date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2020/07/02
| 1,124
| 4,847
|
<issue_start>username_0: Sometimes I find my self reviewing papers with authors who are not very capable English writers. I am a non-native speaker myself, and I know how difficult it can be to proof-read a paper in English, in particular if you don't have access to any native English speaker. If the scientific content of the paper is otherwise good, I therefore try to do what I can to correct grammar, poorly constructed sentences, spelling mistakes etc.
It often results in very long referee reports, which take ages for me to type. I was wondering if it would be proper form to simply scan a version annotated by hand, and attach it to the referee report? If you received such a thing, would you be grateful for the time spent, or would you consider it lazy that I did not type in all the suggestions in a proper report?<issue_comment>username_1: A scanned referee report is fine, so long as it is legible. This requires good handwriting, patience, and a good scanner.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think it really comes down to the editor. You should first ask the editor of the journal if there is any issue and then think if your handwriting is clear enough. Hoewver, please keep in mind that scanned copies cannot be copy - pasted. You could return a pdf or Word version of the paper with annotated comments, either on the side or baloons (Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Reader allow for that and I find it very useful when finalising a draft). This sounds to me like a more convenient solution that a scanned copy.
I would like to stress that, despite your good intentions, the full responsibility of presentation and language falls on the authors, not the referee. A paper is not just about content but also sound presentation and communication of ideas.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Please don't feel obligated to proofread manuscripts as a part of review process. This is not a reviewer's responsibility. Journals are supposed to have proofreading services and/or to encourage authors to send their manuscripts for proofreading / editing. It is sufficient to comment on whether or not language check is required for the manuscript to be accepted.
Proofreading takes a lot of your time, which you are not compensated for. Unless you are also a professional proofreader, you can inadvertently introduce some occasional mistakes on top of correcting others. Moreover, if reviewers keep doing a proofreader's job, it will create an unjustified expectation on both journal's and author's side that proofreading *is* a reviewer's job. As a reviewer, I am frustrated with authors sending their manuscripts in a very poor state (not even spellchecked using a computer), which slows down the review process. It is important to remember that journals and authors benefit from publication directly, while reviewers do their service on a voluntary basis and for the good of the whole community.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You can do this as long as you get your meaning across. I can't speak for other editors, but I'm happy to receive any reviewer report at all (since I'm after all taking up your time), and won't begrudge you for not typing it out.
However, I'm skeptical it is the most efficient way. Today's copyeditors have a lot of shorthand symbols ([example](https://nybookeditors.com/2013/06/copyediting-marks/)) that often makes writing more efficient than typing (this depends on the copyeditor; I know some who prefer to type anyway). Still, even if you are familiar with copyeditor symbols, there's no guarantee the authors are.
If you can't use the symbols, then the advantage of writing is you can clearly mark where the changes are and don't have to write "on page 3 second paragraph, change X to Y". But you can do that electronically too, e.g. here's how to do it in [Adobe Acrobat](https://helpx.adobe.com/in/acrobat/using/commenting-pdfs.html). At that point the only advantage of writing is if you're dealing with heavy mathematical symbols that aren't easily written electronically. If you are making lots of these corrections and typing is inconvenient, then sure, although I suspect if these are necessary then the manuscript has more flaws than a proofreader can solve.
Bottom line: if it really is the best way for you, feel free to write & scan; however, there's a good chance there exist tools that make doing it electronically more efficient, to save nothing of the paper/trees saved.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I'd like to add a concern: Adding scanned documents or annotated PDFs might unwillingly disclose your identity. It is good practice to keep reviewer anonymous for authors. If you are recognized by your handwriting, by PDF metadata, or just the practice of adding scans (which might be unique in your narrow sub-field), that would be a bad side effect.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/02
| 1,123
| 4,781
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to ask you about the correct behaviour when applying at different universities for different PhD positions.
Currently, I won two PhD positions and a second shortlist for a third one. The third one is the one I really want, but the interview will be held on campus and due to coronavirus pandemic it has been postponed after the mid of August. I have strong academic and personal reasons to go for the third one, but of course I am not sure that I will win it. Now I have to decide between the two I already have. I would feel guilty to tell yes to one of them and later on withdraw the offer.
What is the acceptable time to change your mind? Should someone follow his personal motivations or be ethical?
Thank you,
Joy.<issue_comment>username_1: A scanned referee report is fine, so long as it is legible. This requires good handwriting, patience, and a good scanner.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think it really comes down to the editor. You should first ask the editor of the journal if there is any issue and then think if your handwriting is clear enough. Hoewver, please keep in mind that scanned copies cannot be copy - pasted. You could return a pdf or Word version of the paper with annotated comments, either on the side or baloons (Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Reader allow for that and I find it very useful when finalising a draft). This sounds to me like a more convenient solution that a scanned copy.
I would like to stress that, despite your good intentions, the full responsibility of presentation and language falls on the authors, not the referee. A paper is not just about content but also sound presentation and communication of ideas.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Please don't feel obligated to proofread manuscripts as a part of review process. This is not a reviewer's responsibility. Journals are supposed to have proofreading services and/or to encourage authors to send their manuscripts for proofreading / editing. It is sufficient to comment on whether or not language check is required for the manuscript to be accepted.
Proofreading takes a lot of your time, which you are not compensated for. Unless you are also a professional proofreader, you can inadvertently introduce some occasional mistakes on top of correcting others. Moreover, if reviewers keep doing a proofreader's job, it will create an unjustified expectation on both journal's and author's side that proofreading *is* a reviewer's job. As a reviewer, I am frustrated with authors sending their manuscripts in a very poor state (not even spellchecked using a computer), which slows down the review process. It is important to remember that journals and authors benefit from publication directly, while reviewers do their service on a voluntary basis and for the good of the whole community.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You can do this as long as you get your meaning across. I can't speak for other editors, but I'm happy to receive any reviewer report at all (since I'm after all taking up your time), and won't begrudge you for not typing it out.
However, I'm skeptical it is the most efficient way. Today's copyeditors have a lot of shorthand symbols ([example](https://nybookeditors.com/2013/06/copyediting-marks/)) that often makes writing more efficient than typing (this depends on the copyeditor; I know some who prefer to type anyway). Still, even if you are familiar with copyeditor symbols, there's no guarantee the authors are.
If you can't use the symbols, then the advantage of writing is you can clearly mark where the changes are and don't have to write "on page 3 second paragraph, change X to Y". But you can do that electronically too, e.g. here's how to do it in [Adobe Acrobat](https://helpx.adobe.com/in/acrobat/using/commenting-pdfs.html). At that point the only advantage of writing is if you're dealing with heavy mathematical symbols that aren't easily written electronically. If you are making lots of these corrections and typing is inconvenient, then sure, although I suspect if these are necessary then the manuscript has more flaws than a proofreader can solve.
Bottom line: if it really is the best way for you, feel free to write & scan; however, there's a good chance there exist tools that make doing it electronically more efficient, to save nothing of the paper/trees saved.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I'd like to add a concern: Adding scanned documents or annotated PDFs might unwillingly disclose your identity. It is good practice to keep reviewer anonymous for authors. If you are recognized by your handwriting, by PDF metadata, or just the practice of adding scans (which might be unique in your narrow sub-field), that would be a bad side effect.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/02
| 689
| 2,989
|
<issue_start>username_0: During my PhD, my supervisor wasn't *very* helpful. Now I have finished my PhD but I still have plenty of ideas (*improvements*) about my PhD topic that I can transform to papers and be published.
these *ideas* are not included in my PhD thesis (just personal notes I took during my study), but their topic is very similar to the topic of my PhD (which was proposed by my supervisor!).
Now, my new papers (completely written by me) are based on my previous work (I would use theoretical frameworks, results, ...), can I publish them alone (*me being the only author without my supervisor's name as a co-author*)? should I involve my supervisor in my paper since my research is a *continuation* of my previous work with him?
I will give credit to our previous work together in the paper, I will acknowledge the financial support of my PhD university, but I believe that should be all.<issue_comment>username_1: The answer is "almost certainly yes". If the work is yours you don't need to include others as co-authors, no matter what happened in the past. But there is the issue of whether a new paper includes "intellectual contributions" of others, not just help in writing the paper. If the old advisor's intellectual contributions still appear in your new papers, especially if they are fundamental, then you owe at least an acknowledgement of that, but possibly more. I can't judge that of course.
And, if your old advisor is in a position to still advance your career and including him would be an advantage then there is, perhaps, some incentive to err, if necessary, on the side of including him. Future collaborations might be very valuable - or not.
But, at some point, every student leaves their advisor behind. The advisor should celebrate when that happens, actually.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you have some previous published work with a coauthor, and you then do some new work on the same topic without the coauthor, and without using any ideas from the coauthor other than those previously published which you cite, then they would not be a coauthor on the new paper. This is not an uncommon situation. The fact that your coauthor was your PhD supervisor does not affect it.
However, if you are planning research that is a direct continuation of previous work with a coauthor, I think it is both courteous and advisable to let them know and ask if they would like to be involved. This is especially true in your case, since it is important to maintain a good relationship with your supervisor (for references, if nothing else). Even if they don't want to be involved, they will probably appreciate the offer.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> should I involve my supervisor in my paper since my research is a
> continuation of my previous work with him?
>
>
>
Citations and references exist exactly for this scope. Co-authorship is much different and it implies more factual work in the current research.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/03
| 1,102
| 4,390
|
<issue_start>username_0: One of my friends is now living in North America. He was enrolled in a **Social Science**-related program in one of the most reputed universities in North America.
Right now, his degree is hanging in a balance as he attended and completed the semester but the department says that he hasn't. Further investigation tells that, his teachers were adjunct teachers and they submitted their grades to the department and the department administration lost them. Repeatedly contacting the administration resulted in banning him from entering the campus, and reduction of some of his grades.
He wanted to get enrolled in a Ph.D. program but he was not allowed because his religious **denomination** was different. The people who were accepted had lesser grades or performances.
According to him,
1. GRE and grades do not play much importance in Ph.D. admission.
2. Personal relationships with teachers are the key to achieving good grades.
3. Ethnicity and political alliance are important in determining someone's grades.
4. The ability to pay money solves 90% of the problems.
To what extent are these three points true?
From my personal experience, I found that his thinking and perception are not fully untrue. For instance, my teachers are **totally lying** to me that a retake cannot be offered. I just discovered that retakes are allowed on the basis of teachers' discretion. I accidentally received one of the teacher's e-mail and it seemed to me that grading is done on the basis of perception, not on the basis of exam papers.
```
Dear Chairman!
I received the following email from Mr. 'Student'.
I rated part of it as follows:
Mr. 'Student'
Task one: */* (*%)
Task two: */* (*%)
Task three: */* (*%)
TOTAL: */* (*%)
How did the other parts go?
I don't see him as an outstanding student
- hardworking, but not that knowledge/learning experience.
What is the department's policy in this respect (consultation, review)?
Greetings,
Mr 'Teacher'
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Day, Month Date, Year at hour:minue
Subject: Regarding exam.
To: Mr 'Teacher'
Dear Sir,
My overall score is 3.5 which is unsatisfactory.
Could you kindly offer me a Zoom session to discuss this?
Kind regards.
Mr 'Student'.
```
Do politics and perception play a role in higher education?<issue_comment>username_1: In main stream higher education, your friend's beliefs would be considered unreasonable and possibly paranoid. Most universities consider bribery to be very serious misconduct. Racism and nepotism are at least frowned upon, and often forbidden.
There are certainly corrupt universities which do all sorts of bad things. But your question is about higher education as a whole.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I am willing to believe that your friend is not lying in the sense that he believes that what he is saying is true. However, that does not mean that that is the whole story. University is a tricky place to navigate. It is a huge bureaucracy with lots of rules that many people who work there are so used to, that they consider them self-evident. It is very easy for someone with a different background to break such rules. Now university employees have a bad impression of the "rule-breaker", while the rule-breaker does not know what (s)he has done wrong and is angry at being punished. It is easy to see that the rule-breaker misinterprets the punishment as evidence or racism or religious discrimination, while that is not the case. There is still a problem, but it is not discrimination. You can imagine that such a misunderstanding can get out of control very quickly. You don't have to be a foreigner to experience this situation, being born in the "wrong" social class will have the same effect: <https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/attach/journals/feb15asrfeature_0.pdf> .
