with this specific professor, but in general it's a good way to establish your seriousness and professionalism.
Also- instead of connecting with a professor, you have the option of "following" him/her instead. Especially if a professor shares content on a regular basis, you can start seeing that content and commenting/engaging on it.
When people see that you are taking their content seriously, they are more likely to be willing to accept your invite request. It's another way of showing that you are serious about building actual connections and not just trolling etc.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: While there is nothing utterly unprofessional about it, I'd feel weird to have a LinkedIn connection with students. LinkedIn in my region is for professional work relationships, whereas - unless we're talking Phd students - a professor does not have a colleague relationship with their students, especially undergrads. This holds even more in regions where "professor" means teacher (i.e. covers highschool).
It might also be that your professor considered it a too private kind of connection, i.e. that they could get in trouble for "befriending" you. I don't think that is a realistic fear or at least it shouldn't be.
That being said, since you explicitly were encouraged to connect with professors from an official advisor, you did nothing wrong and the professor is the oddball here. Maybe they have another cultural background. Many social networks are used quite differently across the world - with the US having one of the more social media friendly and "open" populations as far as I can tell.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Here I quote the crux of your situation, and put in bold font your sentence containing a question:
>
> "I sent a connect request to one of the professors I had last semester (along with some other profs, most of whom accepted) and he just wrote back to me saying it is extremely unprofessional to be trying to connect on LinkedIn for a student/prof relationship. I am confused - **how is this unprofessional and how can this be handled better in the future?**"
>
>
>
Here is my answer:
* Whether or not it is unprofessional is extremely subjective.
* What you did is perfectly okay, perfectly legal, and is done very frequently by many people.
* My recommendation: feel free to continue connecting with people as you see fit, but be aware that *some* professors might not like it. **Exercise careful judgement: if the professor has 5 mutual connections with you, and 4 of them are students, go ahead and connect with them. If they have < 100 connections in total and in real-life you are able to see that they are not the type that would ever want to connect with a student, proceed with caution if you think you might want something from that professor later.**
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_8: I agree with all the views that this is fine.
(Of course it depends on what you do with this connection. Treat it as a professional connection.)
To add to the previous comments:
Our subject has a LinkedIn group which contains at present 301 members. Of course with time this changes - people leave, move on forget about it and the last post is from two years ago.
However when one of our former lecturer retired, this was shared via LinkedIn with us for example.
It keeps a small link back to your old university which may well grow fainter as the staff retire and new students come in.
So, just to re-iterate: Yes, connecting with lecturers is perfectly fine. Of course do not spam connection requests. Treat them as a professional connection, ideally add people you know only. An exception may be people you could reasonably approach - say you are working towards a PhD and want to connect with a researcher, then you could equally consider LinkedIn. However for the latter, I suspect that the vast majority of people would prefer regular email for the initial contact.
(Oh, and maybe (conference) networking events? Again, a LinkedIn connection may be easier to create and exchange.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: I get plenty of LinkedIn requests, mostly from companies that want to sell me something, hiring companies and random people. I just ignore them.
So not getting a reply does not mean much.
I would not write back to a student to tell them that this is "extremely unprofessional", for several reasons
* such wording is condescending and shows that the demi-god who replied to you is full of himself. Should he want to explain you something, he would have chosen better words
* but especially that my opinion about "who can be connected to whom" is very personal: young people may not have the barrier which was instilled when I was a student - that one should approach professors with deference. Times change and the fact that someone lives with their times (and not mine) is not a reason to be unpleasant.
I would not have done what you did. But there is nothing wrong to do that.
I would not have done what the professor did. **This** is extremely unprofessional, coming from someone who is supposed to teach.
And finally, LinkedIn is crap, do not put too much effort/faith into it. It is just a fancy online CV. EDIT: see the comment below for an alternative view on the usefulness. (interestingly enough, this is exactly what I was complaining about in my answer: to not focus on one's personal point of view but understand that others may have a different approach. Point taken)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: I feel one of the better connections on linked are your former professors...maintaining those contacts and relationships can prove beneficial in your professional career. For example, i know many that have engaged their former academic contacts for intern programs as well as for outsourcing/consulting (both near and far-shoring) opportunities.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: ### TLDR;
Social Media is a new media that is still unnatural and leads to ambiguity. There is a greater disparity, in the perception of the etiquette and usage of various social media platforms, than physical communities. It is best, in such cases, to first be sure of the etiquette that a given person adheres to regarding a given social media. In your case, a simple question you could have asked before connecting with the professor is this: "*Is the professor connected to other students on LinkedId?*". Having said this, you certainly did not do anything unprofessional.
### A Probable Cause for Miscommunication
A probable cause of such confusions comes from one basic dynamic of social networking: "**People across different age groups and different communities have a different perception of social media etiquette.**"
This is very common and leads to many cases of miscommunication in social media (more than in physical communities). For example, we have witnessed a difference in the perception and usage of Facebook across different age groups, and how teens may feel embarrassed about what their parents may be posting on social media and how they are using it. (You may look at [Prof. Cristian's](http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~cristian/) work to look at more concrete examples of social media miscommunication).
With this hypothesis at our disposal, it is now understandable that some people may consider LinkedIn as a platform to network with professionals who are colleagues or are equal in position. As mentioned in one of the answers, students would not be considered equal by many people, and they may consider them students in the sense of a high-school student. Having said that, it is certainly not "extremely unprofessional" and this was more of an opinion of the said professor.
### A General Heuristic
In such cases, a general heuristic that I use is that I first observe if a given professor connects with students on a given social media platform or not, and how friendly and active he is. On one extreme, I have professors who are highly active on Facebook and connect with students there. On the extreme, there are professors who do not even respond to emails and I have to meet them during their strict office hours.
I consider it presumptuous (it's my personal opinion) to assume that a given professor looks at a media the same way as I do.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: "Extremely unprofessional?" Definitely not! Apparently unwelcome in this instance - seems so. That's OK too. Just move on, and proceed as before.
As context, if you connect with someone on LinkedIn, your own LinkedIn feed starts displaying anything they say, whatever they comment on, etc. This is desired behaviour when your connection is someone you worked with, remember, trust, and want to stay informed about. However, as someone who regularly teaches executive education courses and gets (and used to accept) LinkedIn connection requests from many of those students, it does get tiring -- and overwhelming -- to have your feed flooded with random commentary and reputation-building by all sorts of people who passed through your life briefly for a few weeks a couple of years ago, and left no particular lasting impression. I'm proud of my relationships with my current and on occasion former students, but if that relationship has run its natural course, a connection just becomes LinkedIn noise. All of this to say I'd never be so unprofessional myself to "pull rank" and criticize someone I *do* know from trying to form a LinkedIn connection, but I empathize with a professor who isn't keen to connect with most of their former students, whatever the reason.
Both in real life and on LinkedIn, it's about genuine connections you do make, not connections you don't make. Doesn't seem like this ex-prof of yours cares to be a real connection, so move on.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: Final year Undergrads and Masters students do connect with their Profs after graduating, depending on how well they got to know them (e.g. through Project work, or a 2-semester lecture course). Rather than LinkedIn, try 'Researchgate', where you can (passively) follow any Prof and be one of the first to know about their new Research.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/01
| 1,400
| 5,665
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose I am interested in doing more research in a particular area in order to strengthen PhD applications, but I have just finished my undergrad degree.
Is it considered bad form to cold-email professors who say on their websites that they are accepting undergrad researchers in their lab asking to do research this summer/next year, though I’m no longer an undergrad?<issue_comment>username_1: If you are not an undergrad, you cannot be hired as an undergrad. Most undergrads are unpaid (don't work for free!), and of those that are paid, many are paid using funds that can only go to enrolled students (the percentage varies by field). Besides, most school-year undergrad positions are on the order of 10 hours/week, although some summer positions can be full-time.
According to [@J..](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20760/j), sometimes new grads can be hired for full-time summer internships in a transitory capacity. Usually, this would be people continuing to work in labs they have already started with, or professors hiring someone they're familiar with. I find it unlikely a professor would hire someone new for only a few months, and if the opportunities were available, they'd likely to be posted.
Now that you have your degree, **apply for jobs.**
Cold emailing isn't a good strategy for that (especially not in the current climate), mostly because budgets usually don't allow to hire as many people as you need, much less to have money laying around waiting for someone to ask for it. Apply for posted jobs and work your network.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Some professors have money available to hire recent grads as research assistants, but this is a bit more difficult than hiring an enrolled undergrad (as other answers mention, hiring students at the university/college is cheaper and requires less administrative work).
Whether cold emailing is bad form is pretty subjective, and I think it is not. Keep your email short (professors are busy), polite, and clear about what your interests/timescales/constraints are (are you interested in working on research full time? are you flexible about being paid?). If they don't have something available for you, thank them for their consideration and move on.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I actually think 'cold calling' is not so bad if you do it the right way. Actually, for most researchers it is vital. Let me explain by talking about some right and wrong ways to 'cold call' academics:
**The wrong way**
* Write poorly worded or grammatically incorrect pleas for supervision/experience/paid work. EVERY academic and researcher gets these - and we all hate them;
* Get their name/title/role/institution/department/gender wrong. Speaks for itself, doesn't it?;
* Being too transactional (i.e. I need work/I need money/I need experience/I need supervision/gimme this/gimme that/ etc). It may sound harsh, but they have their own problems to deal with! They typically don't really care less, particularly if they don't know you from a bar of soap.
**The right way**
Some of these may sound obvious, but I'm pretty confident that if you manage to do at least more than one of the following you will get a positive response inviting you to follow-up every time:
1. **Focus on your interests**. For example: They work in a lab doing X. Hey guess what, you wrote a paper on X in second year and got a distinction and you have maintained an interest in X ever since. You are keen to build on... (etc etc). You'd really like to **LEARN MORE** about X, Y and Z and are considering working toward a PhD in that area;
2. **Demonstrate your knowledge**. For example: 'I see you are working with X proteins [or whatever], I'm really interested in how the Z process works with those...';
3. **Make an effort**. Show that you're willing to make an effort to develop 1 and 2 above. This may involve you travelling some distance for a tour of the lab or offering to meet/zoom/skype in a place/time/platform that suits their crazy schedule rather than yours.
[Bonus tips]
4. **Flatter their ego**.\* Yea I know. You shouldn't have to. But these people have probably dedicated their lives to what they are doing. A little recognition from time to time wouldn't be so bad, right? Trust me - this one works. Young, old, male, female, intersex, etc; EVERY academic will read and respond to your email if you tell them that you have read and enjoyed their paper on Using Z Processes with X Proteins [or whatever].
[\* Edit - note sensible comments re going over the top with flattery below]
5. **Use conferences**. This is tricky during a pandemic - but if you can get yourself to a conference or seminar of some kind where you know they will be there then strike when they are vulnerable! Time your move during breaks when they are heading for the pastries and NOT in the middle of a conversation where they are securing a deal for more funding for their lab. Give it a try... it works ;-)
**Why do these things work?**
Here's my take on at least a few reasons why these work:
1. **They** were in your situation once too, probably;
2. These days academics are always on the lookout for **good students**. More students means they can grow their lab and get more PhD completions over time, which counts as a performance metric for them;
3. **Cheap labour**. Let's face it, that's definitely part of the equation. If you look like you can be an asset for their research project and you won't cost a fortune in terms of time, funding, training or stress, then you are basically in.
Anyway, try these out and see how you go. And good luck!
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/06/01
| 1,159
| 5,147
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know these questions have been asked before but I would like some advice and perspectives on what I should do when mental health comes into the equation.
The context is: an undergraduate class with a significant project component (40%). The project consists of a research proposal and a presentation and was assigned on May 6th and due on June 4th.
We have a project that is due in five days (as of writing) that we have largely completed the project. One of our group members has not contributed anything, but is apparently dealing with personal issues and is depressed and very stressed due to the coronavirus. We have largely not been able to contact him and at the same time I have also not seen him appear in any class on Zoom nor has anyone else spoken to him. He's off the radar.
Of the times he came online, he apologized profusely and asked what he can do for the project. I answered and he agreed and I gave a deadline. Then he disappears for two weeks or so.
I am wondering if I should alert the professor or just let it go since he's going through a hard time (in his words, I do not know the actual situation). I know him well and he isn't a malicious person so I trust him but at the same time there is an information asymmetry here so I can't really assume either possibility. I'm also worried about his performance in another class (where an individual project and a final exam is coming up in a week). What should I do (or what would you advice?)<issue_comment>username_1: I have been in your shoes in a similar situation when I was in undergrad. Our group member was also going through some hard times and did not contribute much to any of the project reports that were supposed to be written by all of us.
What we did was notify the professor but in a way that showed we were concerned for the student. I think it makes a big difference how the professor is notified, since you definitely don’t want to put the group member who claims to be going through a hard time in a though spot (it is good to give the person the benefit of the doubt). What happened in our case was that our professor has scheduled a meeting with all of us (in your case would be a zoom meeting, I suppose) and we discussed all together what happened so far and what must happen for the group member to successfully complete the class. That worked for the person in my group, although he felt really embarrassed by this situation, he actually contributed more to the project and kind of put himself back together- not only in our project but in all of his other classes.
Additionally to this, I have contacted the person and offered to be there for him if he needed someone to talk to. At the time we were not friends and maybe this looked a bit awkward, but in the end we became really good friends and he actually became a great student for the rest of the undergrad.
So, in short, I know you must be frustrated, as well as your group members, but realize that you have to bury this frustration deep and try to address the problem while being helpful. You guys are still undergrad and have a long way to go ahead of you. You don’t want to discourage your fellow because of a small thing like a group project.
And believe me, you could help change his life by being supportive and understanding in this period.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Practically, you have no option but to share and complete his part of the work among the remaining parts of the group - the deadline is in five days, so not much can be done. The question is whether you decide to declare him as a full participant, as it is common practice in coursework (e.g. the "All members have contributed equally" statement in the cover, or an email to the module leader). I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt for this assignment and suggest you included him as a full member, but take action for the next one. Contact the module leader, explain the potential situation, insist on not wanting the grade or workload to be affected and ask for his advice. I agree with the spirit of @username_1, and hopefully it will go down that way, but if things go wrong you should ensure your work will not suffer and that you have followed the proper channels.
Also, be prepared to report the student to the student services if they show the same behaviour in the new assignment. This is not so much a moral but a practical issue. A mentally distressed person that does not fulfil student duties, is out of contact with staff and students, and does not reply to emails, is always a cause of worry for mental health officers.
If your doubts or your aversion towards doing someone else's work are stronger than the above, you should say on the cover that X did not contribute and in addition email the module leader **and** student services to see if any mitigating circumstances, like an extension or some adjustment in grading (unlikely), can be applied. If you have serious worries about the student's mental state (withdrawn for a very long time, suicidal etc) you should consider contacting student services now.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/01
| 8,463
| 35,778
|
<issue_start>username_0: In a discussion with some of my close friends in other academic institutes, we noticed the common experience\* in which it seems that well over 80% of the advertised job postings for permanent or tenure track positions at the departments close to our working environment where we are working are rigged or fixed. It seems that in Europe there are many people facing similar problems [1,2].
In this context "rigged" is meant to describe that many people at the involved institution already know who will get the position when or even before the position is publicly advertised. And with "knowing" it's meant that if it would be possible to place bets on the outcome, the people familiar with the situation (but not in the selection commission) would place all-in bets for the same person without any regard of the other candidates who applied.
In some cases the job description was even tuned to match the CV of particular candidates. And sometimes, it's already known years ahead that a particular person will get that position. In some cases those persons are also well qualified for the job, but in many cases external candidates with better credentials were not objectively evaluated. The other candidates were invited for interviews, and talks, giving sample lectures, spending time energy and financial resources for their applications and traveling.
This practice seems unethical, but it seems so common that it seems to be an accepted norm. When I spoke with a professor about this, he thought it was perfectly normal to give the job to people who you know well, instead of someone who might seem to be qualified better but who you do not know well. From a risk management point of view he might be right. But to me the situation seems similar to people in the mafia, those people who are part of it do not consider it as a mafia, and they do not consider the activities to be unethical, they even consider it beneficial for the society.
\*EDIT: Based on the answers in a similar question on a particular instance [3], it seems that many people are OK, with that this is how the things go, it has become part of academic culture.
But some aspects of the question stay open:
* How to deal with it in the search for a permanent faculty position?
* How to find those job adverts which are really open?
* How to deal with this if you are an insider and are observing this behavior on a regular basis?
I gave department and campus tours to applicants, of who i knew they
had no chance, even if their credentials were better than that of some
of the professors in the selection commission.
* Should i have told them, that the whole vacancy and invitation for the interview was a charade?
* If one notices such rigged position job advertisements in
its environment, should one report it somewhere? Where could such conduct be reported?
Proof is not so much of an issue: We could easily set up a list of names and positions posting them on the web before the job was advertised get a time stamp. And confront some institute who cares with the statistics of hiring behavior.
But the most important central question is:
**What could be changed in the hiring procedures or rules to mitigate rigged job postings?**
\*These experiences are based on 7 people from various institutions in Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain, France) during the last 10 years.
EDIT: The associated question is definitely similar, but i think there are some fundamental differences.
1. That question was about a single particular case this question is about systematic ongoing behavior with which I and my friends and many others [1,2] are dealing on a daily basis.
2. That question asks about a solution for a particular insider and potential whistleblower only. This question asks for solutions for insiders and outsiders (applicants).
Further more considering some of the answers on the other question which were relevant to the other case i changed the question a bit. How to solve this problem in the big picture.
1. <https://www.chronicle.com/article/Academic-Job-Hunts-From-Hell-/236635>
2. <https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20191122070839500>
3. [I know that there is a preselected candidate for a position to be filled at my department. What should I do?](http://I%20know%20that%20there%20is%20a%20preselected%20candidate%20for%20a%20position%20to%20be%20filled%20at%20my%20department.%20What%20should%20I%20do?)<issue_comment>username_1: I have seen this in situations where giving tenure track positions was not possible either because that institution was not available or because the financial situation of the department was too uncertain. Rigged processes for permanent jobs for postdocs who had proved themselves is than a way to get as close as possible to a tenure track position in that situation. That is imperfect, but the problem is the absence of the possibility to offer tenure track positions.
That leaves the question of why a department might want to give a tenured position via tenure track position rather than a simple application. In some countries it is extremely hard (impossible) to get rid of a person with tenure. So giving tenure to someone based on a letter, an interview, and some recommendations is much riskier than hiring someone who you already know. Your question assumed that it is clear that someone is better, but in my experience that has never been the case. Often it is clear that someone is not suitable, but that leaves many candidates. The impressions I got during the application process are very often wrong: those who I thought would be great turned out to be problematic, while those about whom I had doubts turned out to be great. In a tenure track process you can find that out before you give someone tenure.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I am going to respond to a part of the premise of the question, highlighted by the following statements from the question and comments:
>
> in many cases external candidates with better credentials were not objectively evaluated
>
>
> This practice seems unethical
>
>
> In my view the procedure should be to search for the best available candidate
>
>
>
These statements imply that the eventual choice falls on someone who doesn't have the best qualifications and who was taken from a closed pool of candidates that "outsiders" could not enter.
An issue that I see is that often enough, who is or is not the "best candidate" in academia can best be determined by long-term endeavours such as conducting a project together with the candidate that takes at least a couple of months, or repeatedly working with them on various projects throughout the years.1 It seems that it is at *this* stage where indeed anyone can enter the race (e.g. by establishing contact at conferences or other meetings etc.).
Naturally, this does not match up well with the formal requirement of handling such a selection like a regular job offer followed by inviting applicants. The (as you correctly recognized, technically very dissatisfactory) solution is to run the selection process based on a long-term evaluation of candidates as described above while fulfilling the formal requirements by conducting what could be dubbed "job offer theatre".
As already stated, this is quite suboptimal. There is considerable potential for abuse and where no abuse happens, a candidate still needs to know how the process works to have a chance in the first place. (I think it is noteworthy that a considerable number of posts on this site about how to find such positions point out how important it is to *simply get in touch* with people from the department - because that is, generally, how any external candidate could learn about how to get into the department.)
I am not really sure about a solution; maybe the actual hiring process (i.e. including the evaluation that might span multiple years) could be formalized in some way - though of course, this would create quite some bureaucratic overhead and might also not be very practical given that such an "evaluation" may begin well before the candidate first utters (or even conceives) the wish to actually become a candidate.
Right now, as an attempt to answer the titular question directly:
**How does one deal with rigged academic position job postings?**
By understanding the difference between the formally required and the "actual" hiring process, and by, first and foremost, entering the latter. Get in touch with departments you would like to work with, show them your expertise during repeated encounters, contacts, or mutually conducted work, and thereby get on the path of being hired into your own personalized "rigged job posting".
---
EDIT: Based on various remarks, such as:
>
> It seems to be about minimizing the risk, not about optimizing quality.
>
>
>
[the OP's own answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/149991/14017)
>
> you claim that if A is perceived as a "good fit to the department" then it is advisable to take A. The problem is that (a) by that you exclude all other globally stronger on paper candidates.
>
>
>
[username_3's comment](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/149903/how-to-deal-with-systematic-rigging-of-academic-position-job-postings/149924?noredirect=1#comment399376_149924)
there seems to be some confusion about what is the assumed goal of evaluating candidates. The way I know hiring decisions to work (and that, personally, I think also makes most sense) is that they always combine *several* factors that need to be kept in a certain balance:
* **Are the professional skills of the candidate sufficient?** These can be objectively tested and shown on a global scope. The candidate's formal education, prior work experience, and handling of concrete sample problems are just some of various ways to accurately determine these.
* **Is the candidate a good fit in the intended context?** This one is much harder to determine, short of having already worked with the candidate before for extended amounts of time. The answer to this question may vary from one department to the next, as each environment, project, etc. is different, yet it is also crucial to know.
* **How accurate are the answers to the above two points?** Both of the above points come with a degree of uncertainty. Keeping that uncertainty low is, of course, also important. Speaking in a simplified manner, a candidate who seems to be able to apply 90% of the expected skills in the department but turns out to apply only 70% is worth less than a candidate who is definitely known to apply 80% of the expected skills in that department.
Thus, the decision who is the strongest candidate is a combination of all of these factors. Especially in highly individual jobs as often found in academia (the higher in the hierarchy you look, it is less about fulfilling pre-defined duties and more about being able to develop and maintain one's own goals and positions), in my opinion an accurate impression of how that works out for any particular candidate in any particular context can only be gathered by gradually collaborating with and integrating them, rather than in a "normal" hiring process with a few superficial snapshot impressions such as a CV, interviews, sample lectures, etc.
---
1: *Arguably, the longer I work in industry and have to do with (sometimes helping select, sometimes just training) new hires, I am getting the impression that quite the same applies there. Picking the seemingly best candidate based on a CV, work samples, and personal impressions from an interview within the course of a few weeks is simply not a reliable method to identify suitable (let alone the best) candidates, compared to hiring people who you've been in touch with for years.*
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Indeed, I believe you are mostly correct in your arguments. In my opinion, as someone with quite a rich experience in academia, rigging or tailoring job postings, as is done a lot in Europe at least, is indeed unethical, and akin in some sense at least to a mafia mentality. There are of course some advantages to recruiting someone you already know, but the disadvantages first severely outweigh the advantages, and furthermore usually only apply to those few persons that are rigging the job posting. In most cases the one who devises these rigged positions is a "career-scientist" who attempts to recruit a colleague to add to his/her group junior assistants, or to add to his/her network of close colleagues within the department.
Rigging a job posting thus serves to:
1) Block the development of new groups and areas in the department.
2) Strengthen *an already existing* group, with someone who does not strengthen substantively the group, rather is more a junior faculty.
3) Promote the mostly narrow political-agenda of a group leader in the department.
Departments that usually rig positions after some time become non-competitive and usually are left behind, in comparison to their competitors (this is one reason in my opinion that European universities are on average less successful than US ones, in which rigging is less common; though of course there is more to it than that).
---
Following comments and previous discussions, I now explain why consistent rigging of job postings leads to a gradual decrease in quality and eventually a highly provincial department/cohort of academics. Let us consider the following *highly simplified* scenarios:
1) A department of "ranking 5" (out of 10) with 4 research groups hires for five consecutive years faculty members based on rigged job postings. Since no new faculty brings new expertise the department only maintains or expands in the areas it is already active in.
Outcome: the department only gets people it already knows. It doesn't go much down then in ranking. But it also doesn't go up: still 4 groups, doing the same research. Scholars of "rank 5" bring their colleagues who are also "of rank about 5". New areas are completely lost. Stagnation, and eventual provincialism. No new connection to different research groups and different countries.
2) A department of "ranking 5" with 4 research groups hires for five consecutive years faculty members based on international and unbiased recruitment process. People are hired based on reference letters, CV, publications, tangible achievements, and some strategic considerations (i.e., areas to invest in).
Outcome: Although one hire was found to be a problematic colleague who then quit after three years, all other four members are dynamic, international-level scholars, that bring fresh ideas to the department. New areas and new connection emerge. The four new hires are also of "rank 6 and even 7". The department then increased its average "ranking", its international connections, and the scope of areas it covers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Resolve that if you ever find yourself in a position to make (or contribute to making) hiring decisions, you will act fairly. If enough of us do this, some of us may eventually be in a position to effect change for the better.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: There are countries where institutions are forced, by law, to advertise positions before hiring someone. I think the idea behind such laws is that this will ensure they get the best person for the job plus it helps in fighting corruption by making everything more transparent.
So when the institution wants to hire a specific individual, independently of the reasons, it sees itself forced to advertise said position to *obey* the law. To deter applicants other than the one person they want to hire, this position can be tailored to the person's strengths and the evaluation metrics adjusted to ensure there is a high chance no one else will take the place.
While this is in a sense "rigged" it is the only way some institutions have to hire specific people without breaking the law. And there are legitimate cases for such behavior.
For example, say you have someone who worked for 2 years in a project. The 2-year contract ends and you realize you need 4 or 6 more months to finish it. In this case, it makes sense to re-hire the same person. However, the law prevents you from doing so directly. What do you do? You go around the law by opening a new position and tweaking the position to said person. Is it rigged? Yes. But you can easily argue this person is the best one for the job, after all the individual already has 2 years of experience in the project in question.
This is not the same as hiring faculty, but even in those cases, it's not surprising a hiring committee prefers the devil they know.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Based on many of the responses it seems that this "rigged" faculty job postings are quite accepted in the academic community. And not really seen as something unethical. It is a way to deal with the formal requirements of "the system". And the formal requirements are a way to make the selection process *look* fair and objective.
A common argument is that one needs to know the person very well in order to appoint him for an important positions. How to compare an assessment of a CV, some papers and an interview with some of the candidates with years of collaboration experience with another candidate? If you have way more information about candidate B, how could you justify choosing another candidate? It seems to be about minimizing the risk, not about optimizing quality. "It is extremely difficult to get rid of some one with tenure". Another point mentioned is the lack of other alternatives to give tenure track or other permanent positions to those locally well known. Apparently often the real recruitment phase starts (and ends) before the formal job position opens.
Once you are hired in a similar way you get used to it, if it happens every where it becomes normal.
So what to do?
* If one writes a rigged job advert, make it clear that it is tailored to a very particular person. (maybe one can agree on some code words?)
* If you have to give a tour or have a conversation with one of the candidates who have no chance, whistle or hum the "the Entertainer theme (from The Sting, <NAME>), or offer them the choice between a [red and a blue drink.](https://youtu.be/zE7PKRjrid4?t=58)
* If you are in a department where this frequently happens, don't freak out, it seems to happen a lot. If you feel that they will rig a job for you to, stay and get assimilated. Otherwise network and collaborate with other clans and try to get yourself in a good position for the next rigged job posting there.
* If you want to report it, forget it. Nobody with authority or power against it really cares and many even support it. You can write a blog or a post on academia.stack exchange. The answers could be disappointing, but you will learn the truth.
What could be changed in the hiring procedures or rules to mitigate rigged job postings?
The first thing is that it requires to chance the view of those who think that this is ethical and acceptable, and the only way to circumvent the problems of the system. I hold it for impossible, and i fear they are in the majority. Resistance seems futile, and even counter productive. If you are known to be against such practices, you will not be invited for selection commissions, you will be considered as dangerous for other faculty members. These are things difficult to find out in a job interview, or CV, or by reading your papers. This kind of trust needs to be based on long term experience and close relations. So I recommend: do not try to change it, try to find a place where this is uncommon and exceptional, or adapt.
But hypothetically, the procedures could be changed to a more competition like structure. Quantifiable hiring criteria using a fixed limited "equal" amount of information per applicant could publicly stated in advance. With the possibility of public comments. An external commission evaluates the criteria, to see if they favor a specific applicant in a way not relevant for the position. The commission report is and remains public. People apply and another commission evaluates the candidates according the the specified criteria. The report with ratings, votes and conclusions of the individual commission members is and remains publicly available. Its imperfect but it seems more transparent, than how things currently go.
But those who want to circumvent the system will find ways around it, and jobs will keep being rigged. And probably in ways more difficult to spot. The more transparent the procedures, the more darkness is required to conceal the true objectives of those with power and objectives against the system. So in the end things will probably even get worse.
Italy is one of the countries with public commission decision reports, but i know from personal experience that it did not solve the problem.
Therefore, maybe one must be thankful to know, and be warned that many faculty jobs are rigged. And try to find constructive ways to deal with it. One way is to keep it silent, and have the advantage of being warned w.r.t. the other poor sheep candidates who really still think they have a chance.
Also beware for the next level: maybe i am paranoid but the processes between awarding funding/grants (selecting reviewers, selection committees) and faculty hiring are not that different. Similar processes, similar people there might be a pattern there. It would even be inconsistent if the same arguments: "We know candidate A, better than B and C so we minimize risk by choosing A", are not applied there. In Germany there are elections for the subject committees of the national funding agency "DFG-Fachkollegienwahl" and of it is difficult to imagine that people do not vote for their friends, and that their friends do them favors back.
*Note 1: I did not intend to answer my own question in advance, but the answers and feedback (also that of the related questions) gave me new perspectives summarized here. Thanks for all the other answers and discussions in the comments.*
*Note 2: On request i could place references to some of the statements from other answers and quotes from other users, but i thought it was more polite not to do so.*
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I've seen\* different kinds of rigged hiring processes which IMHO ask for different actions:
* **nepotism** is IMHO the most problematic form. By definition (hiring someone because of the relation hiring *Boss* (I'll use *Boss* for the powerful one in the hiring committee) and *Favorite* rather than because of scientific achievements or job-related soft skills) this is dangerous for academic and general work quality.
Hardly anyone cares about spotting nepotism if the *Favorite* is actually a good fit for the job.
+ So nepotism is spotted as problematic when *Favorite* doesn't fit that well. Either because their research isn't that good or because they don't get along/cooperate well with the other members of the group or department.
+ Nevertheless, Boss typically thinks they prefer Favorite based on objective criteria. For hiring local people/keeping jobs for their own staff rather than hiring newcomers, this may be related to a positive feedback loop: Boss supervises Favorite. Favorite is taught what research Boss does and how. After a while, Boss finds Favorite doing *exactly* the research they'd like to see. In addition, there's the important criterion that the candidate should work well in the department. Boss finds that Favorite works very smoothly with them.Of course, the usual rules against academic inbreeding counteract this if the relationship is internal as in the example. But a very similar problem may be encountered with hiring Boss' external Favorite.
**What to do?** If the nepotism comes along with Boss being convinced that they are objectively right it is IMHO very difficult to stop as long as Boss stays boss. Realistically, only someone who is highly esteemed by Boss *and* who perceives the hiring outcome as problematic has a chance to make Boss aware of the trouble.
For everyone else, IMHO the only feasible consequence is to think carefully whether/how long they want to stay in such a department/group: working atmosphere is likely already quite bad, and there is the risk that the fishy smell of being in a group that a) a does bad research and/or b) hires bad people (nepotism) sticks to *them*.
* **Hiring rigged in favor of someone found by a scouting process.**
Here we actually have a proper hiring process looking for the best or at least a very good candidate - but the visible administrative hiring process happens afterwards. The industry equivalent would be to have a job opening announced at the local unemployment agency as required by law and at the same time employ a headhunter.
One reason to do this is that the visible administrative process cannot start before all grant contracts are signed - but then someone must be hired immediately. A 2nd related reason is to avoid the risk that noone applies who is really suitable for the job, either leaving the position open (project cannot start) or filled with someone who is not that suitable for the job.
Related: we do have a probationary period of typically 6 months here that allows cancellation of an employment contract by either side without explanation. But again, doing so would mess up any project schedule (or the lecture plan) - so this is something a department is afraid of.
This type of rigging comes at varying levels of unfairness to other candidates. In general, the hiring committee is still looking forward to hire Unicorn who appears out of the blue raterh than Favorite. However, the more preliminary negotiations have taken place with the Favorite candidate and the more promises have been made, the higher the hurdle Unicorn must overcome = the better Unicorn must be than Favorite in order to get the job. On the other hand, such a situaton is comparably easy to spot for other applicants: the job offer then looks as if they had forgotten to state required shoe size and eye color.
**What to do?** When writing proposals, work that there is a realistic amount of time for the official hiring process. Do not make promises you can only keep by rigging the official hiring process against other good candidates when scouting.
I do think that scouting is needed, but at the same time, allowing scouting procedures to replace the public announcement will facilitate nepotism :-(.
Maybe allowing a certain amount of jokers/wild cards could give a good balance? After all, if a department (Boss) is determined to go bad, academic freedom allows them to do so.
* Related is **postdoc Favorite who wrote the proposal** together with Boss ("You can join my group if you get a grant that pays you").
Here the ethics are IMHO not so clear cut and need to be discussed in the academic community: what is a fair chance for some who wrote the proposal to actually get that job? Should it be treated like any other unrigged job advertisement - after all having written the proposal will give them a headstart, or should the writer have an "option" to the job? Anything in between?
* **Someone getting a follow-up contract** has a similar headstart: they objectively won't need as much time to get started as an external candidate. The hiring process may still be further rigged in their favor.
In my experience, administrative or legal requirement are sometime followed as required, but the perception is that the rigging counteracts unfair/unethical consequences of legislation (we have a saying "Gut gemeint ist das Gegenteil von gut gemacht" - quite literally "Well-intentioned is the opposite of well done"). One example is that legislation that was intended to protect emplyoees has the practical result that there are few things that administration fears as much as hiring someone on a permanent position, and at the same time there are strong requirements with fixed term contracts (violating them can turn the contract into a permanent one - nightmare for administration). The practical consequence is that Boss cannot offer permanent positions to Favorite who objectively deserves the position. So Boss/the committee does the next best thing they *can* do: making everyone jump through the loops of a rigged hiring procedure for a job that is promised to Favorite as a makeshift permanent position.
**What to do?** This is a general political issue. And while many agree that the situation is bad as it is, I don't see anything approaching a majority agreement on what and how changes should be implemented.
* "Rigging" in favor of internal candidates may be required by law: e.g. the staff council can demand that positions are first offered internally. In other situations, an external announcement may be required (by law, funding agency, administration, you name it): I'm quite sure any combination of weird administrative requirements may kick in. Or administration thinks they may kick in and asks the hiring committee to err on the safe side in the formal procedure.
* **Rigging against candidates** (to be done...)
---
Conflict lines and political questions:
* Academic freedom attracting despots? - relation to nepotism. (Humboldt and mafia)
* Fair to applicants ./. scouting for and getting the best candidate
* Labor laws: job safety ./. difficulty to get hired, fixed term ./. permanent contract regulation.
* Administration minimizing risk ./. department wanting someone good
---
\* In order to not blow up the answer even more, I'll write in indicative what is actually not more than what I believe to be true. Conjunctive or similarly cautious wording would actually be more appropriate. All this is my personal wold view - for few of the things I describe I have hard evidence, not to speak of a proof that I could show.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: I will just give direct answers to each of your questions
>
> How to deal with it in the search for a permanent faculty position?
>
>
>
Your question demonstrates that you have quite an accurate understanding of what is going on, and your comments on people's answers indicate that you have read the multitude of answers given here, which all say similar things. You now know how hiring is viewed and that you alone will not be able to change this overnight. So here is how I would advise you to deal with it:
* It's okay to complain about the process here with your username_4ymous username, but try not to be too vocal in real-life about everything you've written here, especially how you think they are behaving like a "mafia". They will not appreciate being compared to a mafia or being call "corrupt" or accusd of "rigging" anything, and you will just be killing your own chances of getting the job. Wait until you have a permanent position, then you can fight to fix things (if you want).
* If you file formal complaints or sue them, you are unlikely to see a happy outcome in a fair amount of time, so
* Spend your energy on publishing many, strong papers. If your h-index hits 30 and you reach 2000 citations on 100 papers, eventually one of these institutions will have **no choice but to hire you** because you will be objectively and obviously a stronger candidate than the one they originally thought they wanted. Go to many conferences and make friends with as many powerful professors in your field as you can, one of them might like you and might make a "rigged" job opening **for you**.
* If you are unable to develop what others think is a strong publication record, and you are unable to make friends with a lot of powerful professors, do remember that there's 1000s of people that can do these things quite well (whether thanks to very good luck, being born into an extra privileged family, having a lot of money, or doing the near-impossible: simply working even harder and making even more sacrifices than you and me), so I hope you don't have a closed-mind towards other excellent academic opportunities outside of being a professor at a top institution in one of your favorite countries. Academics tend never to give up, which is good, but compare yourself to the top sprinters in the world: you can be the best in your country and not make it to the Olympics.
>
> How to find those job adverts which are really open?
>
>
>
Do you think that there is a place where you can find job adverts that say "this particular job hiring is going to be done in a fair way"? If so, how can you be sure they are being honest? So you can do the following:
* Look everywhere and join every relevant mailing-list.
* If you want to err on the caution, only apply to jobs where the advert is a rather direct fit for you. If they say they want someone specializing in machine learning, you can be tempted to apply because you do have a couple of excellent papers that used machine learning, but consider instead focusing on the ads that are *really* directly related to your specialty.
>
> How to deal with this if you are an insider and are observing this behavior on a regular basis?
>
> If one notices such rigged position job advertisements in its environment, should one report it somewhere? Where could such conduct be reported?
>
>
>
That's up to you:
* You can ignore it (most professors do, and maybe that's why they managed to get professorships, but it's also why most of them are not celebrated like <NAME> Jr for standing up against corruption).
* You can bring the matter up with the hiring committee, or if they don't listen than the person in charge of the chair of the hiring committee (either the Head of the Department, or Dean/Associate-Dean of the Faculty if the Head of the Department is the committee chair, which often is indeed the case). Or you can write an article about it, or go to your local news station and have an investigative journalist write about it. You can even raise the matter in a tribunal. But all of these things can backfire on you, especially if you don't have tenure yet.
>
> I gave department and campus tours to applicants, of who i knew they
> had no chance, even if their credentials were better than that of some
> of the professors in the selection commission.
>
>
> * Should i have told them, that the whole vacancy and invitation for the interview was a charade?
>
>
>
Whether you "should" or "should not" is subjective. Are there any laws obligating you to tell them this? If so, then if you want to be a law-abiding citizen no matte what the law says, then perhaps you should. If not, it's up to you, but remember that your department colleagues can be very nasty to you and make your life a living Hell if you anger them.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: I don't have a full solution, but it is necessary to be daring and speak up against the practice. And I would like to strenuously object to the "this is expected, and solves some problems, let's keep it" ethos. Or to the "you're not established yet, don't rock the boat" ethos.