Since the conflict escalated to the extend that the police got involved, your friend is in real trouble. What he could do is try to find someone withing the university he trusts (e.g. has the same religious denomination, since he perceived that to be part of the problem) who can help him "decode" the problem: what actions did your friend do, that was perceived by the university as problematic. With that knowledge, your friend and that trusted individual could try to de-escalate the situation.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/03
| 566
| 2,274
|
<issue_start>username_0: My PhD thesis is in *French*, can I take parts from it, just *translate* them to *English* (without any *paraphrasing*) and use them in my next paper? would this cause any *plagiarism* issues?<issue_comment>username_1: In main stream higher education, your friend's beliefs would be considered unreasonable and possibly paranoid. Most universities consider bribery to be very serious misconduct. Racism and nepotism are at least frowned upon, and often forbidden.
There are certainly corrupt universities which do all sorts of bad things. But your question is about higher education as a whole.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I am willing to believe that your friend is not lying in the sense that he believes that what he is saying is true. However, that does not mean that that is the whole story. University is a tricky place to navigate. It is a huge bureaucracy with lots of rules that many people who work there are so used to, that they consider them self-evident. It is very easy for someone with a different background to break such rules. Now university employees have a bad impression of the "rule-breaker", while the rule-breaker does not know what (s)he has done wrong and is angry at being punished. It is easy to see that the rule-breaker misinterprets the punishment as evidence or racism or religious discrimination, while that is not the case. There is still a problem, but it is not discrimination. You can imagine that such a misunderstanding can get out of control very quickly. You don't have to be a foreigner to experience this situation, being born in the "wrong" social class will have the same effect: <https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/attach/journals/feb15asrfeature_0.pdf> .
Since the conflict escalated to the extend that the police got involved, your friend is in real trouble. What he could do is try to find someone withing the university he trusts (e.g. has the same religious denomination, since he perceived that to be part of the problem) who can help him "decode" the problem: what actions did your friend do, that was perceived by the university as problematic. With that knowledge, your friend and that trusted individual could try to de-escalate the situation.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/03
| 567
| 2,383
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have got reviews for a Survey paper in IEEE Communication Surveys and Tutorials.
I have got contradictory comments from two reviewers (R-I and R-II)
The first reviewer R-I says that the tutorial part (Section III, and IV) is too lengthy and the Survey is too short (Section V). He asked me to shorten the tutorial and expand Section V. The other reviewer R-II, on the other hand, says to shorten Section V? How can I address this? I do not want to shorten and remove important bits in Section V. Can I mention to the R-II that "I have been asked by R-I to expand this Section and since it is a survey, we tried to cover a large part of the topic" ?<issue_comment>username_1: While the other [question noted by GoodDeeds](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/126224/how-to-resolve-reviewer-1-says-remove-section-x-vs-reviewer-2-says-expand-se) may answer your question, let me note that the paper remains yours. The editor has probably seen the reviewers and is aware (or should be) of the contradiction.
I think the two reviewers had different needs. One had the knowledge so didn't need the tutorial and the other wanted to be informed generally. Think about that and about the balance, but the paper is yours. Think about whether there are really two papers here, though a tutorial alone might not be enough for publication.
The proper way (IMO) to respond to reviewers is to edit the paper taking their views into account, but not necessarily taking every bit of advice, which is impossible here in any case. And your suggestion about a response to the second reviewer is more appropriately sent to the editor.
Since it is the editor who will make the decision here, ask *them* for advice about the tutorial material and how including/excluding it from the paper would affect the decision to publish. Let the editor argue with the reviewers if necessary.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would do what you think is right and let the editor make the final suggestions if any for changes.
I once reviewed a paper for a world class expert who was busy and asked me to do it. Not that I am a slouch but still they use the reviewers they can get who seem to know something about the topic.
Also, reviewers prefer different styles of writing a paper. The editor is the one you should please not the reviewer.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/03
| 3,803
| 15,985
|
<issue_start>username_0: This is a follow up to my [previous question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/150776/is-it-ethical-to-use-already-existing-material-to-complement-teaching). Some context:
* I teach at a new Fachhochschule-type institute, where my course is 5-day, 1 hour/day course to 20+ students.
* I am actively teaching, providing the material, and encouraging the students to always ask questions.
* My course is structured to have 4 days of lecture and 1 day of practical. In the practical, I explain a real-world problem and give the students graded exercises.
In week 1, the exercise in the practical was to prepare a *half-page report* on a short consultancy problem. I gave them 7 full days to write the report. No one asked questions or stated any concerns before the deadline.
The day after the deadline, only half the class had submitted on time, half of which only at minutes before said deadline. I was gobsmacked, since even half of the submitted results were very poorly made (one even stated, in the report, *"excuse me, but I didn't understand anything"*), by totally missing the point or even copy/pasting definitions without context from the lecture notes. In total 1/4 of the class actually proved that had sit down and worked actively on the practical.
The next day I explained that their actions were completely out of line, since in 6 months they are supposed to go in the workforce, and this behavior of completely ignoring and not giving notice to the professor would be very detrimental to their careers. I refused to evaluate any latecomer who did not advise me on time. My stern reaction did upset *the students who didn't submit*. I even received an 1-page email (double the size of the report) from one of the students claiming that *my job is only to teach and their is only to take exams, and they are not obligated to do any extra work I give them*.
Is there anything that I can do to improve the cooperativity of said students? Should I modify the final exam mark structure or organize the lectures differently? Since this is my first shot, I don't really know how to proceed.
**Clarifications and Update**:
* It is technically true that the student's grades (according to university policy) are determined by exams only.
* But, I am allowed to have practicals and other assignments count as part of the exam score. My mentor confirmed this.
* I think these students are bad apples because they are clinging to this technicality rather than doing the useful assignments (or at least respectfully letting me know of their concerns in advance).
* Based on the discussion here and with my mentor, I have decided to count the practical for extra credit only.<issue_comment>username_1: Welcome to higher education! Students will use formal assesement to guide their learning, and no amount of cajoling, or appealing to their sense professional or intellectual propriety will change that. Some students will always work above and beyond what the assessment requires of them, but most won't.
Assessment is how students comprehend what is the stated aim of a course. Instead of fighting against it, you might embrace it. For each learning outcome there should be an assessment that is aligned with that outcome - that is, it is impossible to successfully complete the assessment without have met the learning outcome. The learning activities are then designed to meet the outcomes. This might seem like "teaching to the test", but in fact it is the opposite: in "teaching to the test", the assessment defines learning outcomes, here the learning outcomes define the assessment. Biggs and Tang [1] refer to this as "constructive alignment". [1] is a good read for the evidence that students have more or less always measured what they are supposed to learn by what they are assessed on.
Thus you would ask "what learning outcome am I hoping my students achieve by this homework, and where is that assessed?". If the learning outcome isn't assessed anywhere, then it should be. If it doesn't meet a learning outcome then perhaps it shouldn't be set.
In practice we either make homework credit bearing (even if only a tiny percent of the overall credit), or, more frequently, ask an exam question that tests the learning outcome that a homework is aimed towards, and a student won't be able to answer without having done the homework. The final possibility is that the homework is practice for what will be tested in the exam. In this case you need to make this abundantly clear to the students. Even then, you will probably only get a fraction of the class doing it. The consolation is that this is the part of the class that deserves to do better in the exam and undoubtedly will.
[1] <NAME> and <NAME>. (2011): Teaching for Quality Learning at University, (McGraw-Hill and Open University Press, Maidenhead)
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I guess that most of the students are obliged to take your course, right?
They do not come out of interest for the topic but because they need the exam.
I have first taught mathematics and later logistics at universities. While most of the mathematics students were interested in the topics, many of the logistics students were not.
At first, I found this disappointing and then I realised that it is legitimate to do not more than one is obliged to do to pass the course. I can try to make the course interesting but I cannot make somebody like it.
When I remember my high school time, I tried to be good at any subject, but there were some which I really did not like and for which I did the minimum amount of work to get the grade I aimed for.
So if three quarters of your course hand in work written in the hour before submission deadline or even don't hand in anything at all (I guess that most students have not even looked at the topic before the day of submission, so it is not strange that you did not receive any questions), just be happy about the quarter who did.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Give them an F, and report the one who sent the snotty email for disrespecting a staff member.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Your overall tone and emotional state sound extremely similar to my own, the first semester I taught at a U.S. community college. I note in comments you've said this is likewise the first time you've taught; and your description in the linked question of your "*Fachhochschule*-type institute... the middle ground between high school and university or industry" sounds pretty analogous to our 2-year community colleges.
At least in the U.S., the overall graduation rate nationwide for our institutions stands at about 20%. The majority of our students are not remotely ready for college work and have a very large challenge at succeeding in such a program; i.e., the majority are functionally illiterate, innumerate, possibly have learning disabilities. (I wonder what the success rate is at your institution? You should find out.)
Personally, my first two disaster moments were (a) assigning a one-page paper in the first week and assuming any college student could accomplish that (basically, none could), and (b) giving a test and seeing everyone just start openly copy answers off each other when I didn't know how to immediately start giving out punitive measures.
You'll need to digest and accept that this institution is not remotely like where you went to university, and the students are not remotely like yourself. In fact, is it possible that more students where you *did* go to school had similar attitudes, but you didn't know it, because you weren't receiving their work as the teacher?
Let's estimate that roughly half of your students won't do any advance work for any reason, whatsoever, no matter what you do. Whatever the exact proportion, it will be a large number and you have to expect that. The rest will only do work in direct response to specific point awards. You need to state those grading policies up front very explicitly, and highlight them. It will be the top driver for student behavior in the class. (In the comments/edit it sounds like you didn't specify a grading formula at the start of your term, and that's a major mistake.)
Will there be any students who act "professional" in the sense of doing extra preparation, advance studying, looking for extra material? In my experience, maybe roughly one or two per calendar year -- around 1% or less, when I'm teaching upper-level (2nd-year in the major) courses. You cannot expect or rely on this being customary, because it will simply never happen. You absolutely need to let go of your surprise or disappointment over this.
It's sad and painful and our students are human beings with their own hopes and emotional existence, and we should wish them well. But in cases similar to your institution, the best we can do is set up fair grading policies for fair work, apply them objectively and honestly, and know in advance that about half will be failing all the time. That's the job at these kinds of institutions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I think your perspective on this is a bit skewed. Other answers have touched on why your assessment probably needs tweaking, but I'd like to address your general view on your students and what you see as their obligations to you.
First, it's important to be clear about your grading rubric at the very beginning of the course. It's okay to announce extra credit work in the middle of the course, but you still need to make that clear when you give out the assignment, not afterwards. You like comparing your course to the workplace, so imagine this: at the beginning of the year, you sit down with your supervisor and decide metrics for how you'll be judged at your review at the end of the year. You both agree on what tasks are important and will be used to rate your performance: task X will count for 50% of your rating, task Y will count for 30%, and Z will count for 20%. Now imagine a month later, your supervisor chews you out for not doing something that was never even mentioned in your agreement, and he tells you that it will be considered in your rating after all. That'd be completely unfair, right? Even if it was something he asked you to do, if he stated it was simply to increase your understanding of something and you wouldn't be paid to do it, then most people would consider that to be voluntary. If it's mandatory and will affect their grade, be clear about that at the beginning. Probably nobody would've objected if you'd done that.
Secondly, students don't have infinite amounts of time and energy to spend on your course. They may have multiple courses, families, jobs, spouses, hobbies, volunteer work, or any other number of reasons to not spend all their resources on your course. Moreover, it *isn't* a job, you aren't their boss, they aren't being paid to be there, and they aren't delivering anything that you need. So it is completely up to each individual student whether any particular task provides enough benefit (either in increased understanding or as points towards a certification) to be worth the resources it takes to complete it. This isn't unprofessional or a personal insult against you. It's simply rational prioritizing. If this causes them to have poor understanding or to fail the course, that's on them. They're adults, they can make their own decisions and accept the consequences. You don't need to chew them out for not doing extra work; that's unprofessional and inappropriate on *your* part. In fact, they can simply stop participating at all halfway through if they decide that's the best thing for them, and that wouldn't be unprofessional like not coming into work with no explanation would be. Grade them appropriately and move on.
Your obligations to your students are a clear grading rubric and the tools to succeed in your course. Their obligation to you is to not disrupt your class and to accept a fair grade for the work they submitted. (And you should both treat each other with general basic respect, of course, but that applies to all situations.) That's it. They don't owe you effort or completed assignments, and you don't owe them handholding. Give them the best chance at success that you can (within your own time constraints), and let them decide whether to take the steps necessary to achieve that success.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: I'm not sure of your exact locale, but some universities have resources that are free for the asking about how to be a better teacher. You may get some good advice here (including adjusting your expectations to include a [theory of alien minds](https://cjshayward.com/theory-of-alien-minds) to people with a vastly looser work ethic), but some of the universities I've been at have some very good people who can offer you things academia.SE can't.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: I perceive school, in parts, as a place:
* to learn things which are useful in later life
* to learn things which are not useful in later life
* to listen to things without learning them
* to meet with a reality different from your family, more "workplace-like"
You have students which are graded on the exam and you gave them extra work. It is their choice not to do it. If you were a robot that would have had zero effects on your future grading.
I am a human though, and when faced with someone who does not care - I am not well inclined to help them.
I will not be vindicative, but they should not count on any help from my side. If their answer is good, they will get good marks. If their answer is bad and they explain that they had a bad night before - well bad luck: **this is life**.
I believe that we are tip-toeing around students because they are offended by virtually anything. Tomorrow, in the workforce, they will be fired.
So help the ones who want help and let the other learn something from life. **And be fair despite your emotions**.
As for the last part (being fair): I had a teacher once I hated and he hated me. I had an exam where he could easily sack me. I got 6 questions, 5 were easy, one was horribly difficult. I did not have enough time to solve it.
He said *"See, Mr username_7, the last question was for brilliant students. You are not a brilliant student. I will just give you 20/20 (max grade) but if you were better, you could have had a few more points, above the maximum"*.
20 years later, when we met by chance, I told him that while we will never be on good terms, I sincerely appreciate his fairness and I respect him for that. I learned something that day.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_8: In my experience, the only way to get students to do coursework activities or contribute to forums is to allocate some of the marks to those activities, and to make a minimum pass grade.
e.g. coursework 40%, exam 40%, forum contributions 20%, and a minimum score of 60% for each of the three components in order to pass, so 24/40 for coursework, 24/40 for exams and 12/20 for forum contributions.
Where I currently teach, we have assessable coursework tasks worth 50% and an exam worth 50%, however, if students have not completed weekly coursework activities, we do not accept their coursework tasks as we cannot validate that they are a student's own work.
Edited to add: but yes, you need to inform the students at the beginning of the course how things will be assessed, so in your case it's too late. Extra credit for future coursework seems like a good compromise.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: If you hire a group of fruit pickers, and tell them you'll pay them to pick strawberries, but it'd be nice to get some apples. Would you be surprised that nobody picked apples?
You either need the assignments to form part of the mark, or you need to ensure that it's clear that the assignments will cover ideas that will be in the exam, which will not be taught directly in class.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/03
| 1,533
| 6,138
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was employed as a post-doctoral fellow at some institute, and left it a couple of years ago. When I left, it was on ok terms with my host (= person who invited me and arranged for funding for my stay) - although our relationship had not always been on the positive side, and we ended up collaborating only here-and-there rather than closely. We both have a negative view of some aspects of the other's personality.
Anyway, I've noticed that members of the research group - some junior ones, but also my host - have published a certain paper a few months. This paper is mostly not about my own work, but it presents a certain concept which (\*) I was studying and developing; these ideas are now in work that I've published - but mostly on ArXiV and not in peer-reviewed venues. I've also sent an email link and an invitation to read it to a bunch of people in my field - including my post-doc host and one of his junior co-authors.
The paper does not mention any of the above; makes no reference to my work or to me; and says something like "In this paper we introduce the concept of X".
Now, my work is much wider than just that concept (it fits into a larger theoretical framework); and the paper does something with this concept which I didn't explore nor write about. So it's not a case of brazenly stealing results.
A final point is that this work of mine has not yet gotten any (non-self) citations, which makes this situation sting more.
My questions:
1. Considering the circumstances, should I even get in contact with my former host and/or other co-authors about this, or should I just drop it? Especially seeing how this paper is already published and has made its rounds for a few months? I am worried that this will just develop into a fight involving third parties, a sort of a "crusade run remotely" on my part, and end up hurting more than it helps.
2. Assuming I do contact my former host about this - How diminutive/coy/reserved should I be in a first email about this?
3. What can I / should I ask for as a rectification of the situation?
(If you'd like more information, please ask in the comments.)<issue_comment>username_1: This type of question is asked often in different contexts, but usually comes down to the same points.
What do you gain by bringing it up? e.g., Satisfaction? gratification? Do you try to get them fired?
Asking your ex-host: Well, if they plagiarized your work, they are aware of it, and clearly did not think it necessary to discuss with you or that it was not ethical.
Since your work has been publicly available on the ArXiV, you could send an email to the editor that published your ex-hosts paper, showing this is plagiarized. Then what do you get from this? A retraction? A reprimand from their department head? Stopping them from doing it again?
If this is more about how you can publish your work in a journal next, I would not be concerned at all with your ex-hosts paper. If it is tangential to your core work, and your manuscript gets a review saying someone published this, you can easily point to your dated ArXiV paper saying your journal paper is just extending that. The dates speak for themselves.
**Update:**
**However, since you also changed the title away from stating it was plagiarism**, the assumption is they did not copy your text, but instead your ideas. I would first remember, if you were in their lab and working somewhat on related issues, there is the possibility they had a similar idea. It is not uncommon for people to 'see' their ideas in others papers.
Next, I would consider the issue that you have already put your paper on the ArXiV. If this other paper was not from your ex-host, but rather another lab, what would your question now be? Would it be "how to rectify the situation?" ? If so, the question comes down to "How can I make someone cite my paper?". The answer you are looking for would likely be found in:
[Are 'please cite my paper' emails socially accepted?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/147402/are-please-cite-my-paper-emails-socially-accepted/147405#147405)
or
[Is it plagiarism and/or copyright infringement if research started from one person but another diverged onto a different path?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/143921/is-it-plagiarism-and-or-copyright-infringement-if-research-started-from-one-pers)
When faced with the situation, you must ask yourself what you gain from it. You can say it is not revenge, but it is difficulty for others not to see it this way when you do it to stand on moral ground. As stated above, I don't see how this prevents you from publishing your work (although you don't seem interested in it), and it does not prevent you from claiming you came up with the idea (since you have a dated paper on ArXiV).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: First, please remember that human memory is fallible. People have honestly forgotten work done by their students or their postdocs or even themselves. So I'd be inclined to assume, unless there's evidence to the contrary, that your supervisor has forgotten your work on the broader concept Y that subsumes the "new" concept X, and that he hasn't had time to study the arXiv preprint that you sent him.
Second, what should you do about it? I think that, under the assumption that no malice was intended, you could write your former supervisor an email along the lines of "It seems to me that the concept X in your paper "[title]" is an instance of the general concept Y studied in my paper "[title]" [arXiv link] which I sent you a preprint of a while ago. I hope that my work on Y will be useful to you if you contiue to explore X." It seems to me that something like this should alert him to pay attention to Y and cite you in further work on X. (Of course, you can put personal things like "I hope you are well" before and/or after the main message.)
I think you're unlikely to get a citation in the already published paper (unless it has an on-line version that gets updated), but if your supervisor produces more papers about X, you might get some citations in them.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/07/03
| 1,136
| 4,590
|
<issue_start>username_0: While searching for information for a course I'm teaching, I ran into [this article](https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/64500411.pdf) from the US Department of the Interior describing some archaeological sites in the Southwest. It has tons of blacked out text. It doesn't seem to serve the purpose of correcting mistakes, as lots of details from the article are hidden. Is this a form of censorship of the information? If so, why would the US DOI have a reason for censoring this information?<issue_comment>username_1: The gps coordinates or other similar information is withheld for some sensitive archeological sites to try to minimize vandalism and other issues such as unauthorized "collectors". For example, there is a prehistoric rock quarry not too far from me in New York State, whose exact location is not published.
This seems to be the situation in the paper you cite. Some sites are culturally sensitive. Some are scientifically important. In the age of four wheel off-road vehicles it is too easy to find, contaminate, and even destroy such sites.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, this is a form of censorship. However, it is well motivated and is meant to protect important cultural resources. It is likely that most of the information which has been redacted is related to the location of archaeological resources. As username_1 suggests, this is done primarily to prevent unauthorized collection—a quick look at eBay should convince you that, for example, Puebloan pottery can sell for hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars.
It may also be worth noting that, while these kinds of documents are produced for the use of Federal land management agencies, they are not, in general, subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. In fact, information regarding archaeological sites is [specifically exempted](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/470hh) in FOIA. Further information may be found on the websites of the [Advisory Council on Historic Preservation](https://www.achp.gov/Section_106_Archaeology_Guidance/Questions%20and%20Answers/Getting%20Started%20in%20the%20Section%20106%20Process) (the Federal agency responsible for administering resources of historic significance) and the [Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2009-statutes-found-qualify-under-exemption-3-foia).
The above discussion concerns archaeological records which are kept by Federal agencies (the most significant of these (in the West, anyway) being the DOI Park Service, the DOI Bureau of Land Management, and the USDA Forest Service). Federal agencies are not the only organizations which conduct archaeological research or keep archaeological records. State agencies (either directly, or though publicly funded universities and colleges), local/municipal agencies, tribal agencies, and various private concerns (private colleges and universities, landowners, archaeological contractors, etc) may *also* keep records. These kinds of records are subject to patchwork of laws and regulations, and may be more or less difficult to obtain, and may be subject to greater or lesser "[sunshine](https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1244/sunshine-acts-federal-and-state)" requirements—it is common to exempt archaeological records from such requirements. Moreover, private landowners and tribal agencies, which are generally not subject to the same kinds of sunshine laws, may be very reluctant to share information, and likely have no requirement to do so.
The question indicates that this is for a course that the asker is teaching, hence it is unlikely that they really *need* access to the redacted information. However, the redacted information can almost certainly be obtained by legitimate researchers with a little bit of legwork. For example, if a researcher is planning on doing limited, non-destructive field work in the area, a couple of polite phone calls to the archaeologists at the appropriate land management agencies (in the case of the records described in the question, the Lincoln National Forest may be an appropriate place to start) may yield the information, and perhaps an invitation to tour the area.
For more intensive work (e.g. if excavation is involved, or if students are coming along), the walls are a little higher, but it again starts with phone calls and email. As is true with most things, personal relationships matter. If you really need the access, build trust with folk, and they will almost certainly help you to open doors and get through red tape.
Upvotes: 5
|
2020/07/04
| 682
| 2,800
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a MS student who just finished his second semester. The lab that I'm in is fairly large (around 30 people) and there are a variety of students working on different topics.
Here in my country (Korea), people usually enroll as MS/PhD integrated students (i.e., enlist with a bachelor's and exit with a PhD, with an option to exit after getting a master's). I had signed up for this integrated program, but recently decided to exit once I get my master's.
The problem is that since I've decided to leave after getting my master's, I find myself being ignored. One senior lab member questioned whether I "wanted to be part of the group" (I thought I already was). Further, no one even approaches me about research anymore unless they need help with something (e.g., English writing - I'm the only English native speaker there).
I feel like this is a toxic environment. I mean, I enrolled as a graduate student to study more and learn how to be a researcher, and I still want to do that. But maybe I'm being naive. So, is this kind of behavior
normal? Is it a known issue in my country? What's the best way to proceed?<issue_comment>username_1: No idea about anything specific to Korea, and haven't personally experienced this, but yeah, it seems pretty normal to me. In my field in the US it is similarly most common for people to be admitted only to PhD programs, with a masters degree as an option for people who fail to/decide not to continue.
From the perspective of your coworkers, you've decided to quit the lab. You don't mention why, and it definitely might be the right decision for you, but for people around you it might look like you don't value the kind of work the lab is doing, you're just going through the motions to get the master's degree and move on. You also might be perceived as a bit of a burden: you're opting to skip the years in which you would be likely to be most productive and most helpful to others as a senior graduate student in the lab, and only staying for your first steps into research. Ordinarily, if your goal is to "study more and learn how to be a researcher", the best way to do that would be to complete a PhD program, not to quit with a master's.
I think it's unlikely you'll change this attitude much, so I think you probably have to just embrace your decision, put your head down and get through it. I don't think that's really fair, by any means, and is especially unfair if you're working just as hard as everyone else while you are there, but I can also understand why your coworkers might not feel like you're a full contributor.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: When I was in the US, it was as you say: MS students were not valued. Also, I think most schools do not fund MS students.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/07/04
| 2,737
| 11,220
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got a job 6 months ago as a university lecturer. I was assigned two subjects with the same students. Due to COVID-19, classes are online and lectures are recorded.