These practices are common, not just in academia, but also in certain professions. And they contribute to the "looks like me" results. In other words, if you're a minority, you're less likely to "get in" on each level of the career ladder, and if you're not already "in", you're even less likely to progress. It would be great if cis-gendered white male allies would educate themselves on the full picture, and do what they can, when they can, to speak up against such culture. It is a risk, but less of a risk than it is to be a minority, and that's what allyship is all about.
I applaud the OP on his ethics.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/01
| 7,714
| 32,851
|
<issue_start>username_0: An MSc and PhD are quite different both in terms of the length and the expectations placed on the students undergoing the program. First, let's just assume that the 'students' I reference below are hard working, want to be in their programs, and make an effort to be a good mentee.
Trying to put myself in the shoes of a supervisor, and all else equal, I would expect (in the general sense) more from my PhD students than I would from my masters students - although I recognize there are probably instances where supervisor expectations might be similar, but I doubt they would expect more of a MSc student than a PhD student.
What I am curious about is how a supervisor might approach their end of the student-supervisor relationship from a pedagogical point of view when the student is a PhD student in contrast to being an MSc student. For example, what values or attitudes might a PhD supervisor try to impart on their student that might not be warranted for an MSc student, or what type of expectations might a supervisor place on their PhD student that might not be appropriate to place on the MSc student?
I say pedagogically because I think the question can be answered without needing to reference a specific field. I'm not sure if it really matters or not, but if you think it does, one can use Canada-US as a place of context.
While some might view the question to be ambiguous, I think it is relevant enough for the forum because it can help shape a healthy student-advisor relationship.<issue_comment>username_1: I have seen this in situations where giving tenure track positions was not possible either because that institution was not available or because the financial situation of the department was too uncertain. Rigged processes for permanent jobs for postdocs who had proved themselves is than a way to get as close as possible to a tenure track position in that situation. That is imperfect, but the problem is the absence of the possibility to offer tenure track positions.
That leaves the question of why a department might want to give a tenured position via tenure track position rather than a simple application. In some countries it is extremely hard (impossible) to get rid of a person with tenure. So giving tenure to someone based on a letter, an interview, and some recommendations is much riskier than hiring someone who you already know. Your question assumed that it is clear that someone is better, but in my experience that has never been the case. Often it is clear that someone is not suitable, but that leaves many candidates. The impressions I got during the application process are very often wrong: those who I thought would be great turned out to be problematic, while those about whom I had doubts turned out to be great. In a tenure track process you can find that out before you give someone tenure.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I am going to respond to a part of the premise of the question, highlighted by the following statements from the question and comments:
>
> in many cases external candidates with better credentials were not objectively evaluated
>
>
> This practice seems unethical
>
>
> In my view the procedure should be to search for the best available candidate
>
>
>
These statements imply that the eventual choice falls on someone who doesn't have the best qualifications and who was taken from a closed pool of candidates that "outsiders" could not enter.
An issue that I see is that often enough, who is or is not the "best candidate" in academia can best be determined by long-term endeavours such as conducting a project together with the candidate that takes at least a couple of months, or repeatedly working with them on various projects throughout the years.1 It seems that it is at *this* stage where indeed anyone can enter the race (e.g. by establishing contact at conferences or other meetings etc.).
Naturally, this does not match up well with the formal requirement of handling such a selection like a regular job offer followed by inviting applicants. The (as you correctly recognized, technically very dissatisfactory) solution is to run the selection process based on a long-term evaluation of candidates as described above while fulfilling the formal requirements by conducting what could be dubbed "job offer theatre".
As already stated, this is quite suboptimal. There is considerable potential for abuse and where no abuse happens, a candidate still needs to know how the process works to have a chance in the first place. (I think it is noteworthy that a considerable number of posts on this site about how to find such positions point out how important it is to *simply get in touch* with people from the department - because that is, generally, how any external candidate could learn about how to get into the department.)
I am not really sure about a solution; maybe the actual hiring process (i.e. including the evaluation that might span multiple years) could be formalized in some way - though of course, this would create quite some bureaucratic overhead and might also not be very practical given that such an "evaluation" may begin well before the candidate first utters (or even conceives) the wish to actually become a candidate.
Right now, as an attempt to answer the titular question directly:
**How does one deal with rigged academic position job postings?**
By understanding the difference between the formally required and the "actual" hiring process, and by, first and foremost, entering the latter. Get in touch with departments you would like to work with, show them your expertise during repeated encounters, contacts, or mutually conducted work, and thereby get on the path of being hired into your own personalized "rigged job posting".
---
EDIT: Based on various remarks, such as:
>
> It seems to be about minimizing the risk, not about optimizing quality.
>
>
>
[the OP's own answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/149991/14017)
>
> you claim that if A is perceived as a "good fit to the department" then it is advisable to take A. The problem is that (a) by that you exclude all other globally stronger on paper candidates.
>
>
>
[username_3's comment](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/149903/how-to-deal-with-systematic-rigging-of-academic-position-job-postings/149924?noredirect=1#comment399376_149924)
there seems to be some confusion about what is the assumed goal of evaluating candidates. The way I know hiring decisions to work (and that, personally, I think also makes most sense) is that they always combine *several* factors that need to be kept in a certain balance:
* **Are the professional skills of the candidate sufficient?** These can be objectively tested and shown on a global scope. The candidate's formal education, prior work experience, and handling of concrete sample problems are just some of various ways to accurately determine these.
* **Is the candidate a good fit in the intended context?** This one is much harder to determine, short of having already worked with the candidate before for extended amounts of time. The answer to this question may vary from one department to the next, as each environment, project, etc. is different, yet it is also crucial to know.
* **How accurate are the answers to the above two points?** Both of the above points come with a degree of uncertainty. Keeping that uncertainty low is, of course, also important. Speaking in a simplified manner, a candidate who seems to be able to apply 90% of the expected skills in the department but turns out to apply only 70% is worth less than a candidate who is definitely known to apply 80% of the expected skills in that department.
Thus, the decision who is the strongest candidate is a combination of all of these factors. Especially in highly individual jobs as often found in academia (the higher in the hierarchy you look, it is less about fulfilling pre-defined duties and more about being able to develop and maintain one's own goals and positions), in my opinion an accurate impression of how that works out for any particular candidate in any particular context can only be gathered by gradually collaborating with and integrating them, rather than in a "normal" hiring process with a few superficial snapshot impressions such as a CV, interviews, sample lectures, etc.
---
1: *Arguably, the longer I work in industry and have to do with (sometimes helping select, sometimes just training) new hires, I am getting the impression that quite the same applies there. Picking the seemingly best candidate based on a CV, work samples, and personal impressions from an interview within the course of a few weeks is simply not a reliable method to identify suitable (let alone the best) candidates, compared to hiring people who you've been in touch with for years.*
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Indeed, I believe you are mostly correct in your arguments. In my opinion, as someone with quite a rich experience in academia, rigging or tailoring job postings, as is done a lot in Europe at least, is indeed unethical, and akin in some sense at least to a mafia mentality. There are of course some advantages to recruiting someone you already know, but the disadvantages first severely outweigh the advantages, and furthermore usually only apply to those few persons that are rigging the job posting. In most cases the one who devises these rigged positions is a "career-scientist" who attempts to recruit a colleague to add to his/her group junior assistants, or to add to his/her network of close colleagues within the department.
Rigging a job posting thus serves to:
1) Block the development of new groups and areas in the department.
2) Strengthen *an already existing* group, with someone who does not strengthen substantively the group, rather is more a junior faculty.
3) Promote the mostly narrow political-agenda of a group leader in the department.
Departments that usually rig positions after some time become non-competitive and usually are left behind, in comparison to their competitors (this is one reason in my opinion that European universities are on average less successful than US ones, in which rigging is less common; though of course there is more to it than that).
---
Following comments and previous discussions, I now explain why consistent rigging of job postings leads to a gradual decrease in quality and eventually a highly provincial department/cohort of academics. Let us consider the following *highly simplified* scenarios:
1) A department of "ranking 5" (out of 10) with 4 research groups hires for five consecutive years faculty members based on rigged job postings. Since no new faculty brings new expertise the department only maintains or expands in the areas it is already active in.
Outcome: the department only gets people it already knows. It doesn't go much down then in ranking. But it also doesn't go up: still 4 groups, doing the same research. Scholars of "rank 5" bring their colleagues who are also "of rank about 5". New areas are completely lost. Stagnation, and eventual provincialism. No new connection to different research groups and different countries.
2) A department of "ranking 5" with 4 research groups hires for five consecutive years faculty members based on international and unbiased recruitment process. People are hired based on reference letters, CV, publications, tangible achievements, and some strategic considerations (i.e., areas to invest in).
Outcome: Although one hire was found to be a problematic colleague who then quit after three years, all other four members are dynamic, international-level scholars, that bring fresh ideas to the department. New areas and new connection emerge. The four new hires are also of "rank 6 and even 7". The department then increased its average "ranking", its international connections, and the scope of areas it covers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Resolve that if you ever find yourself in a position to make (or contribute to making) hiring decisions, you will act fairly. If enough of us do this, some of us may eventually be in a position to effect change for the better.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: There are countries where institutions are forced, by law, to advertise positions before hiring someone. I think the idea behind such laws is that this will ensure they get the best person for the job plus it helps in fighting corruption by making everything more transparent.
So when the institution wants to hire a specific individual, independently of the reasons, it sees itself forced to advertise said position to *obey* the law. To deter applicants other than the one person they want to hire, this position can be tailored to the person's strengths and the evaluation metrics adjusted to ensure there is a high chance no one else will take the place.
While this is in a sense "rigged" it is the only way some institutions have to hire specific people without breaking the law. And there are legitimate cases for such behavior.
For example, say you have someone who worked for 2 years in a project. The 2-year contract ends and you realize you need 4 or 6 more months to finish it. In this case, it makes sense to re-hire the same person. However, the law prevents you from doing so directly. What do you do? You go around the law by opening a new position and tweaking the position to said person. Is it rigged? Yes. But you can easily argue this person is the best one for the job, after all the individual already has 2 years of experience in the project in question.
This is not the same as hiring faculty, but even in those cases, it's not surprising a hiring committee prefers the devil they know.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Based on many of the responses it seems that this "rigged" faculty job postings are quite accepted in the academic community. And not really seen as something unethical. It is a way to deal with the formal requirements of "the system". And the formal requirements are a way to make the selection process *look* fair and objective.
A common argument is that one needs to know the person very well in order to appoint him for an important positions. How to compare an assessment of a CV, some papers and an interview with some of the candidates with years of collaboration experience with another candidate? If you have way more information about candidate B, how could you justify choosing another candidate? It seems to be about minimizing the risk, not about optimizing quality. "It is extremely difficult to get rid of some one with tenure". Another point mentioned is the lack of other alternatives to give tenure track or other permanent positions to those locally well known. Apparently often the real recruitment phase starts (and ends) before the formal job position opens.
Once you are hired in a similar way you get used to it, if it happens every where it becomes normal.
So what to do?
* If one writes a rigged job advert, make it clear that it is tailored to a very particular person. (maybe one can agree on some code words?)
* If you have to give a tour or have a conversation with one of the candidates who have no chance, whistle or hum the "the Entertainer theme (from The Sting, Scott Joplin), or offer them the choice between a [red and a blue drink.](https://youtu.be/zE7PKRjrid4?t=58)
* If you are in a department where this frequently happens, don't freak out, it seems to happen a lot. If you feel that they will rig a job for you to, stay and get assimilated. Otherwise network and collaborate with other clans and try to get yourself in a good position for the next rigged job posting there.
* If you want to report it, forget it. Nobody with authority or power against it really cares and many even support it. You can write a blog or a post on academia.stack exchange. The answers could be disappointing, but you will learn the truth.
What could be changed in the hiring procedures or rules to mitigate rigged job postings?
The first thing is that it requires to chance the view of those who think that this is ethical and acceptable, and the only way to circumvent the problems of the system. I hold it for impossible, and i fear they are in the majority. Resistance seems futile, and even counter productive. If you are known to be against such practices, you will not be invited for selection commissions, you will be considered as dangerous for other faculty members. These are things difficult to find out in a job interview, or CV, or by reading your papers. This kind of trust needs to be based on long term experience and close relations. So I recommend: do not try to change it, try to find a place where this is uncommon and exceptional, or adapt.
But hypothetically, the procedures could be changed to a more competition like structure. Quantifiable hiring criteria using a fixed limited "equal" amount of information per applicant could publicly stated in advance. With the possibility of public comments. An external commission evaluates the criteria, to see if they favor a specific applicant in a way not relevant for the position. The commission report is and remains public. People apply and another commission evaluates the candidates according the the specified criteria. The report with ratings, votes and conclusions of the individual commission members is and remains publicly available. Its imperfect but it seems more transparent, than how things currently go.
But those who want to circumvent the system will find ways around it, and jobs will keep being rigged. And probably in ways more difficult to spot. The more transparent the procedures, the more darkness is required to conceal the true objectives of those with power and objectives against the system. So in the end things will probably even get worse.
Italy is one of the countries with public commission decision reports, but i know from personal experience that it did not solve the problem.
Therefore, maybe one must be thankful to know, and be warned that many faculty jobs are rigged. And try to find constructive ways to deal with it. One way is to keep it silent, and have the advantage of being warned w.r.t. the other poor sheep candidates who really still think they have a chance.
Also beware for the next level: maybe i am paranoid but the processes between awarding funding/grants (selecting reviewers, selection committees) and faculty hiring are not that different. Similar processes, similar people there might be a pattern there. It would even be inconsistent if the same arguments: "We know candidate A, better than B and C so we minimize risk by choosing A", are not applied there. In Germany there are elections for the subject committees of the national funding agency "DFG-Fachkollegienwahl" and of it is difficult to imagine that people do not vote for their friends, and that their friends do them favors back.
*Note 1: I did not intend to answer my own question in advance, but the answers and feedback (also that of the related questions) gave me new perspectives summarized here. Thanks for all the other answers and discussions in the comments.*
*Note 2: On request i could place references to some of the statements from other answers and quotes from other users, but i thought it was more polite not to do so.*
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I've seen\* different kinds of rigged hiring processes which IMHO ask for different actions:
* **nepotism** is IMHO the most problematic form. By definition (hiring someone because of the relation hiring *Boss* (I'll use *Boss* for the powerful one in the hiring committee) and *Favorite* rather than because of scientific achievements or job-related soft skills) this is dangerous for academic and general work quality.
Hardly anyone cares about spotting nepotism if the *Favorite* is actually a good fit for the job.
+ So nepotism is spotted as problematic when *Favorite* doesn't fit that well. Either because their research isn't that good or because they don't get along/cooperate well with the other members of the group or department.
+ Nevertheless, Boss typically thinks they prefer Favorite based on objective criteria. For hiring local people/keeping jobs for their own staff rather than hiring newcomers, this may be related to a positive feedback loop: Boss supervises Favorite. Favorite is taught what research Boss does and how. After a while, Boss finds Favorite doing *exactly* the research they'd like to see. In addition, there's the important criterion that the candidate should work well in the department. Boss finds that Favorite works very smoothly with them.Of course, the usual rules against academic inbreeding counteract this if the relationship is internal as in the example. But a very similar problem may be encountered with hiring Boss' external Favorite.
**What to do?** If the nepotism comes along with Boss being convinced that they are objectively right it is IMHO very difficult to stop as long as Boss stays boss. Realistically, only someone who is highly esteemed by Boss *and* who perceives the hiring outcome as problematic has a chance to make Boss aware of the trouble.
For everyone else, IMHO the only feasible consequence is to think carefully whether/how long they want to stay in such a department/group: working atmosphere is likely already quite bad, and there is the risk that the fishy smell of being in a group that a) a does bad research and/or b) hires bad people (nepotism) sticks to *them*.
* **Hiring rigged in favor of someone found by a scouting process.**
Here we actually have a proper hiring process looking for the best or at least a very good candidate - but the visible administrative hiring process happens afterwards. The industry equivalent would be to have a job opening announced at the local unemployment agency as required by law and at the same time employ a headhunter.
One reason to do this is that the visible administrative process cannot start before all grant contracts are signed - but then someone must be hired immediately. A 2nd related reason is to avoid the risk that noone applies who is really suitable for the job, either leaving the position open (project cannot start) or filled with someone who is not that suitable for the job.
Related: we do have a probationary period of typically 6 months here that allows cancellation of an employment contract by either side without explanation. But again, doing so would mess up any project schedule (or the lecture plan) - so this is something a department is afraid of.
This type of rigging comes at varying levels of unfairness to other candidates. In general, the hiring committee is still looking forward to hire Unicorn who appears out of the blue raterh than Favorite. However, the more preliminary negotiations have taken place with the Favorite candidate and the more promises have been made, the higher the hurdle Unicorn must overcome = the better Unicorn must be than Favorite in order to get the job. On the other hand, such a situaton is comparably easy to spot for other applicants: the job offer then looks as if they had forgotten to state required shoe size and eye color.
**What to do?** When writing proposals, work that there is a realistic amount of time for the official hiring process. Do not make promises you can only keep by rigging the official hiring process against other good candidates when scouting.
I do think that scouting is needed, but at the same time, allowing scouting procedures to replace the public announcement will facilitate nepotism :-(.
Maybe allowing a certain amount of jokers/wild cards could give a good balance? After all, if a department (Boss) is determined to go bad, academic freedom allows them to do so.
* Related is **postdoc Favorite who wrote the proposal** together with Boss ("You can join my group if you get a grant that pays you").
Here the ethics are IMHO not so clear cut and need to be discussed in the academic community: what is a fair chance for some who wrote the proposal to actually get that job? Should it be treated like any other unrigged job advertisement - after all having written the proposal will give them a headstart, or should the writer have an "option" to the job? Anything in between?
* **Someone getting a follow-up contract** has a similar headstart: they objectively won't need as much time to get started as an external candidate. The hiring process may still be further rigged in their favor.
In my experience, administrative or legal requirement are sometime followed as required, but the perception is that the rigging counteracts unfair/unethical consequences of legislation (we have a saying "Gut gemeint ist das Gegenteil von gut gemacht" - quite literally "Well-intentioned is the opposite of well done"). One example is that legislation that was intended to protect emplyoees has the practical result that there are few things that administration fears as much as hiring someone on a permanent position, and at the same time there are strong requirements with fixed term contracts (violating them can turn the contract into a permanent one - nightmare for administration). The practical consequence is that Boss cannot offer permanent positions to Favorite who objectively deserves the position. So Boss/the committee does the next best thing they *can* do: making everyone jump through the loops of a rigged hiring procedure for a job that is promised to Favorite as a makeshift permanent position.
**What to do?** This is a general political issue. And while many agree that the situation is bad as it is, I don't see anything approaching a majority agreement on what and how changes should be implemented.
* "Rigging" in favor of internal candidates may be required by law: e.g. the staff council can demand that positions are first offered internally. In other situations, an external announcement may be required (by law, funding agency, administration, you name it): I'm quite sure any combination of weird administrative requirements may kick in. Or administration thinks they may kick in and asks the hiring committee to err on the safe side in the formal procedure.
* **Rigging against candidates** (to be done...)
---
Conflict lines and political questions:
* Academic freedom attracting despots? - relation to nepotism. (Humboldt and mafia)
* Fair to applicants ./. scouting for and getting the best candidate
* Labor laws: job safety ./. difficulty to get hired, fixed term ./. permanent contract regulation.
* Administration minimizing risk ./. department wanting someone good
---
\* In order to not blow up the answer even more, I'll write in indicative what is actually not more than what I believe to be true. Conjunctive or similarly cautious wording would actually be more appropriate. All this is my personal wold view - for few of the things I describe I have hard evidence, not to speak of a proof that I could show.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: I will just give direct answers to each of your questions
>
> How to deal with it in the search for a permanent faculty position?
>
>
>
Your question demonstrates that you have quite an accurate understanding of what is going on, and your comments on people's answers indicate that you have read the multitude of answers given here, which all say similar things. You now know how hiring is viewed and that you alone will not be able to change this overnight. So here is how I would advise you to deal with it:
* It's okay to complain about the process here with your username_4ymous username, but try not to be too vocal in real-life about everything you've written here, especially how you think they are behaving like a "mafia". They will not appreciate being compared to a mafia or being call "corrupt" or accusd of "rigging" anything, and you will just be killing your own chances of getting the job. Wait until you have a permanent position, then you can fight to fix things (if you want).
* If you file formal complaints or sue them, you are unlikely to see a happy outcome in a fair amount of time, so
* Spend your energy on publishing many, strong papers. If your h-index hits 30 and you reach 2000 citations on 100 papers, eventually one of these institutions will have **no choice but to hire you** because you will be objectively and obviously a stronger candidate than the one they originally thought they wanted. Go to many conferences and make friends with as many powerful professors in your field as you can, one of them might like you and might make a "rigged" job opening **for you**.
* If you are unable to develop what others think is a strong publication record, and you are unable to make friends with a lot of powerful professors, do remember that there's 1000s of people that can do these things quite well (whether thanks to very good luck, being born into an extra privileged family, having a lot of money, or doing the near-impossible: simply working even harder and making even more sacrifices than you and me), so I hope you don't have a closed-mind towards other excellent academic opportunities outside of being a professor at a top institution in one of your favorite countries. Academics tend never to give up, which is good, but compare yourself to the top sprinters in the world: you can be the best in your country and not make it to the Olympics.
>
> How to find those job adverts which are really open?
>
>
>
Do you think that there is a place where you can find job adverts that say "this particular job hiring is going to be done in a fair way"? If so, how can you be sure they are being honest? So you can do the following:
* Look everywhere and join every relevant mailing-list.
* If you want to err on the caution, only apply to jobs where the advert is a rather direct fit for you. If they say they want someone specializing in machine learning, you can be tempted to apply because you do have a couple of excellent papers that used machine learning, but consider instead focusing on the ads that are *really* directly related to your specialty.
>
> How to deal with this if you are an insider and are observing this behavior on a regular basis?
>
> If one notices such rigged position job advertisements in its environment, should one report it somewhere? Where could such conduct be reported?
>
>
>
That's up to you:
* You can ignore it (most professors do, and maybe that's why they managed to get professorships, but it's also why most of them are not celebrated like <NAME>er King Jr for standing up against corruption).
* You can bring the matter up with the hiring committee, or if they don't listen than the person in charge of the chair of the hiring committee (either the Head of the Department, or Dean/Associate-Dean of the Faculty if the Head of the Department is the committee chair, which often is indeed the case). Or you can write an article about it, or go to your local news station and have an investigative journalist write about it. You can even raise the matter in a tribunal. But all of these things can backfire on you, especially if you don't have tenure yet.
>
> I gave department and campus tours to applicants, of who i knew they
> had no chance, even if their credentials were better than that of some
> of the professors in the selection commission.
>
>
> * Should i have told them, that the whole vacancy and invitation for the interview was a charade?
>
>
>
Whether you "should" or "should not" is subjective. Are there any laws obligating you to tell them this? If so, then if you want to be a law-abiding citizen no matte what the law says, then perhaps you should. If not, it's up to you, but remember that your department colleagues can be very nasty to you and make your life a living Hell if you anger them.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: I don't have a full solution, but it is necessary to be daring and speak up against the practice. And I would like to strenuously object to the "this is expected, and solves some problems, let's keep it" ethos. Or to the "you're not established yet, don't rock the boat" ethos.
These practices are common, not just in academia, but also in certain professions. And they contribute to the "looks like me" results. In other words, if you're a minority, you're less likely to "get in" on each level of the career ladder, and if you're not already "in", you're even less likely to progress. It would be great if cis-gendered white male allies would educate themselves on the full picture, and do what they can, when they can, to speak up against such culture. It is a risk, but less of a risk than it is to be a minority, and that's what allyship is all about.
I applaud the OP on his ethics.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/02
| 766
| 3,314
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am finishing my PhD soon. The area in which I pursued my PhD is very challenging as I was only able to publish couple of papers even after spending many years. I want to switch into other research are due these reasons
1. to attract more students
2. to be comfortable to do research (along with teaching, I should be able to do research)
Even though I like the research I am doing right now, I seem to be isolated in my university. If ten students join my university for a PhD, hardly one student takes this area. My research area is not like machine learning or deep learning etc, so researchers of my domain are also not that much interested in my work.
The thing is I can work different research area but: **Is this the right time?** I am heading to a post-doc and learning a new area will probably take several months. Although my switch is not 180 degree, I am still worried.<issue_comment>username_1: This decision requires a fair amount of courage and planning. In short, yes, it is very much possible to switch your research area. Whether or not such a switch is successful depends on how well you plan it, and on the supportive nature of your future employers. You should be upfront with your postdoc advisor about your intention to switch. Because of the learning curve associated with the new area, expect a reasonable amount time (6 months or 1 year) before you can hope to produce research output in the new area. They should know this in case they are hiring you with the intention of fulfilling some funding obligations/deliverables in short time frames. My suggestion is to see if you could try to find a link betwee your current and intended area. If so, you could use this link as a bridge to move towards your new area, instead of all at once (which can be very overwhelming).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As you noticed, switching fields inevitably takes its toll as you have to spend some time to get familiar with the new topic.
To make this worth it, you need to enter a rapidly expanding field (which does not have enough home-grown candidates that would outcompete you with experience) or your experience in your current field must be an asset for the new one – ideally both.
Apart from structural reasons (not leaving in the middle of a thesis or other project), the only thing in favour of a late change is gathering field-specific experience in the old field that helps you in the new one.
Most likely, you already have done this and if not, you better hurry, because:
The higher you climb on the academic career ladder, the more experience in the field will be a requirement. The next step are tenure-track positions and similar where you not only need to have a sound research plan, but also have to convince others that you are the best person to enact it and can supervise others doing it – which is at least extremely difficult without any prior experience and something I have never heard of. Therefore the postdoc is the last stage at which you can hope to make a switch. (That is at least before you have the academic freedom of tenure or similar, but for that you first need to get there.)
For whatever it’s worth, I switched fields shortly after my PhD into an expanding field, which is quite a common move for that field.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/02
| 782
| 3,320
|
<issue_start>username_0: Whenever I'm attending a class or even watching an educational video on internet (mainly any educational activity where I'm required to focus), I keep yawning constantly and all the time (I didn't count it before but I think I might yawn once, or maybe even more, every minute), with my eyes getting teary; and I lose my focus constantly and overthinking starts to contain me, I many times not only think about an event, but even keep imagining events and stories within a particular idea; and then I suddenly pay attention to the fact that I missed what I'm there for and I'd been in a different world. I get things together and I try to focus again, but this keeps happening endlessly. Overthinking usually abuses my brain, but it gets worse whenever I'm trying to focus.<issue_comment>username_1: It could be many factors: lack of interest, screen time, poor sleep, inconsistent sleep, lack of hydration, too much sugar in your diet (causes crashes), eating before class, not eating enough before class, poor habit formation early in life, lack of physical exercise. There are many, many factors. However, to begin with, you should examine a few things in your lifestyle:
1) What is your diet like? when do you eat? do you eat consistently the same times each day? do you eat a carb heavy diet?
2) Do you get physical activity? Are you hydrated or always drinking diuretics?
3) Examine your sleep schedule. Inconsistent sleep can be worse for you than less sleep.
4) Do you care to be in class? Are you treating your classroom like a job? If not, you should be.
5) Journal your day so you have a record. After two weeks, identify poor patterns in your lifestyle.
6) After you take a deep look into your lifestyle, and the consistency of your lifestyle, consider speaking with a profesional about trying ADHD medication and integrating those medications holistically into your lifestyle.
Nobody here will know why you are the way you are, but those are some key areas of life that you can personally make changes to.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I am not a physician, or an expert on cognitive abilities, but if this happens persistently then I assume you may be simply a person who cannot concentrate or understand oral explanations and presentations. This is a common phenomenon. I think that about 20% of the population if not probably more cannot truly understand oral descriptions of academic subjects (this depends also on the quality of presentation).
This, if my assessment is true, does not mean you should quit academia. It simply means you need to strengthen other abilities and invest more effort and time in listening to oral presentations.
For instance:
* Repeat the video many times until you get it.
* Rely more on written material, and read it slowly and repetitively.
* Be more active in your learning: instead of listening to others passively, try to actively ask yourself questions and answer them, while going back and forth with the presentations/written-material.
In summary:
I cannot asses you personally, but in many cases this is simply a constant property of ones' cognitive abilities. Not something that can change (unless one is willing to take amphetamines etc.). Therefore, you need to find good strategies to overcome this.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/02
| 967
| 4,037
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to use a short (5 lines) mathematical proof from someone else's machine learning paper in my master thesis. Should I provide it, to help comprehension and save readers the trouble of looking it up, or should I just refer to it? Is it OK to copy-paste the proof, as long as I make clear where it came from, or is that plagiarism?<issue_comment>username_1: Your masters thesis is yours. Make it something that ***you*** are happy with. Your supervisor might also want it to look a certain way because their name will be associated with it by virtue of the fact that they supervised you, but supervisors often have dozens of students in their lifetime, and one stylistic choice about whether to write out a proof or just cite it, will very unlikely make them lose sleep.
Based on the way you worded the question, it seems that your preference would be to write out the 5-line proof. If your preference was to just cite the paper, then you wouldn't have to ask us, because you know very well that there would be no question of plagiarism in that scenario.
So since (1) the thesis is ***yours*** and (2) you want to show the full proof (not just a reference to it), we must explore whether or not it would be plagiarism.
If you clearly state:
>
> "Note that the following proof has been reproduced exactly from X with the written consent of the author and the journal's publisher, for the purpose of providing clarity to the reader"
>
>
>
and you give a proper citation, you will with almost 100% certainty be safe from any plagiarism conviction. The question is whether or not you wish to take the 0.001% risk, or put in the extra time and effort to get permission (or not do that, an increase the risk to 0.1%), and one page of your thesis look *slightly* unconventional; or whether you'd just like to take the most common approach which is to cite the original paper and give your ***own*** explanation of the proof in your own words. ***Both*** of these options are perfectly reasonable if you are happy with the final product. Without details of what type of proof it is, what it involves, etc., (you haven't even told us whether or not its your own proof, which Buffy has assumed even though I assumed the opposite), none of us will be able to make the best decision for you.
By the way: Congratulations on getting this far in your Masters!
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A third option is to *give your own proof*. Instead of copying it word-for-word, rewrite it in your own words and with notation that matches the rest of your paper, and include a citation of the original source.
Don't do this by taking the source text and just changing a few words. Instead, study it until you feel you understand the key idea, then set it aside and write your own proof. Resist the temptation to just recite the original proof from memory.
This solves all your problems and more:
* it keeps the paper self-contained
* it isn't plagiarism, since the source has been cited (to credit the idea) and the text hasn't been copied
* it doesn't require quotation marks or other indication of verbatim quoting
* it isn't copyright infringement, since the exact text wasn't used
* it doesn't require explicit consent from the original author or publisher
* you have gained a fuller understanding of how the proof works
* your version of the proof will fit better in the context of your paper and your own writing style
* you may be able to improve upon the original proof, or at least to make it better fit the way you think about the ideas involved
* the reader now has two different proofs they can look at (yours and the original), which gives them some options in case they find something unclear in one of them.
At least in mathematics, it's most common to either do this, or else to simply refer to the original. It's very rare to actually copy a proof verbatim, and is usually only done when one wants to add critical or historical commentary on the proof itself.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/06/02
| 1,063
| 4,503
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a graduate student. I recently completed the review of a submission and its subsequent revision for a journal in my field, in the peer review process. My comments were taken into account by the authors, and the entire process went fine.
Since it was my first time, I'd like to get some feedback on my reviews. I had a professor read over them before turning them in for tone and content, but am thinking of contacting the editor who asked me to review to ask for feedback as they are more involved in the process and have spent time on the paper and the reviews.
Is this acceptable? Recommended? What other avenues are there for getting such feedback?
Edit: I can and have looked at the other reviewers' reviews. They are pretty similar to mine, perhaps a bit more aggressive and to the point.<issue_comment>username_1: Your masters thesis is yours. Make it something that ***you*** are happy with. Your supervisor might also want it to look a certain way because their name will be associated with it by virtue of the fact that they supervised you, but supervisors often have dozens of students in their lifetime, and one stylistic choice about whether to write out a proof or just cite it, will very unlikely make them lose sleep.
Based on the way you worded the question, it seems that your preference would be to write out the 5-line proof. If your preference was to just cite the paper, then you wouldn't have to ask us, because you know very well that there would be no question of plagiarism in that scenario.
So since (1) the thesis is ***yours*** and (2) you want to show the full proof (not just a reference to it), we must explore whether or not it would be plagiarism.
If you clearly state:
>
> "Note that the following proof has been reproduced exactly from X with the written consent of the author and the journal's publisher, for the purpose of providing clarity to the reader"
>
>
>
and you give a proper citation, you will with almost 100% certainty be safe from any plagiarism conviction. The question is whether or not you wish to take the 0.001% risk, or put in the extra time and effort to get permission (or not do that, an increase the risk to 0.1%), and one page of your thesis look *slightly* unconventional; or whether you'd just like to take the most common approach which is to cite the original paper and give your ***own*** explanation of the proof in your own words. ***Both*** of these options are perfectly reasonable if you are happy with the final product. Without details of what type of proof it is, what it involves, etc., (you haven't even told us whether or not its your own proof, which Buffy has assumed even though I assumed the opposite), none of us will be able to make the best decision for you.
By the way: Congratulations on getting this far in your Masters!
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A third option is to *give your own proof*. Instead of copying it word-for-word, rewrite it in your own words and with notation that matches the rest of your paper, and include a citation of the original source.
Don't do this by taking the source text and just changing a few words. Instead, study it until you feel you understand the key idea, then set it aside and write your own proof. Resist the temptation to just recite the original proof from memory.
This solves all your problems and more:
* it keeps the paper self-contained
* it isn't plagiarism, since the source has been cited (to credit the idea) and the text hasn't been copied
* it doesn't require quotation marks or other indication of verbatim quoting
* it isn't copyright infringement, since the exact text wasn't used
* it doesn't require explicit consent from the original author or publisher
* you have gained a fuller understanding of how the proof works
* your version of the proof will fit better in the context of your paper and your own writing style
* you may be able to improve upon the original proof, or at least to make it better fit the way you think about the ideas involved
* the reader now has two different proofs they can look at (yours and the original), which gives them some options in case they find something unclear in one of them.
At least in mathematics, it's most common to either do this, or else to simply refer to the original. It's very rare to actually copy a proof verbatim, and is usually only done when one wants to add critical or historical commentary on the proof itself.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/06/02
| 935
| 4,207
|
<issue_start>username_0: Due to Covid-19, I am having to switch to a "hybrid" format, where I see students less often each week, in smaller groups, and more assignments are pushed on-line. The school is in an extremely rural reservation, where those students who live off-campus are unlikely to have running water, electricity, and internet access. Students are issued Windows laptops.
The current solution is to create assignments in Word, have students download them on campus, work on them at home, then upload the assignments when they are next on campus. I am trying to find a more sophisticated solution for "syncing" their work though, as this step makes it much more time-consuming to grade work. With an LMS, I can post multiple-choice quizzes and other types of interactive assignments, e.g. videos they watch and respond to. Is there some technology that allows for students to save specific LMS pages locally, work on it off-line at home, then when they return to school, they can easily submit? I know students could just leave the browser window open and put the computer to sleep, but that seems risky and students could lose their work.<issue_comment>username_1: My institution uses Moodle and it does all you need (imho)
You can have things (files, videos, presentations) to be downloaded and they can't download part 2 unless they have downloaded part 1 or submitted part 1. Which means they can log in, download and then log out. It is not tied to one computer but any machine as long as they have their login and password.
Quizzes, I do practice quizzes and quizzes for assessment - categories with types of questions and you can set levels and more.
You can have a forum where they post a question and you can answer or if a student knows the answer then they can respond.
So much - worth checking out and Moodle is not the only one...
But have a look: <https://moodle.org/>
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I suggest that you use git to synchronize documents.
If assignments are provided as simple text documents, they are easily readable on all sorts of devices, and when printed can easily be understood, they can be edited with very low levels of computer hardware and do not require many resources. They can easily be edited with something even as simple as an alpha smart or electronic typewriter! Word Documetns will work with this scheme but it makes the storage requirements (on your side) larger and harder to manage
When at school, a student uses git to "clone" the asignment repository.
When they go home they then work in their own sandbox, and are free to save ("commit") intermediate versions, locally, on their computer, as many times as you want. They can start from scratch if they wish multiple times without affecting the integrity of the assignment and their other attempts.
When they return to school, the student "pushes" the assignment project to their personal repository. You can review their work and can even examine intermediate versions that show their work and thinking,
The commits have timestamps so you can verify assignment, test, and quiz submission times! (This can be "hacked" but it requires cheating behavior and intentional circumvention)
This is very reminiscent of what we I used for CS courses in University, all of our coding assignments were submitted through a UNIX shell
There are many services that provide Git for free or low cost, Github from microsoft, atllasian bitbucket, and gitlab are common examples.
They can also be deployed , for free, by your school IT on any available server infrastructure.
In a pinch, the students can even synchronize directly to your laptop or other computer, that is, not requiring ANY LMS infrastructure...
Students can even synchronize to/from another student, i.e. you can submit assignments for others and distribute assignments as well, so students who cannot make it physically to school can still get the assignments from their peers. While retaining integrity of the assignments and solutions
There is a significant training challenge, but the tradeoffs are worth it, and the solution is Free, free as in no cost, and free as in freedom (see free software)
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/03
| 1,065
| 4,596
|
<issue_start>username_0: Who decides the paper acceptance rate at a workshop organized as part of a conference: the workshop organizers or the conference organizers?<issue_comment>username_1: This can depend on the conference. My experience (CS, various ACM conferences) is that the workshop committee is responsible for its own papers and agenda.
But the workshop has a limited time frame, possibly determined by the conference committee (time \* space = money). This can have an indirect affect on the *rate* of acceptance since it implies a limited number of papers that can be accepted.
So, it isn't a decision that, say, 10% of the papers submitted will (likely) be accepted, but that there is only room for 10 papers, no matter how many are submitted. Some others might get shunted elsewhere, such as to a poster session.
But I assume that isn't universal and can hypothesize about a number of different possible arrangements.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Yow.
10% acceptance rate? That sounds more like a highly competitive funding agency rate. Yes, there are successful meetings that advertise that rate; but that's because they get many, many crappy submissions; I know a couple. And they're close to some lucrative industry.
In real life the organizers of a bona fide meeting have one big worry: getting enough people to show up so that the budget works out. Typically the organizers are personally responsible for deficits, or if they can manage it, their institution. It's also why conferences end up with tiers of industry sponsors (though depending on the commercial value of your field). The acceptance rate is derived from that. It's also why the acceptance mail state "at least one author has to register at full price". You pay the full price so that your student(s) get to go and you can stay home and get some work done.
It all boils down to: how many bodies do we need to break even? Acceptance rate derives from this. Yes, attendees at the opening ceremony get to hear that the acceptance rate had gone down from 51.2% to 49.1%. But that simply reflects the success of publicity efforts.
To be fair there are meetings (like NeurIPS) that have huge attendance and low acceptance rates (~20%). But that probably has more to do with the hotness of the field.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: To supplement some of the other answers, I think in general the process is as follows:
* The conference issues a 'call-for-proposals' for workshops;
* Workshop organisers pitch their idea, often with some indication of the intended scale (half-day/full-day/etc, expected number of participants);
* The conference accepts the proposal and informs the authors of the gross parameters for their workshop ("we are assigning you a room of X capacity of Y hours");
* The workshop organisers decide how to structure their timetable (1 hour = 4x15 minute slots? 3x20 minute slots? 1x30 minute + 2x15 minute?) and advertise for submissions;
* Once submissions close the organisers take stock of what has been submitted and try to construct a detailed timetable, perhaps tweaking their structure to suit submissions.