From the beginning, the majority of the class was ill-mannered. They would make noise by opening microphones, opening cameras, removing other students, muting my mic. When I threatened to involve the chairman, they said "he is our buddy."
So I made some rules, threatening to mark students absent if this continued. The whole class then requested a meeting and asked me to discard these rules. I agreed. Since then, the students have largely stopped their shenanigans with the microphone and camera. But only a few are engaging with the material and answering or asking questions during lecture.
I try calling on them one by one, to ask if there is any confusion, and they always say they don't understand anything. This hurt my feelings. So I said them that tell me that will they be responsive in my class or I will talk to chairman. No one replied except one student, who said "as you wish."
I called chairman I was about to start my point but before that he told me: be soft with your class, they have issues with you, they have complained to me and sent me a recording. He said that he didn't watch the recording, but I should be careful.
I asked one student (the one who instigated the discussion about the rules) whether they still have an issue with me, and she said no. I said asked why she complained about me when issues were resolved among us. She denied making the complaint. But clearly someone has a grudge against me.
I am really hurt by these allegations. The situation is getting worse day by day.
Did I do something wrong? What should I do differently? Should I be worried about losing my job?<issue_comment>username_1: First be kind to yourself:
* You started only 6 months ago, it's normal to have difficulties at the beginning, especially if the students are not motivated.
* The Covid19 lockdown measures made it harder for everybody. Even experienced teachers struggled to adapt, so as an inexperienced teacher it was especially difficult.
It seems to me that you didn't have any support from your institution and/or colleagues. In normal times teachers can discuss together informally and occasionally share tips, but you didn't have this opportunity.
It is a common issue for young teachers to try "too hard" to establish their authority, and as a result to end up in a confrontational relation with the students. There are other, better ways.
As usual, communication is key: in order to progress, you need to talk to the chair and to any other colleague who can help you. Don't be afraid to talk about your difficulties and to ask for advice, there's no shame in trying to improve.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> From the beginning, the majority of the class was ill-mannered. They would make noise by opening microphones, opening cameras, removing other students, muting my mic.
>
>
>
This seems like a technical problem; I really can't believe any modern software wouldn't have a way to disallow this behavior. I would start by investigating this.
>
> When I threatened to involve the chairman, they said "he is our
> buddy."
>
>
>
This seems like a bit of an illogical response on your part. Classroom control is your responsibility. What do you expect the chairman to do?
>
> So I made some rules, threatening to mark students absent if this continued. The whole class then requested a meeting and asked me to discard these rules. I agreed. Since then, the students have largely stopped their shenanigans with
> the microphone and camera. But only a few are engaging with the
> material and answering or asking questions during lecture.
>
>
>
In general, setting draconian rules and then repealing them entirely will make you seem erratic. In this case, it is true that students muting your microphone and expelling each other during lecture is a serious problem that you have to solve "at any cost." Still, it seems like there had to have been a better option. Do your colleagues have this problem? How have they dealt with it?
>
> I try calling on them one by one, to ask if there is any confusion, and they always say they don't understand anything.
>
>
>
So, this is the crux of the matter: I suspect your lectures are completely incomprehensible. Reasons I suspect this:
* Your students are outright telling you "I don't understand anything."
* It would explain your students' antics with the microphone.
* You had extreme difficulty in formulating your question here -- both language-agnostic skills (filtering the important information, organizing it, even breaking into paragraphs) and English-specific syntax.
Now I could be wrong, so I suggest you start by getting a colleague to sit in on your lecture and give you some honest feedback. If I am right, I can't tell you how to improve your teaching, but I think you need to take drastic action -- anything from getting better teaching mentorship to signing up for education classes could be worth trying.
>
> This hurt my feelings. So I said them that tell me that will they be responsive in my class or I will talk to chairman. No one replied except one student, who said "as you wish."
>
>
> I called chairman I was about to start my point but before that he told me: be soft with your class, they have issues with you, they have complained to me and sent me a recording. He said that he didn't watch the recording, but I should be careful.
>
>
>
Yeah, two issues here:
* You can't force student engagement. Chastising them will only make matters worse. You could try making participation part of their grade; however, I would first make sure your lectures are good, otherwise students will be rightfully angry that you are forcing them to participate in incomprehensible lectures. You may be better off just working with the students who do engage and allowing the others to sit in silence (which is what the chairman suggested).
* Threatening to go to the chairman clearly has no effect -- the students don't seem to care and the chairman does not seem to be on your side.
>
> I asked one student (the one who instigated the discussion about the rules) whether they still have an issue with me, and she said no. I said asked why she complained about me when issues were resolved among us. She denied making the complaint. But clearly someone has a grudge against me.
>
>
>
Major mistake -- this will give the impression that you are angry with the students for going to the chairman. Further, due to the power imbalance, it is inappropriate to single out a student in the way that you did. While it would be nice if students resolved their complaints with you rather than going to the chairman, students do have the right to complain about you, and the optics of chastising students for doing so are horrible.
>
> I am really hurt by these allegations. The situation is getting worse day by day.
>
>
> Did I do something wrong? What should I do differently? Should I be worried about losing my job?
>
>
>
A good rule of thumb is that it's normal for a few students to be unhappy with you (maybe even more than a few, under certain circumstances), but a serious problem if the majority of the students are unhappy with you. Since the class seems to be pretty unanimously against you, I think you need to make some changes.
My recommendations:
1. Solve your technical problems with the online system.
2. Get a colleague to give you some honest feedback about the quality of your lectures. If they are bad, take drastic action to improve them (note, this could take years).
3. Stop trying to control the students' behavior. Focus your energies on giving good lectures and assessing their learning fairly.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Teaching is not an easy job and you are on a learning curve. This has been made more difficult due to present circumstances arising due to the pandemic.
I wonder how students can expel others when you are the admin. What kind of software are you using? I believe there must be a way for you to avoid that.
A suggestion: Is it possible to divide the class into two and take two separate sessions. This way you will have more control and students will get divided.
Talk to fellow teachers and create a class leader among students for you to open a channel with students. Communication is the key as mentioned above. Tell the class leader to communicate to you any problems the students are having so that you can address it. You can also communicate your issues to him to be passed on to students.
Make class more engaging. Maybe start with a youtube video and use more engaging content.
Most importantly, do not lose your nerve under any circumstance and everything will be fine.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Advising on what I think is a key point here.
>
> So I made some rules, threatening to mark students absent if this
> continued. The whole class then requested a meeting and asked me to
> discard these rules. I agreed.
>
>
>
**This is the kiss of death.** It's a common mistake for first-time teachers. I made the same mistake in my first semester.
You need to signal that your standards, rules, decisions, and adjudications are firm and basically not subject to retraction later. There's a "blood in the water" aspect that once a cohort of students have learned that they can control you... they will control you. They've learned that your rules are not really rules and they will ignore any kind of further demands you try to make on them.
You've compounded this with entirely empty threats about having the chairperson get involved. Now the students have a rather lengthy body of data that your rules and threats are simply not to be believed.
Frankly, there is no recovering from this for your first semester. You just need to take your lumps and survive the semester as well as you can. *Next* semester you need to come in with well-thought-out, clearly communicated protocols and stick to them. If you have a rule then you need to enforce it to build credibility and trust. I did *much* better starting in my second semester regarding this.
I hesitate to bring this up, but in the U.S. there's an idiom about entry to a prison where you need to expect to fight the first person who crosses you to prove your credibility. As a broad allegory I've found this to be helpful. A sharp, clear, confident "No" to the first student who asks (esp. publicly) for you to retract or waive a rule does wonders in communicating credibility and trustworthiness.
My overall strategy is to be very strict at the start of a term, and then in some cases later in the term be a bit more generous in terms of allowances (esp. with students who have themselves established credibility with me). I guess this also echoes some aspects of U.S. boot camp strategy -- one student of mine from Pakistan, who said his father was a general in the military there, made a guess that I'd been in the military myself. There are some lessons one can take for a situation like the OP is in.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/04
| 451
| 1,737
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is there any way of adding my ResearchGate preprints manually on Google Scholar? If no, will Google Scholar automatically add it to my scholar profile? Can other authors cite my ResearchGate preprints?
For the manual addition of my paper, I have performed the following steps.
For the manual addition of my paper at first I tried with **Add articles** option but I did not find it on scholar. Then I tried with **Add articles manually** but I did not find any preprint option there.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/C6ADz.png),
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/i07Ug.png)<issue_comment>username_1: Google Scholar may well index your preprint on ResearchGate automatically after a few days, although it's rarely possible to be sure what Google Scholar will do, since it appears to run largely unattended.
You can manually add articles to your Google Scholar profile by going to your profile page and clicking on the plus icon just above the list of your publications:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lK6wZ.png)
Other people can cite anything you post to ResearchGate, although the citation format will depend on the citation standard (Harvard, APA, MLA etc) that they are using. [ResearchGate says it issues DOIs for preprints](https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Preprints), which make it easier to cite them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no special preprint option. You are supposed to use "Add articles manually" for your preprints and fill-in the fields accordingly.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/04
| 1,717
| 6,644
|
<issue_start>username_0: For what I know, one finishes PhD with only 3 years in France which is rather efficient, but one may suffer if one's research interest gets changed in the mean time, because the thesis topic is locked by the funding and by the advisor right from the beginning of the PhD, which could be disturbing in a fast changing field like cs. Besides, PhD programs in France don't seem to get global recognition as the ones in the US or even some in the EU, with one or two exceptions. Even within France, PhD is condemned to belong to the academia and is rather ignored in the industry (if there's any).
Could anyone familiar with the French system correct me on this? Is it possible/typical to research on a different topic from the one that I'm getting paid for, to change the PhD topic, or even to quit the PhD in France?
Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: Most of your questions are field-specific, so as a physics PhD student I might be a bit off the reality of CS. Still, here are a few hints:
>
> the thesis topic is locked by the funding and by the advisor right from the beginning of the PhD
>
>
>
This is only true in principle. If you don't have any obligation of obtaining a particular result, things are not that black and white: a PhD is about investigating some ideas, which for instance might turn out unfruitful and need some more or less drastic changes.
Depending on the advisor and funding entity you may also simply switch your research topic (if this is a relevant move -scientifically and timewise-, of course!).
>
> PhD programs in France don't seem to get global recognition as the ones in the US or even some in the EU, with one or two exceptions
>
>
>
Recognition first comes from (i) the quality of the work, and (ii) how you communicate about it. That's where working in a team with good connections with the community can help getting your work known in your field. Attending conferences is also a must!
>
> PhD is condemned to belong to the academia and is rather ignored in the industry
>
>
>
If the skills acquired during your thesis can be exported to industry, finding a position in industry afterwards is far from impossible. As an illustration I've seen quite a few students in theoretical physics move to data science or machine learning straight after graduating. Doctoral schools are aware of this, and some (if not all) organise events to put students and people from industry into contact.
>
> Is it possible/typical [...] to quit the PhD in France?
>
>
>
Afaik, there is no official data on the dropout rate of doctoral students in France. But quitting is absolutely possible a not to be ashamed of. A PhD is a three years contract, which you have the right to resign by formally notifying your employer. (Note that you can't just notify them and leave, there is a legal period to be respected.) On such kind of matter, checking on [this official page](https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2883) can be helpful.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with [username_1's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/151403/93566), to be clear the assumptions made in the question are wrong or at least misleading.
>
> For what I know, one finishes PhD with only 3 years in France which is rather efficient, but one may suffer if one's research interest gets changed in the mean time, because the thesis topic is locked by the funding and by the advisor right from the beginning of the PhD, which could be disturbing in a fast changing field like cs.
>
>
>
While the official PhD duration is three years and naturally the funding is also for three years, the actual duration is often more than 3 years. This depends a lot on the domain and a bit on the institution. In CS the average duration was a bit less than 4 years last time I checked (probably a few years ago).
The flexibility of the topic has nothing to do with the country, it depends on the supervisor and the type of funding (by this I mean that it's more or less the same in France as in other countries). if the supervisor or funding organization has a very specific goal for the PhD, then the topic is pretty much fixed. But broad and vague PhD topics are also common, and in this case there's a lot of flexibility about the precise direction of the research. Mind also that a PhD is not as long as it seems (any PhD student will tell you that!), you don't have that much time to change your direction many times.
>
> Besides, PhD programs in France don't seem to get global recognition as the ones in the US or even some in the EU, with one or two exceptions.
>
>
>
It's the first time I hear this, I don't think this is true. There are many people who have done their PhD in France and have had a successful career abroad. I assume that this impression is based on international rankings, there are [lots of](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/20111/93566) [reasons](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90/university-rank-stature-how-much-does-it-affect-ones-career-post-ph-d) not to to take these rankings too seriously.
>
> Even within France, PhD is condemned to belong to the academia and is rather ignored in the industry (if there's any).
>
>
>
This is a stereotype based on a tiny bit of truth: traditionally French industry had a tendency to favour Grandes Ecoles graduates, and consequently it wasn't necessarily worth doing a PhD for a career in industry because the income difference between PhD/non-PhD was not as high as in other countries. But it was never the case that somebody with a PhD in CS could not find an industry job! Additionally this discrepancy tends to disappear, especially with big multinational companies which compete for skills at the international level where a PhD is highly valued.
>
> Could anyone familiar with the French system correct me on this? Is it possible/typical to research on a different topic from the one that I'm getting paid for, to change the PhD topic,
>
>
>
Be very careful about starting a PhD with the thought of doing another PhD, it's much better and safer to have the right topic and advisor from the start (that's true anywhere).
>
> or even to quit the PhD in France?
>
>
>
Of course! Do you imagine that doing a PhD in France is like entering the Mafia, you can't leave alive? ;)
Historically some PhD contracts used to pretend that the money had to be paid back if the PhD student didn't finish in time. These were likely illegal contract terms, I never heard of anything like this being enforced (and I've known a good few people quitting their PhD).
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/05
| 847
| 3,345
|
<issue_start>username_0: Why did the UK throw away something that has been one of their most valuable assets in higher education?
It is a bit like a company that has successfully manufactured items which generated the lion's share of their sales for a very long time, and now saying "despite the massive hit to our income, we can somehow successfully survive without that product". No doubt that the EU are now going to retaliate by blocking UK from related schemes, e.g. Horizon Research Grants...
Context: [Erasmus+](https://www.erasmusplus.org.uk/), [details about UK participation in Erasmus](https://www.erasmusplus.org.uk/the-transition-period)<issue_comment>username_1: Eramus+ is an EU-funded program. [Non-EU countries can join, but need an agreement with the EU](https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/about/who-can-take-part_en). Since the UK is no longer part of the EU, and they've yet to conclude an agreement with the EU, they can't participate anymore.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Participation in Erasmus probably requires accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. See [Wikipedia for an example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Programme#European_Court_of_Justice_decision) of a ECJ decision involving Erasmus. [Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=erasmus+european+court+of+justice) shows more.
The United Kingdom government has pretty much ruled out any program involving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. For example, see [Brexit and the European Court of Justice](https://fedtrust.co.uk/brexit-and-the-european-court-of-justice/) or many statements by leading politicians in the news over the past years.
Therefore, barring a change in government policy, United Kingdom participation in the Erasmus programme is unlikely under the present circumstances. It's not impossible, but it would require some degree of political backpedaling on an issue that is not very high on the priorities of the the UK Conservative party or Brexit-voting electoral base, so I wouldn't expect the UK to rejoin Erasmus any time soon.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: For a motivation as to why this might be desirable to some the explanation is not income but profits (setting aside the political reasons too, which are likely strong with regard to the ECJ). Overseas students generate more profit for many universities than domestic ones as they pay higher fees. Erasmus likely makes EU students more equivalent to domestic students as part of the general goal of treating all citizens of member states equally no matter the state they are in.
So leaving Erasmus may reduce the number of EU students that choose to attend UK universities as the requirements and paperwork may be more burdensome. This is bad for academic exchange. However, this may make it easier for UK universities to charge EU students higher fees than they do presently, which may further reduce the number coming, which is again bad for academic exchange. The upside is that a university may get more profit per-student. Ultimately a university needs funding.
Now whether the majority of universties feel this is a good business move or not I cannot say. It could simply be that the people negotiating simply see more profit as a good thing that is likely to counter anything else.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/05
| 448
| 1,782
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my ID card, my complete name has the following form : FirstName MiddleName1 MiddleName2 LastName. I will give an example (created name): *<NAME>*. As you can see there is a space between *El* and *Mustafa*. Also, El is not in reality a middle name since it does not make sense if we take it alone (but *Mustafa* or *ElMustafa* are meaningful). In this example, I would like to shorten it A.E. Ali instead of A.E.M. Ali
Could I use only the initial letters of my FirstName, MiddleName1 and LastName in my short author name and skip that of MiddleName2 whereas in my complete name I do it correctly as the ID card?<issue_comment>username_1: If your chosen abbreviation make sense in your own culture you should feel free to use it.
But I make one recommendation, in case you are new at this. Choose a "public persona name" that you will feel comfortable using throughout your professional life. This will make it easier for people to find your work as your career progresses.
There is one additional consideration, however. You want your chosen name to be relatively unique in your field. In Egypt, for example, I think that the E in El has almost no distinguishing element. (I studied once with someone named ... <NAME>: The Egyptian). If you can be confused with others, it won't help in your career.
This is more of an issue for women in some cultures where they may change their names for marriage and such.
But establish a persona, even if you want it to be a pseudonym, and stick with it. I doubt that editors or others will object.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes. In your example A. E. Ali sounds fine to me. It's your name so do it how you want. Just be consistent. Abbreviate it the same way every time.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/05
| 2,275
| 9,546
|
<issue_start>username_0: My parents know a Professor A who knows another Professor B. Professor A has known me since I was a child. I applied for a Ph.D. position in Professor B's group and got admitted. Before admission, Professor A recommended me to Professor B orally but without writing a formal recommendation letter. I used the recommendation letters from other professors I really worked with.
Now, a Ph.D. student in our group learnt about this (my bad, I exposed this myself) and says I was cheating. And he just told everybody because of jealousy. I think I was fairly exploiting my personal network and also I don't know how much the oral recommendation was taken into account during admission. I also don't know what Professor A said to B. Whether he even really said something about me is a mystery to me. But I am totally qualified to get this position on my own.
Now many different versions of this rumor have come out. This is not the expected start of my Ph.D. life. I thought that everybody in my group might be friendly. But really, was I cheating during the admission? I might think about transferring to another group after all this.<issue_comment>username_1: First, I don't think you did anything wrong. If there was improper action anywhere it was on the part of others. (See the final statements about "favors" in the [answer of username_6](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/151487/75368) for example.) But I suspect that the oral recommendation given had little weight other than at the margin. The professor wouldn't have taken you on if there was any doubt about your abilities. It would have been foolish to take someone unqualified as a "favor" to another.
The other student also has no reason to be jealous as they also got accepted.
But the social thing is something you will have to work through. Demonstrate your competence in the usual way and it should tone down over time.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I suspect @username_1 is right, that you did not do anything wrong. However, you did receive an advantage you did not earn because of who your parents are and who do they know. I suspect that that advantage is much more subtle and much more substantive than the oral recommendations (compare your experience with this answer [Does politics and perception play a role in higher education?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151348/does-politics-and-perception-play-a-role-in-higher-education/151354#151354) )
In short, you were lucky, and it is not moraly wrong to be lucky. However, it is understandable (not right, but understandable) that people who had to earn their position the hard way require extra evidence before they are willing to accept you as an equal. It is your challenge to deal with this situation gracefully. Demonstrate your competence, as username_1 suggested, but also learn how priviledged you are, and how challenging university can be for those who do not come from a middle class or higher background. A nice place to start is here: <https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/attach/journals/feb15asrfeature_0.pdf>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: What the others are accusing you of is *nepotism*.
>
> *nepotism - the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs:*
> Oxford Dictionaries
>
>
>
If it were me, I would say to these people something like, "You know, now that you have mentioned it I'm wondering if I did get an unfair boost. Do you think I should join another group?" If they say yes, then say, "I'll think about it but first I'll speak to Professor B."
Then I would speak to Professor B and put the whole situation to them. Ask their advice on how much influence Prof A had and how you should deal with the whole situation.
From then on, you should make it a matter of your own conscience rather than the opinions of others.
I know this is a tough message but IMO it always pays to come clean about these things.
DISCLAIMER - I have only said what ***I*** would do. I take no responsibility for what actually happens if you follow my advice. However as you say, the cat is already out of the bag so nothing much worse is likely to happen than has already.
Finally, as someone has said, this is a life lesson. Learn from it and act upon what you have learned in the future. We all make mistakes.
---
**In response to comments**
@username_5 - I disagree. The OP explicitly says "my bad, I exposed this myself". I would classify that as a mistake.
@username_2 - I didn't suggest that *you* accused anyone of anything - I'm not sure why you make that comment. With regard to nepotism, I merely gave a dictionary definition, not my own conception of the term. I also said that this is what the other *students* were claiming (going by that definition). I did not ascribe guilt, I suggested the OP examine their own conscience before making a final decision.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: It may be that the admission process in your case is extremely regulated and only letters of recommendation are to be taken into account. Plus probably some local/country regulation about lack of discrimination or obligation of positive discrimination.
In that case - yes, you have a problem. Similar to the ones inside traders have when they are caught getting benefits in an unfair way (**the "fairness" is regulated by law**)
Otherwise the reality of life is that you hire/accept someone you like and that you find appropriate. This is a mix of objective facts and subjective feelings. This includes recommendations of parents, friends and their dog - which you may or not take into account.
The fact that Prof A recommended you to Prof B may have many reasons. One of them could be that he trusts you and knows you are good enough.
The other student is jealous, frustrated, whatever. This has nothing to do with academia, just human nature, including gossips about favoritism, sleeping with someone to get a promotion, using diversity programs to get in, ... You will not change that.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: The other answers so far seem a bit confused about what a conflict of interest is. A conflict of interest occurs when you have two goals which have the potential to cause you to act in two different ways.
You do not have a conflict of interest. Your only goal is to get admission. You have done nothing wrong.
It's not clear if Prof. B has done anything at all, but let's assume he decided to admit you. He has a goal of admitting the best possible student. He *might* have a goal of helping his friend <NAME>. He might have a conflict of interest, but he probably does not. It is reasonable to assume that professors are capable of managing this type of conflict ethically.
Prof. A has a goal of helping you and a goal of helping his colleague. This is a conflict of interest. However, if Prof. A has no power over the person who makes the admissions decision, then Prof. A's conflict of interest is not an ethical problem. Almost all recommenders are in this situation.
Conflict of interest would be problematic if the person making the admissions decision was offered a reward for admitting a certain student. This would be serious misconduct, but your situation is nothing like that.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: The purpose of a letter of recommendation is to supply information about the abilities of an applicant to decision makers. The letters are only necessary because those decision makers don't possess direct knowledge about the applicant. When making a hiring or admission decision, I would have no need to receive a letter of recommendation about an applicant I already knew very well; the letter would add no information to the process that I didn't already possess.
If you already had supplied letters of recommendation from other professors, an additional oral recommendation only makes *more* information available to the decision makers and therefore cannot be harmful or "unfair".
This assumes, of course, that Professor A supplied an actual recommendation. It's one thing if Professor A said, "I have known this person for 20 years and they are incredibly bright and diligent," and quite another thing if Professor A said, "This applicant's father is an old friend of mine and I will owe you a favor if you admit them."
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Using a personal network, and more specifically your parents' network, to get ahead in academic admission / selection process is often grumbled upon. Academic admission is supposed to be done predominantly on the basis of academic achievement and potential. Some special consideration or preference may be given to under-represented categories or students from less privileged backgrounds, but it does not seem to be the case for you. On the contrary, having a personal and family relations with established professors may be seen as a privilege. In extreme situations (Prof. is a family member of a student they recommend) it is *nepotism* and a clear-cut conflict of interests for the Professor.
Legally, you did nothing wrong benefiting from networks and recommendations your family has. You have not done any cheating in a strict sense. But your fellow student is trying to make you recognise your privilege and consider whether using it was something you feel conflicted about. The way how you respond to this call may further distance you from your colleagues or help you gain their full respect.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/06
| 570
| 2,411
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate student who has been admitted to three universities with full funding it is almost two weeks that I am stressing over my choices, therefore I decided to post my situation here to have your thoughts as well. I have been admitted to:
1. A high-rank Canadian University in Chemical Engineering MSc and my research will be related to Oil&Gas related fluid mechanics and simulation
2. A low-rank US University in Chemical Engineering MSc and my research will be about Oil&Gas related Molecular Dynamics and CFD simulations
3. A high-rank French graduate school in Renewable Energy Master
I am just left undecided between going to the US where a lot of opportunities are, or going to one of the top schools in my field in Canada or going to France but specialize in a rapidly growing Renewable Energy sector.