Of course, there are deviations from this structure: for example, sometimes the conference will wait and see how many submissions different workshops get before making room assignments. Also, in long-running conferences certain parameters (e.g. slot duration) may effectively be known in advance.
Thus the acceptance rate is influenced by three groups: the conference organisers, who control the overall resources available to the workshop; the workshop organisers, who choose how to assign those resources; and submitters, who control demand for resources.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Some additional thoughts:
* In contrast to the associated conferences, workshops usually don't have a strong incentive to keep the acceptance rates low. In fact, there's an incentive to accept as many acceptance-worthy submissions\* as possible, since "number of attendees" is a relevant metric if the workshop is to be continued in the future.
* Many workshops struggle to get a decent number of acceptable submissions. It's not uncommon that workshops are reduced in length, joined with other workshops, or filled up with invited talks.
* In case that a workshop indeed gets more acceptable submissions that it can accommodate, there's the possibility to make the presentation slots shorter.
(\*) Of course, papers still need to reach a certain quality threshold, since poor presentations and papers would reflect poorly on the workshop.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/03
| 293
| 1,300
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently thinking about pursuing a public policy PhD after my MA is completed. One of my top target schools employs a visiting professor who has been at that university for the past several years. The main reason I wanted that particular professor is that his previous background included posts at several very high-ranking positions within the US government that I feel like would be helpful to me throughout my doctoral education and with the potential dissertation. But I'm worried that as a visiting professor, he'd make for a poor choice as a supervisor due to him being "visiting" instead of a more permanent professor at the school (is it?).<issue_comment>username_1: Rules vary, but visiting professors *should* not be permitted to supervise PhD students because they are not employed for the duration of the supervision period. So while they might be skilled supervisors, they are not suitable supervisors.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Most universities have PhD candidature rules that require the primary supervisor to be a permanent faculty member of the university. Visiting professors can sometimes act as co-supervisors, but you would need a primary supervisor from your university. This is done to reduce the risk of supervisor-loss.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/03
| 1,028
| 3,865
|
<issue_start>username_0: This is my first question in this forum and although I have gained a lot of information about proper citation from the web, I am still confused in this case. We are assigned a task by college to make a study from resources available online on a particular topic and prepare a project.
Now, I know the fact that *I need to cite everytime I use someone else's idea*. But this project work has to be prepared in this order: Title, Abstract,
Keywords, Introduction, **Review of Literature**, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusion,
Acknowledgement, References. This basically means that none of the work is our own and we need to study e-resources available and complete the task at hand.
What I am confused about is the particular heading called **Review of Literature**. I think that what we are going to write is entirely some sort of review of literature of others work since we've done nothing on our own. So, after making a thorough study of the papers available online, I paraphrased and put proper intext citations as well. Basically, methodology and results are also paraphrased from others work and as such I have put in-text citations not only in case of **Review of Literature** but also also in **Results** and **Methodology**.
So, I want to know whether I am doing it in the proper way or not?
This means, do I really need to provide in-text citations in this particular case in every part of the document if it is someone else's idea?
Sample:
>
> **REVIEW OF LITERATURE:**
> The study made by Gautret et al. (2020) notes that hydroxychloroquine (an analogue of chloroquine) has been already demonstrated to have an anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity in vitro. Moreover, hydroxychloroquine’s clinical safety profile is better than chloroquine during long term use and also allows higher daily doses and interaction with other drugs is less as well (Gautret et al., 2020).
>
>
>
I have written the **Results** like this, but I think I've put too much in-text citation here:
>
> **Results:** Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (6 out of which received supervised doses of azithromychin as well for initial five days) were aged an average of 51.7 years (~14 years older than mean age of control patients) but not much difference was seen between two groups regarding “gender, clinical status and duration of symptoms” (Gautret et al., 2020).
>
>
> As time passed, the study showed notable results and the percentage of patients showing negative PCR test of their swab samples at “days 3-4-5 and 6” during study period showed remarkable differences compared to “controls” when 70% of hydroxychloroquine treated patients were “virologically cured” but only a meager 12.5% of the other group achieved this feat (Gautret et al., 2020).
>
>
>
So, this brings me back all way round to the same question: **Do I need to cite each and everything which is not my own idea? And is the approach that I am taking correct?**
**Edit:**
This is what we are asked to do:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gn7bw.png)
The Guidelines:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uf2zT.png)<issue_comment>username_1: Rules vary, but visiting professors *should* not be permitted to supervise PhD students because they are not employed for the duration of the supervision period. So while they might be skilled supervisors, they are not suitable supervisors.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Most universities have PhD candidature rules that require the primary supervisor to be a permanent faculty member of the university. Visiting professors can sometimes act as co-supervisors, but you would need a primary supervisor from your university. This is done to reduce the risk of supervisor-loss.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/03
| 729
| 2,895
|
<issue_start>username_0: I experienced a lot of stress and an episode of depression during my last undergraduate semester. The stress was caused by constant moving and housing insecurity for half the semester (giving me a late start on the paper) and the depression by learning of my professor being in the process of retirement/declining to be my graduate advisor (I don't have clinical depression).
I received an A- on a research paper in this class, but it was slipshod work, and (embarrassingly) probably one of the worst undergraduate papers ever written (written in a graduate level course no less). From a practical standpoint, can this ruin my chances of graduate school? I've already graduated and can't afford to take more undergrad. courses. Even if I could, however, how would I get another professor to supervise my research when I've already produced poor work?
Has anyone been admitted to graduate school/succeeded in academia despite a poor research paper? For what it's worth, I'm finally rewriting it, but second chances seem rare in academia.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Can One Poorly Written Research Paper Derail Your Academic Future?
>
>
>
No, it can’t. It sounds like you are [catastrophizing](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/148587/40589). And in any case, if you got an A-, it’s extremely unlikely that your paper is poorly written. So as in the case of the advice I gave in the other linked answer, your excessive concern about ruining your academic career with a single small mishap is a much greater potential obstacle to success than the mishap you’re obsessing about. I suggest that you pay more attention to your mindset and mental state, and less attention to worrying about your work being slipshod despite external, objective evidence suggesting otherwise.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with username_1 -- I think you're worrying way too much! It's not entirely clear whether this paper/preprint has been published or if it's just part of your course?
If it's just part of your course, relax. You're a student and an A- is fine. If you've published a paper/preprint, that's a positive. Most people will be more impressed that an undergraduate took the initiative to publish than the quality of their work.
Although it's sad that your advisor is retiring, you could look at the situation positively. For example, you could apply to programmes at different institutions. Having a record of success across multiple institutions/work environments is often an advantage.
I know an excellent physicist who scored 40% (terrible) on a couple of their 3rd year undergraduate papers -- that's way worse than you. It's not a big deal. Most people do badly on an odd exam/practical/whatever. The main thing is your overall degree score. However, even that will stop mattering much once you have a graduate degree.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/03
| 2,719
| 11,982
|
<issue_start>username_0: Right now I am preparing a paper for my bachelor's degree thesis in computer science. I myself is an active programmer at work in my company and have created many programs till now.
I want to take some of my programs and take it for my thesis paper, my supervisor the program itself is good and I also can be promised a good grade too, but he still can't accept my paper because it does not have a Methodology in there. So my paper got rejected.
I wonder why the thesis really needs this methodology inside of the paper. But of course, I'm not that clueless to think that everything I make is always the original method I make myself. It just I always self-studying for programming for almost 5 years, so there might be someone method in my program but I just don't know what method I use or who make it.
But still, it kinda frustrating to get rejected just because there is no methodology mentioned... Why methodology is so important anyway?<issue_comment>username_1: If you just show some results, how does anyone know how you got there? You need to show what process created your results. Otherwise you may be liying, or just wrong. But no one would be able to check, as you have not explained the methods used to reach your conclusions. Methods is as, or more, important as the results.
The methods section does not need to be original, it needs to be descriptive. If its original, better, but not required.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Computer science, huh?
I think that the issue many forget with the name "computer science" (and that's why "informatics" as a word exists at all) is that it's not about computers. Well, that was harsh. It's not totally about those small silicon dies and such. It's about information processing. And it's about ideas.
Basically, "we wrote a program, hurdur" does not cut it. Even "we wrote a program, here is the github" does not cut it. "We got this cool result" is cool. But what most people would be interested in – on a large scale, in 10-20-100 years, – is not that you used an i7 chip. It's not that you wrote it in Python. It's the idea. The essence. The thing you write in methodology. Your very future readers would not care about your source code (even if it's available). They would be trying to implement your method in SuperCoolFunctionalNeuronQuantumSnake++#XXL that would be popular in 40 years. And what they'd read, is methodology.
**tl;dr:** Methods would persist, programming languages and even results would not.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Research normally starts with a question to be answered, with a statement of knowledge expected to be gained from the research. Research is about extending knowledge, basically.
There are a lot of ways that a research question might be answered to come to some sense of truth about the state of the world. Choosing one and describing it is the Methodology. It needs a description in the paper so the reader will know how you went about answering the question and can get a sense whether it is likely to be valid. It also provides a way to repeat the research to see if it can be replicated.
In some CS fields, the methodology depends on some data. It might be necessary to describe (methodology) how the data was gathered. But not all research is like that.
In language research, for example, one (formerly, perhaps) significant line of research was in building fast garbage collection systems. There, what the researcher mostly did was create some new GC algorithm and implement it. But that wasn't the actual *research* aspect, though it was the major aspect of the work. The research question was "Is ... a more efficient GC system?". The methodology was to test the new algorithm against the best known systems under a variety of conditions and to compare results. This is where the knowledge part comes in - knowing that yes/no, this is an advance. So, folks got their PhDs, not for writing the cool algorithm, but for showing how it is better than others in some way.
So, while developing the algorithm/program seemed to be the important part, it was actually a demonstration that it is/isn't an advance that makes it worthwhile.
In other fields the methodology is, of course, quite different, but just as important. But you need to be able to describe the approach of the research.
I'll note, however, that some *advances* aren't arrived at through a research program but through pure serendipity. When these are written up, there may not be a methodology to describe other than to lay out how it was discovered that the new thing represents an advance. That may lead to research to verify the claims of course, and then a methodology is required.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I do not want to get overly philosophical here, but you may want to question yourself what is the purpose of science papers. Science papers aim to teach things that are true. The more general the truth is, the harder is to prove (and to teach) it. So people tend to be specific: "If you have this situation A and want to achieve this result Z you can do X (considering B,C,D)." This union of an "algorithm" with the conditions for its execution is called a method. Is something guaranteed to happen (up to a certain confidence). Even if the phenomenon happened 100 times of 100 experiments, you just tested 100 times. Be aware to not say you have proved things, you have at best shown strong evidence for something.
What you were describing were reports. Maybe technical reports, as they may include code, benchmarks or some analysis. "I've done A and B and achieved C". It could be by pure luck. It could be because you are an awesome programmer. It could be because you have an impressive hardware. But then someone would read your paper in another situation (with a different programming language, with a different hardware or with some slightly different problem definition) and your solution wouldn't work. But maybe if you had written how you came up with those ideas in a systematic way, the reader would understand what he/she has to change in your line of thoughts to achieve the same result. Imagine it as an engineering brainstorm with future readers: put diagrams, put code, put interesting sources. Explain it to your peers as you would do in your company (but please be formal).
Systematic ways of idea generation are something on the line of "I've enumerated all possibilities and made a small program for each one, then showed that I can compose these programs...", "I've read this paper and changed it in this part"... It has to be something that the reader could reproduce itself, it can't be "I just came with this idea" or "I invented this algorithm".
So the first question you have to ask, for each result, is **How?**. Show your thesis to freshmen. If they understand perfectly how you have done it, it usually is good to go.
For a bachelor thesis, usually this is sufficient.
Remember, the bachelor thesis is about generating knowledge, not results. It shows that you are not a code artisan, but a computer scientist.
I will continue the discussion because you may find it useful.
When you are interested in actual science, How? isn't enough. The second level is **Why does it happen?** Not only you have to describe precisely what you have done and the steps of what you've done, but you have to explain why it happened and why it will continue to happen (or what are the conditions for it to continue happening).
This usually encompass a Master thesis.
To achieve a Phd, you will be asked not only how, not only why, but **When?**. When did someone said that? If the answer is never, congratulations, you have made a new contribution to science. Of course you will have to show (in a systematic way) how you obtained the result of knowing that no one has ever reported your thesis.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: So. This is going to be a very cynical answer. Take it for that. You are writing a paper as a requirement for your bachelors degree in computer science.
Firstly, computer science is an academic subject. Academia is all about writing papers following a specific format. The roots of computer science is from mathematica, not to be confused with engineering. Programming is engineering work - aimed at getting a result. As a contrast, in computer science what matters is if you could get your paper published, not about the actual result as such. So the purpose really is not to get a result, as in doing good engineering, but to show that you can follow the rules \*). The roots in mathematica also shows in that proofs and logical reasonings is more important than actual applications. In programming work, engineering work, it is quite the contrary, the application is all that counts.
(As a side not I might add, that sometimes things in academia, supposed to be totally unusuable in the real world, become extremely important later).
Secondly, this is a Bachelors degree, just about the lowliest of them all. No-one expects a bachelor to really do research or actually add something to academia. It might be good if you actually add something when doing a doctors degree, but it really is not required.
But, just maybe, your supervisor has a good feeling about you. He, beeing an academic, might see that if you simply add the needed parts to your thesis, it could actually be not as bad as a lot of the other.
So the advice is simply, switch hat to a the academic hat and finish your thesis.
\*) Addition: Follow the rules includes having the required sections in your paper. One section in this case, actually in many academic areas, is methods. Additionally an overview of previous litteraturs with correctly formed references is another part of the recipe.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: Research is an iterative process and a breakthrough in any field is an indirect collaboration of many researchers, independently working on the same problem, and coming to a similar conclusion. You or other researchers need to be able to reproduce the results of a peer and then be able to make minor tweeks to improve on the idea. Your individual implementation may never be run by people interested in reproducing your results unless they use it as a benchmark for their system or they get wildly different results with their own implementation. Having your methodology along with your results ensures that other researchers can either corroborate or disprove your findings.
Let's use a simple example for the sake of illustrating the importance of including methodology in your research paper:
I'm doing a (silly) experiment to test what sorting algorithm sorts a list of 10000 words the fastest. For whatever reason, I decide to test each algorithm 1 time with a different random list of words and come to the conclusion that bubble sort is the fastest sorting algorithm. You, for whatever reason, find this research interesting and decide to change some parameters. You test each algorithm 50 times with 50 different but constant lists of words and find that quick sort is the fastest.
Arguably my original research would've never made it through review but for the sake of simplicity, imagine it did. This silly experiment has very little going on but real projects could have many more moving parts. Researchers may run your experiment many times and in order to observe meaningful changes in their results, they need to know they have changed as little as possible.
The long and short of it is you've finished the difficult part of your paper. All you have to do is add a section that describes what methods you used to find your result. It really does not matter that you used code other people created to get your result because we all do that with packages, modules, open source projects, etc. The primary function of the methodology section is to ensure other researchers can reproduce your experiment and make minor adjustments.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/03
| 1,489
| 6,215
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was taking a look at my first published papers, which are published in (peer-reviewed) A\*/A/B level proceedings. Thanks to these papers, I finished my PhD a few years ago.
I was surprised by the quality of the papers and I felt ashamed that I wrote these papers -Of course, this was not my feeling a few years ago-. I found that my assumptions were naive and the conclusions can be valid only for the used dataset (there is a high chance that they are not valid for other datasets). I found also that I lacked some fundamental knowledge and I could explain my approach differently.
Overall, if I receive these papers now as a reviewer, I would definitely recommend to reject them.
I don't know whether this feeling is just because 1) I gained knowledge over the past years, 2) the domain (CS) has evolved significantly or 3) the papers were indeed bad and they shouldn't be published.
In the case of (3), I am wondering what I should do.<issue_comment>username_1: You should do nothing other than continue growing and learning. The most common reason would be #1. I can't say the most *likely* reason is #1, not having seen the papers.
But a lot of authors, even poets, look back on their early work with a sense of wonder about how they could have been so naive. It is a sign of growth.
Yes, #2 is probably also a factor to some extent as CS has been a fast moving field overall, not being much over 60 years old, compared to, say math and such.
And you haven't said that the papers are actually wrong, just a bit naive. Hopefully we all learn some things as we grow older. It normally happens because we are actively thinking about things.
Others at the time (reviewers, editors, advisors) thought that the papers were fine for the time. They were fine.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Just ignore the bad papers. Don't include them in your curriculum vitae. Instead of using the title "Papers" in your CV, just use the title "Selected papers." That implies that you have some papers that you are not proud of.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The crux of your situation is that years ago you published some papers, about which you now say **"if I received these papers now as I reviewer, I would definitely recommend to reject them."** Then you suggest three things and ask for advice if option (3) is true:
>
> "(3) the papers were indeed bad and they shouldn't be published.
> In the case of (3), **I am wondering what I should do."**
>
>
>
The other two answers essentially say "just ignore the bad papers and move on", which is certainly an option for you. **But if you are curious for more options that you can do in situation (3), apart from just ignoring the papers, another option is to *retract* the papers.**
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: If indeed:
* "my assumptions were naive" and
* "the conclusions ... there is a high chance that they are not valid for other datasets"
* "I could explain my approach differently"
(which, I should say, might just be your misjudging your past work, as other answers suggest; but if that is actually the case)
then consider **writing a new paper about the subject**. Regardless of whether it is sufficiently important for a top-tier publication, you can at least share your further-developed you of the subject with the community.
It is not uncommon for papers on some subject to begin with partial insights, simplistic assumptions and limited applicability, and develop - often by the same authors - into something deeper, more mature and more useful.
Note: If you do write a paper, don't waste your time and the readers berating your previous work; rather, focus on the new presentation of the previous method, a discussion of its assumptions (as opposed to other, less-naive assumptions) and dispassionate explanation about its limits of applicability. If you can add some new result that doesn't make this assumption - even if it's a proof of impossibility or a concrete useful/insightful counter-example, that's even better. But don't write a "my last paper sucks" paper.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: The way I see it, the papers were good enough to pass peer review so they're good enough to remain in the scientific lexicon. Even if your assumptions were slightly wrong or naive, the results of these naive assumptions are still important.
Remember the maxim:
>
> Even negative results are results
>
>
>
If you feel really strongly about it, you could go back and write further papers addressing the issues in your originals and improving on them. This is the scientific method in action. Otherwise, just leave it and move on to bigger and better things.
Be proud of finishing your PhD, we sometimes forget in academic circles that this is no small achievement in and of itself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: To add to the other answers:
One takeaway is, that you learned in the meantime and now see the weaknesses of the paper, that were not obvious to you when you wrote them, even when you did your very best.
When you are a reviewer, look at such a paper and realize, that it had been from you years ago and don't reject it, but write a helpful review, in a way that would have improved your weaker papers.
Point out what can be improved and give hints how it can be done, so the authors that sent in weak papers that have potential to become strong papers have a chance to improve them instead of being rejected directly because you are now way above their level.
And when you see things that can be improved on your old papers, you may consider to write a follow up paper to your old paper.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: You discovered something: you learned. You improved over the time. You once wrote insufficient papers, now you are beyond this. Improve further, so that in 10 years time you will be able to say "boy was I naive then". It's far better than looking back and saying "Well, I'll never reach that level of brilliance again." It means that you grow as a scientist. And yes, fields change. We did do a lot of very naive things once. That's how science as a whole works.
[added by popular request]
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/06/03
| 1,108
| 4,548
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently came across reviewing policies which make it a requirement for authors submitting a paper to a conference to also accept reviewing for it. Here is an [example](https://2020.emnlp.org/blog/2020-04-26-reviewing-policy):
>
> In order to submit paper(s) to EMNLP, you must nominate at least one
> author to serve as a reviewer, (usually the most senior author) and
> for that author to take on a full load (of up to 6 reviews).
>
>
>
I completely understand the rationale behind such decisions: the ratio submissions/reviewers cannot grow infinitely while maintaining a proper review process. Yet I'm concerned about the implications for the quality of the reviews, since people who are forced to do it might not be as careful as voluntary reviewers. This also feels like a step down from the traditional "community service" philosophy of the peer-review process.
Is this a general trend in the research community, i.e. is this happening in other domains as well?
* If yes, does this imply a change in the peer-review paradigm? For instance, as a researcher should I stop doing "free reviews" in order to keep my reviewing time for mandatory reviews?
* If no, are there other solutions being tested to the problem of ever-increasing papers/reviewers ratio?<issue_comment>username_1: More and more reviews are being done by graduate students. This holds for both conference papers and journals.
Sometimes this can actually lead to an *increase* in the quality of the reviewers, as many graduate students are immersed in the latest developments in their own particular field.
However, one of the problems with less experienced reviewers is that they often have a relatively more narrow range of expertise. They may be fine at reviewing papers in their area but might perhaps lack the breadth of experience to provide an informed judgement regarding work outside of their discipline or field of research narrowly understood.
This may seem off-topic but speaks to your broader point regarding the review of scholarly work being a part of the academic contribution to one's scholarly community.
There is already a division of labour where established academics will often taken on an editorial role and delegate reviewing tasks to more junior staff and graduate students. I think there is an increasing trend toward established academics no longer being the 'gatekeepers' of their discipline through paper reviews. This work is increasingly farmed out. I see the example you offer re conference presenters just being an extension of that.
It's a system. With lots of mythology around it. The esteem given to 'peer review' is one of those myths.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: No, requiring authors to review is not a wide-spread practice or trend.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: I will address your three questions directly, and in-line:
>
> "Is this a general trend in the research community, i.e. is this
> happening in other domains as well?"
>
>
>
I have never seen this before, and never heard of it. Everyone else that answered and commented, except for one person, has said that they have not seen it happen in their field either. The one person in the comments that did see the trend was <NAME>, who says that it's definitely a trend in NLP (which probably means Natural Language Processing, not Neuro-Linguistic Programming). **So, it is not a "general trend", but it is happening in some fields** (such as yours and Franck's).
>
> * "If yes, does this imply a change in the peer-review paradigm? For instance, as a researcher should I stop doing "free reviews" in order to keep my reviewing time for mandatory reviews?"
>
>
>
My answer is "no", but even if it were "yes", I do not see how that means you should "stop doing free reviews". The ***vast*** majority (by a long shot) of peer-review is still done for free.
>
> * "If no, are there other solutions being tested to the problem of ever-increasing papers/reviewers ratio?"
>
>
>
I have never seen any other solutions tested. The peer-reviewed conferences I submit to, such as QIP (Quantum Information Processing) keep an extremely high standard for who is able to review. There is a committee of reviewers who are selected because they are recognized world leaders in their sub-fields, and each of them reviews several papers. Forcing any random person that submits a paper to review a paper, would lower the standards of the reviewers, and hence the standards of the conference.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/03
| 619
| 2,559
|
<issue_start>username_0: I decided to pursue a PhD degree after a few years in industry, so I contacted a professor from the university where I had received my Diploma a few years back. We had some conversations, she was rather positive as I had good grades and I used to attend her lectures. I could not apply officially yet, since the PhD applications start during summer. As coronavirus came, we all stopped going to the lab.
I emailed the professor about 10 days ago about how to proceed. However, I did not get any answer. Is it possible that she changed her mind about having me work in the team as a PhD candidate, since we had no communication for around 1 month?<issue_comment>username_1: This has to be a guess since I don't know the person, but I suspect that the prof is just busy with things and sees this as low priority since applications don't start until July. It may be that they have decided not to work with you, but I doubt that they would ignore your emails in that case. Much more likely that you would get a response.
Ten days isn't very long, actually, but it is long enough that a follow up would be OK. "I am very interested in continuing to work with you, .... trying to plan my next moves ... any possibility ..."
It is easy to ignore cold applications, but that isn't the case here.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This is an unprecedented time in academia, and your best course of action is probably to just wait awhile for your professor to catch up on his emails.
As a professor myself, I have several emails left over from the just-ended spring term that I need to respond to. My college announced that there will be cuts to staff, which haven't been finalized yet, so it's possible I won't even be employed here next term. My kids' school and daycare are closed, so on top of childcare I *might* have a couple of hours each day to do work-related things. And I don't run skype anymore since discovering other, better options, so if anyone in my old skype contact list is contacting me, I wouldn't know about it.
In other words, if your professor's work-life situation is anything like mine (and many, many of my colleagues at other institutions, judging by their social media posts), he just hasn't gotten around to your email yet. It doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on his thoughts about your graduate application. You've got until July for applications, so give him another week and then try emailing him again with a polite "just in case you missed this" nudge--that usually does the trick.
Upvotes: 4
|
2020/06/03
| 623
| 2,672
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an MS in CompSci grad who wants to do a PhD someday. The one thing I don't have from my time in undergrad and MS is significant research experience. Of course, I did undergrad research but was never published in any papers. I make a lot as a professional and want to volunteer(read, free) part-time doing research for a professor or lab post-graduation, but I have no idea how to approach this or even find interest amongst professors or labs. Any ideas?
Edit: Undiagnosed disability crippled my undergraduate performance. I was unmedicated, untreated, and had no idea on how to cope. I really managed to redeem myself through my graduate performance and am basically looking for a second chance. If anyone has disability-specific resources as well, that would be great.<issue_comment>username_1: PhD by definition is a training course in research, and thus doesn't assume research experience. An experienced PhD is postdocs. You don't need to have any paper to get into PhD, because that is what PhD is for.
You had mixed things up. Volunteering for papers just to get into PhD doesn't make any sense.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: It's probably going to be a bit difficult to get a professor to agree to take you on as a "volunteer," because they see it (in my personal experience) as a time-sink from what they're really trying to accomplish, which is train students, teach, get grants, and publish. This is especially the case for a potential "part-time" student, since research generally requires full-time focus to make good progress.
If you really wanted to pursue that path, I would recommend using your network. Do you have someone from your MS program who might be willing to write a rec letter to a colleague they know reasonably well? With a good introduction to pave the way, you are more likely to at least get a first conversation. Another avenue would be to get involved in your local chapter of your relevant academic society like IEEE. That might take some time, but would eventually be likely to lead somewhere in terms of opening doors to local researchers.
Finally, even if you don't get accepted on your first try, it's not a waste of time to at least try applying to your program of interest. Can't you consider some of your current work experience as "research experience"? Surely your work as a MS-grad isn't purely rote data entry or something. Maybe you have some patents or other quantifiable work products that could stand in for publications? If not, would you be willing to accept an MS position at the same institution that might get your foot in the door for a later transition to PhD?
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/03
| 2,162
| 8,517
|
<issue_start>username_0: I struggle with staying focused during lectures. However, while listening to online lectures, I started sewing and it has made life so much easier. I am able to listen and follow along. When the time comes to do practice questions, I do a lot better than I usually do.
So the problem is, I cant take my needle and thread into an in-person lecture. Are there any alternatives that I can try? Or should I just talk to my professor and see if I can sit in the back of the class and sew? I don't want to seem disrespectful, but I've tried so much to improve and this has been the most effective thing by far.
Taking notes doesn't usually help. I get so caught up in taking notes that I miss the material. If I just try to listen, I zone out.
Edit regarding duplication:
I saw a similar question someone posted asking how to focus in class. I found the way to do that. My question is more like, "What is an alternative I can do that won't make my professor think I'm being disrespectful? (Looking for something that is academically acceptable) " Or is it appropriate to go to my professor, explain the situation, and ask to do what helps me?<issue_comment>username_1: My wife knits in faculty and committee meetings. She can do that without looking at the needles, and so can look at whoever is speaking. I suspect you can't do that with sewing, so maybe that solves your problem.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It is unusual but it is not noisy and does not distract others or the lecturer (unless you make very wide moves). I don't see a problem with it but make sure you explain the situation first, because it might look rude and out of place to some people. If the lecturer is aware that it helps you concentrate, I doubt there will be a problem.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If sewing helps you learn, consider bringing it to an in-person lecture.
* In a large lecture hall, I seriously doubt anyone will notice/care
* In a more intimate class, it could be worth asking the professor if they mind.
While you might have a bad experience with a grouchy professor, I think the vast majority will either understand or not care, particularly if you are clearly engaging. Personally, I would rather have a student paying attention while sewing than on their phone.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you have a disability that impairs your concentration, you can get accommodations that require your professors to allow you to sew during class. Without official accommodations, however, it's within the professor's discretion whether or not to permit this (at least in the US). In that case, you'd probably want to email or talk to them beforehand so they don't perceive it as rude. Most will probably understand, and some may not. Without a documented disability, however, you won't have much recourse if they decline. However, it shouldn't be a problem for most, as long as you explain beforehand.
Disclaimer: I'm not a professor
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Not to detract from other useful answers, but: Have you considered other instruments which occupy your hands during class, but are less involved/bulky/pointy than sewing?
Some people use [fidget spinners](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidget_spinner), [fidget cubes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidget_Cube) - but apparently, those are noisy. You would need something to manipulate silently. There might be other manufactured "fidget gadget" which are silent, or as @LinkBerest and @Brian suggest, some sort of stone you could use.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Doodling has already been mentioned in the comments but in particular colouring in the squares in grid paper could be helpful. Or indeed drawing. From a distance it looks very much like note taking *and* you can add any noted necessary.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I'm sorry but I would feel uncomfortable if I saw someone knitting in my lecture. It looks like what you are saying is not interesting to the person or the person thinks they can do something else whilst listening to you talk (ie. they can multi-task whilst listening to whatever trivial stuff you are saying). It's eccentric at best and I've never seen anyone do that ever at the math department where I work.
My advice is it's fine but don't sit in the front row where the lecturer can see you doing it as they might get annoyed. In terms of sewing, I doubt you can do that without looking so you are going to get some comments probably. I have had comments before even about having my laptop out even though I was listening to the lecture, I'm just warning you lecturers can be extremely touchy about things like that and might take it half as an insult.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: Perhaps only slightly more than a comment, or echoing certain other answers: just a few years ago I had a very good student ask me if it was ok if they knitted during my lectures (which had notes available for later, etc., so note-taking was not strictly essential, perhaps), since otherwise their minor narcolepsy would sabotage them.
I was taken aback at the issue (which I'd not really encountered before in that context, although I did have a narcoleptic colleagues some years ago...), but said "Uh, sure".
The student was able to knit (furiously!) while looking at me and the slides, apparently attentively!
Given my own impatience with lectures and such, this made me rethink several things... E.g., how to "sit still" for 50+ minutes? Play along with a regimented agenda? Is this essential to actual learning?
Sure, some people rationalize their disinclinations to engage... but, in my experience (at least with people more mature than the 18-year-old middle-class kids in the U.S. first-time away from home... at college), in the U.S., most students are acting in good faith. Even if misguidedly in some details, at least "good faith" sets a good common basis for discussion about how to accomplish our goals.
Yes, years ago I did believe in a much harsher, conformist picture of "how things should be". Well, years ago, it was hard (in the U.S.) to "succeed" without such conformity, and it would only take more energy to push back. So, as usual, the people who managed (through gender, skin color, socio-economic class) to "succeed" well enough... had no pressing reason to complain or push back.
So, "no knitting or sewing in class". Sure, why *not* censure things, if you can get away with it?
So, yes, the issue of "what/how to help/allow students to really benefit from interactions" is subtle. The subordinate issue of "what offends the instructor" is also subtle, but subordinate.
More pointedly, if I *know* the student who needs something to keep their hands busy, etc., and trust in their "good faith" (and blanket respect for me and my attempts at teaching), I have no problem with any such thing.
No, it's not that simple, generally, because in these somewhat-corporatized-education times, we are not reliably put into situation where we can understand all our students as individuals.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: It's quite simple. You're at a university: the lecturer is there to deliver a lecture to the hall not to teach you. You're not at school anymore, the lecturer isn't going to (or at least shouldn't) tell you off for how much attention (or lack thereof) that they perceive you are paying.
You (or your government) are paying (for you) to be there so as long as you're not disrupting other people, what you do and don't do is entirely up to you. If such an innocuous thing upsets the lecturer, that's on them not on you.
If you're in a more intimate setting like a tutorial where you're actually being taught, just ask the lecturer if they mind.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: I used to have a very quiet 15-puzzle, solving the thing was not the point, it was simply keeping my hands occupied. And this was something very small so less likely to be distracting to others.
I had one civics teacher who if she wanted to have an actual conversation with me would make sure my hands were busy with something, she had a number of small objects for the purpose, mostly puzzles of one form or another. A different 15-puzzle, rubik's cubes and the like.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: To answer you question: You can tie knots, for example surgical knots like a [one-handed knot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOJDXFA560M). This can be done below your desk.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/03
| 652
| 2,899
|
<issue_start>username_0: I might, or might not, need letters of recommendation for a PhD application in the future. My plans are vague, I am just finishing my master's and planning to work for a while before deciding.
There are just a few people who could write a letter about me that doesn't just say "they did well in class". I would like to keep the option of asking them for one, even after being out of academia for a year or two (still doing research as part of my job).
I would also like to know how strongly they would be willing to recommend me. I worked with them on only one project. Even though they gave me very good feedback, I imagine they might not remember me well enough to write a good letter if I ask them after a long time. We work in somewhat related, but very different, sub-fields of computer science.
Should I contact them now, without having a clear plan in mind, and ask if they would be willing to recommend me in the future? Is it just a waste of their time if I don't yet have anything concrete to ask for, or any precise plans or institutions to mention?<issue_comment>username_1: This is easier if you can have a face to face meeting. Tell them you are considering it and ask for their advice, and especially about your likely success. If they seem supportive, you can say that you aren't quite ready but would probably want a letter from them in the future.
For a supportive prof they would possibly make a few notes to themselves about what to say before they forget your face and accomplishments. Professors see a lot of people and some things start to run together after a while. But after the heads-up they are, perhaps, more prepared to write a supportive letter.
But it is much less effective if you have to do this by email or such.
And if they seem discouraging, then there is probably no need to ask, thought they may still have valuable advice about how to prepare yourself.
I've had to ask students, looking for recommendations, to remind me of a few of our previous interactions if it has been a few years since we last spoke.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would be honest with them and tell them that you're considering applying to schools at a later time but aren't sure where yet and ask if you can contact them in the future. I think that would go better than just randomly contacting them a year or more later and may make them more likely to remember the request.
If they gave you very good feedback, then you'd probably get a strong letter from them describing your work on that project and class performance. The number of projects they worked with you on is less important than the quality.
Also, when you write to them, remind them of which classes you had with them and the project you worked on. This should trigger their memory if they didn't recognize your name right away.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/03
| 2,160
| 9,204
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a master's thesis in Computer Science. It's the first document I write, so not much experience.
My supervisor told me to include some previous/related work on the topic I am writing about. In short, it is about computing influence in social networks. I have found about 10 papers which I think are the most relevant ones.
The problem is that, while the topic and goal are the same as mine, the math/algorithms they apply are often way different than mine, and advanced enough that it would take a lot of work to truly understand them. So in other words, I want to somehow argue why my model makes sense and not others, but at the same time my work is not directly based on others.
The question is, can I write about it even though I don't understand it? How well am I supposed to know the previous work I am writing about? Is it enough to have *some* intuition?
Sorry if this is obvious, but my university do not teach us how to write (I guess one point of having a Master's thesis is to learn these things).<issue_comment>username_1: Can you perhaps mention the other research without endorsing it?
>
> Previous work on the subject of frabishes was published by <NAME> Jones [2012]. They claim to evaluate all frabishes using methods different than the methods we are using here.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The thing that strikes me most about your question is "the topic and goal are the same as mine". If this is the case, then those papers are *intimately* related to yours, and you will want to understand them for your own good. Granted you might not have the time - it is a Masters thesis after all. However, you'll still want to compare and contrast their results against yours. After all, a big question to answer is "is my method better than theirs?" and you cannot answer that question without knowing how the methods stack up.
You don't have to fully understand another work to write about it, but you might not be able to go into much detail: for example "Alice and Bob (2019) have also studied this problem using [method], but they ran into [issue] which we do not have" is perfectly fine. Nonetheless, with *ten* intimately related papers I think you will want to discuss this with your supervisor. That's a lot of related work, and your professor might already be aware of some/most of them. He might give you direction on which papers to write about, which to read in more detail, and so on.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: One of the skills that you have to learn during your masters is reading papers and previous work done in this particular area. So I suggest you put extra effort to understand them. This will benefit you a lot and will definitely boost the quality of your master's thesis.
Also, learning about these previous papers might give you an idea to improve them and build upon them, and then you have your own paper published! This is how it actually goes in the research world. GoodLuck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I think you should raise this question with your supervisor. Think carefully first about what part of this literature you expect you could master well enough in the time you have. Ask about reducing the scope of your project in order to write a narrow good paper rather than a shoddy comprehensive one.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Talk to you advisor about that. When I was doing my master's thesis, my advisor (a really good advisor), gave me some papers to read, and she also showed me how to read them. She explained that I didn't need to understand all the technical details of the methodology involved; the big picture was most important.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: You did not mention your country but in some places (at least Europe, vastly speaking) the Masters thesis is the obligatory door out of your university.
This means that the contents are mostly irrelevant.
There are some philosophical discussions about how it should teach you something - the reality of the real world is that this is something you have to do, full stop. Bonus points if you learn something out of the exercise.
Going from there, you should be as serious as possible and have an idea of what is happening around your master's thesis topic but this is pretty much that. Skim though the papers (introduction, conclusions and what is in the middle if it sound interesting), discuss that with your advisor and call it a day.
>
> The question is, can I write about it even though I don't understand it? How well am I supposed to know the previous work I am writing about? Is it enough to have some intuition?
>
>
>
Yes, somehow, yes. Your advisor will redirect you if you start to drift away, so as I mentioned - keep a close contact with him or her.
>
> Sorry if this is obvious, but my university do not teach us how to write (I guess one point of having a Master's thesis is to learn these things).
>
>
>
If they not teach you how to write (I have not seen any who do - probably the best ones have something), they will not expect you to come out with something spectacular.
**One important note:** this answer is not there to say that your school is not good, or that you are missing something by having a normal, standard thesis nobody will ever read. **It is there to say "do not worry". This is normal, expected and will have zero impact on your further life** (if you are not planning to go into academics, at least)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: While the most common answer seems to be "well just study all of that thoroughly" I can totally see why this may not be feasible. Related work usually is not the main focus and one cannot spend 2 months just to understand the stuff other people did.
I'd argue that that is not necessary. The key is to understand *what* those papers did and to get a rough idea of *how* they did it *in principle*, but you absolutely do not need to understand their methods in detail. Doing this probably will cost you less than 30 minutes per paper, which seems to be a manageable amount of work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: I think there's two critical questions you really need to be able to answer in this setting.
First, is there some mathematical equivalence or relationship between some earlier paper's methods and your own, even if hidden by a different expression in the algorithms used? This may require some amount of digging in and gaining understanding.
Second, how would you go about comparing results from what you're doing to the results they got? Are you measuring the same thing? Can you run your design on the same problems as they ran theirs, to compare quality of result and, if relevant, computational performance?
Beyond those, I think it's perfectly legitimate to say roughly "these other authors took approaches X, Y, and Z to the problem. We describe A, which is truly, fundamentally distinct from X, Y, and Z, and here's how it stacks up".
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: I think on any technical field building understanding is crucial, and what unfortunately is not taught sufficiently in technical universities/colleges is how to actually build it. However, I can give you two hints about learning that I have learnt over the years that will push you forward.
There are two good books that will help you to understand how to speed up understanding:
1. "On Intelligence" by <NAME>, is a good general presentation how your brain works. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Intelligence>. The central message is that new things are build on the things you already know. This also means that in order to really understand, you should not leave gaps.