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!<issue_comment>username_1: I am not sure if your field is different but currently I don't see any job opportunities in the States. I am also unsure if you are living in the US or not but with COVID related visa issues, it gets complicated to get even a student visa. I have university experience both in Canada and in the US (social sciences), and without any reservation, I would pick Canada (in Canada - US comparison). However, many factors play a role in a decision like this one (e.g., language barrier, further collaborations, daily life, support system etc). But imho US lacked many of these things for me.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: First of all, congrats! I don't have a full understanding of your situation, and my field of study isn't the same, but these might be some questions which might help you rank your options:
1. What's your post-graduation plan? Do you plan to get a PhD or start working after you finish your MSc? Knowing what you want to do with the degree will certainly help you see joining which university/lab will take you closer to your goal.
2. It's a research-based MSc: how much do you know about the lab you are going to be working with? Have you talked to the PIs of those labs personally? Can you request a brief online meeting with the lab members? Are they happy with the lab culture? What are former students from those labs doing now?
In my opinion, the alignment of your research interests' and the lab's, and the lab culture are the most important.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/06
| 3,534
| 14,671
|
<issue_start>username_0: **TL;DR:** I ghosted *(i.e. suddenly ceased communication with no explanation)* my previous supervisor for 2 weeks when I had to do some minor final job regarding to my already finished thesis work due to my stress level. He now probably thinks I am unreliable and ghosted him forever. I actually want to finish the work and fulfil my promises, but have no access to the computer I worked on anymore. How could I improve my situation and reply to my professor to save what remains of the seemingly burning bridge?
---
I did my Master's thesis as an Erasmus student, started during my exchange term, and finished it the next term when I was at home. My fields is physics, and the thesis work involved the development of an experiment setup automation software. During the second term I was developing this remotely over Team Viewer. Most of the work was done during my exchange, and the work later only involved smaller bug fixes/improvements.
My supervisor was happy with my work. In fact, he offered me a PhD position, which I was considering until a better opportunity came along.
Due to the COVID events in the 2nd term (first half of 2020), and because I started my first full-time work in the middle of May, I had some serious deadline problems with my Erasmus paperwork and the thesis itself. I must admit my responsibility here - I got in a loop of the Devil due to bad time management and mental health.
In any case, I ended up submitting my thesis last-minute, with a few modifications - only improvements, not changes of result - still left. We made a discussion with this professor that I would still make these changes, and also do a bunch of small modifications (doable in 1-2h) on the program to make it a final version. He was positive, and he actually still offered me a possible collaboration in the future.
But then, I made what I feel is a serious mistake. Just after this discussion and the successful defense of my thesis, I had to start working on-site instead of home office as before. This greatly increased my workload - as a first-time worker, this was a new thing gor me - and I also had some personal issues which skyrocketed my stress level. As a consequence, I caved in.
*I effectively ghosted my previous supervisor for the past 15 days.*
About a week ago he asked me in a Skype messagge if I finished the modifications. The first time I read it I actually got myself to finished 80% of them, but there is still one thing left (doable in 20 min), and I also didn't make the changes on my thesis work. I ended up with the stupid decision of not answering. Then about 3 days later a follow-up message came, asking the same thing. I didn't reply.
I have no good reasons, even for myself, why not. I felt panick as I thought of the work, was in almost constant fight-or-flight mode during the past two weeks due to my stress levels, and I have a very bad and hard to fight psychological trait of completely hiding (ignoring, denying it's existence) from problems causing high stress. (I know this is horrible, and I do work on it, but that doesn't matter regarding the result.) Anyway, I messed up, and would like to save my relationship as much as possible.
This weekend I finally got my butt together and made me face the problem. I wanted to fix the remaining problem and my thesis work, so I can write a positive, albeit very apologetic answer - Only to find out that my TeamViewer access was revoked. We discussed in the past that when I finish, TeamViewer will be removed to reduce risk factors, but I was not notified of this. My guess is my professor (rightfully) thought I ghosted him for good, and will not fulfill my promises. I would guess from the circumstances and the lack of notification that he is not the happiest.
I would like to address this and salvage my relationship as much as possible, but I'm at a loss on how to proceed. I have to face that I did make serious mistakes and came down as lazy and unreliable, even though I had my reasons/problems.
How could I respond to the professor, and what actions should I take?<issue_comment>username_1: * Ask someone who can do it to reinstate your access.
* Tell your professor that you didn't communicate because you were experiencing extreme stress. This should not be a big deal as many people are having similar experiences right now.
* Make those modifications the professor requested.
* Get advice from a mental health professional (not someone on the internet) about appropriate ways to deal with stress in the future.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If I'm understanding correctly, I think the situation is not as bad as you say:
* Your supervisor last reached out to you about 4 days ago
* You have significant progress to report
* You have no "real" obligation to do this work (i.e., he's not paying you or otherwise in a position to demand daily updates)
So, I would just send a brief message, perhaps even over Skype:
>
> Sorry for lack of communication, I've had a few things come up here. RE the remaining changes: I completed about 80% of them. I just need to do the remaining 20% and then update the text of my thesis. I plan to do this within the next [week], will let you know when it's done.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Treat this like a job, if you did such a horrible thing.
Know that if you exceeded expected limits, you could get fired. What the acceptable limits are will depend on the employer. In the case of a school, the equivalent might be considered getting kicked out of the school, or flunking the class.
Admit to any wrongdoing that is clear. Do not elaborate if not asked for. To do so can be to needlessly prolong a conversation that is about a negative topic, with no benefit. Apologize as appropriate, and then determine how soon it makes sense to just leave the situation as is, without further explanation (unless asked for).
Then do your best from that point on, knowing that any infraction which is not forgotten may actively harm you in the relevant people's eyes, or might not (if they are more forgiving) but be more likely to harm you if there is any recurrence.
If the organization decides to keep you, be grateful.
In basic summary, you can't change the past, so simply focus on building the most positive present and future possible. That's really all you can do.
Do feel guilty, committed to work extra hard to make up, etc., to the extent that it is helpful, such as helping you to learn a lesson. Do expect to work extra hard until some sign of forgiveness, or at least "let's move on and interact nicely" is shown by your superior. And then, move on, focus on the positive.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: **This is no big deal at all.**
Most academics are used to having way more things going on at the same time than they can handle. If there is nothing time-critical going on, then a pause in communications for two weeks isn't particularly unusual.
As you are currently not employed/supervisor by your former supervisor, they don't have a particular right on your time. You are engaging in voluntary collaboration to bring the project further, and "I'll get it done once I can find some time" is a perfectly acceptable schedule there. You do not mention any nearby deadlines for work outputs, so you aren't really causing harm.
A simple *Dear Prof X, for the last weeks work was rather hectic, but I've finally found the time to do most of the things we talked about. I noticed that my TeamViewer access was disabled - if I could get a back for a while longer, I could complete Y.* should suffice.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: The other answers are great, but I want to add one thing.
You're not the only person the supervisor communicates with. Especially professors are dealing each day with a lot of people and it is more common that your professor does not answer you than the other way.
Of course the professor is in another position, but your advantage in your position is, that the professor may not have noticed it or weighted it important yet, but just had more time for his other tasks (and students).
Maybe he notices when you communicate again, but probably he will not make a big deal out of it and assume personal reasons or other reasons that are none of his business.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: From absorbing the length and intensity of your post, I sincerely feel like you have rather been *obsessing* over a situation, or, a part of your brain or emotions has been giving you just that.
Fully agreeing with what has already been, I think, [very](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/151442/125449) [aptly](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/151429/125449) [said](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/151427/125449), I can't see any burned (or even in the least bit troubled) bridges here. Being asked about your progress after a short communication gap of one week, and then again three days later (and that's a mere four days ago), by a person you are on good terms with, does not seem to make for a burned bridge at all, not even for a trace of a deterioration of contact or interest. You may want to reevaluate that part of your view of the situation.
To me, the facts you have mentioned suggests simply carrying on with what you have begun, much more so as you only have to put in a very small effort to complete and return the next part of your progress. It seems to me a rather comfortable situation unless you are utterly kept from reasonably doing it for some more time, which would give you the right (and could be expected for you) to just say so.
About what led to your being, slightly, behind what you obviously expected from yourself - everyone in their right mind would know and consider (and expect), even without knowing what's really going on, that where there is change in a person's situation, things may go chaotic for a short while and there's no problem in that. Much more so during these times of Covid and not-yet-post Covid, where it is hard to take even anything going perfectly normally for granted. But even in the most boring of normal times and situations, if I don't hear for a week or two from someone who is not right now in charge of very urgently saving my own world, I just assume they are being kept busy by things they have to see about and they are just reasonably handling whatever priorities the situation suggests. And even taking a break in between, and that not just to maintain their own ability to keep up a *reasonable* pace but also for their own enjoyment. And that would be perfectly ok with me (and so it should) - specifically when it doesn't positively break *things*, as in inducing missed other person's deadlines or something becoming unsalvageable, it sure doesn't break or even slightly chill a relationship.
It could be that you are oversensitive about what will, or might, chill a relationship. This is generally not at all what will do so.
You may want to *casually* let your old supervisor know about the changes in the way your daily work is organized right now - but very plainly just like you told us in your post (had to change into working at the office, things got set on a demanding schedule). That would be so *you know they know* what things are like right now - and assume rightly they *will* understand. I'd like to emphasize here that I can't see *any* need in the least to be apologetic about this. Rather to the contrary - I feel that being apologetic here would more likely be putting on your supervisor a (smallish) burden of wondering why you are being apologetic at all, as small delays (if this *is* to be considered a delay) just happen in the course of events.
What you describe is nothing out of the ordinary, it is a perfectly acceptable way things go and are reasonably handled (by you, in this case). Your work circumstances changed, in part unexpectedly, you adapted to that and it took a mere days for you to go with it (I'll say 14 days still counts as days here unless someone were doing it all the time out of sloppiness for no reason, which is obviously not what you are doing). There's nothing incommensurate in that, save that it would seem slightly (I do say I mean just slightly) off for you not to be seeing that (but even this can happen).
tldr: Relax, give a short casual information about your current overall situation and a reasonably brief (or reasonably comprehensive, no fretting) statement on the state of where you are in your work with your supervisor, and ask about the Teamviewer facility that may need fixing (it could have failed for a number of meaningless reasons, connection temporarily down, aux admin moved machine, etc.). And do username_5w yourself a day or so to relax once a week, I guess you should consider that a thing you would rather not afford *not* to do.
*Edited to add*: **The most likely explanation for anything in daily life is usually the most mundane and boring one**, and surely not the most dramatic or one that calls for dramatic action or worry. (The events -or non-events- you describe have been happening in what you do, which perfectly makes them *daily life*.) **This goes from both ends**, for most people, and I have found that it is usually very safe to assume (until *proven* wrong, which is rather rare) that a person I am in contact with will be one of *most people* in that quarter. All the more so if I *know* them to be reasonable. *Corollary*: Anything mildly inconvenient, such as having to wait for an answer for a number of days or having to have broken access to a system fixed, is usually not a symptom of anything untoward beyond the most *unexciting* explanation (and not a loss or breach of trust or anything). *(This last point already made above.)*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: >
> My guess is my professor (rightfully) thought I ghosted him forever and will not fulfill my promises, I would guess from the circumstances and the lack of notification that he is not the happiest with it.
>
>
>
Assuming that they are not a fresh Professor, they have seen students coping with various levels of stress. Two weeks are (under normal circumstances) not a time which I would consider very critical in most academic contexts (and yes, in 5 years in university I have seen 3 students in the chair where I worked vanishing for a longer period of time). Obviously if an official deadline (application at the students office for exam etc.) was missed, they may not be able to help you, but I have often seen a relaxed attitude of the faculty responsible or deans in username_5wing exceptions.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/06
| 1,645
| 6,960
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it a scientific misconduct to change a variable or a function name when citing a math paper? The standard name of a function is S, but the author called it E. I want to cite his work, while I use the standard S.<issue_comment>username_1: Some things have different letters due to their names for the item in different countries, one example is V for volts in English which in France is T for tension - which also can cause confusion as tension is something else in English.
So just cite the work and mention that the author uses E while you use S - a small comment in brackets is usually sufficient, you won’t need a page.
So it is not “scientific misconduct” but it does happen and most people (engineers etc) who work in more than one language tend to be aware and check if needed. They also tend to agree a common standard, but they can forget sometimes.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: It's certainly not a misconduct. Different authors use different notations. I've even seen different notations being used in papers from the same author. If the new name helps the reader understand what the function is supposed to do, or if it's a newer standard notation, then you are perfectly allowed to change it. In fact, I would encourage you to do so.
I would simply cite the work, write the formula and add a footnote on the lines of
>
> ¹ For consistency with the rest of the manuscript we renamed the function E in [1] as S.
>
>
>
Or
>
> ¹ Note that in [1] the function S is denoted as E.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: A roughly analogous question here is, "Is it scientific misconduct to give a quote using a different *font* than in the original?" Because that is really all you are doing when you use a different mathematical variable to show the same quantity --- you are using a symbol that looks different to the original but represents the same thing. This is quite common in mathematical papers. Often the writer will note that the original paper uses a different symbol, mostly so that the reader is not confused if they compare equations across papers. The only time this would be a problem is if you change the notation to non-standard notation that makes it hard to follow your work. Regardless, this practice is not even close to scientific misconduct.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You should use what is traditional. The point of any paper—although I did not understand this as a young academic—is to enlighten the reader about your results, not show fealty to one or another predecessor.
You can point out the change of notation in brackets if necessary for readers to understand if they compare the papers. It will probably be obvious. I added a footnote to my first paper, pointing out the discrepancy in notation between the fundamental paper in the field and the later paper I was then citing, but also that the authors of the second paper had themselves gotten confused and made a notation error interpreting the first paper, fortunately irrelevant to their results.
Needless to say, this footnote represented several hours of bewilderment on my part, especially since neither of the papers I was reading were in English.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: some of the commenters (like [avid](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151433/is-it-a-scientific-misconduct-to-change-a-variable-or-a-function-name-when-citin#comment404204_151434) and [Sascha](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151433/is-it-a-scientific-misconduct-to-change-a-variable-or-a-function-name-when-citin#comment404444_151453)) have pointed out something I'd like to preserve in an answer (because comments may be deleted at any time): sometimes you HAVE to rename variables or functions you cited from other papers, because one of these papers might use a symbol that another paper uses for something else, or maybe you use the symbol yourself. In these cases, it is necessary to rename this symbol to resolve ambiguity.
For my personal perspective as a non-academic: In my opinion, avoiding ambiguity in science is more important than preserving the literal content of citations. In cases where preserving the literal content of a citation may introduce ambiguities with the rest of your paper, it is better to resolve the potential ambiguity and clarify the change from the original source. There are already other situations where changing cited content is not considered academic misconduct, like correcting poor translations with a footnote to indicate what has been changed, indicating typos with [sic] and editing out irrelevant partial sentences using [...].
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: The letter used to denote a function is, at least in principle, irrelevant. It's fine to rename it however you want. In fact, such renaming is often necessary to maintain consistent notation throughout the paper: It's OK to call a function F if a reference is calling it G; it's not OK to call a function F in one section and G in another section.
As an aside - during my BSc and MSc, it was a running joke to occasionally use the most obscure symbols for variables, including a variable denoted by a picture of a boot. It was widely acknowledged as valid (also by the faculty), although in academic practice it's probably preferable to stick with Latin and Greek letters :)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Only if you claim that what you write is actually a **quote** would that be wrong.
If you have a good reason to use a different notation it may possibly aid the readers understanding to mention the difference. Such a reason may be found in the fact that the context in which you write differs from that of the paper you cite. For example, in an electrical engineering journal you may way to use j rather than i for the square root of minus 1, that being conventional in electrical engineering, and similarly a mathematician might use f to refer to a frequency where an electrical engineer would use a lower-case omega. Or possibly the paper you cite goes into complications that have no place in your writing, that necessitate a more complicated notation that is not justified in your context.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: It's hard to imagine a situation where the author ("A") might have a problem with you using a more common notation, but I can think of a possibility where they might - if they were using a less common notation on purpose, to make some point.
Suppose, for example, there's some silly dispute over who published what first (which happens sometimes in math), and A calls it 'E' to assert that some "<NAME>" did it first. In this case A might be miffed if you just denote it 'S' while citing them, and might even complain that you mis-quoted them. Just mentioning in parentheses the fact that A denoted it 'E' in the paper that you cited, as other have suggested, should prevent this scenario from arising.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/06
| 1,730
| 6,908
|
<issue_start>username_0: Often when I am reading a newly published article, I will encounter some points that are difficult to understand. For example, some details of the methodology that I think the authors did not explain in enough detail.
I'm not sure how to write an appropriate email to ask for clarification, especially on how to phrase, so as to be polite. For example, should I write "Ask for details on methodology" or "Inquiry on details on methodology" or ...?<issue_comment>username_1: Showing interest is nice, accusing people is not. So, show interest, something like "I saw your article XXX in YYY and I am working on something similar. I was wondering how exactly you dealt with ZZZ."
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: This probably is a bit culturally determined, but almost anything polite will do. I personally prefer your second formulation, but others might not. Don't overthink it.
But in a first mail to the author(s) I suggest asking questions that can be answered fairly simply/quickly and don't ask for too much. If it seems like it will be a lot of work to reply, then you might not get any answer. You can always follow up with additional questions if the authors seem open to communication.
In the best case it can open the possibility of future collaboration if the topic is of mutual interest.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If the paper is published it is because the editor (and presumably the referees) believe there are enough details either in the manuscript *per se*, in the references or that the procedure is sufficiently well-known not to waste time on it.
Thus I would encourage you to be very careful in suggesting there is not enough information: it might not be enough information *for you* but presumably it’s enough information for that typical reader of the journal.
You might ask for *clarifications* on a few specific points but do so selectively, making sure you include significant context and references so that your query is legitimate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Contacting researchers for clarification is good practice. Before you do, ask yourself why you think *the authors did not provide enough details*. In formulating an answer, you may find they did provide enough details. Otherwise, you'll have established a better understanding for what you need to know, and you can put that to the researchers. Always be humble in asking.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: A while ago I also read a paper and had a question which was not answered in the paper (or maybe it was and I just wasn't capable of interpreting it).
I searched for the address of the main author and wrote a polite, kind email without much fluff (because I had often heard that scientists don't like fluff).
I also mentioned that I had asked another scientist I knew first, but that no one knew the answer (just to add some justification for why I was writing him instead of asking others or consulting books).
For me, he was something like a famous Professor and I thought he would never answer my mail. But not even a day later I received a kind and helpful answer from him.
I would also like to add here to encourage everyone to answer emails like this if possible. For him it was maybe just an email but his answer meant so very much to me, I nearly even cried because I was so happy and I felt taken seriously and acknowledged.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Let's get more *templated*. What about this?
>
> To: *%Corresponding author%*
> Subject: *%Paper title%*
>
>
> Dear Prof. *%NAME%*,
>
>
> With a great interest I read your paper on *%TOPIC%*. Since I work in
> a similar area, I would like to *%short presentation of what you want%* [e.g., to compare my approach [1, 2, 3] to
> yours].
>
>
> Do you have *%your actual inquiry, detailed%*?
>
>
> Thank you very much in advance.
>
>
> [1] *Paper*
> [2] *Paper*
> [3] *Paper*
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> *%Your name%*
>
> --
>
> *%Your signature, including your institution, email, phone, and further ways to contact you%*
>
>
>
If you are asking for code, try searching GitHub and further usual places first. Googling the corresponding author would also help. Take a look at their most recent papers, may be your question is already answered.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: So long as what you write is not rude or arrogant, nobody will care much.
The important thing is to ask some *specific* questions. If you just asked me for "details of methodology" I would hit the delete button, because I'm not going to write a comprehensive reply that is probably longer than the published paper telling you every little detail about what I did - especially if the paper was published years ago and I have forgotten most of the details anyway.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I was for 5 or so years a university researcher and co-wrote a few papers. I would have been thrilled if someone had written to me asking a sensible question (they never did) but horrified if they had found an error.
Professors, on the other hand, can be time poor, so it will be best to write to the most junior author if this is an option.
In my experience many academics build upon their previous work and answers to any questions will often be found in previous papers.
To be specific I would suggest: "Do you use the [your best guess at the techniques/methodology used] system in your research?" after a preamble much as Oleg has given above.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: This is what I used to do when I was a math grad student:
1. Be extra polite (I would start with "Dear Prof. NNN")
2. Introduce yourself. Say what level you're at, what institution you're at, and who you're working with. (Briefly.) It will help them understand what level you're at and indicate a connection.
3. Be somewhat detailed about what you do understand. Don't just say "I didn't understand this step in the methods." Say "When you say that you did XXX, did you mean YYY, or ZZZ? Or perhaps I misunderstand completely?" Just like with Stack Exchange you want to make it clear you put some effort in, and you also want to make it clear just what needs to be explained.
4. Include a phone number in case they want to talk further.
I want to re-emphasize the importance of being clear about where you are uncertain. You want to make it as easy as possible for them to answer your question. And as you try to put your confusion into words, it may actually become more clear to you.
But don't be afraid to make the contact. It could even lead to a future collaboration. Connecting with other researchers is a good thing to do.
One other note: Even though I suggested "Dear Prof. NNN", that's just for the first contact. After that, look at how they talk to you. If they close with just their first name, that's generally an invitation to address them that way.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/06
| 499
| 2,322
|
<issue_start>username_0: We have submitted a paper to a journal and got a major revision request. We were planning to resubmit our revised manuscript very soon, however, we noticed recently that a paper was published that basically studied the exact same thing with the similar conclusions.
How likely would our paper be rejected due to this rather than the fault of our studies? Or if rephrased, would it be ethical of a journal to suddenly reject a paper if a similar study was just published, even if all the revision queries are answered and there was no link between them?<issue_comment>username_1: Your paper might be published or not. It is up to the editor. But there are no ethical considerations here whether they decide to publish it or not. Presumably you don't have a contract with them for publication and you haven't paid for publication. Everyone worked in good faith up to this point, I assume.
Parallel work in hot fields is to be expected. A journal especially valuing novel work might choose not to publish. Not a happy outcome for a "second place finish", of course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Sad for you, but things like that happen.
Something that might help: Usually, there is a note in a paper making transparent when it was initially submitted, when a revised version was submitted and when it was accepted for publication. If the other paper was accepted after your initial submission it is obvious that you could not have known the contents of that paper. In that case, as a neutral observer it is nice that two independent papers describe similar findings, *i.e.* reproduce the results. In that sense, your paper is worth publishing in any case.
You might be able to use this as an argument in a possibile discussion with the editor. However, there is a realistic chance that neither the reviewers nor the editor have heard of the other paper, so will not ask for any information in this direction.
Of course it would be best practice to make your current knowledge transparent to the editor anyway and maybe include some discussion about the other paper in your own paper. If I was the editor, and if the other paper was discussed properly, I would probably accept the paper for publication, given there are no other reasons not to do so (but this is my opinion).
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/06
| 528
| 2,392
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student working with a professor I do not know very well, as a proposed supervisor, on several postdoctoral applications. The professor's mother passed away several weeks ago. Since that point, I have been working on these applications independently, but I have determined that one of these applications will no longer be feasible, given some of the application requirements.
I am unsure whether I should very briefly update (and emphasize that no response/action is needed) this professor via e-mail so that they know that their workload is reduced during the coming months, or whether I should wait until they've reached out to me asking for an update. For context, we did not establish a date at which we would resume communication.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: Receiving an email starting with "No action needed, just an update" adds an infinitesimal amount to ones workload.
Wondering about whether some project is still going on, if its time yet to check in on the junior people involved and writing a request for information does take mental energy and a bit more time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: A polite yet brief e-mail should be totally fine, especially given that you say the loss occurred "several" weeks ago. You didn't say your location, but in the US bereavement leave is usually much shorter than that, so it is reasonable in that case to expect that the proposed advisor is probably slowly returning to work.
I agree that prefacing the title of your e-mail with something like [brief update, no action needed] is a good idea. BUT, you are updating them with the news that you plan to stop work on one of your proposed applications, due to your determination that the application requirements make it a bad fit. However, the advisor may have a different opinion. If I were in their shoes, I would want the ability to examine a decision like that and make sure I agree, rather than being flatly told after the fact.