2. "How to solve it" by <NAME> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Solve_It> presents guidelines how to learn to solve problems you can not yet solve. The basic principle is to simplify the problem as much as you can, to the bone, so you eventually can solve it. Look for similar but easier problems as long as you become confident that you understand the problem and you can solve it, and then move forward.
Unfortunately, there is no possibility for shortcuts. Simplify, try, fail, try again.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: If you need to select related papers for your academic work, you actually should not read and understand the whole document you use. You can choose the main thesis of someone's paper, describe the main problem they write about, and even highlight their research methods and obstacles they faced while working on this subject. For instance, if you use other research methods, this information will supplement your paper.
The second moment is if your topic is not clear for you (so you cannot understand similar works from other researchers), and in this case, you usually have two ways:
* choose a new topic if it is not too late;
* discuss the key points with your advisor - what are the moments you should pay attention to first of all.
And third, if you do not understand only one-two papers you need for your work, try to look for reviews for them - usually, opinions from other academics clarify everything you need to know.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/04
| 1,664
| 6,855
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to know if there is any scientific field that focuses exclusively on scientific instrumentation research? I know that each field (and sub-field) has its own instrumentation and apparatus, but my question is about the existence of a community that explore the nature and the methodological sides of those instruments.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, there exist such a field, but actually the development of scientific instrumentation is transversal to many fields. Note, however, that one typically specializes in scientific instrumentation of a certain kind. With just one life available, one cannot cover all types of instruments!
One specific field is that of *metrology*. Metrology is the science of measurement, and many metrologists are involved in the development of measuring systems and methods for accurate measurements. For instance, as my profile says, I'm a metrologist and I work in the field of primary electrical resistance and impedance measurements. I spend most of my time developing devices and measuring systems for that quantity, and for the realization of its unit, the ohm. Metrologists also collaborate with the industry, to improve the development of certain types of instruments. It's not uncommon that measuring systems that were once developed by research laboratories can be now bought as off-the-shelf instruments from various companies. In a few institutions around the world, and especially in Europe, one can find PhD programmes or schools dedicated to metrology.
However, not all scientific instruments are dedicated to accurate measurements, and many instruments are also developed by researchers working in specific disciplines. So, for instance, particle physicists may collaborate with engineers to develop particle and radiation detectors. As I said, the development of scientific instrumentation is really transversal to many fields.
It is common for those who work at the development of instrumentation to have a degree in engineering or physics, but these are not the only possibilities indeed. You definitely need a broad knowledge, though.
You can find papers on instrumentation on certain dedicated journals, but also in journals about specific disciplines. Some dedicated journals are the following (list by no means exhaustive):
* [*Metrologia*](https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0026-1394): This is the main journal dedicated to the world of metrology. You can find papers dedicated to primary measuring systems.
* [*Review of Scientific Instruments*](https://aip.scitation.org/journal/rsi): As the title says, this is a journal specifically dedicated to scientific instruments, of all kinds. Quite well known.
* [*Measurement Science and Technology*](https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0957-0233): Another journal dedicated to the world of measuring instruments, with a broader scope with respect to *Metrologia*.
* [*IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement*](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=19): Journal with a very broad scope, where you can find papers dedicated to instrumentation, sensors, algorithms etc.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: There are a few communities that focus exclusively on instrumentation for social sciences (survey development, etc.) - from a quick Google Scholar search, the journal [Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences](https://measurementinstrumentssocialscience.biomedcentral.com/) seems to be fairly on-target for what you're describing. However, given how much instrument development intersects with experimentation, you're likely to find that a fair portion of instrument development research isn't being published in specialty journals like the one I referenced, but rather in broader-scope journals where there's still interest in that type of research (due to its applicability) and a larger readership base (which, if you're the person publishing the article, will hopefully lead to more citations, etc.!)
Therefore, if you happen to know what *specific type* of instrumentation development you're interested in - e.g. testing methodologies for education research, evaluation metrics for AI/anthropomorphic robots, general principles for the design of experiments/statistics - I'd suggest taking a look at journals and books in those specific fields, since that's where members of the instrumentation development community will often aim to publish. A few examples of what these types of papers/books look like:
* <NAME>. *Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics*. Sage, 1999. <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d583/9592516f9c9d676b0315d63a47e200d43da2.pdf>
* Bartneck, Christoph, et al. "Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots." International journal of social robotics 1.1 (2009): 71-81. <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3.pdf>
* Bolton, <NAME>, and <NAME>. "Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Development of a measurement instrument." Education+ Training (2012). <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Radha_Iyer4/post/Entrepreneurial_Opportunitity_exploitation_dimensions_scale_developed_and_validated_Is_there_anywhere_i_can_find_them/attachment/59d6400779197b807799c4e5/AS%3A429321358712838%401479369596643/download/individual+entrepreneurial+orientation.pdf>
There are, of course, many more papers out there like these; I just picked a few that were reasonably well-cited and which weren't hidden behind a paywall. A great way to find some of the high-profile authors and journals in your community of interest would be to look through the literature make note of the journals/authors that are frequently cited in the articles you read; usually this will give you a pretty good feel for the culture of the academic community in that field as well, as more diffuse communities (i.e. ones where researchers in the field don't interact too much - possibly because of how niche their work is) often have fewer shared citations among their articles compared to tight-knit or well-established academic communities (where researchers either know each other well, or are otherwise typically familiar with a central 'canon' of work).
If, however, you're less interested in the practical/applied aspects of instrument development methodologies, and instead find the theoretical aspects more appealing - you might want to take a look at statistics research (since it plays such a large role in experimental design, and determining what makes a scientific instrument successful). There are quite a few papers on the design of social science instruments from a statistical perspective, so that may be of interest to you as well.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/04
| 1,975
| 7,993
|
<issue_start>username_0: I no longer have a university affiliation and in particular no longer have access to a unviersity email account. I've have had two papers recently accepted for publication in *closed access* journals (published by Elsevier and Springer). My university affiliation appears on the papers
because that is where the research was done at the time. I would like to upload the preprints to ArXiv. Both the journals and my co-author are happy with this. There are dire warning on ArXiv of claiming university affiliation when this is not the case (eg. lifetime ban).
My question is how do I join up? Is it even possible for me to do (the previous questions below suggests that it may possible)? Ideally I would like my previous affiliation to show up on the site in some way even if it is marked as 'formerly at university X'.
Note: my co-author could join ArXiv but he doesn't want to (a combination of being retired and not liking technology) and I respect his reasons.
Previous questions on Academia.Stackchange that are relevant but that are somewhat different from the present situation:
[Can you submit to Arxiv without an institutional affiliation?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/107267/can-you-submit-to-arxiv-without-an-institutional-affiliation)
[Is there something I need to do on arxiv if I lose academic affiliation](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/40211/is-there-something-i-need-to-do-on-arxiv-if-i-lose-academic-affiliation)<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, there exist such a field, but actually the development of scientific instrumentation is transversal to many fields. Note, however, that one typically specializes in scientific instrumentation of a certain kind. With just one life available, one cannot cover all types of instruments!
One specific field is that of *metrology*. Metrology is the science of measurement, and many metrologists are involved in the development of measuring systems and methods for accurate measurements. For instance, as my profile says, I'm a metrologist and I work in the field of primary electrical resistance and impedance measurements. I spend most of my time developing devices and measuring systems for that quantity, and for the realization of its unit, the ohm. Metrologists also collaborate with the industry, to improve the development of certain types of instruments. It's not uncommon that measuring systems that were once developed by research laboratories can be now bought as off-the-shelf instruments from various companies. In a few institutions around the world, and especially in Europe, one can find PhD programmes or schools dedicated to metrology.
However, not all scientific instruments are dedicated to accurate measurements, and many instruments are also developed by researchers working in specific disciplines. So, for instance, particle physicists may collaborate with engineers to develop particle and radiation detectors. As I said, the development of scientific instrumentation is really transversal to many fields.
It is common for those who work at the development of instrumentation to have a degree in engineering or physics, but these are not the only possibilities indeed. You definitely need a broad knowledge, though.
You can find papers on instrumentation on certain dedicated journals, but also in journals about specific disciplines. Some dedicated journals are the following (list by no means exhaustive):
* [*Metrologia*](https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0026-1394): This is the main journal dedicated to the world of metrology. You can find papers dedicated to primary measuring systems.
* [*Review of Scientific Instruments*](https://aip.scitation.org/journal/rsi): As the title says, this is a journal specifically dedicated to scientific instruments, of all kinds. Quite well known.
* [*Measurement Science and Technology*](https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0957-0233): Another journal dedicated to the world of measuring instruments, with a broader scope with respect to *Metrologia*.
* [*IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement*](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=19): Journal with a very broad scope, where you can find papers dedicated to instrumentation, sensors, algorithms etc.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: There are a few communities that focus exclusively on instrumentation for social sciences (survey development, etc.) - from a quick Google Scholar search, the journal [Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences](https://measurementinstrumentssocialscience.biomedcentral.com/) seems to be fairly on-target for what you're describing. However, given how much instrument development intersects with experimentation, you're likely to find that a fair portion of instrument development research isn't being published in specialty journals like the one I referenced, but rather in broader-scope journals where there's still interest in that type of research (due to its applicability) and a larger readership base (which, if you're the person publishing the article, will hopefully lead to more citations, etc.!)
Therefore, if you happen to know what *specific type* of instrumentation development you're interested in - e.g. testing methodologies for education research, evaluation metrics for AI/anthropomorphic robots, general principles for the design of experiments/statistics - I'd suggest taking a look at journals and books in those specific fields, since that's where members of the instrumentation development community will often aim to publish. A few examples of what these types of papers/books look like:
* Black, <NAME>. *Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics*. Sage, 1999. <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d583/9592516f9c9d676b0315d63a47e200d43da2.pdf>
* Bartneck, Christoph, et al. "Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots." International journal of social robotics 1.1 (2009): 71-81. <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3.pdf>
* Bolton, <NAME>, and <NAME>. "Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Development of a measurement instrument." Education+ Training (2012). <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Radha_Iyer4/post/Entrepreneurial_Opportunitity_exploitation_dimensions_scale_developed_and_validated_Is_there_anywhere_i_can_find_them/attachment/59d6400779197b807799c4e5/AS%3A429321358712838%401479369596643/download/individual+entrepreneurial+orientation.pdf>
There are, of course, many more papers out there like these; I just picked a few that were reasonably well-cited and which weren't hidden behind a paywall. A great way to find some of the high-profile authors and journals in your community of interest would be to look through the literature make note of the journals/authors that are frequently cited in the articles you read; usually this will give you a pretty good feel for the culture of the academic community in that field as well, as more diffuse communities (i.e. ones where researchers in the field don't interact too much - possibly because of how niche their work is) often have fewer shared citations among their articles compared to tight-knit or well-established academic communities (where researchers either know each other well, or are otherwise typically familiar with a central 'canon' of work).
If, however, you're less interested in the practical/applied aspects of instrument development methodologies, and instead find the theoretical aspects more appealing - you might want to take a look at statistics research (since it plays such a large role in experimental design, and determining what makes a scientific instrument successful). There are quite a few papers on the design of social science instruments from a statistical perspective, so that may be of interest to you as well.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/04
| 996
| 4,393
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am hoping to apply for a PhD in mathematics in Germany, where the most common method of pursuing a PhD is to put together a research proposal and then find a professor who will support you. This is vastly outside of my experience in the US and UK, so I am struggling to understand the norms and expectations.
So far, I have identified a university with a research group in my subfield of mathematics, and on their website, they have a list of about a dozen projects, each with 4-6 people and a smattering of papers on that topic. Most people are listed under more than one group, especially the professors.
Would I be expected to propose a topic that fits with one or more of these projects, or would I, as a prospective student, be expected to bring something more original to the table, creating a distinct project?<issue_comment>username_1: I could offer a general perspective from my own experience from about 8 years ago in the field of Computer Science.
Unless your mind is very strongly set on one very specific topic within your subject (which I doubt it might be at this stage), the key is to show interest in a few fields related to the department (or professor) thus showing interest as well as flexibility. The reason being that, the professor you'll be working with is very likely an expert with a much more informed perspective on the matter than you so you are very likely going to benefit from their input on the matter given your interest in something they know a lot about. In many cases, I think what is expected of you is some degree of relevant experience in the field which you could leverage in coming up with original work (unless you already have, in which case it is a big plus). I would also add that bringing up names of other professors you have worked with, who your prospective supervisors might also know, could benefit you. Not sure how things work in Germany, but it doesn't hurt to contact the professor directly expressing your interest in working with her/him.
I received a PhD grant from the university (in London) based on my proposal, which started with responding to an email from a professor (who eventually became one of my supervisors) to a mailing list seeking PhD grant applications. I was interested in one particular area, and noticed that so was the professor, so I emailed back expressing my interest in working with him. He then suggested that I put together a roughly four page long PhD proposal (as required by the university) and offered to give me feedback and a letter of support for it. He also got another professor on board who was interested not in my specific topic but a related topic that could make the proposal stronger. They sent me a few papers to read, which I did and included it in my proposal. Both of them offered strong letters of support for my application and I finally received the grant.
I know there's not any one way to go about it, but I hope this one would give you some perspective on how it could work.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: This is mostly a matter of funding, which you didn't even mention.
Many PhD students are funded through (project) grants, and they normally try to keep their PhD topics close to what they have to do for the project anyway. But even those on a "Ladesstelle" (position paid by the state) will normally be expected to work in areas in which results can later be used for applying for grants - and it is hard to know from the outside what that could be.
While you could keep your proposal close to one of the existing projects, you do not know if there is any funding for that project left. Normally, that is not the case *except* in very long-running projects.
Hence, the way to go is normally:
0. See if there are advertised open positions ("Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter"). They normally list an expected area of research.
1. If step 0 did not yield any results, reach out to a professor from an area that intersects with your research interests. Write a highly personalized e-mail, listing your demonstratable expertise. Perhaps they have an upcoming project for which they need good researchers? Make sure to keep it professional.
2. See if step 1 helped you any further.
This answer is not about mathematics in particular. And it's also not for those coming with a scholarship, which is however a rare case in Germany.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/04
| 726
| 3,326
|
<issue_start>username_0: Context: MSc student, first time having a paper accepted to a conference.
I submitted an extended abstract to two conferences which were ultimately accepted. In the original extended abstract, I did not yet have results. The original extended abstract was also based on a particular methodology (optimization), but I ran into some computational complications solving my problem, so I had to change my methodology to 'simulation', and ultimately, my research question had to be adapted to the new methodology.
So now I am in a position where my original extended abstract was accepted on the premise of the original methodology and research question, but now when I present at the conference I will have to present on a new question based on a different methodology.
I *feel* like this 'bait-and-switch' is a bit of a slippery thing to do and my inexperience in publishing research and being involved with conferences probably influences that feeling, but my advisor said it isn't a big deal and now I find myself conflicted. From the perspective of my supervisor, they said that most conferences are understanding that research can change on the fly, which is why I should not be overly concerned that i'm presenting on something adjacent (but still very much related) to my original question and methodology. Additionally, the current title of my work is based on the original submission and uses a key-word in my field that signals to the readership that an 'optimization' methodology is going to be used (key word is "optimal").
I am wondering if I should reach out to the conference organizers and inform them of this change, particularly in regards to changing the title of the original paper. Or, perhaps this really isn't much of a big deal at all and this situation that I have described above is more common than I currently understand, in which case I can just leave it alone.<issue_comment>username_1: Personally, I don't have a problem with the change, but I'm not on the committee. If your original abstract didn't say that you actually had results with the old methodology, but that you were seeking results, then the change should raise no issues. But it would be good to give them a heads up.
On the other hand, if you overstated your case originally, then you have a bigger problem. Sometimes an "abstract" presents completed work, other times it is work in progress. If the latter was the tone of the original you should probably be fine.
Changing the title may be an issue or not, depending on their procedures and how long in advance they need to commit to things. And, of course, simulation is quite a bit different from optimization.
But, the best (abundance of caution) route is to let them know and send a new version. The attendees will want the latest result, not one you have abandoned, of course.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Depends strongly on the conference. It't not unusual (maybe 10% of papers) for presenters to present a paper on a substantially different topic than their accepted abstract at one of the most important conferences in my discipline. That's because it's considered a work in progress and discuss conference, so it's completely accepted that the question you thought about six months prior didn't actually work out.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/05
| 2,362
| 8,981
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm filing a formal letter of complaint (for a grade litigation request) over a grade dispute in an English literature course. I've got 90/100 (an A) in each of the 3 exams in this course. These exams make up 85% of the course grade. The other 15% is based on daily work (worksheets and responses). I was surprised when viewing my final grades that the grade in this course ended up being a B+. In the duration of this course, we were given three worksheets/response prompts that were optional. I did all of them and they were recognized with a '+' sign (but not actually graded).
After emailing my professor about this (and him ignoring me until I emailed the associate chair), he said that he added my exam grades (so he got a total of 76.5/85) and with the daily work he was able to bump it up to a B+ (a B+ is an 83-86). So I respectfully pointed out that the 76.5 is over 85 and not over 100 and that the daily work is a 15% that should be properly counted in, he replied saying that this daily work grade was based in comparison with my classmates (which is nonsense as (1) the daily work activities were not graded and (2) I was one of the few students who actually did them), I replied and argued but he didn't reply back. For me to get a B+, I would have been given 53/100 on the daily work grade.
I moved further with the dispute with the chair and was told to file a formal letter of complaint to which a committee will be formed and where the decision issued would be non-negotiable.
I don't know how to articulate my complaint. I feel like the administration doesn't get the issue (this was obvious in the correspondence between me and the chair). Also, I'll lose my scholarship and ultimately my place in university if the grade doesn't change, do I include that?
I feel like it's really obvious that I was done wrong by my professor but still afraid this won't be resolved. Sorry for the long post.
P.S. Several people assumed an A starts above 86 but actually an A is 90+. (An A- is 86-90)<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Dear Committee,
>
>
> This grade dispute seems like a simple math error. As shown on the
> attached syllabus, the grade is 85% exams and 15% worksheets and
> responses.
>
>
> * On the exams, I scored 76.5/85, which is a 90% (A)
> * On the worksheets/responses, there were three worksheets and I received a check mark on each of them. To my knowledge, no other
> factors counted toward this part of the grade. Further, my class
> participation was exemplary, so if there were other factors, they
> should have been in my favor.
>
>
> When I asked the professor about my grade, he said that 76.5 was a B
> and he had used the worksheets and responses to "bump me up" to a B+.
> But this is not mathematically consistent; 76.5/85 is an A, and the
> professor admitted the worksheets/responses would "bump me up," not
> down. I never received any evidence or justification for why my grade
> would be lower than 90%.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Name
>
>
>
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: You currently have incomplete information; your letter should politely request the scores for the worksheets (EDIT: and the calculations that led to the final grade). Without these it is impossible to determine if your grade has been calculated correctly or not.
* The required mark for an A is >90/100
* You currently know you have 76.5/85 from the exams
* You therefore require >13.5/15 from the worksheets.
If the grades from the worksheet are >13.5 or they can't be provided then you can follow up with a specific question regarding the marking of that work.
EDIT: updated for consistency based on edit to grade boundaries in the question. Given there is some confusion in how they are presented, asking for them to be clarified seems to be important.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It may help to ask the professor for an example of the scoring that would result in an A, or examples of how any student got enough points for an A. If it's the three assignments, specifically ask for numeric scores on them with justification if they're not 5 each. Giving less than full credit with no feedback other than "+" seems sketchy.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: @username_1 has a good suggested response, but the math formula could be written in a clearer way. I would suggest on that point:
* Observing that you had a 90% average on the exams.
* To your knowledge, you scored the highest possible result on all homeworks, presumably 100%.
* Therefore, the weighted total should be, per the syllabus formula: 85% exams + 15% homework = 0.85(90) + 0.15(100) = 76.5 + 15 = 91.5, which should be an "A" grade.
I think that this latter expression most closely matches the natural-language expression on the syllabus, and is also more concise and easier to check.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Others have given good advice (in combination with their respective comment sections). I would add that you must consider the university rules themselves, and it is difficult for anyone to give you proper phrasing. For example, some answers are suggesting that your letter refers to the grading schema or an error in calculation. However, at my institute, this is unlikely to be contested at a committee. You are essentially requesting a clarification on your grade, which is not something that can have your grade overturned.
In my department, the one case you can have your grade overturned is for *unequal or unfair treatment* when compared to others in the class. This means, even if (and from comments it seems it may not be true), there is an error in the original explanation of your grade, as long as this was applied equally to everyone, it would be very difficult to argue for a grade change.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: You have *two* grievances, not one, and they must be filed separately.
Your first is a professorial conduct complaint: your professor will not tell you how the grade contribution from the worksheets and responses was calculated. What is the numerical value of a "+"? How, *numerically*, do the worksheets and responses contribute to a student's grade?
Only after this first complaint is adjudicated can you file your second, which -- assuming your professor's calculations are wrong -- is a procedural error complaint: your grade was calculated incorrectly. The arithmetic is wrong on its face.
By filing these questions separately you force the grievance committee to consider both questions, in their proper order.
If you file a single complaint containing both issues, the committee may fail to get the issue as badly as the chair did, and they may rule against you simply because you haven't provided enough facts to carry your argument.
It is unfortunate that your chosen field is literature. If you were reading law, you could hope to encounter a chair or a committee that could handle a two-part complaint like this before breakfast. And if you were reading mathematics, the problem would not have arisen in the first place.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: To the Committee on Grade Disputes:
During (course name, semester, etc) under Professor (professor's name) there were 3 exams making up 85% of the total grade. My grade on these exams was 90%.
Additionally, there were 3 worksheet/response prompts which were stated to be optional. And yet, also were to make up the remaining 15% of the grade. There are only two ways this can work, and in both cases my final class percentage would be 90% or higher, resulting in a grade of 'A' or better.
1) Because these worksheets were optional, one could argue that they should not impact the final grade. After all, how is something optional in this context if it is actually important to your grade?
By this logic, total final grade would be 90.0% 'A'.
2) Although optional, I chose to do all three worksheet/prompts, and received the maximum mark of '+'. Therefore, if these worksheets are to be included in final grading, my final grade would be greater than 90%. It is impossible to add in a higher percentage to a set when averaging, and get a lower result than the original.
The math looks like this:
90% score on exams times 85% of total grade = 76.5% contributed to final grade.
100% score on worksheets times 15% of total grade = 15% contributed to final grade.
By this logic, total final grade = 91.5% 'A'.
3) Further, a student has the right to know the status of their grade as a class progresses, so the student can adjust their focus and study to maximize learning and grade marks. If there is some hidden math or scoring that is being used to generate a lower grade, it is unfair and unwarranted to use it. Because nothing was ever expressed to me other than that I scored 90% on the exams and top marks on everything else.
In short, there is no mathematically sound and fair path where my grade is less than a 90% 'A'.
Thank you for your consideration.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/05
| 994
| 3,950
|
<issue_start>username_0: What should I do if the paper is misleading (say deliberately done due to lack of money to buy hardware resources like GPU or lack of time)? What if a section of the paper has misleading information but, the rest of the paper is gold? What if it is just the Dunning Kruger or Impostor Syndrome making me think about retracting a highly cited paper (thinking I misled research community while in reality my paper would have helped research community a lot)? What if my paper has a plagiarised section but the rest of the sections are awesome?
Please note that I do not have any deep learning papers published. These are just interesting thoughts taken from [A bad feeling about first published papers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/149992/a-bad-feeling-about-first-published-papers?noredirect=1#comment399606_149992) after somebody commented to make this another question.<issue_comment>username_1: If your paper contains plagiarized material, or material intended to deceive, then you should retract it.\* If there is an honest mistake or something you overlooked, then consider writing a corrigendum/erratum or a follow-up article. Yes, this might include "we revisited problem X with new resources and show the previous results to be false/misleading". In each case the goal should be to correct the literature. This goes double for highly cited papers, which may cause a higher degree of damage. In future papers, make sure the claims are substantiated, even if that makes them weaker and the results less flashy.
\*There might be some *de minimis* cases where this doesn't hold, but I think it works as a general principle.
Disclaimer: I work in physics, not a CS field. Not sure if that affects the approaches or ideals involved. I recently learned that it's [apparently very difficult](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/149723/17254) to publish errata in mathematics, for example. Still, correcting e.g. arXiv postings is a useful step.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Let's take your questions one at a time, starting with the preliminary one:
>
> What if it is just the Dunning Kruger or Impostor Syndrome making me think about retracting a highly cited paper?
>
>
>
Discuss this with non-coauthors, and particularly people who are not biased in your favor and have not already been "sold" on the paper, to see what they think. This is a bit risky though, because they could theoretically abuse your thrust and bad-mouth you elsewhere before you've done anything yourself; and you're sort-of committing to accept their advice. Still, another look-over of the results by someone other than the authors, and a consultation, is probably the best way to neutralize the effect of impostor syndrome.
>
> What if my paper has a plagiarized section but the rest of the sections are awesome?
>
>
>
@username_1 already addressed this case. However - if it's just a paragraph without references, you might be able to get away with a corrigendum and an apology. Coordinate this with your co-authors and advisor though.
>
> What should I do if the paper is misleading (say deliberately done due to lack of money to buy hardware resources like GPU or lack of time)?
>
>
>
The cause of it being misleading is not so important; it's the effect that's the problem. So, first double-check that it's actually misleading (again, possibly using a third party). Now, if the mis-lead can be corrected with a clarifying addendum/erratum, and is not properly false, then consider submitting that. At any rate, you should probably contact the editor and consult them about this situation. (Of course, they might just tell you "Just retract it, I can't be bothered with this stuff" and you would need to retract IMHO.
In the case of a retraction, try adding some minor additional result and republish the paper, done right, without the inappropriate section's content.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/05
| 1,247
| 4,749
|
<issue_start>username_0: To write a review, does the author must find some "implication" over the papers it based on?
Example-1:
Suppose author 1 has a theory or a proposal or framework but the language is unclear, not very comprehensible, not pointwise. Author 2 did a lot of improvement by adding short notes, definitions, points, illustrations etc; but all are to reflect the sayings of author 1 (not even a single new implications over author 1). Author2 gave proper reference to author1.
Would the author 2 be convicted of plagiarism/ some other academic misconduct?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0Zxyw.png)
Example 2 :
Suppose another situation, Author 1, 2 and 3 has some publications, containing various informations (say respectively information ABC, BCD, CDA)
Author 4 compiled all those informations, also summerised and simplified the language, but again; no new implication is added. Author 4 gave reference to author 1, 2, 3.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3OMIT.png)
Would author 4 be convicted of plagiarism/ someother misconduct due to not having "new implications"?
.................................
Prior study: I have read the wikipedia article on Review article and for Plagiarism. Apparently the wikipedia article on review article says
>
> "A review article is an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic."
>
>
>
But everyone in person I ask about it, emphasise on
>
> ideas of where research might go next
>
>
>
or some other "implication".
Now my question is; is it absolutely a prerequisite to have a new implication if to write a review?<issue_comment>username_1: If your paper contains plagiarized material, or material intended to deceive, then you should retract it.\* If there is an honest mistake or something you overlooked, then consider writing a corrigendum/erratum or a follow-up article. Yes, this might include "we revisited problem X with new resources and show the previous results to be false/misleading". In each case the goal should be to correct the literature. This goes double for highly cited papers, which may cause a higher degree of damage. In future papers, make sure the claims are substantiated, even if that makes them weaker and the results less flashy.
\*There might be some *de minimis* cases where this doesn't hold, but I think it works as a general principle.
Disclaimer: I work in physics, not a CS field. Not sure if that affects the approaches or ideals involved. I recently learned that it's [apparently very difficult](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/149723/17254) to publish errata in mathematics, for example. Still, correcting e.g. arXiv postings is a useful step.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Let's take your questions one at a time, starting with the preliminary one:
>
> What if it is just the Dunning Kruger or Impostor Syndrome making me think about retracting a highly cited paper?
>
>
>
Discuss this with non-coauthors, and particularly people who are not biased in your favor and have not already been "sold" on the paper, to see what they think. This is a bit risky though, because they could theoretically abuse your thrust and bad-mouth you elsewhere before you've done anything yourself; and you're sort-of committing to accept their advice. Still, another look-over of the results by someone other than the authors, and a consultation, is probably the best way to neutralize the effect of impostor syndrome.
>
> What if my paper has a plagiarized section but the rest of the sections are awesome?
>
>
>
@username_1 already addressed this case. However - if it's just a paragraph without references, you might be able to get away with a corrigendum and an apology. Coordinate this with your co-authors and advisor though.
>
> What should I do if the paper is misleading (say deliberately done due to lack of money to buy hardware resources like GPU or lack of time)?
>
>
>
The cause of it being misleading is not so important; it's the effect that's the problem. So, first double-check that it's actually misleading (again, possibly using a third party). Now, if the mis-lead can be corrected with a clarifying addendum/erratum, and is not properly false, then consider submitting that. At any rate, you should probably contact the editor and consult them about this situation. (Of course, they might just tell you "Just retract it, I can't be bothered with this stuff" and you would need to retract IMHO.
In the case of a retraction, try adding some minor additional result and republish the paper, done right, without the inappropriate section's content.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/05
| 913
| 4,214
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have an accepted paper in CS, in which I proposed a new method in data-science related topics (data-intensive analysis, a lot of hyperparameter tuning and design decisions).
The reviewers opinions are positive, the method is clearly described and the results are validated properly. Thus, the conclusions of the work are valid.
However, one of the reviewers wrote that the paper lacks an empirical comparison with other similar works.
From my point of view, comparing the result of my method to the results of the related work is not viable for many reasons, such as the problem I am tackling is slightly different, the type of the dataset I am using is also different.
So, I see a fundamental difference between my work the related work that makes any comparison really not valid, though both my work and the related work are in the same area.
Any suggestions to improve my paper?<issue_comment>username_1: If the paper was accepted, it means that the reviewers and the editor / chair considered it to have sufficient merit for publication. Comments in the reviews are suggestions to improve the paper, but being the author, it is finally up to your discretion as to what is appropriate.
In your case, assuming that you now need to send the final camera ready version for publication, you could update the paper with the reasons you think such a comparison would be invalid. This would also help future readers of your paper who may have the same question.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> [...] comparing the result of the my method to the results of the related work is not viable for many reasons, such as the problem I am tackling is slightly different, the type of the dataset I am using is also different.
>
>
>
The first instict when writing a paper is to emphasise the differences with existing work in order to demonstrate contribution. However, the paper still belongs to different parts of the literature. As you say, the problem is *slightly* different and using a novel dataset does not automatically imply a methodological contribution, which means that other people have explored the same or a similar question using different data (which allows a comparison) and that other people have used similar methods (which also allows a comparison). I think re-reading the literature will cover the requirement.
If you are afraid that showing such links will undermine the novelty of the paper's contributions, that is another story. For work that is truly innovative, there is no such fear. For work that relies on many small tweaks, it is situational and often depends upon the reviewer.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Arrange a comparison
--------------------
The implied argument there is that if you want to make a *solid* argument about the superiority of method X for task A, then it's best practice to compare it empirically with related work. Your argument that it's not possible to directly compare numbers of your method for your task with a different method for a different task is technically correct, but not really sufficient.
So in the scenario of you proposing method X for task A and related work using method Y for task B, it would be methodologically proper to arrange a comparison by using method X also for problem B, or method Y also for problem A, depending on what's the main novelty in your paper.
If it's the task (because it's an important task for some reason) then you would need to provide some evidence why a new method is needed at all. You'd be expected to first apply the known methods from related work to your task/dataset in practice, reproducing their approach even if you believe it can't possibly be good enough - so that you'd have *evidence* that they are not good enough and your method is necessary.
Alternatively, if you believe that your method is superior, then it would be considered appropriate to try it out also on the dataset(s) that related work was using, compare and contrast. If you pick a substantially different dataset, then if you run all your experiments *only* on that, then these experiments can not say much about how your method compares with others.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/06
| 624
| 2,623
|
<issue_start>username_0: I suffer from anxiety, and this condition has led to some situations that hurt my relationships and reputation at my undergraduate institution. Anxiety also affects me in other ways -- for example, I fear flying.
Now I want to apply to graduate school for a master's degree. At what point should I disclose my mental health conditions? It seems like my advisor would need to know about some or all of my history, and best case, they could use this knowledge to provide better advising. But it could also mean that my preferred advisors would decline to advise me at all.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I fear flying.
>
>
>
Nearly all PhD students go to conferences. They usually go there by flying. There is no way to hide that you fear flying. Therefore, I suggest disclosing so that your advisor can arrange for your to participate in conferences without flying. Disclose before you enroll, and find out if your advisor can help you be successful before you enroll.
Should you disclose before you apply? It depends. If you can disclose in a way that shows you will be successful in the program (e.g. "Following treatment, my symptoms are improving so I expect my future achievements will be better than my past achievements...") that may increase your chances of admission. Show you have a plan for success. If you disclose and indicate you cannot be successful in the program, then you probably will not be admitted. But why would you apply if you cannot be successful?
Anecdote: One of my colleagues disclosed a fear of flying to me when he was a PhD student. He is now an assistant professor. He does fly from time to time.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: A bit different from the other answer.
*Do not disclose any mental health trouble*. Disclose you fear to flight only when you are successful enough to envision your attendance to conferences and not at any earlier stage.
When eventually it will happen, present your fear as very focused fear and *do not mention anything else*.
I can't think of any real trouble as far your PhD is concerned.
Do that when and if necessary in a strict way.
Your supervisor or a coworker can present the work on your behalf if a particular conference is strategic for the group/supervisor.
As already said by others there will surely be a conference that you could attend without flying.
Consider that, yet and unfortunately, attending overseas conferences is still difficult for many people in the academy worldwide. So it won't be particularly problematic for your supervisor to only "send" you to locations reachable by train.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/06/06
| 1,092
| 4,473
|
<issue_start>username_0: For an early career researcher in physics or science in general, is it a good idea to send a "thank you" email to other authors who cited one of the researcher's papers? Will this be perceived in a positive way and even start a possible collaboration, or it will be cheesy?
Notice that in physics, where people post online versions of papers before publications (on the arXiv), it is very common (sometimes annoying) to receive or send letter to request citations to your own paper when one finds a similar/related but yet unpublished work.
This question obviously applies only to early career researchers who receive few citations per week.<issue_comment>username_1: Straight answer: **NO** it's not a good idea
Citing someone is (and should) be neither a favor nor a gesture of politeness. So there's no point to send a thank you email. Thanking someone for a citation seems a way to beg for something. If you want to collaborate send an email explaining why you want to collaborate, or mention that you have read their paper when you meet the author/s. Take pride that someone more senior or expert has cited your work and move on.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: Such a message would have no effect. Sending one would be a neutral act.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: No, it's probably not a good idea because they used your paper cited it like they should, so just leave it at that. If you want to do a partnership, then do contact them, but just not for a thank you note.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: **No, because citation is a matter of transparency to scholarship generally...**
No, one does not "thank" someone for citing one's paper. An academic author is obliged to cite a paper when he/she is either *placing reliance on* or *referring to* its ideas, content, or argument. An academic author does not cite a paper simply because he/she wants to promote its author. To "thank" such an author would be an insult, in that it undermines the principle of separating the work from the person.
Decisions on whether to cite something should be independent of personal sentiment. Authors often cite work with which they disagree, sometimes profoundly. Sometimes, an author will find himself/herself having to cite material with he/she finds repulsive, especially in disciplines such as history or sociology (e.g.: a scholar writing about Nazi Germany and/or the history of racism may have to cite *<NAME>* -- do you think this scholar would want to be "thanked" by neo-Nazis or eugenicists? On the contrary, if such a scholar were "thanked" by such groups, he/she would probably be worried that he/she had somehow endorsed racist ideology).
**...but you can still contact the author if you have something to say**
One can, nonetheless, still make contact with authors who cite one's work. The purpose of such contact, however, should be to discuss the ideas, and **not** to imply any sense of personal debt/obligation (citations are an obligation to the academic community at large, not to the individual being cited). Appropriate examples include (but are not limited to):
* clarifying any misunderstandings;
* responding to criticism or counterarguments;
* asking for further details of each other's methodology/research/data;
* expressing an interest in or willingness to collaborate; and
* any other **reasonable** request/proposal that furthers scholarship.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: I wouldn't do it if the citation is incidental to the main results of the paper. It's not a bad idea to send them an email if you notice that your work played a key role in their study. In that case you wouldn't be thanking them for a citation per se but rather you would be establishing a relationship with someone who has benefited from your ideas and perhaps extended them further in a direction that will be useful to you as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: If you want to thank the author(s) who cited you i can see one appropriate circumstance to do so.
You can thank them for pushing your contribution to the topic further or addressing new points of view you were not thinking of. But even this would be somewhat weird for the recipient.
If you want to "just estabilish a collaboration or exchange of ideas" simply ask for that. Directly. No babble around with sweet words. There is also a chance you can meet them at conference, you can approach them there.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/06
| 422
| 1,756
|
<issue_start>username_0: I handed in my undergraduate thesis in mathematics and since I had extra time due to COVID-19 lockdown, I had made a cover drawing for it that I included. I've never seen a thesis with a cover in the STEM field before.
Was it a bad decision on my part? Will it look like kowtowing/bootlicking my supervising professor for a better grade? I believe my work was pretty good on its own and I'm afraid I have ruined it with what was intended as a personal touch that I really wanted to add.<issue_comment>username_1: It does not matter.
It used to be that theses were printed on paper. In those days, they had standard covers so they would all look the same when placed on a shelf in the library.
Today nobody cares about a digital cover.
Be prepared to provide a copy without the cover if someone asks for it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This really comes down to institutional formatting policies. Some may disallow cover art, some may be indifferent to it, and some actually encourage it. For example, my Bachelor's thesis was in a STEM field and included an electron microscopy image on the front cover without any issue. I generally think it's a nice touch, assuming the cover art is relevant to the contents. Further, if that assumption holds it's really difficult to see how it could be interpreted as bootlicking.
I also know of several higher degree theses (Master's, PhD) from the same institution in physics and engineering that had front cover art. And they still print and bind PhD theses (and some Master's theses). They achieve a uniform look on a library shelf since the spine isn't affected. In fact, the institution's website notes that they *prefer* PhD theses to have similar cover art.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/06/06
| 1,239
| 4,883
|
<issue_start>username_0: A similar question was asked in [Having a lot of papers published in unimportant conferences VS very few in good ones?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15528/having-a-lot-of-papers-published-in-unimportant-conferences-vs-very-few-in-good), but my question is only about reputation, so the answers there do not fit my question.
### Background
I am working in the field of Machine Learning and for my PhD I need to publish about 3 papers. Before I started my PhD I have been working in industry and am still working in industry half-time (just to earn money, it has nothing to do with my PhD). I do not plan to stay in academia after I finished, but plan to still have connections with academia/research and plan to continue to publish. For my PhD I am only allowed to publish on A1 or A2 conferences (according to [Qualis](http://www.conferenceranks.com/)). So for example "SIGKDD" or "NIPS" would be a A1 conference and "ECML-PKDD" or "SIAM DM" is an A2 conference - so they all need to be pretty good, I guess.
### Main Question
I would like to know whether what is better **regarding reputation**: Publish fewer papers on better conferences or more paper on worse conferences. How about better/worse journals?
If you can, please answer for a) the academic world, and b) for the business world.
### Clarification
I suspect that publishing on a conference that is worse than A2 is a waste of research time and one might be better of just putting a bit more extra work into the research to publish in at least on a A2 conference.
**Additional Question 1:** Is that assumption right?
I have only submitted to A2 conferences, so, I do not know how much more work it would be to be able to be accepted to an A1 conference. I guess in both cases you need to do a similar amount of base research work and then some more work which depends on whether it will be A1 or A2 worthy. I would suspect that one might be able to publish twice as many papers (as in "would need half as much research and writing time") if one would only submit to A2 if one would only submit to A1 conferences.
**Additional Question 2:** Does this rough estimate make sense?
Regarding conference vs journal: We publish mostly in conferences because of the shorter review process. However, after my PhD this might be not so important to me, but instead it will be more important how much work I have to put into it in total (not the length of time from start to completion). It takes me quite a lot of work to shorten all my texts so it fits the page limit. Also, a lot of the negative feedback I get from reviewers is that something was missing, that I had to leave out, because of the page limit. Rejections, of course, cost work (because you need to rewrite text for a different format - we are not counting time I need to additionally spend, because my research not good enough, of course). I think that it might actually less work to write for a journal because of these two points, but I am not sure.
**Additional Question 3:** Does this makes sense?<issue_comment>username_1: I'll suggest that trying to game this out in advance is a mistake. You will miss opportunities and focus on the wrong thing. Do the research. Write the papers and only *then* decide on an appropriate venue. If you think that a bit of extra effort on a certain paper might help it be accepted in a better conference, then do that. But otherwise send it to an *appropriate* conference. If you wait a year, trying to improve it, you will get scooped in a hot field.
You don't want to be the person that only ever did one significant thing and was otherwise unknown in academia.
First the research, then the papers, then decisions. That is different from not having a goal, of course.
But being present in lots of conferences also lets you build your circle of collaborators.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In general my unequivocal advice is: **focus only on the top to very good venues/conferences**. Do not submit to "worse" places, *unless* (and only in that case) you simply do not expect to be able to get accepted in top places with the minimal amount of papers to sustain your career.
*Example*:
The following case 1 will advance your career much better than case 2, but 2 is still better than 3:
Case 1: Publish 4 papers in top to very good venues during PhD.
Case 2: Publish 12 papers in "non top or not even good" places during PhD.
Case 3: 1 paper only in top place during PhD.
In case 1 you're going to get top postdoc positions with some high chance. In case 2 you are sure not to get any top postdoc positions. But may get something decent.
In case 3 you may be in trouble not getting any postdoc/job offers at all. Hence, 2 is better than 3.
*Comment*: I am talking only about **academia**. I don't know much about industry in that respect.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/06
| 514
| 2,361
|
<issue_start>username_0: After the coronavirus pandemic, most conferences have switched to the virtual mode and it is most likely that this will be the norm for some time now. I understand that networking will be much harder in this setting and that is a major let down for researchers/graduate students especially the ones starting out fresh.
What do you suggest are the best ways to optimize one's experience of attending and presenting in a virtual conference? If some of you have already attended any such conferences in recent months, it would be great if you could share your experience, preferably with a little more focus on the networking aspect of it!<issue_comment>username_1: Two things come to my mind:
* create a personal website that allows for networking and give a short profile of you and your research on it (like exchanging calling/business card at a real conference), don't make the mistake to overload it, maybe 1 DIN A4 page. You can also think about something like ORCID or researchgate profile, so I don't know how many researchers are registered to such services, a www profile with short URL is probably more safe to be visited by any researcher. On the website you can also establish a viewable flash version or snapshots of your poster/presentation. A disadvantage of a virtual conference is that longer discussions/conversations that happen during poster sessions cannot be easily technically realized or are convenient. And I think most researcher feel easier to contact you directly after the virtual conference by mail or skype/zoom if you actively ask for collaboration.
* on the last (and maybe first) slide or end of your virtual presentation/poster show your interest for collaborations and above link or skype/zoom contact.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> How to network with people in virtual conferences?
>
>
>
There are no methods that actually work.
You can present your work, including your contact information. But you were doing this anyway, since it is the same as in-person conferences.
You can try asking questions during the conference. Most of the time, most of the questions are not answered, and most people do not know who asked them.
You can network using non-conference methods based on what you learned from the conference. For example, send emails to other participants.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/06
| 651
| 2,809
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a soon to be fourth year graduate student in mathematics (PhD track). Originally, I wanted to work in academia, but am realizing this is an uncertain path. I feel compelled to finish my PhD degree because I have only two years left (next academic year I must attend as well) and am already pretty far in. But, I want to prepare myself in the meantime for the likely possibility that I will not get a job in academia.
I would like to get into computer science. I did a minor in computer science during my undergrad, so it is not completely foreign to me. But, I do not know what I should do next. Should I be applying for masters programs in CS or is there a better path to get into the computer science industry? I have seen that people have been successful with coding bootcamps and what not, but is this the kind of things that most employers are looking for?<issue_comment>username_1: Coding is a useful skill but not a career. You are unlikely to need any additional degrees but some self study would be very useful. A coding bootcamp in, say Python, might be a place to start if you haven't programmed before.
But you will need some additional work in algorithms and their analysis as well as computing theory (computability, for example). But with a degree in math you can study those things on your own from books.
It was long ago but I taught myself computing after finishing a math PhD due to the lack of math jobs in academia at the time. Later I was able to get some good instruction in summer courses and such.
But, don't expect any road you take to be easy. An analytical mind is a big help in many sorts of things, but it doesn't necessarily pay you well. In industry you will be more involved in product related activities and you might find it boring. If you are lucky you can get in to some research lab at one of the big places that value such skills as you have.
If you are still a student you can wander in to the CS department and talk to a couple of people (yeah, coronavirus...) and get an idea about a possible path. Just a list of courses that they give with a list of textbooks might be enough.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: As "computer science" covers anything from front end web development to artificial intelligence so I recommend you try to go in a direction which utilizes your mathematics background. Look into more advanced computer science where your PHD will mean something. In that case you will probably want to take courses rather than the 3 month cram sessions. Those teach you to get a job coding even though you were previously in house keeping. I know because I've worked with them. Some are really good coders. You don't even need a B.S. anymore to do most programming. Do something that is at your level.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/06
| 2,573
| 10,463
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was discussing the possibility of entering a PhD program from a professor who I had during my masters degree.
We discussed the level of commitment he expected and he stated he expects PhD students to be committed to PhD completion above all else, regardless of subject interest or circumstances on the part of the student. Basically he wanted someone who would 100% be his yes-man.
While I made clear I had a strong interest in the subject(and my prior performance in these areas is reasonably good) I couldn't say without actually entering the program what the result would be. Communicating anything else felt dishonest, basically I had a strong belief but I couldn't make a promise.
Is this position standard for PhD advisors? Basically, is it reasonable to assume someone will be 100% committed to something without experience working on the problem?<issue_comment>username_1: My personal assessment is that the professor is correct. A good PhD student in my opinion is someone who is committed fully to the completion of the thesis, and spends 100% of working hours (and let's face it, even much beyond that) on it. There is no way around it, if one wishes to be a good academic.
Also:
*"expects PhD students to be committed to PhD completion above all else, regardless of subject interest or circumstances on the part of the student. Basically he wanted someone who would 100% be his yes-man.*"
My impression is that the premise of the sentence does not imply anything about being a yes man. It simply means full dedication.
Following clarifications, the Professor did insinuate the candidate he/she should be a yes-man. This is a warning sign, and is unrelated to the question of dedication needed to complete a PhD thesis.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: As often happens in these situations, I'd suspect that a substantial part of the tension is misunderstanding about the meanings of the "expectations". (That there'd be misunderstandings is not surprising, considering that the prof and the student are in very different places in their experiences and their lives, and almost surely attach significantly different connotations to words...)
On one hand, \_of\_course\_ it makes no sense to agree to, as they say, "a pig in a poke", that is, something unknown. Perhaps to gamble, etc., but...
The slightly different remark/question I make to my prospective students is more about "trust", than "compliance". I do try, and do try to explain to students, that the projects I suggest to them are not only potentially fruitful, but tailored if possible to my observations of their tastes and talents.
(In math, in the U.S., at an R1), if I were somehow required to fully justify to a skeptical student the sense/competence of my recommendations to them, I think we'd get nowhere. Certainly in contemporary number theory and automorphic forms and such, there's a huge backstory to be assimilated, and a huge technical "library" to appreciate, before most things are truly intelligible. I cannot impart this to a novice in a conversation.
So, although I do appreciate the genuine intellectual appropriateness of a wish to have things explained (rather than accepting things "on faith"), the situation of "getting a PhD in six years or less" seems to require a significant element of trust...
As in many other human situations.
EDIT: in response to comment... in math, in the U.S., there is in general no immediate research benefit to "having Ph.D. students", or postdocs. That is, there is scant "grunt work" to be done. So taking on PhD students or postdocs is *giving* something... which, in the style of authorship of math in the U.S., will not result in any authorship at all.
So, when/if I take on a student, I have no anticipation of any substantial administrative reward or return. It's because I like helping people learn how to do (to my perception) fairly amazing, cool things. If a student disagrees with me about what is amazing or cool, that's fine, but obvs I can't be an effective advisor.
Also, sometimes... and to my mind these are some of the *best* times (in math), I may have some vague intuition that some line of inquiry would be good. Sure, a student does not have to believe me. But, on the other hand, they should not have me as their advisor if they don't trust my "intuition" based on decades of experience...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It's a bit like the old legends where someone says "Only the pure of heart can enter the castle".
You either think "Yes, I'm pure of heart, I'm going to enter the castle", or you think "Oooh, sounds dangerous: I think I'll give it a miss."
If your professor exaggerates the commitment required, and you still say "yes, I'll do it!", then he knows he'll have a committed candidate. If you think "Ooh, commitment: that's a bit much", then the place remains open to someone else.
Metrics are everything in education these days, and the number of PhD candidates that complete is one metric that can be used to judge the college.
You can make a commitment to the *attempt*: you can't promise to pass.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: This:
>
> he expects PhD students to be committed to PhD completion above all else, regardless of subject interest or circumstances on the part of the student.
>
>
>
is not the same as:
>
> he wanted someone who would 100% be his yes-man.
>
>
>
Commitment and obedience are different things. Also, there's the question of whether what you finish your Ph.D. with exactly the initial formulation of the intended research direction. In many disciplines, you many end up doing something that's merely somewhat related, because you didn't manage to obtain results where you originally expected, or your interests shifted etc. - that still doesn't mean you're not committed to completing the Ph.D.
Irrespective of the above - achieving a Ph.D. is often as much about tenacity as much, or more, than it is about talent or interest. So some sort of "motivation bar" is legitimate (even if not "commitment above all else").
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: When I take on a PhD student, I am investing $10,000s of MY resources, as well as 100s of hours (or 1000s somethimes) of MY time into that indevidual. Not only that, but they probably have a studentship or scholarship of some sort that specifies at least what the general topic of their research will be.
What do I expect in return for this?
1. I expect the student give 100% of their professional effort to this - doing a PhD is not a part time persuit. I expect at least 7 hours a day, 5 days a week. And the acknowledgement that occassionally it is impossbile to avoid having to do more than this. I would not ask for committement "above all else", such as family commitements, or the students own health, for example. I also believe that students should have a life outside of the lab - hobbies etc.
2. I expect students to come with the attitude that they are here to get a PhD. Obviously its impossible to say with 100% certainty that they will complete. I want them to believe that this is what they want to the full extent it is ever possible for a person to know such a thing. They are not here to "try it out" or "see how it goes", they fully *believe* they want to do a PhD. Remember if I give a studentship to you, I am therefore not giving it to someone else. Now it might turn out that is doesn't work out. That this is not the best thing for them. Obviously if they came in *good faith* and this turns out to be the case we will explore together what is in their best interests.
3. I expect a student to study the general area we have agreed they will study. Sometimes an area will not prove to be fruitful, and any change will be agreed between us. Within the topic, I'd like students to have as much freedom as possible to follow what they think are fruitful/intersting directions. I expect them to serious consider my advice on the matter, but I don't expect them to just do what I say, when I say it. That said, experiments, and even computation time, costs money, and I hold the purse strings. Every $ spent on your project is a $ that can't be spent on someone elses project, so I may put my foot down and say "no, I don't believe that is a good use of resources".
---
I'm pretty sure that you'll find that all STEM supervisors have similar ideas about 1 and 2 - there might be variations on how much time they expect. Run a mile from someone who wants to prioritise your PhD above your family - And some might be more dissappointed than others if it doesn't turn out well. But while the details may difer, the general idea will be the same.
Three will be more variable from supervisor to supervisor, and its here that you will want to find a supervisor that fits best with how you see things. Generally the more expensive research in a field is, the less freedom you'll have.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: I think the actual issue here, based on your various comments, is that you don't employ the conventional language of commitment the way that everyone else does. That is leading to a miscommunication because you aren't actually speaking colloquial English (I'm assuming the language you and the professor are using is English), but are using your own, idiosyncratic and highly literal personal language.
If you were to enter into pursuing a PhD with a level of commitment equal to that which a person of serious mind and average morality brings to their marriage, that would be a level of commitment that would satisfy the professor's requirement...and then some. You can, if you choose, be a pedant about it and argue that divorce rates show that people aren't really and truly 100% committed when they enter into their marriages...but that's not how other people discuss the topic, and if you insist on bringing that pedantic outlook to the discussion it's inevitable that you will be misunderstood.
The best way to resolve the problem may be to tell the professor that you believe you will be committed to the PhD program, but that you have a literalist outlook on the entire concept of "100% commitment" that makes you feel like you're lying if you use that expression. Since you say you're in an engineering field, the professor has probably encountered your personality type before and should be able to decode what you actually mean, once you give him this context.
Upvotes: 4
|
2020/06/07
| 1,026
| 4,072
|
<issue_start>username_0: Inspired from [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/150128/when-someone-cites-one-of-your-papers-is-it-a-good-idea-to-send-an-email-to-the), I think the reverse can be an interesting discussion so I will set up an artificial example.
Suppose I cite XYZ in a published or under review paper. I am not affiliated or have had past contact with the author(s), so we are personally unknown to each other. This can also include a passing chat in a conference/ seminar, but certainly not something regular or memorable. For ease, let us assume that the citation is of some importance, i.e. it is a key paper and my work relies on it, or the results/ methodology are related. This, therefore, excludes "lit review" or "professional/ courtesy/ standard" citations. My intentions are honest: I genuinely intend to say "thank you, your work is good and it helped me a lot, feel free to contact me in the future" and do not intend to trade citations, disguise a suggestion (Trojan horse) or have a hidden agenda. I would be happy to discuss further, or end up working with XYZ in the future, but the purpose of the email is **not** that.
Given the above, is it good practice to politely email, Tweet or PM the author(s) with something along the the following lines?
>
> I found your paper XYZ to be interesting and relevant to my work, and I cited it in my recent paper ABC. My paper is related to yours in Way 1, Way 2 and Way 3. I believe you would be happy to know that a colleague found your work to be useful and I took the liberty of contacting you. Please consider me open for future contact and feel free to email me with any thoughts you may have.
>
>
>
If yes, when is that true? Conversely, under which circumstances can such an email be seen as unprofessional, impolite or suspicious? Are such emails considered sound academic/ professional practice, or is there a danger to be misunderstood, appear offensive or seen as having other intentions? Basically, is it a good idea or will it backfire spectacularly?<issue_comment>username_1: I think emailing authors when you find their work particularly interesting or useful is nice, and I'm sure everyone loves to recieve such emails. However, I don't think citation has anything to do with it. That said, I don't think I would ever find it "unprofessional" or suspcicious to recieve such an email.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is not practical to email authors you cite; nevermind the fact that some may have left, may be retired or deceased. Plus, if you have many citations it would be a burden to do just this.
What is more practical is to email *select* active authors, with a copy of your manuscript. I would let these authors draw their own conclusions as to how your work related to theirs. Thus:
>
> Dear Prof. Suchensuch,
> Please find enclosed a copy of my most recent manuscript on *this topic*. I am aware of your recent results in the field and I hope you will find my contribution of interest.
> Kind Regards etc.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I'd worry that you'll come across as trying to obsequiously ingratiate yourself with potential journal referees.
Yes: if you come across relevant prior work you should contact those authors, but you should do that with the aim of having a substantive discussion as early as possible, ideally while you can still incorporate any suggestions into your own project. There shouldn't be any expectations of citations by either party.
With certain types of citation - a "Personal Communication", grey literature or preprint - there may be a reason to contact that author when about to submit your own paper, but in general I think waiting until the last moment - as you seem to be suggesting here - to contact those likely to be considered for refereeing your paper will come across badly and possibly cause conflicts of interest.
Your citation will act as its own reward. If you want to contact people for some other reason, do so for *that* reason.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/07
| 1,363
| 5,277
|
<issue_start>username_0: Think of a tenured (in the US!) professor who asserts something like "Jews are nepotistic" or "Shoot all Muslims and let Allah sort them out" (the latter statement is a real example although better described as xenophobic rather than racist). Assuming that such a professor grades fairly and shows no behaviour in line with those assertions (e.g. attacking Jews or Muslims on the street), are these statements grounds enough for revoking tenure? And does it make a difference if he expresses these opinions
1. in scholarly literature
2. in class
3. on his own social media account
4. in a magazine
5. on the social media account of someone else, perhaps even a /one of his own students.
My understanding is that such opinions are covered by the free speech laws in the US and only in cases where these statements can be reasonably construed as targeted harassment (and happen repeatedly) tenure can be revoked.
I ask because I had an argument with someone that got out of hand because I think that opinions that can be reasonably construed as racist are no grounds for termination.<issue_comment>username_1: Opinions of that sort are usually (minimally) tolerated, and are unlikely to affect tenure unless the opinions cross over into discriminatory actions. There are a few exceptions, but there are also quite a few "distinguished" scholars who held quite [abhorrent opinions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lee_Moore). If you are a renowned scholar in your field, you are safer, of course, than otherwise.
And note that this is a US view and is based not just on general tenure principles but on the first amendment to the Constitution which is also considered here as a factor in such things even when it may not apply in a legal sense. Even private colleges, while not bound by the all of the rules that apply to state and federal governments, are generally required to be accredited (so that students can get grants and loans). They are then bound by the rules of the accrediting agencies, which are, themselves informed by the general principles of the Constitution in the US. Again, there are exceptions but not so many. The exceptions tend to stand out, in fact.
But don't expect to be invited to social events or invited to interact with students if your views (well, their views, actually) imply that you hold prejudices that you are unwilling to overcome.
And the antidote to bad speech is more and better speech.
But yes, harassment is an *action* that can earn you a quick path to the door. So can some more subtle things.
And for tenure decisions of junior faculty, such opinions if expressed are unlikely to win you many votes. But that is pre-tenure.
A friend/colleague of mine was once fired for speaking out against the Vietnam War. The decision was very political and the university was widely condemned throughout academia for the action.
It is also important to note that the fundamental purpose of [tenure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure) is to permit scholars to hold and express [unpopular views](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei). I'll argue that if you can be fired for speech alone, then you may hold *tenure in name* but you don't hold *tenure in fact*.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: There are [four common reasons](http://higheredprofessor.com/2017/08/07/can-tenured-faculty-member-fired/) for tenured professors to be fired:
1. **Incompetence**. Used here in the more general sense of the word, it means that if the tenured professor is no longer able to carry out his or her duties - for example if he or she becomes vegetative after an accident - then they can be fired.
2. **Negligence**. If the professor is able to do the work, but does not do it, then it could qualify as negligence. For example if the professor decides to go on vacation during semester, thereby leaving the students without instruction, he/she could be fired.
3. **Immoral conduct**. If the professor sexually harasses a student, commits a (serious) crime like robbery, or violates academic norms (e.g. plagiarism), he/she could be fired.
4. **Financial exigency**. If the university runs out of money for whatever reason, it can fire professors.
Holding unpopular opinions don't come under any of these four reasons. The most one could argue is that it's immoral, but that would be hard to defend since not everyone agrees that racist/xenophobic behavior is wrong. After all it was pretty common to have racist/xenophobic behavior in the past or even today.
**But**: it has happened in the past. Professor <NAME> of Stanford University was effectively fired by <NAME>, one of Stanford's founders, back in 1900. Ross expressed some violently racist opinions of Asians. His firing was controversial, and he was defended by many academics who viewed the dismissal as arising from political reasons and therefore a violation of academic freedom. You can read more about it in articles like [this one](https://stanfordmag.org/contents/watch-your-words-professor). I would venture that if Ross lived today he'd be less likely to be forced out, but it'd be within the realm of possibility, and regardless of whether he's fired or not it would still be controversial.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/07
| 580
| 2,462
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm almost at the end of my research dissertation for my MSc program and my results could not prove any improvement in the techniques already well established. I relied too much on a paper talking about some interesting application and results but when I went deeper to apply the technique in a more careful and thorough way, it appeared to be flawed. I still think I did a great deal of work to reach these results and I learnt a lot during my path. Should I try to fix it or just show what I got?<issue_comment>username_1: While your advisor can probably help, don't misunderstand the purpose and process of research. It isn't making some unsupported claim at the beginning and then "proving" (dammit) that your claim was accurate. Research is a reach into the unknown. The answers you get depend on what is, not on what you want them to be.
You are actually seeking knowledge (truth), not verification. If the results of your research *disprove* your original hypothesis that is still a valid result.
If your "new" technique isn't actually better than the old, then it is useful (maybe vital) to know that.
In an ideal world you should be able to write that up. We hypothesized X. We used process Y to explore it. We found no evidence that X is true. That is still knowledge.
Hopefully, however, your advisor has such a view. And hopefully your process Y was sufficiently sophisticated that you haven't fallen in to easy errors.
If every hypothesis came up with positive (supporting) results, we wouldn't be working very hard and only making trivial initial hypotheses.
But, start out with "what is true here" rather than "this is true and I'll beat it until it yields". That leads to propaganda and isn't research. It is often the basis of misconduct. Tobacco and pesticide "research" too often fall into such errors.
So, it isn't "bad" at all if you reach truth.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: #### It's not bad at all
That sounds like a nice piece of research to me. You tried a new method to do something, and found out it doesn't work as well as the existing methods. Useful stuff. Write up your results and be honest about the outcome; see if you can explain/hypothesise why your new method didn't work as well as you were hoping. That research will be really helpful for anyone else who comes along and wants to develop this new method along similar or different lines to you.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/07
| 2,762
| 11,654
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am preparing a presentation in LaTeX and got **at least seven pages** for references only.
In general, as far as I know, a "thank you" slide of a presentation is the termination slide of the presentation, i.e., it comes at the end after references.
Since my presentation part, which demands explanation, ends with a page before starting of references, *and I got a long list of references*, is it okay to keep my "thank you" slide before references?<issue_comment>username_1: Don't even think about going through seven slides of references. Put them in a separate handout or web link. Make the thank you slide the last (or next to last, if you are going to ask for questions).
If you want the references on slides so you have just one document, put them at the end and don't visit them.
**Addition:** Many commenters note that "thank you" might not be the best way to end your presentation. Consider verbal thanks and just your conclusions on the final slide, perhaps with a request for questions.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Do not include 7 slides of references, that is absolutely no-go. A usual way to show references is at the bottom of the slide they reference (it is easier to find and match with the referenced content anyway).
I personally do not like 'Thank you' slide to the audience, I would thank the audience after I said a few words on the Acknowledgements slide.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: **On the references** As expressed by other posters, seven slides of references sound like an overkill. Though, if the underlying reason to dwell on the references is sound, as it may well be:
* I would suggest to choose a *graphical format*. A graph showing the cross-citations or a timeline could be useful. This gives the backdrop to your own story on why the references are important, other than plainly numerous.
* Another option is to add a textual slide *commenting on the references*: that they are, say, 200; they date from those periods; they have been published in such and such journals or proceedings; a quick kind of meta analysis, that is. That could actually be intriguing.
**On the closing slide** I have long since stopped to put the final *thank-you-for-your-attention* and/or *any-questions?* slide. Rather:
* I say that in spoken words facing the audience, which is a much more open and inviting gesture.
* My last slide contains the conclusions, so that the audience can replay in their mind the whole presentation and have handles for questions to ask.
* I had acknowledged co-workers and helpful people at the beginning: kind of *this work comes into existence thanks to institutions and people*.
Perhaps also others see a benefit in doing so.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: There is no real reason to add a thank you slide. You can simply thank the audience yourself and use something much better instead.
The most useful thing you can have as the last slide of a presentation is a summary of results or important points, preferably in the form of bullets.
I do not show or use reference slides in my presentations but add one at the end without putting it on the screen, just in case someone asks for it. 7 (seven!) slides is unheard of. The citations in the presentation are enough, since most people remember papers by names and date rather than titles.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: While most other comments say including 7 slides of references is a terrible idea, I don't think it's nearly as bad if handled properly. It's a very bad idea to try to discuss these slides in any sort of detail, that much is true. But if you just quickly flip through them - giving the audience enough time to skim but not to read - there is not much of a down-side. Better still would be to *not* actually go through these slides during the talk, just leave them there for the benefit of anyone who asks you to share the slides, or so that you can more easily answer questions about references during the Q&A.
In any case when I think using the many reference slides is appropriate, I think it's absolutely fine (and even preferred) to include the "Thank You!" slide before them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: When I create a presentation in which I anticipate that there will be a lot of questions, I put a blank slide in at the end (to indicate I'm done). But, in addition to the slides in the presentation, I create slides that address the questions and discussion that I hope will follow my presentation.
I can remember one presentation where I was told that I was limited to 5 slides and 10-15 minutes (it was not academic, it was a presentation to senior decision makers at a company). I presented my 5 slides, and the questions started. I ended up using most (not quite all) of my additional 43 slides, and the questions went on for more than a half hour. The more you prepare, the more you can impress your audience.
Oh,... *Skip the references slides.* You can leave them in the deck (in case someone asks), but don't show them.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: Presentation is a show. Presentation shall be catchy. Presentations are there to sell the presenter's products. Presentations are fluent, one-way only. From the ouverture to the grand finale.
In academia you are selling your results, your department, your research. The show here is not fancy, full of fireworks and othe ballast, but it is still a show.
Long lists of anything is a show killer, references doubly so. You want the audience's attention and curiosity first, then you can comunicate your results. You can back your claims thoroughly later; on stage you want to talk about your contribution, not the others'.
If you need to show references and citations, do it at the time you talk about it. No one cares for referencing idea two minutes ago. A footnote is appropriate. You don't mention it in your speech but they who will read your slides later will fing the reference in eyblink; if you would be asked, you can show both your claim and the reference in Q&A minutes.
Another trick is to have couple of uncounted slides with extras. Bigger graphs, detailed images, claims and references - just in case. You can build your presentation in beamer, build your supporting appendix and merge the pdfs. I think you can trick the LaTeX/beamer by using `\label{TheLastpage}` and `\thepage/\pageref{TheLastPage}`.
---
Sidenote: I think this is your first presentation. Try the presentation many times. Try to present it to your friends/colleagues even pets or a rubber duck.
Make yourself comfortable, find the structure, language and pace you are comfortable with (and fit within the time limit).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: I would recommend adding a "Thank you for your attentention. Are there questions?" slide before the references.
Most people will not want to see seven slides of references. But most people would not read one, either.
Keep the references slides, so you can show a reference when somebody asks for a reference that were mentioned in your slides, but do not force the audience to read slides that are too full of text to memorize them or take notes in a short time anyway.
In addition, the references are very useful when you give out the slides as handout or put them online after the talk and they just belong to a scientific talk, even when you only show them when needed.
In addition I would suggest citing important sources on the slides where you mention them like
```
"As shown by Miller et al. 2016 [7], we can use ..."
```
This username_8ws the audience to take a note, so they *can* ask you to show the references slide so they can take a note what paper [7] is, when they are really interested. Otherwise they will at least remember "Miller et al. 2016" and have a chance to find the paper themself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: My group tends to work from a set of common templates that have "Thank You/Any Questions?" slides at the end by default. The same thing ends up happening in almost every presentation: someone asks a question and the presenter rewinds to a previous slide in order to answer it. The "Thank You" slide is only visible for as long as it takes to ask the first question, then never seen again. It contains the same amount of relevant information as the black "End of Presentation" screen that PowerPoint displays after the last slide (that is, zero). For those reasons, it really serves no purpose.
Some of the better presentations I've seen will anticipate the sort of questions that might be asked based on the audience and their background. The presenter builds a final "Summary" slide that includes some graphs, photos, key statistics, formulas, etc. and is able to use the content of that slide to answer many of the questions.
Another technique is often used for presentations that are being video-recorded and archived. Instead of a "Thank You" type slide, the video feed simply switches away from the slideshow and cuts back to the video camera that's pointing at the presenter. This has the added benefit of helping focus the viewer's attention back on the presenter, which is where it typically should be during a question-and-answer session.
To specifically answer your question: yes, it's perfectly OK to keep a "Thank You" slide in the presentation. It may not be your *best* option for an ending, however.
Side note: Most slideshow software has the ability to place "extra" slides beyond the end of the slideshow. They will not be shown when progressing through the presentation normally, but the presenter can manually navigate to these slides and they can be seen when not in presentation mode. This is usually where presenters add extra content that will be of interest to some of your listeners but is too detailed to go over during the presentation itself. A "References" section falls into this category.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: >
> I am preparing a presentation in LaTeX and got at least seven pages for references only.
>
>
>
I suppose you use [beamer](https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Beamer) and/or [advi](http://advi.inria.fr/manual.html) to show your presentation. You would use [bibtex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX) for references.
**If it is a formal presentation** (think of some PhD defense, or some CS conference) and if you intend to *publish* that presentation (at least as a [PDF](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF) file, perhaps as a `*.tex` one) on some web site, **then providing seven pages (with hyperlinks) of references is definitely worthwhile**, and is a material for questions.
### If you don't intend to publish your presentation (or if that presentation is informal) seven pages of references is really too much.
[These slides](http://refpersys.org/Starynkevitch-CAIA-RefPerSys-2020mar06.pdf) are a recent example. Many references (but inside the slides, not at end) given as hyperlinks.
Some conferences are requiring a particular and given [*beamer*](https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Beamer) style.
**Most important for an important formal presentation** (such as a PhD defense): **repeat that presentation several times.** Like every movie or theater actor do.
You won't have time to talk about 7 pages of references.
--------------------------------------------------------
You may keep them to prepare for questions.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: I would make a references page with a QR code on it leading to a google docs file / website... with the references on it. Leave this page 30 sec in the presentation and then go on with your thank you page.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/08
| 2,442
| 10,765
|
<issue_start>username_0: Dear Academia Community,
I am a young PhD candidate biostatistician and the lead data analyzer for a particular medical group's project. For context, the project is led by two medical students, who are under the guidance of MD physician professors. The two students came to me directly to statistically analyze all of their data. Happy to help, I eagerly dove straight in and churned out all of the data analysis, key figures, and graphs for these students. Normally, this project would take at least a month of analyses and work, but I was excited to help them finish in only 2 weeks because of their time request. Throughout their project, I helped consult with them on data interpretation as well.
After giving all my data analysis and interpretation, the two medical students never consulted for my help again and felt no need for me to contribute to the writing of the paper, even though I explicitly said that I want to help write the statistics portion of their paper. There was a period of silence after the last email, in which the two students said they were busy with their clinical work, and said they will reach back to me soon. As the naive trustworthy lad I am, I waited for them patiently. Later down the beeline, they get back to me to tell me their research paper was published. I was very shocked by this sudden announcement. They never even told me about this. Going into the paper, I find that 100% of their data graphs and figures were made by me. I am simply acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section, and I am very disappointed that I was not even added as an Author. I understand that 1st and 2nd author would be unreasonable, but still feel that my contributions should at least be rewarded with some authorship. I feel very misled by these two medical students, as they didn't even communicate with me that they were already writing the research paper. I am feeling a mix of emotions right now - mostly, frustration and sadness that all this work went into nothing. I also feel disrespected as a statistician - statistics consultation and data analysis are not easy - these students and many whom I've worked with believe that these data/figures/charts can be churned out quickly, with just a plug and chug after writing some 'code' or analyzing data. Little do they know, there is a lot of work going behind the scenes with creating the code, data management and cleaning, and analytics.
I would like to ask for your guys' advice. I know that I was not able to contribute to the writing of the paper because of the nature of the situation, but I still feel that my many data analysis contributions (and ALL OF THEIR GRAPHS/FIGURES) should at least be acknowledged with authorship, rather than an acknowledgment. How should I approach this situation? Also, in the future, how should I go about asking that I be included for "authorship" before accepting a project? I've become very jaded from this experience. I thank you for your time everyone.
New Update: Thank you everyone, for your answers, advice, and feedback. I decided to contact my supervisor and the med students' physician supervisor for a group meeting. We're still in the midst of the talks of possibly retracting the paper to include my name and resubmit. It also turns out that the physician supervisor did not know the extent of my work when the med students submitted the paper. Only that they "acknolwedged SW's contributions of statistical analysis." Apparently, the students had only told him that someone was helping the statistics and that was all; perhaps, the supervising professor was just very busy and did not think of this very much (of the absence of my authorship) before submission.
During prior interactions with the 2 students, I also realize how stupid of me to just take the 2 students' verbal word that the physician knew about my contributions - they also never copied in the supervisor's name during our email exchanges. Nevertheless, I would like to remain positive that they were not doing this out of any malice, but rather the students do not know very much of the etiquette and norms of academic research. This was also their first research project, and the group has apologized to me.
Anyhow, the possibility of my authorship is still up in the air in terms of talking to the journal, etc. But I have certainly learned several lessons, including discussing authorship before I contribute anything. I would like to thank everyone again for their thoughts, advice, and words of comfort as well.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm sorry this happened to you. It is, unfortunately, all too common for those of us that have vital skills that are asked to contribute to research initated by others.
What can be done at this stage? There are only realistically three options:
1. The paper is retracted. Its possible it could be submitted for publication again with you as an author, but this would be a long an uncertain processes.
2. A correction is issued. This would be associated with the paper, but the authorship line in many databases would not change. See this case here: <https://publicationethics.org/case/late-introduction-omitted-author-after-online-publishing>
3. You can accept the situation as it is, perhaps with an appology, learn from the situation, and try to prevent it happening again.
I would start by contacting the corresponsding author of the paper, whether that is one of the students, or their supervisor. Explain that you did all the analysis, every graph in the paper is one you created. More than that, you should explain what your intellectual contribution was. State what your desired outcome is.
If writing to the corresponding author fails you could try *their* superior, be that the supervisor, or the chair of the department.
It is possible that you could make a formal complaint of research misconduct agains the students if you wished. You would probably start by contacting the journal editor, but they would likely reffer it to the institution for a misconduct investigation. I would think carefully before doing this, and certainly not do it until all other avenues have been explored.
In future, the lesson to learn is that however unpleasent it feels at the time, you must make sure you agree authorship before you embark on any analysis for someone else. If someone is reluctant, it probably means they don't understand your skills, and thus these are people you don't want to work with.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I would feel cheated in your shoes as well. But note that your contribution may not entirely satisfy what eg. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors define as qualifying for authorship [1](http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html):
>
> Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
>
>
> Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
>
>
> Final approval of the version to be published; AND
>
>
> Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
>
>
>
Your contribution fits the first bullet, and that is not enough. But this should not have been. On the same link, it is explicitly stated that
>
> ...all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.
>
>
>
I would recommend that you write a polite, yet firm, email to the corresponding author - and their supervisor, if it is one of the students - saying that you don't think you have had a fair chance to obtain authorship. You can refer to your previous correspondence with the students. There are two things you could obtain from this, make it clear what you want:
1. An apology, and if sincere, an opportunity for future collaboration.
2. The nuclear option: A retraction of the manuscript, and a re-submission with your name on it which, all things said, is quite unrealistic. If this fails, contact their institution (as also stated in the guidelines), rather than the journal. The journal will rightly say that sorting out authorship issues is not their responsibility. The question then becomes whether the authors would rather deal with a retraction and re-submission, or an internal case regarding academic dishonesty. With this route, you can forget about ever collaborating with these people again.
The lesson to learn, is to never touch another persons' analysis until you have an explicit agreement regarding either a) authorship, or b) payment as a consultant. This may sound harsh, but it is the only way to make sure your skills are valued. The world is full of people who would like you to do their work for them for free.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: On the basis of what you have described, you should have been included as an author on the paper. Regardless of the amount of time you spent on the project, you **produced some of the figures that directly appeared in the paper**. Leaving you off the author list is particularly egregious as you are yourself a student dependent on fair acknowledgement of your work, not a company or core facility providing a service.
However, sometimes junior researchers (in this case the medical students) are ignorant or careless when it comes to issues of authorship, rather than deliberately malicious. Therefore I would recommend against directly contacting the journal or trying to have the paper retracted (these are nuclear options).
If I was in your situation, I would:
* **Discuss the the issue with your supervisor**, who may be able to give a more accurate appraisal of your level of contribution etc., or even to resolve the issue informally.
* Contact the corresponding author on the paper (either directly or via your supervisor) describing your contribution to the paper, and why you believe you should have been included on the author list. **Include a list or annotated manuscript showing all your figures and analyses that appear in the paper.**
* Say that you realise this was probably an oversight, but that you would like them to **issue a correction** adding you to the author list. Such corrections are not uncommon, and would not in any way damage the paper.
In future, it is of course ideal to discuss authorship in advance of doing work - but in reality this is not always possible. Projects change, and your contribution may end up being more or less than what you originally planned.
Upvotes: 4
|
2020/06/08
| 762
| 3,296
|
<issue_start>username_0: Does writing to a Department Chair always have to result in a grievance and/or official investigation, or does the Chair ever help the parties work things out?
I had originally posed this question with student-faculty conflicts in mind, but I guess it could apply to faculty-faculty or student-student conflicts as well.<issue_comment>username_1: At my university, official grievances must be handled in a seriously cumbersome way. I think the same is true of most other universities. So a department chair is strongly motivated to try to mediate or otherwise solve such problems before they reach the level of official grievances.
I've never had the misfortune of chairing my department\*, but I've served in several associate chair posts. (We have four associate chair positions, and I've held three of them.) In one, my duties included handling student complaints about faculty teaching. None of those complaints became formal grievances, and I think none resulted in any comments in the instructor's file, but I certainly did have serious discussions with some "culprits", and I believe this was sufficient to solve the problems.
---
* To be precise, on two occasions, when the chair was away at a conference, I was appointed "acting chair" for a week or so, to deal with any issues that couldn't be handled by the staff and couldn't wait for the chair's return. Fortunately, there were no such issues.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I was a department chair, and your question doesn’t really make sense from my point of view. A department chair gets hundreds of emails every week, and on average approximately zero of them result in a grievance or an official investigation. Of course, most of them don’t involve a conflict between a student and a professor. But that’s certainly something that happens once in a while. Chairs get emails complaining about all sorts of things. Some of those complaints are trivial or petty, others are more serious. The chair will typically make at least a small effort to find the facts and reply to the email, or refer the complaint to someone else for more thorough handling.
I understand you’re trying to understand if your chair’s behavior was atypical. But your question as it currently stands is unanswerable, except in the trivial (and unhelpful) sense that the answer is “no, not all emails to a department chair result in a grievance”. Not all emails are created equal, and it’s possible that given the specific nature of your complaint and your institution’s policies, your chair’s response would have been completely normal and appropriate.
As for helping the parties resolve the conflict, yes, sometimes that might happen in a limited way, but a department chair is not a therapist or arbitrator, and usually is much too busy to spend an extended amount of time on helping people get along who aren’t getting along. If you want to succeed in academia or a similar professional environment, I recommend that you adopt the mindset that it’s your job to manage conflict with other people on your own, rather than expecting that a department chair or other figure of authority will come to your rescue when things go south. Because as a general rule, such an expectation would be highly unrealistic.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/06/08
| 894
| 3,613
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is the [Octogon Mathematical Magazine](https://www.uni-miskolc.hu/~matsefi/Octogon_pre/index.php?menu=home) still accepting paper submissions?
The latest contents in the [Archive section](https://www.uni-miskolc.hu/~matsefi/Octogon_pre/index.php?menu=archive) is Volume 20. No. 1 April, 2012, though I am not particularly sure if this website is updated (or if this is even the *correct website* that I should be looking at).
I did check [WorldCat](https://www.worldcat.org/title/octogon-mathematical-magazine) and it appears that the journal is still in print.
>
> Is **Octogon Mathematical Magazine** indeed still in print?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: At my university, official grievances must be handled in a seriously cumbersome way. I think the same is true of most other universities. So a department chair is strongly motivated to try to mediate or otherwise solve such problems before they reach the level of official grievances.
I've never had the misfortune of chairing my department\*, but I've served in several associate chair posts. (We have four associate chair positions, and I've held three of them.) In one, my duties included handling student complaints about faculty teaching. None of those complaints became formal grievances, and I think none resulted in any comments in the instructor's file, but I certainly did have serious discussions with some "culprits", and I believe this was sufficient to solve the problems.
---
* To be precise, on two occasions, when the chair was away at a conference, I was appointed "acting chair" for a week or so, to deal with any issues that couldn't be handled by the staff and couldn't wait for the chair's return. Fortunately, there were no such issues.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I was a department chair, and your question doesn’t really make sense from my point of view. A department chair gets hundreds of emails every week, and on average approximately zero of them result in a grievance or an official investigation. Of course, most of them don’t involve a conflict between a student and a professor. But that’s certainly something that happens once in a while. Chairs get emails complaining about all sorts of things. Some of those complaints are trivial or petty, others are more serious. The chair will typically make at least a small effort to find the facts and reply to the email, or refer the complaint to someone else for more thorough handling.
I understand you’re trying to understand if your chair’s behavior was atypical. But your question as it currently stands is unanswerable, except in the trivial (and unhelpful) sense that the answer is “no, not all emails to a department chair result in a grievance”. Not all emails are created equal, and it’s possible that given the specific nature of your complaint and your institution’s policies, your chair’s response would have been completely normal and appropriate.
As for helping the parties resolve the conflict, yes, sometimes that might happen in a limited way, but a department chair is not a therapist or arbitrator, and usually is much too busy to spend an extended amount of time on helping people get along who aren’t getting along. If you want to succeed in academia or a similar professional environment, I recommend that you adopt the mindset that it’s your job to manage conflict with other people on your own, rather than expecting that a department chair or other figure of authority will come to your rescue when things go south. Because as a general rule, such an expectation would be highly unrealistic.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/06/08
| 438
| 1,954
|
<issue_start>username_0: We have submitted an article in a finance journal ( ABDC rank A) more than one year ago. After around 6 months they sent us the review of two reviewers where one reviewer reject the paper with few correction suggestions and another gave relatively good comments with additional correction suggestions. Hence the editor asked for revise and resubmission and also mention that if we comply with the reviewer's comments, he will personally read that article. Accordingly, we revise and resubmit that paper. It has been 7 months since our resubmission and they still do not give any feedback. Since I am a Ph.D. student, such a long review process is hurting my Ph.D. process. Can anyone suggest me what should be my action in this regard? Should I send the editor an email? If the editor does not respond even after that email, should I withdraw that paper from that journal?<issue_comment>username_1: If you haven't heard anything for seven months it is certainly time to send the editor an email and ask for a status update. There might be valid reasons for a long delay, but it has been a long time.
Don't threaten to withdraw, as it will probably have no positive effect, but you can certainly say that the delay is affecting your prospects of completion.
But only withdraw if you have a better option. Starting over in the process with another journal may be good or bad and I can't guess which.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My own probably unpopular opinion: I don't think 7 months is that long, and under the current environment of busy academics, many submissions and few reviewers, the need to read *very carefully* and verify the manuscript, etc. it is certainly reasonable not to get your 2nd round of reviews after seven months.
That is how science works, slow.
That said, you can of course explain your personal situation to the editor politely and ask them about the matter.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/08
| 615
| 2,667
|
<issue_start>username_0: During my study or even phd I had no chances to draw up a paper as a main author. Reasons do not matter here.
Now I'm already in the industry for a while and I wonder why not preparing some papers based on my phd. I have no external pressure or goal or whatever so I would only do this to simplify other's life. They can probably also figure out on their own but when somebody already did.. in principle it is already published through my phd but.. yeah, published through my university's library, so no one will ever know.
However, the work touches mainly the application of some optimization problems to make use of in a kind of an engineering field. I myself come from the (experimental) particle physics.
So, which journals do make sense?
Computer science/Mathematics not really because I barely improved the optimization problem itself. At least not on a theoretical level. Depends on the pov.
Particle physics not because it is not about particle physics. The devices are just used there. Well, they are used there very often but originally it from solid physics/electrical engineering (photodiodes) and I didn't improve the devices themselves anyway.
Electrical engineering not because I didn't take into account any circuits or similar.
My supervisors were two experimental physics professors, a maths professor as well as a computer scientist professor (who is also a mathematician). Just in case it matters.
So what's left? And/or which journals make sense?
Despite from that: Can I just contact some certain journals and ask whether it makes sense to set up a paper before I take up all the effort for it?<issue_comment>username_1: The following websites may help you find appropriate journals for your manuscript.
<http://jane.biosemantics.org/>
<https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Considering you are talking about publishing papers based on PhD content it would be usual in most STEM fields for your doctoral supervisor(s) to be involved in this. As such, one or all of them would be worth discussing this question with as they're likely to have the best read on what / where is appropriate. At the very least they should be able to consult with or introduce you to a colleague more familiar with your specific work direction. That said it would be sensible to consider where your dissertation / lit review sources were published, as suggested in the comments, and to come up with some possible choices of your own before approaching your former supervisors
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Also WOS Master Journal List from Clarivate
<https://mjl.clarivate.com/home>
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/08
| 932
| 3,959
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently received an email from the editor manager of the journal. In this email, they mentioned, because of unforeseen circumstances, they need to cancel their request.
I am really confused because I spent a lot of time reviewing the article and I don't know why they did that.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't see an ethical issue here. It wasn't very courteous, of course, to not give you any reason at all. They could have just let you submit it and then buried it, I suppose. But it might have been done to save you some work if you weren't ready to submit it yet.
They have probably made some editorial decision that makes your review moot. I can't predict what that would be, but more likely a flat reject. Or possibly the paper was withdrawn by the author(s).
And neither is it very courteous to the author(s) unless it was withdrawn.
If you want an action item, write back that you've nearly completed the review and that you can send it along and that it might be useful to the authors.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Is it ethical for journal to cancel accepted review request before deadline?
>
>
>
In some circumstances, it would be ethically required to cancel the review request. The editor has avoided wasting more of your time by cancelling the request.
"Unforseen circumstances" probably means the authors withdrew the manuscript.
Canceling a review request can also occur when another reviewer has submitted a review which ensures the manuscript cannot be published.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: A journal I handled once received a paper which was proceeding as normal, except one of the reviews came back very quickly. The reviewer said he had firsthand knowledge that the author was not behaving ethically, and had submitted the manuscript without the consent of his co-authors, who in fact did not think the manuscript was publishable. When I saw that, I wrote to all the other reviewers telling them effectively what your editorial manager told you, and desk rejected the paper.
It's obviously a less than ideal solution and it's possible some of the other reviewers have wasted their time, but what else should (could) I have done? The alternative would be to let the reviewers finish the reviews and then desk reject anyway, which wastes even more time (for both reviewers & authors).
Therefore I see it as ethical, if only because the other option is even worse.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: To give an unorthodox answer: if you're unhappy that you spent time reviewing the paper, and feel frustrated that the review request was canceled, one idea would be to look around the Web to check whether the paper you were reviewing has been posted publicly online as a preprint.
If it is, then in principle you could have discovered and read it by yourself. So you could try to use the reviewing work you already did to some benefit, e.g.:
* give some private feedback to the authors (e.g., if you found mistakes, to point out relevant work, etc.); or
* post an open review of the paper somewhere, in the spirit of [open peer review](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review)
Of course, some additional efforts may be needed: reviewing for a journal anonymously is not the same as directly contacting the authors or posting the review publicly in your name. So you'd have to work more on this, which you'd have to see if you are interested in doing.
To be fair, what I'm proposing here is somewhat unconventional, so maybe there are reasons not to do it. But in my opinion, if you already did substantial work on the review, it'd be a shame to have it go to waste and these are options to put it to some use.
(Come to think of it, what happened to you is a pretty good reason to only accept to review work which is publicly available as a preprint, so as to ensure in advance that your work won't become useless if the request is rescinded.)
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/08
| 581
| 2,269
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recruited N participants for an eye tracking study and had to reject the data of 3 participants because of bad recording quality or technical issues.
* Where should I report that the data for 3 of the participants was rejected? Up front in the "Participants" section? Or later, such as in the Results section?
* In the paper abstract, do I report the larger N, or the smaller N - 3 as the number of participants?
A useful piece of information is that I am still using questionnaire data for the 3 participants that had bad recordings. Still, most of the results are about eye tracking data. All the participants consented to having different types of data used in the study.<issue_comment>username_1: It is very simple: you just need to (1) be honest and (2) explain clearly what you did, just like in the question you are asking here.
The explanation why there are two different values of N belongs in the "Methods" or "Participants" section. But it will most likely be necessary to add (N=...) in a few other places in the paper (eg. in figures), to make sure that there is no confusion over which of the two was used.
To mention N in the abstract, if you have to choose between the two, the lower value would be preferred (in general, people like modesty and statisticians like to "err on the side of caution").
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Put it in the participants section. Here's an [example](https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/04/aa36602-19/aa36602-19.html) of a similar situation from an astronomy paper. Quote from section 2, titled "Sample Selection".
>
> We reduced these 331 available observations, analyzed them and extracted cluster properties as described below ... The final sample we use for this paper consists of 313 galaxy clusters. The other 18 clusters are not used because of the following reasons. Firstly, we excluded 11 clusters from our analysis that we identified as apparent multiple systems (out of a total of 15) ...
>
>
>
In the abstract, use the small number (N-3). The abstract of this paper says:
>
> ...To do so, we used 313 homogeneously selected X-ray galaxy clusters from the Meta-Catalogue of X-ray detected Clusters of galaxies.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/08
| 1,160
| 4,181
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm working on a chemistry paper about the [Belousov-Zhabotinsky-reaction](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26872038_B_P_Belousov_and_his_reaction) (a chemical oscillator).
I included some information about the history of that oscillation reaction, in particular about [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Pavlovich_Belousov) and [Anatol Markovich Zhabotinskii](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Zhabotinsky).
<NAME> was the first to discover the Belousov-Zhabotinsky-reaction (BZ-reaction), whilst Zhabotinsky later continued Belousovs research. See also [this question](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/59675/did-boris-pavlovich-belousov-die-in-1970-or-1976?noredirect=1#comment181266_59675).
In the paper ['An Analysis of the Belousov-Zhabotinskii Reaction'](https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/rhumj/vol3/iss1/1/) I read the following:
>
> <NAME> was born in Russia during the 19th century
> and was one of five children. His older brother first interested
> Belousov in science while constructing an explosive to assasinate the
> Czar. (It should be noted that they were unsuccessful in this
> attempt.)
>
>
>
I'm trying to check the fact if it is true that Belousov become interested in science because of constructing an explosive with his brother. I searched on the internet, but can't find an other source that confirms or denies this. Neither does the paper where I read this give sources for the claim.
On Google I can only sporadic find a link to a website that (presumably) says it, but I've (till now) always encountered 404-pages, so I've not been able to thoroughly check it.
Should I reject this and not include it in my work?
Or is it acceptable to use it, if I include the source correctly?
Something like:
>
> According to ...., Belousov became interested in science when
> constructing an explosive with his brother to assassinate the czar.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: I don't see any problems with including a possibly apocryphal story in a scientific paper if you correctly note sources. It adds a bit of human interest to your paper. As long as your wording doesn't imply that you have confirmed the story it should be fine. Your point is "interested Belousov in science", not "interested Belousov in revolution".
Not an earth shaking decision, though. It might depend on the tone of the rest of your historical background.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It’s useful to consider the potential harm in making a wrong decision of either kind here. If you don’t mention the historical anecdote in your paper but it’s actually true, readers won’t miss out on much, and in any case won’t be actively misled — after all, you’re not claiming the anecdote never happened, you’re just not mentioning it at all. Those readers who want to learn about <NAME>’s life can still go and look for additional credible information about him. Presumably they will run into this anecdote. And your paper is in any case a science paper and not a history paper, so no one can accuse you of depriving anyone of critical information.
By contrast, if you mention the anecdote but it’s not historically substantiated, you do a great harm to your readers and to Belousov himself by helping to perpetuate a fallacious myth about him. The harm caused by this type of mistake is much greater in my opinion.
Another thing to consider is the credibility of the source and the level of scholarship that backs up the paper’s contents. The author of the paper you linked appears to be a high school student, and the journal it’s published in is a journal with low standards whose specific mission is to publish the work of budding researchers who don’t yet have a bachelor’s degree. The author doesn’t give a specific reference for the source of this anecdote, making it unverifiable. That’s not good practice, and it may reflect poorly on you to cite such a source without warning your readers about its potential lack of credibility if you rely on it for any information you were not able to verify from other sources.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2020/06/08
| 1,746
| 7,448
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently doing a postdoc in mathematics in Europe (staying vague for anonymity...). For various reasons I am seriously considering leaving academia at the end of my current postdoc, which ends in a few months. I have some teaching/supervision left to do, but very little. My postdoc is a more research-focused postdoc, but not within any specific project, I am free to work on whatever projects interest me.
For the last few months I have been feeling *extremely* unmotivated to do anything related to my research. No one seems to care whether I'm doing something or not and it will most likely not have any impact whatsoever on my future career outside of academia anyway. The coronavirus situation with the requirements to work from home obviously didn't improve the situation, as I lost the peer pressure of having office mates so I don't even feel the need to pretend that I'm working anymore. Yet I am of course still being paid, but it makes me feel quite bad to be paid for doing essentially nothing.
I guess I am looking for advice for how to feel better, either by regaining some motivation, or simply by hearing that it is ok to not do research (or any other kind of related work) if I don't feel like it. I'm not sure if it's a form of the impostor syndrome, but I definitely feel like a fraud for not working and still getting a salary...<issue_comment>username_1: A Postdoc position is a starting path to an academic life. Since you say that you are not planning to continue in academia there is nothing indeed that compels you to work hard, or work at all, during your postdoc, and certainly not under the current epidemic situation. So basically, I would simply sit at home, relax and enjoy (possibly try out a Netflix binge).
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Ethically speaking, you should quit. It's fine to find that non-academic job you want first.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Research is a very non-linear process, where long stretches of work may produce not much of value (even though *you* have learned a lot!).
If you're planning on leaving academia this presents a problem, because you might not actually produce anything before you leave, and it's understandably difficult to motivate yourself to work on something you plan on dropping midway through.
Therefore, I would advise you to focus on projects that are likely to pay off before you leave. Of course without specifics it's hard to come up with examples, but I'll take a crack anyway.
* Find a colleague who can benefit from your expertise and help them out.
* Reach out and see if you can give some talks about the research you've already completed.
* Volunteer and take over some teaching from a colleague.
* Expand your (digital) office hours.
Lastly, you've probably spent a good amount of free time doing research anyway, so I wouldn't feel too bad about taking the occasional workday off to do something other than work. (Perhaps figure out what you're going to be doing next.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Remember this: you are not merely 'working from home' - you are sent home from your place of work, trying to cope with a pandemic. If you manage to actually work 40 hours a week during this period, that is of course great, but it is not your main concern. Your main concern is staying healthy.
One thing I have had several former colleagues transitioning to industry do, was to pick up a small research project which would require them to learn or improve a skill, which could be useful in their future career. In my field, the go-to skill these days is machine learning, and people have had no difficulties to come up with a research project which would require them to use that extensively. Maybe something similar could be a solution in your case.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: It is *not* ok to not be working and still be getting a salary, unless explicitly agreed with your employer. A lot of academia is built on immense amounts of trust, largely unheard of in industry, and relies on the fact that most academics are self-driven, so that it would cost more resources to police them than would be saved. This is the general answer, and it applies equally outside of global lockdowns.
But these are tough times, and there are plenty of people who are finding that they were relying on a stimulating environment to be productive. A good line manager should try to help you through these times. Thus, you should talk to your line manager frankly, and explain your difficulties of being productive, and try to find solutions. It might be that your line manager says that they recognise that many people will currently be less productive, and that they have taken the decision to not put people under pressure for now.
If you cannot resolve your difficulties and continue to not work properly, and your line manager does not explicitly tell you that they are happy to pay you while this continues, then the ethical thing to do would be to ask for unpaid leave, or to be put on a furlough scheme if your country offers something like that. In that respect, you would be no different from a cashier whose shop is closed if you rely on coming into the office or on other routines that are currently impossible in order to be productive.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: Not quite a solution, but just to share my own experience. So, you are not alone. I googled into this post, which means I am having similar situation. Had tough period with 2 maternity leaves during my last postdoc, where a lot of my PhD work should have been published, however continous work was done on top of my PhD creation, then updated version of work were published by other Postdoc during my leaves. I’m back at end of my last postdoc, shocked by the toughness of reality and realize acedamia is not just a dream, it’s sometime a nightmare. However, I convinced myself keep trying and got another postdoc. Starting a new project during pandemic...
I’m currently wandering crossing two research fields that current postdoc project and past phd&postdoc field. Too much directions lead to non-productivity! On the other hand, I’m a model developer, my modelling and analytic skills should be fine to land a job. But I’m hesitating, meanwhile unproductive and feeling guilty being paid to do my research.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: You are not wasting anyone's money. The postdoc money was attributed to support your career growth, whether your next move is in academia or industry.
It seems you made up your mind that your next move will be in industry and you can look forward to that. Reach out to contacts in industry or at university (career's office?) that will help you to figure out which industry career you want and how to prepare for that. You spent a long time in academia and preparing for the industry job market will take you a few weeks or months. You don't have to quit your postdoc job before finding an industry position. It's perfectly fine to focus on your next job in the last few weeks/months of your paid postdoc, for instance by expanding your skills with, for instance, programming abilities that will be welcome in industry.
Also, most time spent doing research, even by senior professors, does not lead to any meaningful research outcomes. You should not feel guilty for not being productive while being paid, this is the norm while doing research.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/08
| 880
| 3,705
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a postdoc now, it is okay, but I do not really see any prospects (unfortunately haha). How do you get out of the vicious loop of postdocs? How to progress in academia careerwise? Great totally new questions. I am tired of the uncertainty and I do not want to do an infinite number of temporary postdocs.
I am not a citizen of the countries, where I work. That puts additional stress on me because basically just living here depends on my temporary positions and I never know what's next (well nobody does, but they can at least try to predict with a certain confidence). How do people evolve to professors, not in their homeland? Leaving aside very-very smart and successful researchers, not one of them hah. I think I am quite average, but I am also hard-working and not a complete dum-dum luckily.
Are there any prospects for me to have a stable position in any future? I am a bioengineer with engineering/applied math background if it matters. However, my PhD and current research topics are quite specific; not so easy to transfer to industry (maybe to a junior position only). Also, not if it actually matters, but I am being paid same as PhD students, which does not help with my already desperate vibes (probably it is my fault anyway since I did not negotiate my salary in the first place, agreeable females in action).
I am having a bit of an existential whining crisis here, even though my current university and collegues are nice, just the uncertainty is killing me. Let me know if you had something similar and then everything magically worked out for you out of nowhere:)<issue_comment>username_1: I am in a sort of similar position, I have just managed to get my foot in the door (although in my homeland, so can't help with that side). The truth is you will have to write a *lot* of applications, and even more once you have a position. I wouldn't be afraid of working in industry for a bit either, those links can be vital and set you apart when applying for positions - who knows, you may enjoy working in industry more! Even just talking to people in your current network about your research ideas and seeing where that leads may be useful. There are also websites like euraxess which may give you some idea of positions you can apply for (in europe) and what they need.
Best of luck to you!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You, like many aspiring academics are in a holding pattern now. That is understandable due to economic and health reasons as well as an overabundance of people graduating in some fields. Your solution is to do post-docs. That may be viable, if you are comfortable with it, but there are other possibilities.
You need to be applying to a lot of potential positions, but post-doc and regular faculty. But it you restrict your applications to a narrow segment of academia (say R1 institutions) you will have less of a chance of being able to build a career. In the US, for example, there are a large number of Liberal Arts Colleges that do a fine job of educating students, but where research is less important (and often poorly supported). That isn't always true, of course.
But, you don't need to treat such a position as a 'lower level' one if the environment is good. You can use it to build a career and move back into research later if you make the right moves. Those include keeping active and building a circle of collaborators, perhaps outside the local college. That is easier if you are in a place with a lot of nearby universities, of course, but the internet enables things that weren't possible in the past.
Cast a wide net. Find something interesting to do and plan a longer term strategy.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/09
| 541
| 2,263
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate student who has signed up for a 4 months internship at a Canadian university with the Mitacs global intern program.
The initial deal was to travel to the Canadian university for the internship where I would get paid and work closely with the supervisor.
Due to the pandemic, the trip was canceled and borders closed. The Mitacs organisation canceled the internships. However, as I didn't have any possible internship in my country, I agreed to continue the internship remotely by Skype without getting paid.
The problem is that I usually have a strong work ethic, although I am definitely not continuing in research. I believe I should do my best at my current job. I don't think it's okay to lay back and not get it perfectly done but there is 0 motivation.
The supervision is very minimal and I am not getting paid, plus home work.
Finally, I am looking for advice. Should I continue my internship as a good committed person and work full time? Or should I work part time, get it done poorly and learn something for my career in the mean time?<issue_comment>username_1: **Should you exchange your time for *very minimal* supervision (and no pay)?**
**That depends on whether you perceive the value of *very minimal* supervision to outweigh the value of your time.**
You should consider whether alternative uses of your time (e.g., paid work, vacation, personal study, ...) are more valuable.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: No, **if you were promised pay and that was revoked, you should stop working**. That is not a fair trade, and only incentivizes your host to cancel paid programs (because they can get volunteers!).
Furthermore, I once worked in Canada as a foreign student. I had issues with my work permit, and the university office was very clear I couldn't work for free in the lab until the work permit was sorted out, as a foreigner volunteering for a position that could go to a Canadian (or other lawful resident) was illegal, as well as immoral.
*I am not a lawyer*, and don't know how Canadian law deals with working remotely, but I doubt there are exceptions, and your supervisor replacing a paid intern with an unpaid one may be against the law.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/09
| 1,153
| 5,087
|
<issue_start>username_0: There is a particular result from another author that I wanted to use in my research which is a central component to my research question (it’s an animal’s growth rate). However, deriving the results computationally requires an understanding of some areas of mathematics that neither I nor my supervisor have had training in. The nature of my work draws heavily on objects from mathematical biology, and I’ve recognized that this is a weakness in my education portfolio I intend to fill when I do my PhD.
I was making some progress in learning the math on my own, but I occasionally needed to reach out to the authors for clarification because I had nobody else I could speak with. In the end, the authors volunteered to give me their code so that I could produce their results and allow me to proceed with my research.
I find myself in the conundrum that I don’t know how to reconcile or could defend when pressed by a committee: conceptually I understand what the authors are doing, but I lack the training and time to do the computations entirely on my own. Yet I have the tool I need to continue on with my research.
I feel like this scenario is not entirely uncommon, particularly for graduate students, but I’m wondering if a reasonable defence can be formed for using another’s work (given the context above) if pressed by a committee.
I only have an analogy that I would offer as a defence if pressed today.
How can I approach this issue?<issue_comment>username_1: Imho what matters is whether understanding the theoretical background is crucial for your own research: for instance if your research focuses on analyzing the outcome of this system in a new context, then you're just using this system as a tool in your research. Obviously it's always better to understand the tools you use very well, but you probably don't need to be able to re-implement their tool for using it correctly. On the other hand if your research goal is for instance to modify this system for a new application, then clearly you must acquire an in-depth understanding of it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: When it comes to applying mathematical results, it is the norm that you do not understand all the nuts and bolts of what you are applying. This is nothing to be ashamed of. Instead, it’s the only way that modern science can work – it is too vast and intertwined to be understood in its entirety by one person. The crucial part is that there is a clear interface between theory and application where everything is communicated clearly.
To give an illustrative example: I recently wrote a paper where I derive some rules for building ecological models from basic principles. I did my best to describe said principles as well as the rules and their consequences so that those applying my work can use them. However, I expect that the vast majority of my readership cannot understand the mathematical proofs that go in between. I must expect that they treat this as a black box. On the other hand, in order to perform my proofs, I in turn relied on theorems whose proofs I did not understand.
Mathematical theorems are great interfaces. They give you some statement of the form: “If *X,* then *Y.*” You only need to understand the statements *X* and *Y,* but you do not understand why one implies the other. That’s what mathematicians are for. On the other hand, the mathematicians who proved the theorems I use have no particular expertise in ecology as far as I know.
Now, there may not always be a clear interface. In that case, I suggest to create one yourself (and not only for yourself but also for your readers): Write a passage for your thesis that describes what you understand and need the tool to do. Then back up everything with references from the relevant publications and documentation. If necessary, ask the authors again.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: If I understand correctly, you have a problem which is described in a mathematical model. You need to solve this model for some conditions and what you care about are the results.
If so, you do not need to understand how the calculations will be done, you can treat is as a black box. The same way as you do not need to understand assembler when using Python pandas.
There is however a very important thing you must understand: **the conditions/limitations of the numerical recipe you will be using**. You can have 20 methods to solve one problem (say, a differential equation) but some of them will be better, worse, unusable or plain wrong for that specific equation.
You can say: "I used method ABC to solve the equation in the model because it is a stiff equation and this and that. This allowed me to get a results with 10% precision in a reasonable time".
You do not need to explain how that method works (if you have no love for these methods, they are [horribly complicated](https://www.wias-berlin.de/people/john/LEHRE/NUMERIK_II/ode_2.pdf)), but you must show you understand the limitations and therefore the implications on the result.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/09
| 1,422
| 6,270
|
<issue_start>username_0: I worked as a TA for several courses. Some courses fall into the domain in which my research also happens. *But some other courses are not at all familiar to me*.
My Institute conducts tutorial classes with an objective of addressing students doubts in that course. Only TAs attend to this class. It is of the duration atleast couple of hours.
Students start asking the questions, that are difficult for whole class (because of the reason that they communicate among themselves the solutions of questions).
For the courses that are not familiar to me, it becomes difficult to answer the questions asked by them. Students expect the answer instantly on the board and it is a norm also.
In-order to face the situation honestly, I need to tell *I don't know* for the questions they ask. I feel it is okay to tell my ignorance for some questions since I am not a professor or expert in that course.
If I start saying it honestly for all questions that are difficult for me, then I *feel* that there will be an increased disrespect on me among students circle.
**Is it true that the respect for the TA decreases the more often frequency they reply *"I don't know"*?**
*Note*: Attending the professor classes as TA or spending more time on the course is not solving my issue since students are asking questions that are very difficult as they collect questions from several online materials that demands more in-depth knowledge. And professor asks to conduct the classes properly. Some TAs intentionally avoid tutorials to avoid this issue. *So please refrain from the answers that provide solutions to the question of: how to handle this*<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Is it a true phenomenon that the respect on TA decreases with an increased frequency of I don't know replies?
>
>
>
Certainly not in the sense of "you have 5 *'I don't know'* per semester, and then you lose the student's respect. It really depends on what questions you do answer, how you answer them, and what kind of questions you are unable to answer.
---
If you normally provide good, instructive answers to questions with the occasional "I don't know" mixed in, no reasonable person will lose respect for you - especially if you commit to finding the answer to the questions you are unable to answer, and then follow through.
That said, it depends on what the questions you aren't able to answer are. If those are questions that could in a very similar scope also be on the exam, not knowing the answer (and not being able to derive it in reasonable time) will indeed not reflect well on you. If that is the case, preparing better for teaching the course (or teaching courses closer to your field of research) is really the only way forward. Otherwise, the students have all rights to be annoyed - what could they learn from a teacher who doesn't sufficiently master the course themselves?
>
> I worked as a TA for several courses. Some courses fall into the domain in which my research also happens. But some other courses are not at all familiar to me.
>
>
>
Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but that's really not the student's problem. The students should have an expectation that their teacher is qualified to teach the course, whether it's in their area of research or not. You should not expect leniency from the students because you are teaching a course outside of your field of research.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Most (if not even all) teachers, lecturers and professors got asked some difficult questions which they couldn't answer. I will divide my answer into several points as follows:
1. It is always good to prepare well for the lecture and in contrast to you, I don't think it does not help. When you give a lecture or a tutorial you know all the details and questions should arise automatically. A lecturer can expect the questions before giving the lecture and a good lecturer must have answers before entering the class. Of course, it is not possible to cover all possible questions but an important portion.
2. Teaching new courses is very common due to so many reasons (e.g. to substitute a professor who left for another position, etc). It is also normal to spend more time to understand the topic. The lecturer should just be honest with the students: "I am teaching this lecture for the first time and I will do my best to provide high-quality lectures". The students would try to find questions which of course help you to understand the topic your are teaching. They could also complain to the faculty that you are not expert (I don't think this would affect you since you said the faculty assigned the course to you with the fact that you are not expert).
3. In any case and under any circumstance, the lecturer must be honest and tell the students that (s)he does not have the answer and that (s)he will search for it and provide asap.
4. Authority is not a dimension is the relationship-space of teacher-students. Instead, respect is an essential one which can be gained only by honesty and hard work.
5. As already mentioned, the students deserve to learn and if you find that you cannot ensure a certain quality of lectures (for a reason or another), it is better to inform the faculty by yourself and the students as well. If the faculty cannot ensure another lecturer and if the students find that the course is manageable under these conditions, the they will understand and support you.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: **A good university teacher does not play the role of an authority.** In most cases, universities do not teach facts. They teach skills. They teach knowledge creation. They teach problem solving. If you are an authority in the classroom, then you are not teaching those things effectively. Instead, you are teaching students to rely on you for answers.
So, yes, you should say when you do not know. It should decrease your authority. And that is a good thing. Do explain why you do not know, and how you would find out the answer. Or even better, guide students to finding the answer on their own.
Students should respect people even if they are not TAs or even if they know nothing. If your students are not respectful you should teach them respectful behaviour.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/09
| 1,102
| 4,792
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose a NSF RUI (research at undergraduate institute) proposal is funded. Can the funding be transferred to a research university if the PI move to that university?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Is it a true phenomenon that the respect on TA decreases with an increased frequency of I don't know replies?
>
>
>
Certainly not in the sense of "you have 5 *'I don't know'* per semester, and then you lose the student's respect. It really depends on what questions you do answer, how you answer them, and what kind of questions you are unable to answer.
---
If you normally provide good, instructive answers to questions with the occasional "I don't know" mixed in, no reasonable person will lose respect for you - especially if you commit to finding the answer to the questions you are unable to answer, and then follow through.
That said, it depends on what the questions you aren't able to answer are. If those are questions that could in a very similar scope also be on the exam, not knowing the answer (and not being able to derive it in reasonable time) will indeed not reflect well on you. If that is the case, preparing better for teaching the course (or teaching courses closer to your field of research) is really the only way forward. Otherwise, the students have all rights to be annoyed - what could they learn from a teacher who doesn't sufficiently master the course themselves?
>
> I worked as a TA for several courses. Some courses fall into the domain in which my research also happens. But some other courses are not at all familiar to me.
>
>
>
Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but that's really not the student's problem. The students should have an expectation that their teacher is qualified to teach the course, whether it's in their area of research or not. You should not expect leniency from the students because you are teaching a course outside of your field of research.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Most (if not even all) teachers, lecturers and professors got asked some difficult questions which they couldn't answer. I will divide my answer into several points as follows:
1. It is always good to prepare well for the lecture and in contrast to you, I don't think it does not help. When you give a lecture or a tutorial you know all the details and questions should arise automatically. A lecturer can expect the questions before giving the lecture and a good lecturer must have answers before entering the class. Of course, it is not possible to cover all possible questions but an important portion.
2. Teaching new courses is very common due to so many reasons (e.g. to substitute a professor who left for another position, etc). It is also normal to spend more time to understand the topic. The lecturer should just be honest with the students: "I am teaching this lecture for the first time and I will do my best to provide high-quality lectures". The students would try to find questions which of course help you to understand the topic your are teaching. They could also complain to the faculty that you are not expert (I don't think this would affect you since you said the faculty assigned the course to you with the fact that you are not expert).
3. In any case and under any circumstance, the lecturer must be honest and tell the students that (s)he does not have the answer and that (s)he will search for it and provide asap.
4. Authority is not a dimension is the relationship-space of teacher-students. Instead, respect is an essential one which can be gained only by honesty and hard work.
5. As already mentioned, the students deserve to learn and if you find that you cannot ensure a certain quality of lectures (for a reason or another), it is better to inform the faculty by yourself and the students as well. If the faculty cannot ensure another lecturer and if the students find that the course is manageable under these conditions, the they will understand and support you.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: **A good university teacher does not play the role of an authority.** In most cases, universities do not teach facts. They teach skills. They teach knowledge creation. They teach problem solving. If you are an authority in the classroom, then you are not teaching those things effectively. Instead, you are teaching students to rely on you for answers.
So, yes, you should say when you do not know. It should decrease your authority. And that is a good thing. Do explain why you do not know, and how you would find out the answer. Or even better, guide students to finding the answer on their own.
Students should respect people even if they are not TAs or even if they know nothing. If your students are not respectful you should teach them respectful behaviour.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/09
| 798
| 3,151
|
<issue_start>username_0: Appreciating that what even counts as an invited talk in the first place for CV purposes will vary by field (links to related questions: [Do presentations given during interviews count as invited talks?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1157/do-presentations-given-during-interviews-count-as-invited-talks); [Should I list talks I invited myself to give on my CV?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23353/should-i-list-talks-i-invited-myself-to-give-on-my-cv/23379#23379)), I wonder whether talks presented remotely via video-conferencing carry less weight on a CV than a presentation in person being physically present at the hosting institution or venue.
A rule of thumb I have learned in my field is that financial reimbursement from the host is a strong indication that the talk counts as invited (this means job talks and presentations given as a proxy for the supervisor are considered invited). With current travel restrictions (2020) and the likelihood that video-conferencing for virtual conferences and interviews will continue to grow in importance, the measure of reimbursement as an indicator of the importance of the talk cannot be applied, as no travel is required.
If I included e.g. video faculty interview talks as invited talks on my CV, I would feel that the place of the talk should indicate video-conferencing: "Host institution (virtual)". Would this limit the value of such a talk on a CV?<issue_comment>username_1: Why would you want to try to express it yourself as a "lesser" contribution? You give much of the same value, especially if there is some facility for interaction with "attendees".
One of the reasons for "paying" for talks is that the speaker may need to travel and deal (time and effort) with accommodation - the hassle factor. It also means time away from their normal work. The money given to speakers isn't considered "pay" for expertise in the normal sense and is often called an honorarium.
But the *effort required* to prepare and actually deliver the talk is just the same as if travel were required in addition.
And, given the current state of things, there are few other options than virtual talks. That doesn't lessen their value. It is just *what we need to do now*. Just as travel was once required for such talks prior to the internet.
If you mark them at all, I suggest that you do so in a very minimal manner and certainly not separate them out from talks given in person.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> Do invited talks given via video-conferencing have the same weight on a CV as talks given in person?
>
>
>
Yes. If you were invited to give a talk and you gave the talk, it is an invited talk. The medium of talk is not relevant.
Similarly, if you published a paper in a print journal and published a paper in an online journal, both papers were published.
>
> I would feel that the place of the talk should indicate video-conferencing: "Host institution (virtual)"
>
>
>
There is no reason to indicate the location of the talk. What is important is the host institution/conference.
Upvotes: 4
|
2020/06/09
| 1,613
| 6,637
|
<issue_start>username_0: After finishing my M.A.Sc. in Canada, I had been interviewed with my current supervision team in my current Swiss university to start a Ph.D. In that time, it was fairly obvious that the project I was supposed to work on would not prolong for whole four years. In the course of those interviews, particularly, my co-supervisor (whose financial resources supports my studies) had asked my what I would do if the project finishes sooner than what my Ph.D. deserves. I had answered that I would find a broader problem statement to generalize the solution to the (theoretical) aspects of the project. He had said nothing when he had heard it.
I just started my Ph.D. on Oct. 31st, 2018, and I defended my proposal in the Oct. 2019 becoming a Ph.D. candidate. In that proposal, whose content were fully known to both of them, I had noted the main problem statement of the project, as well as another as an extension (to work on one the main project is done). Before the candidacy exam, I was pretty productive not only in terms of the progression of the project but also in view of my publications (3 proceedings and 2 journal papers, 4 other journal papers are also under review now).
Today, I just received an email from my supervisor stating that he and the co-supervisor has discussed my case, and they think that I better finish my Ph.D. by the end of this year. He said I may later consider the extension problem statement, only if I can find some money to support myself in a potential post-doc period. He has fixed a zoom call for the Monday to discuss that with me in the presence of my co-supervisor. He also sent me a line of the law associated with the doctoral school of my university to support the validity of their standpoint:
>
> Ordinance on the doctorate at XXX, art. 9, pt 2. As a general rule,
> the subject must allow for the thesis to be completed within a
> four-year period from the candidate's official enrolment date (October
> 31st, 2018 in your case), with a minimum required period prior to the
> oral examination (Art. 15) of two years.
>
>
>
In return, I shortly responded to his email by stating that the idea of finishing my Ph.D. just within two years is not a sound plan for me, because I later want to try to apply for some post-doc and finally tenure-track positions in North America. A two-year Ph.D. is way lower than their standards, and it shall seriously diminish my chances on that side. I also reminded them about the fact that they should have been honest and should have frankly told me that I am supposed to be dumped once the project in done regardless of how much time is passed from the start of my Ph.D. (I said all in a very professional tune without any aggression). I also noted that even if they don't like the extension problem statement, I am open to discuss about what they may alternatively prefer to be done. In the end, I reiterated again that finishing my Ph.D. in two years is not a thing I could imagine.
Now, I am thinking about the optimal way I should approach this issue. Finishing in just two years is literally like wasting two years of my life as I do know that almost every search committee would raise eyebrow when they see a two-year Ph.D. in my CV. I fill this whole story is totally unfair and hideously disappointing. I am heading toward a very important meeting with them that I have no idea how I should react if they just throw a **THAT'S IT** to me and simply make me end my Ph.D. How should I manage such a potential worst-case scenario?
*PS. 1* I am in an STEM field, if does matter.
*PS. 2* My university assigns each Ph.D. candidate to a mentor to whom she can bring any issue which could not be resolved in the circle of herself and her supervisors. Because of the pandemic, I can't meet mine, and he has not answered my email regarding my consultation request.<issue_comment>username_1: Your advisors telling you that you've done enough to finish your PhD in two years is a good thing. The fact that you have extensions to do on it in future work is also a good thing.
I've also never heard of a department that would think finishing a PhD in two years is a problem. I suspect it's most likely a neutral thing, but if not it's almost certainly a positive, since it shows you can get things done and perform research in a timely fashion.
The optimal approach I would suggest is to graduate and go on the job market, then continue working on your research. Congratulations on your impending graduation!
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I agree with the other answer that from a reputation/career angle, there seems nothing wrong with doing a Ph.D. in 2 years, especially if your recommendations and publication record is strong. I don't see why your degree should be perceived negatively as a result. (Perhaps there is something specific to your field - I am also in STEM and would definitely not be the case in areas I know something about, but perhaps there is something special in some other (sub)fields?)
However, it does sound like it might be logistically challenging for your to finish in an accelerated timeframe *AND* also expend the necessary efforts for a good job-hunt elsewhere, especially with COVID-related restrictions on travel and perhaps hiring. And one does need to consider the hypothesis that pushing you through quickly might be influenced by your institution's/adviser's budget...
However, your tone (perhaps with cause, I can't tell) sounds quite confrontational to me. At least *pro tempore*, I would hold the firepower and use the upcoming meeting to understand what's in their mind, and what's the range of support they are prepared to offer to you. Accordingly, I'd try something like this:
1. You appreciate their vote of confidence in your research progress
2. That you are a bit concerned about the volume of work which needs to be done prior to formal completion. You think that what you still need to do is ..., ..., ... and ... Do they feel comfortable that can be done by date X, and how can they help you do that?
3. You are also concerned about the job hunt environment at this time, esp given ... and ... What kind of extension/other support could they offer you as a bridge, especially if you now would need to dedicate all possible effort to Ph.D. completion?
Then you can amp up the firepower, insist on talking with your mentor, etc etc if the answers you're getting are not satisfactory. But give this a chance to develop well, with an early Ph.D., stop-gap extension job, and great references (rather than an adverserial ending).
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/09
| 818
| 3,528
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm applying to graduate school and there is a professor at my home university I am interested in working with. As a bit of background, I have been doing undergraduate research with this professor for about a year now and he seems to like me (though maybe he's nice to everyone. I can't be certain). My research under him has been going well as hes told me I've been doing good work. In fact, he uses exclamation marks sometimes, which I find to be odd. Fast forwarding a bit, I've recently wrapped up the project. Given my academic history with him, if he was interested in working with me, would he ask me to be his student (sorry if this comes off as having an inflated ego, I don't have one.) All in all, I'm not sure how to proceed in asking him.<issue_comment>username_1: Your advisors telling you that you've done enough to finish your PhD in two years is a good thing. The fact that you have extensions to do on it in future work is also a good thing.
I've also never heard of a department that would think finishing a PhD in two years is a problem. I suspect it's most likely a neutral thing, but if not it's almost certainly a positive, since it shows you can get things done and perform research in a timely fashion.
The optimal approach I would suggest is to graduate and go on the job market, then continue working on your research. Congratulations on your impending graduation!
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I agree with the other answer that from a reputation/career angle, there seems nothing wrong with doing a Ph.D. in 2 years, especially if your recommendations and publication record is strong. I don't see why your degree should be perceived negatively as a result. (Perhaps there is something specific to your field - I am also in STEM and would definitely not be the case in areas I know something about, but perhaps there is something special in some other (sub)fields?)
However, it does sound like it might be logistically challenging for your to finish in an accelerated timeframe *AND* also expend the necessary efforts for a good job-hunt elsewhere, especially with COVID-related restrictions on travel and perhaps hiring. And one does need to consider the hypothesis that pushing you through quickly might be influenced by your institution's/adviser's budget...
However, your tone (perhaps with cause, I can't tell) sounds quite confrontational to me. At least *pro tempore*, I would hold the firepower and use the upcoming meeting to understand what's in their mind, and what's the range of support they are prepared to offer to you. Accordingly, I'd try something like this:
1. You appreciate their vote of confidence in your research progress
2. That you are a bit concerned about the volume of work which needs to be done prior to formal completion. You think that what you still need to do is ..., ..., ... and ... Do they feel comfortable that can be done by date X, and how can they help you do that?
3. You are also concerned about the job hunt environment at this time, esp given ... and ... What kind of extension/other support could they offer you as a bridge, especially if you now would need to dedicate all possible effort to Ph.D. completion?
Then you can amp up the firepower, insist on talking with your mentor, etc etc if the answers you're getting are not satisfactory. But give this a chance to develop well, with an early Ph.D., stop-gap extension job, and great references (rather than an adverserial ending).
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/10
| 858
| 3,470
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am doing PhD in IT
I have Bsc in Math (there wasn't writing in my study)
and my masters was course based not research.
Today I got my paper returned with many comments
some of these comments are (boring, need more focus)
There are papers that I enjoy reading, as they have nice flow, they take me from one sentence to another smoothly.
When I write I put what I want to write in bullet points and then struggle connecting sentenses and have the flow from one sentence to the other.
I wonder if there is right way to do academic writing.
Shall I read many papers about the topic I am writing about then squeeze my brain to put that in a paper format.
or shall I take notes from each sentence in the papers I read and then connect them together.
or is there any other way to do the writing?
There must be a way most people use.
I appreciate any help here.<issue_comment>username_1: There are no "tricks", and everybody has a way that works best for them. This often involves revising the text many times. A few tips many people agree on are:
* Start with the easier parts (often the methods section if there is one).
* Put the paper away for a few days, then read it as if you were a reader instead of the author.
* Don't make complex or long sentences, unless you are really skilled at doing so.
* **Get help from co-workers**: let them read your paper and take their comments into account. Iterate until convergence is reached.
* People often refer to the [text by <NAME>](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.7523&rep=rep1&type=pdf) about academic writing. It is old but still full of great advice (just ignore the bits about typewriters).
Writing well often takes many years of practice as well as lots of reading. It helps to read both well-written scientific articles (and identify why they are so well-witten), badly written ones (and identify why they are not so nice to read), and also literature (books): the latter are written by the real experts: writers.
Writing is also a talent that is not given to everybody. Don't take this the wrong way, but it is very well possible to be an excellent mathematician or computer scientist without being a good writer. A possible solution could be to focus on your research and ask for help to write or revise your papers before sending them in: you don't have to do everything on your own, and there is no shame in asking for help from your colleagues or supervisor in writing the paper. Some universities even have dedicated "scientific writers" to help researchers write their papers.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I start by echoing what @louic said. Academic writing is *hard*, and takes anyone years of pratice to perfect, so don't be down hearted that you are struggling when you've just started.
Two resources I have found helpful are <NAME>'s virtual book on scientific writing (<https://serialmentor.com/virtualbooks/>) and <NAME>'s "Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded". Both focus on scientific writing (and biology in particular), but I think they should be informative for academic writing in general.
One thing to do with writing, if you are stuck on how you would connect the bullet points, is to think what you might say in conversation. What would you say if a new person in your department asked you to explain your reserach to them?
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/10
| 759
| 3,215
|
<issue_start>username_0: A lot of universities are expecting not to be able to run in-person exams for at least part of the 2020/21 academic year. I believe, for example, that no UK universities is currently planning to hold in-person exams this coming January. I can see how other forms of assessment might be possible for some subjects. But I can't see how this can work for math.
>
> For those universities which will not run math exams in-person for this
> coming year, what are the plans for how to replace them?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: Here are some examples of how it is done at the University of Copenhagen for the two courses that I have exams in next week.
One course has a written exam: We are given a problem sheet that we write up a solution to and submit to an online portal after a time limit of four hours. We are allowed to use the internet and any other aids we wish, except that we are not allowed to communicate with other people.
Another course has a verbal exam: A verbal exam is performed using Zoom. There is no preparation time.
Both courses were intended to be verbal exams pre-covid-19.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It's not possible to give a universal answer, of course, as that depends on many factors: how many people are available to grade, how many students need to pass the course (solutions that work for 20 students may not work for 200), what technological solutions are available… In our department somewhere in France, the solutions adopted for the various exams are:
* A normal homework, sent electronically by taking a picture of the answers, graded normally, with a long delay (a week or so) to complete. For very low level courses it's also possible to have a fully online exam, with multiple choice questions and short answers.
* A timed exam. This can be the same time for all students, common for low level courses where copying others' answers is trivial. Or it can be an exam available during a whole day, and when the student downloads the exam they are put on a timer and must give back their answers before a time limit (a few hours).
* Oral examinations using visioconference tools. The students connects with the examiner and gets asked questions, usually with the help of a virtual whiteboard.
* A hybrid method: students are given a timed exam, which is then graded (takes a few days). Then students pass a short oral exam about the content of the written exam. Depending on the size of the class, this can either be all students, or students who got above a certain grade on the written exam (to avoid "wasting" time on students who have no chance of passing regardless of how well they perform on the oral exam). The goal is try and bump up students, and detect some cheating.
My preference goes towards the last item, but it's a significant time investment, much more so than a traditional handwritten exam. It takes a lot of organization, there is a lot of cheating anyway, technical issues arise all the time for the video chat, the exam needs to be specially designed...
After a department-wide meeting, we have pretty much all agreed that there was no good solution anyway. Maybe someone here has a better one...
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/10
| 888
| 3,859
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently writing my second paper.
Although the focus is completely different of my first paper, some aspects of the context are similar.
I am perfectly aware that self-plagiarism needs to be carefully avoided but what is the limit?
Indeed, a couple of sentences of my abstract or introduction are very hard to reformulate without making the sentence significantly harder to understand or really longer.
In this context, is it tolerable to reuse a single sentence in the abstract and/or in the introduction?
Edit: I forgot to mention that the submission is anonymous. This is why I'm so picky about self-plagiarism.<issue_comment>username_1: You have a misconception. Plagiarism isn't about the actual words. *It is about ideas.* Copyright can cover the expression of the ideas (the words). In other words, you can plagiarize even with a complete rephrasing of the original. But it is easy to avoid.
To avoid self plagiarism all you need to do is cite the original work. I'm assuming that the words you use are expressing the *same idea* though in a different context. And if you cite and you hold copyright then there are no issues at all. If you don't hold copyright then you either need to get permission from the holder or depend on one of the exceptions to copyright law (which varies from place to place). You may well be able to claim fair use. You might also be able to claim that your reuse of the sentence doesn't reduce the value of the original. Those are valid in some places. And some ideas can only be effectively expressed in one way.
The reason to avoid self plagiarism is a bit different from that to avoid ordinary plagiarism. A reader of a new work may need to find the complete context of the ideas. This includes other words and references, etc. If you don't cite, then that chain is broken for a researcher. This also applies to ordinary plagiarism, but the need to not claim the work of others as your own is typically thought to be the more important part there.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would argue there are no limits here, simply because the idea is nonsensical. I think citing the original work is helpful, but calling your own ideas, repeated, "plagiarism", is bizarre.
Just cite the work for others to know it has appeared elsewhere.
Also, articles should not really overlap much if at all possible. Easy to cite and save time.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you should differentiate between reusing single sentences that are just a normal way of conveying certain information, and reusing ideas/concepts.
For example, most of my papers deal with the same disease. I always describe this disease with the exact same sentence in the Introduction section (i.e. it's characterized by these and these symptoms, median survival is 5 years). I see no need to formulate that kind of information differently in each paper. I do not cite my own papers for this and do not make it a quote. This kind of thing is totally ok and not considered (self) plagiarism.
On the other hand, I also have a paper describing a certain method and then follow-up papers that use that method somewhere. In these sections I also sometimes repeat exact sentences, but I do cite the previous paper. Here it is an original idea that I'm reusing and I shouldn't give the impression I came up with it anew in each paper.
The submission being anonymous does not change anything; if the reuse is significant enough to warrant a citation, you need to cite, regardless whether the original work was written by you or someone else.
In short, repeating exact sentences is in many cases acceptable; whether a citation is needed depends on what kind of information in conveyed in that sentence. You are in the best position to judge in which category your reuse falls.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/10
| 6,275
| 26,582
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a college professor, and sometimes I learn of a student's career goals. I think some should drop out despite having good grades. If they do not learn much (because they are advanced or because they do better on their own), or if a degree will not help them with their specific career goals, I think that they should drop out. College is not cheap, and I can tell some students do not enjoy going to class or doing homework. I am afraid if I suggest a student leaves the school without a degree, I will be fired. When should a teacher recommend a student leave the university without a degree?
I am in the U.S.<issue_comment>username_1: This is a tough one.
College/University is a time when we expect the students to be mature adults, with solid executive function and decisionmaking ability. With that in mind, and given the power imbalance, we need to be super careful in offering unsolicited advice, especially of the "tough love" variety. How would you feel if your Dean/Department Chair told you, unsolicited, that they think your teaching job is not the right one for you and they suggest you leave academia?
At the same time, not all those students are those mature adults, or see the truths that should be staring them in the face. And we ought to and want to help them, and sometimes moving on sooner rather than later is clearly the best solution.
I think you can offer this type of advice only when asked for it, i.e. on the basis of the student *wanting* your advice as a mentor, not just from the privilege of your positional authority. If you feel up to it (time is limited, and we need to prioritize how we spend it...), show the student you care, ask them questions how they're enjoying and what they're getting out of the experience, how the degree will fit in with their long term aspirations, etc. If this leads to them genuinely asking for your advice, then you can give your tough love advice, but not before.
Finally, College culture varies tremendously as to the level of semi-structured mentoring provided to students to help bridge the "maturity gap" of suddenly being treated like adults. If some time of official mentorship/regular counselling does exist in your institution, and works well, you could reach out to the mentor for a conversation. However, I would carefully phrase it as *you* expressing *your* concern about what *you* heard (and may not be interpreting properly and have full context), and therefore *asking* what the mentor knows -- and wants to share -- about the student. This is as opposed to you sharing your conclusory opinion about the student, which would be as bad or worse than pushing your opinion on the student from a position of authority.
All of this is aspirational, with the goal of helping the student. I won't pretend academics don't sometimes get frustrated and say things suboptimally, or gossip in frustration with colleagues, "look at X, they shouldn't even be here!" We can debate how much that is out of line, but it's about making ourselves feel better, not helping the victim, so that's different from this question.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think it depends on the student's level.
Graduate level? sure, be brutally honest and do tell students that they won't make the cut if they don't get serious about their work. They are wasting precious years of their youth otherwise. Especially since there are many things that you can do beside graduate studies that lead to a satisfying career, if your goal is not to be an academic.
Undergrad, I'd say let them figure it out. I was probably that student, especially the first 2 years of my undergrad. Then some things changed and I got my act together and graduated. I agree that many people would be better off without a college degree, especially in countries where you have to go into debt for it, but that's not your role as a professor to make that call.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The career goals of an undergraduate change on a regular basis. How many of us are doing exactly what we thought we would do at that point in time?
If the student is doing well, grade-wise, and is on track to graduate, in most scenarios it is much better for them to finish an undergraduate degree. It opens up more doors both initially as well as for some time afterwards. If the work is too easy, suggest harder classes.
If a professor were to suggest to one of my children that they drop out of college even though they are doing well, I would have an in person visit with them to discuss their complete abuse of power. My daughter had a professor suggest she was not suited for her major - that was inappropriate enough (and totally wrong as time has told). For better or worse, your attitude towards those students is condescending at best.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> When should a teacher recommend a student leave the university without a degree?
>
>
>
Basically, NEVER.
This is a US perspective:
In the capacity of undergraduate advisors,
saying something like this could potentially get you fired,
if you are not nontenure-track instructor.
At very least, it should get you in some kind of trouble in many schools.
It has happened in my university --- an instructor was fired recently for repeatedly telling students to drop out.
In classroom settings, this kind of comment is just not appropriate.
On a personal level, even if you consider a student a personal friend, this kind of suggestion is still unwelcome --- it is just none of your business.
Also, generally, professor just don't have enough information to make this make this kind of evaluation in the first place.
How could you possibly know?
In my second year in graduate school,
a very nice professor kindly told me that
I will never pass my qualifying exams;
I will never be able to do research;
I will waste my precious years and never get a Ph.D..
She told me that as a personal advice
simply because she thought I would better off
in industry.
She turned out to be completely wrong.
There is one exception though.
A chemistry professor in my college recently told a student to just drop out and start a business instead.
That advice was indeed justified, because the professor is the student's mother.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: Based on what you reveal about yourself by asking this question, I recommend that you give up your career as a college professor
Actually I don’t really mean that. I take it back. I only wrote it to give you a taste of what it might feel like for a student to hear such an outlandish recommendation from their professor. If you think that was a foolish and presumptuous thing for me to say and that there’s no way I could possibly know better than you what course you should direct your life in, take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why what you are proposing is any different.
In short, the answer is “never”.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_6: I know of somebody with a good trajectory which had a bad period, and their supervisor suggested them to leave academia and to proceed outside of academia, without having insight in their past or track record. When I hear about such unpedagogical and tactless, ill-informed academics, I wonder whether the advice should not have gone the other way around.
Good people have been derailed, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently, by such advice. It's none of a professor's business to decide a student's career.
What the professor *can* do is to explain what the student needs to do to achieve certain goals, so that the student can take an informed decision as to how to develop their future.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: For students who have borrowed money to study, correlation suggests that completing the degree is better for their finances.
The probability of defaulting on student loans is inversely related to the amount of money borrowed. Students who enrol briefly and drop out are not able to repay their loans. Students who persist longer and borrow more money are more able to repay their loans. While correlation is not necessarily causation, it does suggest that completing a degree is better for personal finance.
Of course money is not the only reason to get a degree.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: >
> If they do not learn much (because they are advanced or because they do better on their own),
>
>
>
Do not recommend dropping out for this reason. If your students are not learning much, this indicates the university needs to change to teach them better. It does not indicate the students need to leave.
>
> if a degree will not help them with their specific career goals
>
>
>
Preparation for a particular career is not the main purpose of higher education. There are many other benefits to being educated besides having a career. *If* the student is enrolled in a program that only provides preparation for one career, it would be reasonable to suggest a more versatile program that would suit the student better.
>
> When should a teacher recommend a student leave the university without a degree?
>
>
>
* The student is in danger from being at the university.
* Under the university's rules, it is impossible for the student to complete the degree.
* The student can obtain better educational opportunities elsewhere. Personally I think the students' interest is more important than the university's finances.
* The university will cease to award the degree before the student completes it.
* The student has an ethical duty to be elsewhere, such as if they can provide emergency services during an emergency.
None of these things happen often.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: Cynically, professors never recommend students drop out of college (and departments fire anyone who does), because the student's tuition fees pays their salary.
Less cynically: I think the key thing to avoid when making this kind of recommendation is the impression that you know what the student wants better than they do. In turn, this means you should only offer the recommendation when they ask for it & when they are already unsure. Ideally you also offer the recommendation for reasons other than academic ability.
Some examples.
1. Student is having financial difficulties. As you write, college is not cheap. If they're going into massive debt to pay for it, suggesting they keep at it could easily wind up destroying their lives. In this scenario, instead of outright suggesting they drop out, I'd suggest making sure they understand their finances. If they keep borrowing to pay for college, can they realistically pay for it? Work through the math with them, make sure they understand it, look at scholarships or bursaries if available, and (importantly) if they decide they can pay for it then they're right, and you should not suggest they drop out.
2. Student's parent dies and the other parent requires someone to take care of them or someone needs to take over the family business. If they ask, you could work through the alternatives with them, but "I guess there's no option except to drop out" should be fine. There was [an answer to a similar question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/102390/84834) a few years ago suggesting the student quit, and it's at 94 upvotes as of time of writing.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: There are two reasons a professor might make such a radical recommendation:
* underperformance, for circumstances the university cannot take responsibility
* misintention: the student enrolled with a misunderstanding or poor rationale, the latter which should have been caught by the university.
Everything else is the responsibility of the university.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_10: The person asking the original question may be asking masking a situation in which the student is doing poorly and he isn't going to make it. In other words, he may not be able to graduate and just step in bigger, major financial date. If this is the case, you have several options.
Options #1, are you willing to put some time in to help this student? If he's doing poorly, it's more than just that he can't do the work. Everyone has the capability to do the work. They just usually don't have the work ethic. Or, something else is going on in their lives. It can takes years to develop the necessary work ethic and the kid doesn't have that much time. You would need to baby him by treating him like a high school student and forcing him to attend his classes. He will pass his classes and graduate but it will take some time on your part.
Option #2, you don't have the time to help the student. You can explain it to his academic advisor that he needs someone to make him accountable and he will be able to do the work. You see a lot of students turn out this way. They don't too well in college because it's all about self-initiative. But, when they start working, they are fine because if they don't get into work by 9 pm, they are going to get reamed. If the student can't create an atmosphere of accountability in college, then he will fail but it really isn't your responsibility.
These next options are if the student is doing really well and you think he can do better by starting work earlier. I have no experience with these types of jobs. All the jobs I know all require a degree. Especially corporate jobs in which these are hundreds of applicants for one job, the minimum requirement is a college degree and so your resume is simple thrown in the trash even before someone gets to see it. Maybe others can chime in but I wouldn't just rule out a degree so easily. And, I say this even though I'm one of the people who truly believe that college degrees are a waste of money. Most student do not learn anything that they are going to apply in their work.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_11: I will argue for something like: "rarely, privately, in extraordinary circumstances, and likely only by tenured faculty".
I'm at an open-admissions community college, and for such colleges in the U.S., the average graduation rate stands perennially at around 20%. So it is a hard fact that most students are not prepared for college work and won't succeed. Also, many are confused and have poor executive functioning skills to determine what is best for their future. Official advising by the college is spotty and mostly focused by administration on "retention" (i.e., continued income stream) to the exclusion of other factors. I'm arguing that in certain cases the (tenured?) faculty are the only ones in a position to understand the student's long-term arc, the actual requirements of the academic major, and to give honest advice.
Others have provided anecdotes of success-after-incorrect-drop-advisement. Here's my counter-anecdote:
Within the last year, a colleague was mentoring/tutoring a math major who was having inordinate difficulty in the basic coursework: failed calculus multiple times, linear algebra multiple times, etc. (this itself is not rare). The student was keenly unhappy and unsuccessful but kept bashing their head against it. Finally my colleague opened up a big-picture discussion:
* Faculty: "What do you want to use your math degree for?"
* Student: "I really want to be a welder, and I was told I had to be good at math
for that."
* Faculty: "You don't need a math degree to be a welder. You
can just go to trade school for that."
* Student: "Really?"
* Faculty: "Yes, really."
Now, the next day the student came back very emotional and said they were dropping out of college to go be a welder like they always wanted, and was incredibly sorry for wasting my colleague's time, etc. But in my view my colleague might have been responsible right there for the single biggest positive impact in someone's life that maybe anyone in my institution ever made. They saved the student years of coursework and lost time, possible continued tuition payments, relief of a huge emotional burden, and gave them permission to follow the path that they had always hoped for (but were somehow derailed by bad advice along the way).
I wouldn't recommend that my colleague tell anyone else on staff about this episode (for reasons explained in other answers). But I celebrated that as a huge win for the student, and I don't see that anyone else in the institution was going help them in this way. I also wouldn't advise that non-tenured faculty take this risk, which makes me feel bad about our system for that.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_12: I want to give a different perspective than the US one, for completeness sake.
For the record, I'm based in Germany. Here the university, even Bachelors, is quite an academic study (although this is changing, but nobody really has a clear vision forward) and depending on the field a Bachelors, and more so a Masters, doesn't give any benefit when you're not going to be an academic (be it in your later job or because you enjoy the general education).
Frequently, in Computer Science, we have the case of people dreaming to be programmers or system administrators, something the Bachelor doesn't really prepare you for. Unfortunately, most do not make this realization after >4 years of frustration about the theoretical focus. However, there are institutions that provide you with the skills to become a programmer. Due to a rather wrong and twisted picture of what CS is, people don't even consider these.
If (not professor, but I regularly teach my own course at uni) I notice things like these, I try to clear up misunderstandings about it: "You won't learn these skills here, though" or "Yes, you need to learn higher maths in CS to go into academic computer sciences". I usually advice them to take 1,2 semesters to test waters and then decide while also showing them alternatives and emphasizing that going into a non-academic field is not less good, but equally valued.
So rather than blatantly saying "drop out" I do:
* clear any misunderstandings about wrong expectations
* focus on expectations and plans they have voiced
* let them take a bit of time, maybe they change their viewpoint
* make clear that dropping out isn't bad, you just pursue a *different* path. It's more comparable to switching majors.
I've also seen students who, after that talk, took those courses that they've failed again. But now with higher interest, as they recognized their value for CS while before they evaluated them w.r.t. programming. They then noticed that the course they dismissed as boring and useless is actually fun and adjusted their goal to become an academic.
But *many* don't want to become academics. We currently have a public chat for the whole department including everyone who's here, ie. students, secretaries, TAs, PhDs, profs, etc. with quite enlightening conversations. One was basically students saying that they wish university had been more clear about its goals upfront, as almost noone knows what CS is when starting the studies.
Note: As I view it (and have experienced it to be) profs and students are in this together, ideally knowing each other quite well. The profs aren't just there to hold lectures and then vanish into their offices. In this environment it's rather frequent that the prof is not only seen as a lecturer and examiner but advisor and mentor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: This question hits me personally. My answer is: **never**!
I have been advised by a student adviser at a Dutch university to stop trying to obtain a master's degree. This hurt me, but luckily I was stubborn enough to ignore it. A few years later, I graduated from computer science with a solid 7.8 GPA. More importantly, I think doing and finishing the study has been the best decision of my live.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_14: Never, because it's a bad idea to do something that might get you fired.
Today's college degree courses at today's prices are inappropriate for most students, and students often have little understanding of what a degree course is really about before starting it. You can't fix these problems by giving advice to individual students.
However, even though degree courses are inappropriate for many careers, employers increasingly require applicants to have a college degree before their application is considered. The system is broken in many ways. Rather than risk your job by giving advice which will provoke hostility in many people (see above responses), do what little you can to improve the system by discussing education issues with colleagues and perhaps publishing articles outlining possible improvements.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_15: You should never make such a recommendation. In many cases, your schools probation policies and separation policies will kick in. That's what they're designed to do, and there's little reason for you to get in the way. Decades of experience went into those policies, and they're often pretty accurate with respect to a student's ability to attain enough credits to graduate.
You should perhaps guide students in such a situation to counselors who are trained to guide students.
In my academic advising role in engineering, sometimes I encounter students who have a lot of trouble getting better than a C- in engineering classes. The approach I take with them depends very much on the vibe I get from the student. If I sense that the student is OK with this situation, and is willing to work very hard to pass courses, I'd let the student continue, but try to guide the student to some more practical courses or experiences that might help the student more aware of why they're valuable and to help them find their niche for employment (high grades aren't the only valuable things to an employer -- in fact, a student without the best academics who has the wherewithal to stick it out can be a wonderful employee!).
If it's pretty clear that the student is absolutely miserable and anxious, and dreads going to classes every day, I might start suggesting that they might be happier in another major, and start working with professional advisors in the school of engineering. In fact, if they can't get over a certain GPA in a particular subset of our courses, they can't be considered for admission to the degree program, which forces them to find another major. This largely accomplishes the same thing, but my experiences come from the bad old days when we granted "conditional" admits that dragged the process out. The last thing I want for a student is a miserable college experience.
We also ask our students to submit career plans. This provides another discussion opportunity, if the student's goals are not in line with their portfolio. In this case, I have a frank discussion, and encourage the student to speak with one of our preprofessional advisors (if a student with a 2.5 intends on going to med school, for example), or a career counselor.
In *very* rare cases, some situations pop up in which a student is in a situation incompatible with successful completion of a degree, such as a mental health crisis that needs to be resolved before they can successfully resume course work, or they seem like they might be a danger to themselves. In this case, once again, I'm not qualified to make any judgments, but we have mechanisms to get the student to resources that are.
In ALL of your conversations with students, I recommend a "let's find a way that you can be successful" approach, but they are adults, and make their own choices. Find resources at your school that you can reach out to to get the students the services they need.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_16: What any advisor is ethically bound to do, is to discuss the paths that are most favorable to the also ethical goals of the student. If for example, the best path for a particular student based on their goals was to take a position offered to them somewhere that prevents their continuing school, you don't say "I think you should drop out." Instead, you say, "it looks like that position might be your best path. It really seems to fit what you want to get out of life. You should consider taking it."
In other words, avoid telling a student what to not do. Instead discuss the best options for what they might do, potentially including options that might result in the student dropping out.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_17: When I was about 10 yo, a medical doctor told my father that I would never be an engineer because I was colorblind. He said that in front of me. Fuck you, doctor - from me, an engineer.
A psychologist at school (when I was maybe 15) told me that I should look at art studies (or something like that) because I would never be good in math and science. Fuck you, psychologist - also from me, a PhD in physics.
Please do not be that one about whom someone, someday, will think "fuck you" - because they may really take to their heart your recommendation and regret afterwards.
By that, I am not saying that your recommendation is necessarily wrong. It should just be kept to yourself because you may not know why they are seeking the degree in the first place.
Should they come to you for advice, you can of course show all the possible situations you anticipate, including the ones where they could be better elsewhere. It is fair to show them the whole palette of your thoughts **at their request**.
Finally, you mention that
>
> if a degree will not help them with their specific career goals, I think that they should drop out
>
>
>
Are you sure it will not?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_18: **Do nothing unless you are really really altruistic person and certain you are right.**
The other answers are harsh, and this is only a minor sample of problems you will see in real life if you decide to advise somebody to drop out.
Even if we assume you can precisely determine students future goals/career your problem is that facts do not matter.
University is selling a product, if you get in a way you are a problem.
Parents/kids have this romantic notion of getting a college degree (what is 40k in student loans when you are following your *dreams*), if you point out that logically education they are getting is not worth $40k you will be the problem.
So all this depends on your personal morality/certainty you are right, if I were you I would offer my opinion only if asked explicitly, while making sure this is discussed in a private setting.
Life is not a Hollywood movie, do not expect doing the right will be rewarded or acknowledged.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/10
| 736
| 3,171
|
<issue_start>username_0: My niece in Germany is applying for undergrad colleges, at this point she likes medicine and biology both. But she is not sure if she wants to end up being a doctor or a molecular biology researcher. It seems that the German system bifurcates from undergrad itself between medicine and biology - so in her case what would be a good option if she wants to do an undergrad and at the end of that decide to continue with medicine or focus fully on biology? If not possible in Germany, are there other European universities where this is possible?<issue_comment>username_1: In the German system, there are many courses of study that cannot accommodate as many students as who would like to enroll. This is also the reason for what you called a bifurcation -- without doing that early, i.e., at the beginning of the studies, the university would have problems allocating the needed resources.
Many universities have both restricted courses of study and courses that are completely open for anyone with a high school degree to enroll.
Note that Medicine is a full course of study taking at least 6 years. It's not a typical undergrad course of study. It should certainly be possible to study for a M.Sc degree in a related discipline afterwards, though. But that is rarely necessary - your niece could jump into research in an area related to her doctoral studies during the MD degree, if desired (many MDs have their doctoral thesis done before even getting their MD degree).
Switching from biology to medicine will be difficult due to the access restriction to the medicine course of study, at the very least without first finishing the complete biology course of study.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm a current med student in Germany. First things first: Biology and Medicine are taught absolutely independent from each other. There will be no easy switch no matter which subject she enrolls in first. Biology is organised as a bachelor/master's program, in Medicine we graduate with so called state's examination. So say she starts studying biology and after two semesters she wants to enroll in med school: she will have to start all over again. At this point she may be interested to know whether her background of Biology studies could reduce her workload at medschool (not required to take some classes etc): the short answer to this is no, probably not. She will have a broader understanding of some basic science taught in both bio/medicine, but that's it.
When I was doing my A levels, I too considered both molecular medicine and medicine. At some sort of open day at university, a Mol. Med professor told me it really comes down to one thing:
are you excited to work with patients or not?
Both subjects can path the way to science (mol med probably easier, but you can get into science after graduating med school). Only if you graduate medschool, you'll be able and allowed to treat patients.
For me, that was the moment I decided to study medicine.
I'd advise your niece to do an internship at a hospital to see if that's the kind of workplace she could imagine. Because that's what it comes down to in the end.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/11
| 961
| 4,036
|
<issue_start>username_0: I completed my higher ed in the U.S. (from B.A. to Ph.D.) and have been in this country for 12 years. I received a TT offer from a teaching university ( I didn't enjoy it but appreciated the opportunity), but the visa thing didn't work out. At this point, I'll have to leave the country because I'm at the end of my OPT.
I received a job offer from my home country. The university itself is an English-teaching institute with a decent teaching load, and they are pushing for research. As far as I know, my future colleagues are most foreigners (Korean, American, German, etc.). The pay is decent as well.
Therefore, I have two questions:
1. is it still possible for me to get a TT position in the U.S. after leaving?
2. will my work experience outside the U.S. be counted/valued?
I have been interviewing at different universities, but my choices of the school were more out of desperation than what I wanted. The school that I loved most had to pause their search due to COVID, and I missed more than half of the applications because the former employer didn't inform me about the situation until March. After many hard and tearing days, I am wondering if I should take the job offer back home to continue doing what I do with much better support to do research. But I fear that I won't be back in the states after leaving here.
I'd be glad to know your experience or suggestions! Thank you in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: In the German system, there are many courses of study that cannot accommodate as many students as who would like to enroll. This is also the reason for what you called a bifurcation -- without doing that early, i.e., at the beginning of the studies, the university would have problems allocating the needed resources.
Many universities have both restricted courses of study and courses that are completely open for anyone with a high school degree to enroll.
Note that Medicine is a full course of study taking at least 6 years. It's not a typical undergrad course of study. It should certainly be possible to study for a M.Sc degree in a related discipline afterwards, though. But that is rarely necessary - your niece could jump into research in an area related to her doctoral studies during the MD degree, if desired (many MDs have their doctoral thesis done before even getting their MD degree).
Switching from biology to medicine will be difficult due to the access restriction to the medicine course of study, at the very least without first finishing the complete biology course of study.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm a current med student in Germany. First things first: Biology and Medicine are taught absolutely independent from each other. There will be no easy switch no matter which subject she enrolls in first. Biology is organised as a bachelor/master's program, in Medicine we graduate with so called state's examination. So say she starts studying biology and after two semesters she wants to enroll in med school: she will have to start all over again. At this point she may be interested to know whether her background of Biology studies could reduce her workload at medschool (not required to take some classes etc): the short answer to this is no, probably not. She will have a broader understanding of some basic science taught in both bio/medicine, but that's it.
When I was doing my A levels, I too considered both molecular medicine and medicine. At some sort of open day at university, a Mol. Med professor told me it really comes down to one thing:
are you excited to work with patients or not?
Both subjects can path the way to science (mol med probably easier, but you can get into science after graduating med school). Only if you graduate medschool, you'll be able and allowed to treat patients.
For me, that was the moment I decided to study medicine.
I'd advise your niece to do an internship at a hospital to see if that's the kind of workplace she could imagine. Because that's what it comes down to in the end.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/11
| 1,003
| 3,968
|
<issue_start>username_0: Someone told me that there is a search engine that gets you most of research papers I may need for free.
He told me that this search engine is working based on using other members access to researches and make it available for all.
I tried searching for this search engine, but I could not find it.
Which search engine is it?<issue_comment>username_1: Your friend is probably thinking of [Sci-Hub](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub). Warning: it's likely illegal, including to use the service (as opposed to uploading stuff onto it), in most jurisdictions. If it's not already illegal in your jurisdiction, [the trend is towards illegality](https://law.stackexchange.com/a/33647/15133) (i.e. lawsuit after lawsuit has been ruled on, and they are usually in favor of the copyright holder).
If you want to do things legally, try something like [Unpaywall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Research#Unpaywall), or ask your local librarian. Librarians are incredibly good at finding papers, and they can often access something for free even if you can't.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In addition to *Sci-Hub* and *Unpaywall* mentioned by username_1, there are also databases for scientific papers which were published legally with an Open Access license, such as [CORE](https://core.ac.uk/) an [BASE](https://www.base-search.net/).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Unpaywall is a good option to access free papers from most of the disciplines.
Arxiv.org is an open-source community of free papers. It keeps on growing nowadays.
<https://doaj.org/> community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.
Academia <https://www.academia.edu/> offers a great way to connect to researchers. Refer to the paper you like and talk to the researcher and ask for it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I would also add to the above the very commonly used resource [Library Genesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis), which is less for paywalled papers and more for pdf's of books, including textbooks, but do keep in mind that this definitely falls in the same legal gray area as Sci-Hub and things like torrenting copyrighted materials.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: [arXiv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv) provides preprints of scientific articles that have not been peer reviewed. Many of the articles do subsequently get published in peer reviewed journals.
<https://arxiv.org/>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Google has a search engine called [Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/). According to them, "It provides a simple way to broadly search for scholary literature. From one place, you can search across many disciplines and sources: articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites."
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Simply put the full article name, and authors, as the input of the Google Search engine. Very often, the search engine will pull out some free version describing the same work by the same authors. It is most often some unfinished draft how it was while still in preparation and not yet reviewed, but you will be able to get the most of content, just less polished.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: [ResearchGate](https://www.researchgate.net/) is also collecting the papers from authors and providing that to you for free.
Even thought publishers might serve the Research Gate with [DMCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) letters to take it down, it has a feature that allows authors to keep their papers "privately", which in that case, you can ask the author to let you see their papers, if it is "private".
The downside is that not all papers are in there. But, it has a good growing number of recent articles.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/11
| 615
| 2,470
|
<issue_start>username_0: I once heard that nontraditional students are less likely to be funded for graduate school. Supposedly (according to this person), this is because 40+ year old students rarely get tenure track positions. Thus, I guess they aren't profitable for the school/program (perhaps unless they're self-funded). I wanted to ask if there was any truth to this.
I'm in my late 30's and am deciding if/where to apply for a master's degree (in a humanities field), but my long term goal is a PhD. Even at the master's level, however, would I have difficulty getting funding at my age?
Also, are nontraditional students more likely to be rejected? I know we present more of a risk for the program, as we're statistically more likely to develop health issues, have fewer productive years in the field, etc. Do admissions committees take this into consideration when evaluating nontraditional applicants?
\*Edit- I understand that discrimination is illegal, but this can be difficult to prove since all they have to find is one flaw in your application or decide that you're not a good "fit" for the program. (And my questions is not about winning a discrimination case but about initial acceptance vs. rejection.)<issue_comment>username_1: >
> this is because 40+ year old students rarely get tenure track positions.
>
>
>
False. PhD students of any age rarely get tenure track positions.
>
> Even at the master's level, however, would I have difficulty getting funding at my age?
>
>
>
Not because of your age; however, PhD funding is more common than master's funding.
>
> Also, are nontraditional students more likely to be rejected?
>
>
>
In most cases, no. You may experience confusion if the program has never had a nontraditional applicant.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: While I don’t think outright discrimination is the norm, I have heard admissions committees say that a long break between degrees shows you are not as committed or dedicated to an academic path as someone who went straight through. This does amount to preference for younger applicants.
You can counteract this in two ways: first, by explaining your career rationale and goals post-degree clearly in your Statement of Interest; and, second, by going directly from your Master’s to PhD as a full-time student for both.
In addition, as Paul notes, you should ask your letter writers to speak to your commitment to grad school in their letters.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/11
| 1,878
| 8,275
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a first-year mechanical engineering PhD at a Canadian university. I had by undergrad and a master's degree in materials engineering. My previous master's research was mostly experimental with some implementation of a mathematical model in Matlab and Fortran. All graduate courses were on programming or simple mathematical modeling or experimental analysis.
Now for the PhD degree, my research topic involves continuum mechanics, variational mechanics, and finite element analysis. There are no courses available in my university for the next two semesters. I had taken an "advanced" course last semester which had some continuum mechanics in it, but I found it fairly introductory.
My advisor says that in graduate school one must learn topics by oneself. And no one will look for these courses in the CV if one can publish papers using the methods.
I am starting to learn these from online courses and books. But I feel inadequate because of my poor undergraduate background in mathematics and these topics.
My PhD funding is for three years (can be extended to one more year). I need to start my research by the second year. I don't know what to do.
My advisor just points me towards relevant literature. I wonder if she has my best interests in mind.<issue_comment>username_1: Part, or most, of a PhD is about self-learning, so you have to step up and work on those subjects you need.
A PhD is usually to push the boundaries of knowledge in topics / areas etc so learning methods or techniques relevant to moving your research forward is what you have to do - simply said your supervisor is correct.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: You say "But I feel inadequate because of my poor undergraduate background in mathematics and these topics."
Given that, you should consider the possibility of taking some less specialized courses. Do not depend on getting the actual knowledge you need from the courses. Your advisor is right that you should be learning to learn from papers and books. Instead, aim to fill any gaps in your background knowledge and skills that are making it harder to learn independently.
Since you do not need any grades or diplomas from the background courses, you can consider on-line courses if they work for you and are available in the topics you need.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: For context, I am a third-year PhD student in physics who has completed all my coursework.
I think that your experience is the norm. As you get more advanced in your education and transition into focusing on research, it becomes less and less likely that your department will offer courses that cover exactly what you need (though this might depend on your research area). At some point, there will be topics that you will have to teach yourself by finding the right textbook, deciding what is important, and learning it.
It may be helpful to take courses that are tangentially related to your research area. I did this a few times when in your situation and found that many of these courses happened to come in handy later. However, I've found that the most efficient way to learn specific topics was by teaching myself. Taking a course is not always the fastest approach because it sometimes forces you to jump through hoops that you don't need to go through.
I think your advisor is right to point you towards relevant literature related to your project, as these will give the best indication of what topics you really need to learn for your research. Then you can aim your self-learning so that you get up to speed with the most essential skills as quickly as possible. Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: You could theoretically take one or two courses at a different university, that's close enough for you to travel there once a week. This is often officially sanctioned and counted towards your course requirements after some intra-university and cross-university paperwork; and if it isn't, you could still probably just "take" it unofficially.
Now, I'm not saying that this will necessarily be a *good idea*. You will have to get used to self-study - since most subjects you'll need to study up on don't have courses online, nor anywhere. Many will not even have any books, just a bunch of papers.
But - it might save you time and effort despite the travel; and you might even make academic contacts.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: Many people, including myself, have had similar frustrations to this. What I have learnt, over time, is that courses in the things I needed to learn simply didn't exist. Any where. The things I was interested in were simply too cutting edge to ever be taught in a classroom like setting. At the time I felt like this counld possibly be true. Surely there were lots of poeople out there that needed to know these things? What about all the people publishing papers in the field? Where did they learn?
Well it turns out, you just have to muddle through. No one is going to "teach" you these things.
Okay, now that i've effectively said the same as everyone else, what can you do about it and how can you get help?
The first thing is that you need materials. Collect together any papers, books etc, any online courses. It sounds like you've already done this - well done.
Now you need a general overview of the field. What are the main uses of the field. What categories do the main techniques fall into etc. Get a grasp of the things you don't know. Turn the unknown unknowns into known unknowns. Do this by reading broadly but shallowly. Read the introductory chapters in books and the introductions to papers etc.
Now set your self specific goals. Not "I want to understand the field" or even "this week I will understand this subfield". One of the first things any training in pedagogy will teach you is that "understand" is not a useful word. A good goal would be "I would like to know when it is appropriate to use tool X". Or "What are the steps in derviving the main model in approach Z". Its good to focus all this on a particular question or application, presumably the one you will be tackling in your PhD.
If you are feeling that you lack the background in a particular sort of mathematics, then organise to do a course in that piece of missing background.
How can your supervisor help in this? They can't "teach" you the subject. They do not have the time. Instead, arrange for your supervisor to help you plan with sub-bit you will tackle next and give you some accountability on your progress. They can help steer you to what sub-fields are most appropriate. You can also get them to help with with specific problems "Can you help me with thisstep in this derivation?" Or "I keep getting a different answer to the authors in this paper, can you see why?". Make sure the questions you are asking are specific.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: This is very sad.
Is this research something that the advisor actually wants to do? Has she published in this area? Or is this just something that there was grant money available for? If so you are being used as cheap labor just so that your advisor can appear to be active and engaged.
That most certainly should not be norm, but it is not unknown. You have been assigned to a project for which you have expressed no enthusiasm and in which you have no training or experience. If this is the case what can you do about it? Others have made practical suggestions, but how approachable is your Head of Department? This one of the things that they are paid to sort out. They might be able to point you toward suitable resources. They could assign you to a new advisor. Your Department should also have a Graduate Chair,which might be a better place to start.
It could be however, that doing anything to make the department look good on paper is a deliberate policy. In that case, you may really be on your own. Ombudsman?
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: You should look into the Western Dean’s Agreement in Canada. It allows graduate students to take courses at other universities without paying additional fees of attending another university program. It is incredibly powerful and can help you to address the needs of courses your institution does not offer.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/11
| 2,173
| 9,447
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm in the following situation: currently I'm finishing my Master's in (mathematical) Logic in Amsterdam. I'm interested in doing a PhD (preferably in the US), either in something more applied or in continuation of my current research (set theory/proof theory). I've understood this logic department has excellent placement for PhDs (many go on to places like CMU, Oxbridge, Berkeley, Stanford) and the study program is considered fairly intensive. However, I have significant chronic health issues preventing me to study much beyond 70% of what is considered ordinary full time studies here, without it affecting my mental health (although I should add that in this program around 25-40% of the people don't fully reach the 100% rate). The illness does not affect my ability to do mathematics, just how much I can do effectively of it in a day. Therefore, in all likelihood I would need more time, or at least the possibility of more time, to finish a PhD successfully. Say the average time of some PhD program X to finish is 5 years, I might need 6.5-7 years. I've read many questions on this site related to my situation, but I get very mixed signals in the answers.
So:
1. Given the situation is it even reasonable to attempt a PhD?
2. Suppose I were to apply for a PhD in (say) the US, and I am honest and upfront about the situation to my potential supervisor, would such extensions be possible? Or would it just mean an instant rejection?
3. If I'm open to pursue more applied avenues (logic in computer science perhaps) would this change the answer to the above two questions? The reason I ask is that I've gotten the strong impression that such programs are in general somewhat less intensive than those in pure mathematics. But this can also just be a symptom of superiority feeling that floats around in many pure math departments ;)<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds like what you need (subject to consideration of some issues that I will discuss soon) is to seek a **part-time** PhD candidature. It is not impossible to get this, but some universities are reluctant to grant entry to the program because of the long period it takes, and the risk of non-completion. Some candidates enrol in a part-time candidature because they have a full-time job (one of my past PhD candidates was a part-timer and graduated successfully) but there is no inherent reason you could not seek a part-time workload for other reasons, including health issues.
>
> 1. Given the situation is it even reasonable to attempt a PhD?
>
>
>
This is a matter of opportunity cost and it depends on many factors (e.g., how old you are, your ultimate career goal, etc.). Don't kid yourself --- seven years is a long investment of your time and is a substantial opportunity cost. You will also need to consider how you will sustain yourself financially for this time. Nevertheless, if you really want to develop further in this research field, and you are still pretty young, you might find that seven years of study is a worthwhile investment of your time.
>
> 2. Suppose I were to apply for a PhD in (say) the US, and I am honest and upfront about the situation to my potential supervisor, would such extensions be possible? Or would it just mean an instant rejection?
>
>
>
I can't really say whether being open about your circumstance will hurt your chances of entry. That really depends on the views of the particular academics that scrutinise your application. All I can say is that if I were the potential supervisor looking at your application, I would appreciate knowing up-front that you want to do the program part-time, and it would not bother me to have a student do this. So long as the other aspects of an application are good (i.e., strong skills, good previous education, etc.) there would be no issue for me in accepting a PhD candidate on a part-time basis. Probably the only issue would be interviewing the student to make sure they are confident that they can sustain interest in the topic for such a long period of time. Other academics may have a different view, but that is my own view.
The other important thing to bear in mind here is that there is an existence after acceptance in the program that you want to think about. It is best to get accepted under an explicit agreement that you will work part-time, and with work expectations diminished accordingly. A PhD candidature can be quite stressful, and it will compound that stress if you put yourself in a position where your supervisors expect a higher workload from you than you are able to give. Contrarily, if you have this conversation up-front, and you are accepted, you will be able to start on the right foot, knowing that the work expectation of your supervisors accords with what you are able to give.
>
> 3. If I'm open to pursue more applied avenues (logic in computer science perhaps) would this change the answer to the above two questions? The reason I ask is that I've gotten the strong impression that such programs are in general somewhat less intensive than those in pure mathematics. But this can also just be a symptom of superiority feeling that floats around in many pure math departments ;)
>
>
>
The entry requirements may indeed be different for different programs, but I do not think it changes any of the previous advice.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: My advice, for the US, is to share your medical condition as *narrowly* as possible. Most US universities will have an office for student support in such things and they may need to know so that they can provide some services that will help you. But I, personally, probably wouldn't share it even with an advisor unless and until it proves to be an actual issue. I don't know whether this is a purely US view, but there are rules about discrimination for medical conditions here.
I also wouldn't try to work out in advance some "part time" degree. Just take as long as you need to take (caveat below).
I'm guessing a bit here, but also suggest that you are better off in pure math than applied math here, since the former seldom has deadlines to worry about. Research takes as long as it takes. And you are probably better off in a subfield that you already know pretty well to help you get through any coursework and comprehensive exams.
Don't worry about or suggest "partial stipends". Most doctoral students in the US serve as TAs, working with students in elementary classes, grading or running study sessions. Stipends without duties, as such, are pretty rare, though you seem to be writing about a pretty high level place where they may be a bit less rare. But they are likely funded by grants, even then. If you can put in the time for that, then it doesn't need to end since you are providing a service that the university vitally needs.
Caveat: Some universities have a quite firm maximum number of years of study. Make sure you know about that before you begin, but also that you know what accommodation can be made in your case. And many students take seven years to complete for other reasons. You don't have to hit the median to be successful.
Again, the student support office can be your friend.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think a PhD is possible, but I am not sure whether you have maximised your opportunities.
Your main focus is understandably on health restrictions, but from the supervisors and institutions point of view, funding, ability for you to support yourself, ability for you to access appropriate health care etc etc would be the major considerations, before the usual issues of competency, skill etc. I think a green card does help with the application and visa process. But I do not think that the usual and even the more expensive stipends would be enough unfortunately Ibrahim, sad to say, despite your interest, competence and skill.
Even with all that lined up, bigger issues would need to be considered. All the various visas and checks, would you fail those due to the health condition? Are there more health checks required after obtaining a Green card? Australia demands that its international students are able to obtain appropriate health insurance before any offers can be made, for example. Many students can not come here due to inadequate health insurance coverage unfortunately. It is likely that your health issues would be covered by the university insurance, but details that like that, you would need to deep dive and clarify due to your condition(s).
Once you have your head around all that, then approaching supervisors and networking is key. Hopefully people from your Masters can help, and you can find a great team that is understanding and flexible enough for your needs.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: You can consider applying for fellowships instead of PhD programs. There are accommodations for people with medical conditions in applications for fellowships. I know for instance UCLA fellowship programs have such accommodations. Try to reach out to Office of Research in the target university and let them know about your condition.
Some fellowship applications require you to find a professor who can sponsor you beforehand and some do not. Your research plan (proposal) can be as short as two pages as one of the application materials. The whole process can take up to one year and you can apply for multiple fellowships to increase your chances.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/06/11
| 1,228
| 5,152
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know this is relative to a person's unique situation or career objectives, but generally speaking, what can a Master's in Business administration do for a computer scientist?
The reason I ask is because I have a bachelor's in CS and I jumped right into a semester of my MBA, having it a third of the way finished. But now I am retracted because I'm not exactly sure what will come of this degree.
Will it propel me in my career (opportunity and/or salary) or will it just be a complete waste?
I guess my initial thinking was that an MBA would allow me to be able to manage some software/IT projects being well versed in development as well as the business side of things that stimulate ideas. But now I am wondering if this would even be the best way to achieve that. I'm stuck at a crossroad and would appreciate some feedback, preferably from someone who has experience in these career fields.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> what can a Master's in Business administration do for a computer scientist?
>
>
>
An MBA would allow a computer scientist to **complement their technical skills with business skills**.
>
> Will it propel me in my career (opportunity and/or salary) or will it just be a complete waste?
>
>
>
A business-technical skillset is surely a competitive advantage.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: An MBA may do 4 positive things for you, especially if it is a prestigious one:
1. It will teach you various established **frameworks and methodologies for dealing with business management issues**, introducing topics like business strategy, managerial accounting and financial planning, applied micro- and macro-economics, and applied psychology and business organization. People will argue that you could learn all this on your own from books, but would you take the time? And there is value to someone having designed a standardized curriculum about it.
2. It will train you up in the **"case method"**, i.e. exercises by group work where you are given background on a business problem and work through some very concrete and some very open-ended questions about it, and present orally and in writing in class about it. There's nothing magical about it, but it teaches you ways of structuring your time, communicating your results, and working in groups (including dealing with minor interpersonal friction) which all have important differences versus sciences and/or engineering.
3. You will network with your MBA peers, who will form a **cohort of mutual support through upcoming decades of your career** as you switch from technical to business/management. Many MBAs feel this is the most important of the benefits.
4. You gain a **credential** as well as **create a breakpoint** in your career. There is lots of recruiting on MBA campuses, so you will have lots of opportunities to explore career alternatives; much easier to access than if you were rising from technical to managerial ranks at your current employer only. Even if you return to your current employer, you now have a demonstrable credential and a jolt of external knowledge and validation that is quite likely to earn you at least some respect, and "mark" you as being suitable for a technical->business transition.
It will however:
5. Cost oodles of money, likely putting you in **debt** for several years (unless your current employer pays for it), and carries the **opportunity cost** [that's an example of MBA-speak for you] of 1-2 years of your life you're not getting back.
As to **salary**, it depends. Pretty clearly the starting salary of an MBA > undergrad CS degree only. By and large, it will probably pay off long term (even after the debt + delay in point 5), but there are definitely niches in computer science where the right expertise is scarce and the sky is the limit for $, and arguably the lifestyle-adjusted $ is higher. But as to whether this will persist over the duration of a career is anyone's guess.
*[My germane background: precocious young software developer decades ago, then math Ph.D., then several years in business/consulting/management in roles where my peers had MBAs but I didn't. Now freelance consultant and part-time academic/teacher, including in business schools.]*
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I remember asking this question 5 months ago. Fast forward 5 months later and I've accepted a position as an entry level developer! The sweet thing: I got a salary increase because of my MBA! I start in June, which is a month after I'm supposed to graduate. The other nice thing is that the MBA program only cost me about 16k in total, which isn't too bad if you ask me.
In terms of the education itself, I don't regret it one bit because it steered me in the direction of finding financial literacy, which is huge in these times. I was taught all sorts of CS topics, but never the importance of financial literacy. I believe my CS degree taught me how to make money, but my MBA taught me how to manage and KEEP money.
I thank everyone who shared their responses because I remember back then how stressed I was. Everything is pretty smooth sailing now
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/11
| 388
| 1,533
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Original Text:**
>
> The questionnaire was designed by the researcher to gather data on the
> perceptions of students based on their experiences in the blended
> environment. It consisted of Likert-type items and open-ended
> questions. The content of the questionnaire was derived from a
> literature review on blended learning and authenticity of learning,
> from conversations with teaching staff, and from the researcher‟s
> previous experiences in the use of blended format in teaching and
> learning. Experts from Doctoral Committee were asked their opinions in
> order to ensure content validity.
>
>
>
**My Text**
**This part will be readded after finalizing my thesis.**<issue_comment>username_1: As plagiarism can be defined as taking another’s language, thoughts, ideas or expressions then yes I suggest that is plagiarism. So you should reference the source.
See <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism>
This answer was written **before** the OP edited the question showing that it would be referenced.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Assuming that (Gedik, 2010) is the source of the original, I don't think you have a problem since, (a) you give the citation and (b) the ways to express the needed ideas here are very limited.
You are clearly making reference to the original work. And it is clear you are describing the work of another.
The essential elements describing the questionnaire must all be present and you have minimally done that.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/06/12
| 1,032
| 4,603
|
<issue_start>username_0: Using alphabetical ordering for authors' names is a long established tradition in mathematics.
In the situations of extremely unequal contributions, is it reasonable to break from this tradition? Has there been any examples? If it is common, what is the threshold for breaking from alphabetical ordering?<issue_comment>username_1: *Edit: this answer is about pure math.*
It’s not common. In 25 years of reading math papers I‘ve only ever seen one example of a paper that had a nonalphabetical author ordering. It was an English translation of a Russian paper from the 1970s written by a PhD student and his advisor. I don’t know what the story was behind this unconventional author order, but all I know is that the advisor’s name appears first even though alphabetically he comes second.
>
> In the situations of extremely unequal contributions, is it reasonable to break from this tradition?
>
>
>
No. Since you’re going against the overwhelming norm in math publishing, no one will have a clear sense of what exactly you’re trying to say. Also, consider the fact that it could be that the author order that reflects the actual author contributions might coincide with the alphabetical order (for example in the paper I mentioned, it was competely random that the PhD advisor came second alphabetically and could easily have been the other way around). In that case the signal will be lost entirely.
My conclusion is that the idea of forcing this signaling mechanism on a math publication culture that isn’t adapted to it is illogical, ineffective, and will lead to inconsistent results that are only very weakly correlated with the effect you’re trying to achieve. If I were a journal editor and I received a submission that tries to use this mechanism, I would tell the authors to find a different way to say what they want to say about the author contributions.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It is not actually true that in mathematics alphabetical order is a long established tradition. This is only true in pure mathematics.
In many parts of applied and computational mathematics, ordering by contribution (or other criteria) is just as widely or more widely used. Only a handful of my my 50+ papers are in alphabetical order.
My take, different from username_1's, is that most professional mathematicians are well aware that there are different conventions in different parts of mathematics, and that they can well put things in perspective. That is certainly true for evaluating colleagues during annual evaluation time or when you apply for positions. If you're in a hard-core pure math area where nobody uses non-alphabetical author order, such a paper may seem odd but I am pretty sure that everyone will still be able to see what the purpose is.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: In the answers and comments, it's suggested that it's extremely rare in pure math, and there are only one or two such papers. I'd suggest that while it is rare, it's not as rare as username_1's answer and a couple of comment's suggest. I myself have noticed a number of papers where the author list is non-alphabetical (and in fact I'm a co-author on one). My impression is that the two most common reasons for these situations are:
* there was some confusion about the alphabetical ordering, typically with non-English names (maybe unRomantic names is better?) as in <NAME>'s comment and as seems to be the case in username_1's example
* the contributions to the paper were highly unbalanced among co-authors (e.g., the RSA paper---at least from A's perspective)
That said, just by seeing such a situation, it's probably not clear why the author order is non-alphabetical, and people will wonder why when they notice it. So unless some of the authors feel strongly about it, I wouldn't recommend doing this as a matter of course, and especially not unless all authors agree.
Here are some alternative suggestions for how to handle a situation like this:
1. Break the project up into two (or more) different papers, using different subsets of authors to better represent author contributions.
2. Instead of making separate papers, have 1 paper but with appendices with different sets of authors.
3. Include a comment in the introduction about each author's contributions.
4. Be generous (or thankful, depending on which party you are), and don't worry about it. (This is the probably the most common solution to this rather frequent situation, and unless the paper is really groundbreaking, sharing credit shouldn't be too much of a burden.)
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/06/12
| 1,268
| 5,395
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am reading a paper published in a SCI-core journal.
After a very careful and tedious evaluation, I have come to the conclusion that the authors have made serious mistakes.
Should I write to the editor of the journal about it so that other people do not waste their time on this paper and may learn a thing or two about it? How can we do that?<issue_comment>username_1: Editors may be reluctant to publish your letter. In that case, [PubPeer](https://pubpeer.com/) - which offers the possibility to write publicly available (critical) comments on research papers - may offer a good alternative.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Assuming you are have carefully checked that there really are serious errors, the best course of action would be to contact the authors of the paper first. Maybe they can explain subtle details, not clearly described in the paper, that explain everything. Of course it is important to be nice: It is very well possible that everything appeared to be correct with the knowledge at the time the paper was published. Or that it is you who misinterpreted the methods (possibly because the paper was a little vague). And even if there are errors: nobody is perfect. So please be nice.
It is possible that the authors wish to collaborate with you to correct the errors, leading to a shared publication: a win-win situation. I have seen this happen more than once.
If this does not work for some reason you can consider contacting the editor, who may or may not be interested in correcting the errors. That will be up to the editor.
Depending on your specific case, it may also be possible to do some experiments yourself and publish your findings, referencing the paper with the errors and correcting them.
However, if the errors are minor, the result is "unimportant", or you are not too sure that there really is a mistake that needs correcting, you could also decide to simply ignore the paper. There are plenty of bad and/or unimportant papers out there and frankly, they do not deserve the attention even if it is to correct mistakes.
Note: I have partly copied from [my own answer to a different, related question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/98833/do-i-point-to-mistakes-in-a-paper-if-i-cannot-contact-the-authors/98834#98834).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: To elaborate on @username_1's sensible answer: in most fields of science we have a rotten publishing system which rarely corrects errors. Depending on the field, you can expect 20-80% of published papers to be false, only a small fraction of which are ever corrected. In a publish or perish world, authors and editors have strong incentives not to correct mistakes.
Correcting mistakes via the journal that publishes them is very slow and time-consuming: by the time a correction appears (if ever) most of the damage will be done. So you should look for other routes in order to quickly broadcast your opinon on that article.
The venue to do that depends on your field. PubPeer would be a possibility. In physics or mathematics you could write a comment as an Arxiv preprint. If the paper in question is on Biorxiv, you can directly write your comment there.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I think the best thing to do is contact the authors. I expect that you'd want to be contacted if there was a potential issue with one of your papers! If they don't get back to you within about a week, it might make sense to contact the editor.
If you contact the authors, you may find that situation is not as bad as it seems:
1. Perhaps the paper's conclusions are correct, it's just that an implementation detail in the paper is wrong.
2. Maybe it just doesn't generalize to your use case e.g. due to differences in data preprocessing.
Remember, most papers are reviewed by the authors and their colleagues many times, in addition to being reviewed by editors and external reviewers. As a result, I think it's important to be respectful and report your findings in a clear and constructive way. If your findings have not been reviewed yet, you're asking the authors of the original paper to review your findings.
Finally, it may make sense to publish a paper or corrigendum on your conflicting results. This might be a substantial contribution to your field. You could also post a preprint on your preliminary results, e.g. to the arXiv, to raise awareness.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: The first thing is to contact the authors and politely ask for clarifications. It could be a “simple” oversight at any point in the process.
If you are not satisfied with the answer, then the next step would be prepare a Comment describing the issue and submit this to the same journal for publication. Presumably if your objections are *prima faciae* valid the editor would then contact the authors of the original paper for a reply, and the Comment plus rebuttal would then be published side by side if this clarifies the published paper.
The last option would be to publish this comment on arXiv or any such platforms. In particular if the original erroneous manuscript was published on arXiv then sending the comment there would be the natural thing to do. Doing this escalates the dispute to the public level and is often seen as agressive, especially if you have not tried to reach out to the authors first.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/06/12
| 2,251
| 9,479
|
<issue_start>username_0: My concern is that I completely lost interest in science over the past few months, however, I am still towards the end of my first year of my PhD studies. I will offer some background:
I have always been a straight-A student, studying my field of current research (let's call it X) from the very young age of 12 years old very passionately. This interest won me honorable mentions in International Olympiads on X as a high-school student. During these years, for many reasons, I faced a lot of disappointment, but thinking that X was the only field I felt comfortable in and well-equiped for, I decided to study it in college, because it was late to start over. Even if I didn't do so there was no other field I would have the energy to start over with. During these years I transformed from a straight-A student to a very good one, but I never treated my subjects with real interest. I'd just found the way to get good grades by memorizing methodologies etc. Then I got into an MSc where from a very good student I transformed into a barely-passing-courses one, but fortunately a nice thesis gave me a place in a very nice PhD program.
It took me a long time to realize I am no longer a student and that being praised is not part of the PhD experience and that costs me, because I don't have the validation to give me the energy to continue. Moreover, it's my fourth month of being quarantined and forced to work from home in light of COVID-19 in another country without my partner, my family or any friends, but what brings me down with regard to my PhD are questions like:
* How much asking for scientific help is too much during a PhD? e.g. at what point during debugging is it reasonable within a PhD to resort to my advisor for help before them claiming I am not independent enough?
* How can I handle my emotions towards other collaborators or my advisor sometimes acting as if they are disappointed?
* Why no matter how hard I work and how good or fast I get results, I never seem to get even one single word of validation?
* Why no matter how hard I work and how good or fast I get results the publication of my first paper seems to be postponed more and more?
Of course, in one way or another, all the above have to do with validation and in ideal circumstances, one does not need validation to move forward, as it is not something that normally comes when you are an independent researcher. But given all the above and the fact that I am in denial about wanting to do science, I wonder if I am in the right place. Recently my advisor suggested that I slow down because I show symptoms of burn-out, but I am wondering if I want to continue with my PhD in general as over the past months I have been feeling overwhelmed and unmotivated and this does not seem to go away. I communicate with my advisor openly enough, but no matter how much we discuss I feel trapped in an unproductive and distressing situation.
And the saddest of all is that I feel drained of energy, I carry a constant brain fog (since starting college) and have no willingness whatsoever to ask scientific questions in general.
P.S.: To the question "What would you rather do if you weren't doing a PhD?", I would say "Nothing seems interesting to me".
Any help would be much appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: You show strong signs of burn-out. It is unclear whether you really lost interest in science or you simply did not make the proper transition from being motivated by the triggers of your youth (winning competitions) to the triggers of scientific endeavour on its own.
Also note, competitions are fun, because they are hard, but solvable in limited time. Full Metal Science, however, is tough. You have no idea whether things work, whether there is a solution and, if there is, how long it takes. It's a completely different game. It's a 100-m sprint vs. a marathon.
There are a couple of ways out. If you can afford to, you should take time off for a few months, even half a year and do other things. Stuff you enjoy, sleeping, traveling, gaming, whatever, without pressure. Forget science for that period. Then, but only then, after your return, come back and take account of what really makes you tick. What is it that you would like to be doing for the next 5 years? Not your lifetime, just 5 years. And move from there.
If you cannot afford to go away for a few months, there is something else you could try, namely starting a scientific hobby. Take a bit of time apart where you do something that is PhD-irrelevant. Solving problems? Hacking some software? Or something entirely different. Make yourself clear that this does not have to be published, it's just something to keep you aware about what you enjoyed about science. There is Feynman's anecdote about the wobbling plate, very pertinent to you. In any case, absolutely make sure to hard-limit your PhD hours per day. Make sure you keep a hobby, and a network of people etc. It sounds like a waste of time, but it isn't. Your other hours will count more if they are boxed in.
TL;DR:
1. Take time off.
2. If not possible, find a scientific hobby and hard-box your PhD hours.
3. Keep your other activities on plan, almost without exception (except for isolated important deadlines).
PS: I have no advice concerning your mentioning of hypersensitivity concerning feedback from others. That's not really a question we can answer here, and some people's advice would be almost automatically to recommend therapy. I am not saying this is not the right step, but some people find this overkill. If validation of others plays a bigger role for you than the topic itself, you probably need to consider activities which get you this validation more directly by interacting with people, such as blogging, science journalism (if science interests you at all anymore, that is).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: While burnout is a common enough reason for what you experience as stated by [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/150445/75368), there is another possibility.
Part of your description seems to imply that you sort of coasted through your education until recently, never having to work hard at it. Perhaps you have just reached your natural level of learning and are now discovering that you do, in fact, need to really work. Not your "maximum" of course, and there isn't a word I know that is better than "natural". I hope you get the idea.
I was lucky enough to reach my level rather early (secondary school). I was once told, after some sort of general test that I should "aspire" to a junior college education but would probably be less successful in a full bachelors program. It made me mad enough that pushed myself to succeed and wound up with a math doctorate. My sister, on the other hand cruised through, always showing me up. But she quit early when it finally got hard for her, though she is very bright.
For burnout, the solution is as suggested in the other answer quoted. But for reaching your level and still having the desire to continue the solution is to find more effective, methodical, ways of learning. For me it was doing all of the problems in the textbook, not just the ones assigned. It may not mean longer hours, but more effective study. Taking more and better notes. Summarizing your notes. Seeking insight, asking questions of everyone. Noting their answers. Not assuming that you have learned something because you saw or heard it or read it once.
I had the advantage of having one goal: to be an academic mathematician. I drove to that goal pretty relentlessly, though did also suffer a burnout episode that set me back. But learning early that I had to work to learn was a big help.
I wonder if your sense of lack of validation is related to this issue. You are no longer the golden one. You are surrounded by your peers not your inferiors. That may be a new sensation for you.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Use the lack of validation as a motivator. When I look back over my research career so far, beginning with my PhD (in Mathematics), I often wonder if I would have been as successful without the painful criticisms along the way. I can point to at least 3 professors and a few co-workers who openly doubted my abilities and were sometimes very **nasty** about it. I think that subconsciously I used this as motivation to succeed in order to prove that they were wrong.
I imagine there are a few certifiable geniuses like Terence Tao who never experienced this doubt from others, but generally I think that most successful research is a product being hard-headed, developing a thick skin, and putting your nose to the grindstone. Of course it helps to have a particular subject that you are passionate about, and it sounds like this may also be your issue. Since nothing other than mathematics is interesting to you, I would look into some other areas of mathematics until something piques your interest. What your advisor wants you to do may not be best for you, and it is easy to become burned out when working on other people's problems that you really don't care about. This was my case as well, so I began working on problems in a tangentially related field, and that is where I found my success. I found the small part of math that I enjoyed, and made everything work out through sheer tyranny of will. There is a kernel of truth in the saying "Find what you love and let it kill you".
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/12
| 1,748
| 7,064
|
<issue_start>username_0: Watch [Sold in America: The Workers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRQqN0qPEus) at 5:15, the owner of the [*Moonlite Bunny Ranch*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlite_BunnyRanch) [Dennis Hof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hof) says:
>
> *I have three PhDs working for me. One of them is a professor at UNLV (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) and a working girl for me.*
>
>
>
Is this plausible?
Do US universities allow a professor (part-time or full-time) to work in a brothel (full-time or part-time) while he/she is working as an active professor at the university?
My question stems from the fact that this gives rise to the possibility that a student may end up having sex with the professor in the brothel. I knew US universities do not allow professors to engage in love affairs with students. So, having sex seems to be a far cry.<issue_comment>username_1: You show strong signs of burn-out. It is unclear whether you really lost interest in science or you simply did not make the proper transition from being motivated by the triggers of your youth (winning competitions) to the triggers of scientific endeavour on its own.
Also note, competitions are fun, because they are hard, but solvable in limited time. Full Metal Science, however, is tough. You have no idea whether things work, whether there is a solution and, if there is, how long it takes. It's a completely different game. It's a 100-m sprint vs. a marathon.
There are a couple of ways out. If you can afford to, you should take time off for a few months, even half a year and do other things. Stuff you enjoy, sleeping, traveling, gaming, whatever, without pressure. Forget science for that period. Then, but only then, after your return, come back and take account of what really makes you tick. What is it that you would like to be doing for the next 5 years? Not your lifetime, just 5 years. And move from there.
If you cannot afford to go away for a few months, there is something else you could try, namely starting a scientific hobby. Take a bit of time apart where you do something that is PhD-irrelevant. Solving problems? Hacking some software? Or something entirely different. Make yourself clear that this does not have to be published, it's just something to keep you aware about what you enjoyed about science. There is Feynman's anecdote about the wobbling plate, very pertinent to you. In any case, absolutely make sure to hard-limit your PhD hours per day. Make sure you keep a hobby, and a network of people etc. It sounds like a waste of time, but it isn't. Your other hours will count more if they are boxed in.
TL;DR:
1. Take time off.
2. If not possible, find a scientific hobby and hard-box your PhD hours.
3. Keep your other activities on plan, almost without exception (except for isolated important deadlines).
PS: I have no advice concerning your mentioning of hypersensitivity concerning feedback from others. That's not really a question we can answer here, and some people's advice would be almost automatically to recommend therapy. I am not saying this is not the right step, but some people find this overkill. If validation of others plays a bigger role for you than the topic itself, you probably need to consider activities which get you this validation more directly by interacting with people, such as blogging, science journalism (if science interests you at all anymore, that is).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: While burnout is a common enough reason for what you experience as stated by [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/150445/75368), there is another possibility.
Part of your description seems to imply that you sort of coasted through your education until recently, never having to work hard at it. Perhaps you have just reached your natural level of learning and are now discovering that you do, in fact, need to really work. Not your "maximum" of course, and there isn't a word I know that is better than "natural". I hope you get the idea.
I was lucky enough to reach my level rather early (secondary school). I was once told, after some sort of general test that I should "aspire" to a junior college education but would probably be less successful in a full bachelors program. It made me mad enough that pushed myself to succeed and wound up with a math doctorate. My sister, on the other hand cruised through, always showing me up. But she quit early when it finally got hard for her, though she is very bright.
For burnout, the solution is as suggested in the other answer quoted. But for reaching your level and still having the desire to continue the solution is to find more effective, methodical, ways of learning. For me it was doing all of the problems in the textbook, not just the ones assigned. It may not mean longer hours, but more effective study. Taking more and better notes. Summarizing your notes. Seeking insight, asking questions of everyone. Noting their answers. Not assuming that you have learned something because you saw or heard it or read it once.
I had the advantage of having one goal: to be an academic mathematician. I drove to that goal pretty relentlessly, though did also suffer a burnout episode that set me back. But learning early that I had to work to learn was a big help.
I wonder if your sense of lack of validation is related to this issue. You are no longer the golden one. You are surrounded by your peers not your inferiors. That may be a new sensation for you.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Use the lack of validation as a motivator. When I look back over my research career so far, beginning with my PhD (in Mathematics), I often wonder if I would have been as successful without the painful criticisms along the way. I can point to at least 3 professors and a few co-workers who openly doubted my abilities and were sometimes very **nasty** about it. I think that subconsciously I used this as motivation to succeed in order to prove that they were wrong.
I imagine there are a few certifiable geniuses like Terence Tao who never experienced this doubt from others, but generally I think that most successful research is a product being hard-headed, developing a thick skin, and putting your nose to the grindstone. Of course it helps to have a particular subject that you are passionate about, and it sounds like this may also be your issue. Since nothing other than mathematics is interesting to you, I would look into some other areas of mathematics until something piques your interest. What your advisor wants you to do may not be best for you, and it is easy to become burned out when working on other people's problems that you really don't care about. This was my case as well, so I began working on problems in a tangentially related field, and that is where I found my success. I found the small part of math that I enjoyed, and made everything work out through sheer tyranny of will. There is a kernel of truth in the saying "Find what you love and let it kill you".
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/06/12
| 1,616
| 6,910
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am seeking to re-establish my research career after a 7-year career break. The first step involves submitting a paper to a peer reviewed journal which reports a study that was conducted 7 years ago. In the cover letter to editors that I have prepared, I point out that the topic remains timely, and I provide relevant references to illustrate this (which have also been used to update the paper).
Because I am not currently affiliated with an academic institution, I don’t have a university address to provide in the contact information section during the manuscript submission process. Any thoughts on whether this will affect my acceptance chances? Should I provide my current home address instead?<issue_comment>username_1: You show strong signs of burn-out. It is unclear whether you really lost interest in science or you simply did not make the proper transition from being motivated by the triggers of your youth (winning competitions) to the triggers of scientific endeavour on its own.
Also note, competitions are fun, because they are hard, but solvable in limited time. Full Metal Science, however, is tough. You have no idea whether things work, whether there is a solution and, if there is, how long it takes. It's a completely different game. It's a 100-m sprint vs. a marathon.
There are a couple of ways out. If you can afford to, you should take time off for a few months, even half a year and do other things. Stuff you enjoy, sleeping, traveling, gaming, whatever, without pressure. Forget science for that period. Then, but only then, after your return, come back and take account of what really makes you tick. What is it that you would like to be doing for the next 5 years? Not your lifetime, just 5 years. And move from there.
If you cannot afford to go away for a few months, there is something else you could try, namely starting a scientific hobby. Take a bit of time apart where you do something that is PhD-irrelevant. Solving problems? Hacking some software? Or something entirely different. Make yourself clear that this does not have to be published, it's just something to keep you aware about what you enjoyed about science. There is Feynman's anecdote about the wobbling plate, very pertinent to you. In any case, absolutely make sure to hard-limit your PhD hours per day. Make sure you keep a hobby, and a network of people etc. It sounds like a waste of time, but it isn't. Your other hours will count more if they are boxed in.
TL;DR:
1. Take time off.
2. If not possible, find a scientific hobby and hard-box your PhD hours.
3. Keep your other activities on plan, almost without exception (except for isolated important deadlines).
PS: I have no advice concerning your mentioning of hypersensitivity concerning feedback from others. That's not really a question we can answer here, and some people's advice would be almost automatically to recommend therapy. I am not saying this is not the right step, but some people find this overkill. If validation of others plays a bigger role for you than the topic itself, you probably need to consider activities which get you this validation more directly by interacting with people, such as blogging, science journalism (if science interests you at all anymore, that is).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: While burnout is a common enough reason for what you experience as stated by [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/150445/75368), there is another possibility.
Part of your description seems to imply that you sort of coasted through your education until recently, never having to work hard at it. Perhaps you have just reached your natural level of learning and are now discovering that you do, in fact, need to really work. Not your "maximum" of course, and there isn't a word I know that is better than "natural". I hope you get the idea.
I was lucky enough to reach my level rather early (secondary school). I was once told, after some sort of general test that I should "aspire" to a junior college education but would probably be less successful in a full bachelors program. It made me mad enough that pushed myself to succeed and wound up with a math doctorate. My sister, on the other hand cruised through, always showing me up. But she quit early when it finally got hard for her, though she is very bright.
For burnout, the solution is as suggested in the other answer quoted. But for reaching your level and still having the desire to continue the solution is to find more effective, methodical, ways of learning. For me it was doing all of the problems in the textbook, not just the ones assigned. It may not mean longer hours, but more effective study. Taking more and better notes. Summarizing your notes. Seeking insight, asking questions of everyone. Noting their answers. Not assuming that you have learned something because you saw or heard it or read it once.
I had the advantage of having one goal: to be an academic mathematician. I drove to that goal pretty relentlessly, though did also suffer a burnout episode that set me back. But learning early that I had to work to learn was a big help.
I wonder if your sense of lack of validation is related to this issue. You are no longer the golden one. You are surrounded by your peers not your inferiors. That may be a new sensation for you.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Use the lack of validation as a motivator. When I look back over my research career so far, beginning with my PhD (in Mathematics), I often wonder if I would have been as successful without the painful criticisms along the way. I can point to at least 3 professors and a few co-workers who openly doubted my abilities and were sometimes very **nasty** about it. I think that subconsciously I used this as motivation to succeed in order to prove that they were wrong.
I imagine there are a few certifiable geniuses like Terence Tao who never experienced this doubt from others, but generally I think that most successful research is a product being hard-headed, developing a thick skin, and putting your nose to the grindstone. Of course it helps to have a particular subject that you are passionate about, and it sounds like this may also be your issue. Since nothing other than mathematics is interesting to you, I would look into some other areas of mathematics until something piques your interest. What your advisor wants you to do may not be best for you, and it is easy to become burned out when working on other people's problems that you really don't care about. This was my case as well, so I began working on problems in a tangentially related field, and that is where I found my success. I found the small part of math that I enjoyed, and made everything work out through sheer tyranny of will. There is a kernel of truth in the saying "Find what you love and let it kill you".
Upvotes: 2
|