I would then take the cue for how soon you should return to normal communication patterns based on their response to this e-mail. If they write you a detailed response ASAP you can assume that you can write to them nearly as usual. If they take several days, they are still processing their loss. If they respond with anger, you might reconsider working with them.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/07
| 3,749
| 15,270
|
<issue_start>username_0: A moment ago, I happened upon <https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/99712/almost-impossible-sudoku-like-puzzle> which explicitly mentioned that this student was given a puzzle in math class that his math teachers couldn't solve. And it got me thinking: To me, it feels like a teacher like that is unfit for teaching. After all, how could they impart knowledge they don't have onto their students?
Should a teacher be able to solve all the assignments they give their students themselves? Assuming the assignment is in fact solvable obviously.
Note: The question that prompted this was a math problem, but I'm looking for course-agnostic answers, if possible.<issue_comment>username_1: My short answer to the question is: yes.
Long answer is as follows:
Professors/ teachers should definitely have the knowledge that must be passed onto the students. I find it hard to think of an instructor who attempts to teach a topic that they themselves do not understand. However, again, you must be aware that there are different levels to understanding and even a professor might not understand particular topics very deeply (everyone is human with their own strengths).
So in general, for levels under graduate school, I believe that the instructor must be able to solve the assignments they give to their students.
However in grad school, the nature of assignments change. Of course there are still homework in most doctorate and masters classes but a professor is also directing research of their graduate students and sometimes might assign tasks that they might not be able to do themselves or it is uncertain whether they could do it (a yet unsolved problem would belong to this category).
So, in summary, for education that encompasses teaching of certain textbook knowledge, I believe that the professors/teachers must be able to solve the assignments they give to their students themselves. But for graduate school and especially for research, this requirement breaks down.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In general, yes, a teacher should know how to do any assignment and, in some cases, should have actually done it. In teaching programming, for example, it is usually a mistake to assign a problem that the instructor hasn't essentially done themselves.
The reason is that one of the tasks in making assignments is to estimate the effort and time required to do the task. If you can't solve the assignment yourself, you are giving an open ended task to students. In almost all situations students have a limited time to spend on any given assignment and that competes with their other tasks.
There is an exception to the above. If you tell the students at the beginning that you are assigning something you don't have an answer to, and will be grading their efforts rather than their results, then you can make this work. The assignment becomes an exploration. At lower levels of education this makes less sense than it does at higher (say, doctoral) where it is natural to explore the unknown.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Giving students an assignment which a lecturer can't solve generally should not happen. Sometimes it can be justified (e.g. students involved in a real-life research project, where a problem can have many solutions or none at all), but it has to be made clear to students.
However, one mistake does not make anyone *unfit for teaching*. Just as students, lecturers need time and process to learn how to teach and be better in their roles. Doing mistakes along your learning pathway is completely normal, but of course one should reflect and learn from them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In engineering, when students are asked to solve real world open ended problems,sometimes it works out that there is no solution. Figuring that out is an important outcome.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: In general the teacher must be capable of achieving what is they want their students to achieve by undertaking the assignment, but that might not be coming up with a solution.
In the modern world where all knowledge is at our finger tips all the time, the job of an educator is much less to impart knowledge, and much more to guide and mentor students, help them learn where to find information and assess its reliability and to concentrate on the higher level [cognitive skills](https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/#:%7E:text=Familiarly%20known%20as%20Bloom%27s%20Taxonomy,Analysis%2C%20Synthesis%2C%20and%20Evaluation.), such as problem solving, synthesis and reflection.
This means that often coming up with the answer isn't the point of an assignment, but rather something about the journey to getting to the answer (or failing to do so).
Taking your example: It could be about taking a set of puzzles and working out what the common rules are to distinguish solvable from unsolvable problems. Or deducing if the difference between hard and easy puzzles is quantitative or qualitative. It could simply be about learning that some problems are not soluble, but there is still value in working on them.
Many of the other answer here suggest this kind of approach is only applicable at higher levels, like graduate school, but the editor in chief of the AMS' maths education blogs talks [here](https://blogs.ams.org/matheducation/2015/05/01/famous-unsolved-math-problems-as-homework/) about giving unsolved math problems as homework to undergrads, and Lior Pachter talk [here](https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2015/09/20/unsolved-problems-with-the-common-core/) about ones that you could give to K-12 students.
My own maths education started incorporating this sort of "Investigation-led" learning at 15 as part of the UK national curriculum. While the problems set were not insoluble (how many bricks do you need to build pyramids of a height n, and deriving the basic rules of differentiating polynomials empirically), they shared in common that the journey not the end point was the purpose.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: In general, **yes teachers should and must know the answer**.
But in **very advanced classes** such as some specific PhD or Master's classes, the teacher can **challenge the students to solve an unsolved problem**, or at least **explain why a problem is unsolved**.
One example is the traveling salesman's algorithm which doesn't have an optimal solution. (please correct me if I am wrong)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: People say that you only understand something properly when you can explain it to others. So, if we say that the teacher has set the students to complete a Sudoku logic puzzle, then as long as the teacher understands and can clearly explain the work, it is no big deal if they can't solve the Sudoku themselves.
However, it is doubtless infuriating when a teacher cannot do the Sudoku, cannot explain how a Sudoku works and does not attempt to complete the Sudoku, yet gives it to their students. As long as the teacher can offer help to the students then they are doing fine.
In my experience, teachers generally know what they are talking about/teaching. However, there are some cases when a teacher has not had much idea about what it is they are instructing on, but I have rarely known a teacher to not attempt/explain the task itself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I remember a friend of mine reporting from an oral final exam in graph theory by a professor with a certain renown in the field. After a number of questions he was able to deal with gracefully, the professor asked him to prove some theorem. He dragged out basically the complete toolbox and made a number of attempts but each time wasn't quite able to close the final gap. Finally the professor aborted his tries and told him "it's ok, we managed to prove this one only last month".
The grade was the best. Basically the professor checked at what level and with what aim the student floundered. Which tells more about the actual problem-solving skills of a student than the ability to reproduce a preexisting proof.
Which doesn't mean that such an exam is pleasant to be in.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: I have always felt obligated to solve every problem out myself before handing it to a student. I put myself in the student's shoes to see if an assignment is of good quality. This comes at a price in the way lessons could be developed further, I could cover something else, etc.
However, this teacher is **ABSOLUTELY NOT** unfit to teach! I have never been very good at puzzles and fancy tricks. It does not make me bad if I am not able to solve it.
My mentor told me this, and I think this comes with age and wisdom. It is important to choose topics you feel are worthwhile to learn at the price of refraining to learn other subjects. Learning tricks like these falls into this category for a lot of teachers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: *Should a teacher be able to solve all the assignments they give their students themselves?*
I'd say yes provided that we are talking about a non research level, where the assignments are intended to prepare students for exams. In this context, if the teacher cannot solve a problem given to the students, then the teacher probably is not qualified and/or prepared to the class and thus should not be teaching that subject.
As advised by Krantz in his book [*How to Teach Mathematics*](https://books.google.com.br/books?id=c2V13mUxT2cC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=%22If+you+are+going+to+stand+up+in+front+of+thirty+people+or+three+hundred+people+and+try+to+teach+them+something,+then+you+had+better%22&source=bl&ots=4ANzAVX3rX&sig=ACfU3U2LfG-0XLnJBw7OYE34OyKsPzls_w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjoz7nd17zqAhUzC9QKHekUAloQ6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22If%20you%20are%20going%20to%20stand%20up%20in%20front%20of%20thirty%20people%20or%20three%20hundred%20people%20and%20try%20to%20teach%20them%20something%2C%20then%20you%20had%20better%22&f=false):
>
> If you are going to stand up in front of thirty people or three hundred people and try to teach them something, then you had better
>
>
> * Believe that you are well qualified to do so.
> * Want to do so.
> * Be prepared to do so.
> * Make sure that these characteristics are evident to your audience.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: Have you considered that maybe the teacher did know how to solve the problem (it is an elementary problem) but was using the white lie that they couldn't solve it for motivation? When I was a teacher, I would do things to "model the behaviour" of going from not knowing to knowing and sometimes that means pretending that you don't know the answer when of course you do.
Also, on the topic of puzzles, some things are better solved by a large group than a single teacher, for instance problems requiring a high degree of computation or (in the case of the 8 queens problem), combination.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: I don't think, particularly for extension problems, that it is vital the teacher has solved the problem unaided. However it is certainly desirable, just because they will have a better idea of the difficulty if they have done so.
However, what is important IMO is that the teacher has seen and verified the solution, since otherwise how can they be sure that the problem can be solved? For the linked problem it was by no means obvious to me that there was a valid way to arrange the numbers. (Of course you could ask for either a solution or a proof that no solution exists, but the difficulty of the problem will then be very different depending on which of these you have to do, so the teacher really should know which is the case.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dantzig) was mathmetician who famously solved two "homework problems" set by his lecturer, that were in fact unsolved problems in statistics. So if you happen to be teaching a genius then yes, it's a great idea to set problems you can't solve yourself!
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_14: The sort answer is yes if the students learn something and they appreciate the experience.
**Knowledge Transfer Perspective**: When a teacher presents a good open problem to students, she offers valuable information. A good open problem is one which a lot of people are interested in and for which no known solution exists. If, in addition, the teacher herself has attempted to solve the problem, then she can present to students the approaches she tried, showing why they failed. This adds even more to the value of a good open problem. In the case of a "bad open problem", when not a lot of people are interested in it and/or an actual solution does exist unbeknownst to the teacher, the instructor betrays her incompetence.
**Teaching as Service Perspective**: A lot depends on the rapport of teacher and students. If no student in class can solve an assigned problem, then students might view, often justifiably, their work as a waste of time. If the problem was chosen correctly so that students are challenged and are successful at solving it, then everyone feels they achieved something and knowledge retention is, likely, improved. Assigning an "impossible" problem (whether the teacher can or cannot solve it) is just putting students down and failing to get students excited about the subject matter. This is a signal of another form of incompetence, that the teacher does not understand her students' needs.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_15: I'm in my undergrad and have asked myself this question in the past. I think a teacher should be capable of scoring in the top 10% of students in the same conditions (time, amount of notes, etc.), and near max points if no constraints.
There is no doubt a gray area when the class is very interdisciplinary.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_16: If assignments are about "knowledge," it might seem that a teacher who does not know the answer to the assignments is unfit to teach. Knowledge, however, is not the end of many (most?) lessons. In many cases, assignments are about skills more than knowledge, and a teacher does not necessarily need to be able to complete all the assignments themself to be able to teach the skill to a student. A basketball coach does not need to be an excellent basketball player themself to teach players how to excel at basketball. Being excellent at teaching a skill is a different, and sometimes non-overlapping, quality from being excellent at the skill itself.
If assignments are about skills and processes, the teacher knowing the answer ahead of time, or even being able to complete the assignment themself, is not necessary for the teacher to be excellent at teaching students the necessary skill. It is sometimes possible to teach skills (and even do it very well) that one does not personally have.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_17: In general, yes. But I have on occasion said: Here kids is one that stumps me. I have a proof but it is clumsy and longwinded. Have a go if you are up for a challenge, and I'd be happy to hear from you.
What would certainly *not* be good is pretending that X is a routine exercise if you actually do not know how to do it.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/07
| 1,908
| 7,469
|
<issue_start>username_0: Short version:
--------------
We noticed a [problematic but influential preprint](https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/42669767), wrote a [commentary paper](http://num.math.uni-goettingen.de/%7Ehchen/documents/COVID19.pdf) to criticize and rebut it, but were not able to post the comment to any public preprint repository. In this situation, what can I do against bad science?
*Note: Some focus on our wording being too harsh, even accuse us of "personal attacks". In fact, we enlisted the help of many proofreaders to ensure that we did nothing like these, especially when the situation was so politically sensitive. Most feedback says that we were too friendly.*
Long version:
-------------
### Background
On 8 Jun 2020, [a preprint is posted on Havard institutional repository "DASH"](https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/42669767). It suggests, based on satellite imagery of hospital parking lots and internet search trends, that COVID-19 outbreak started in Wuhan, China in August 2019. The officially documented first case was on 1 Dec 2019.
This study attracted significant media coverage and political attention (cited by Trump). But from a scientific point of view, its method and argument is really ridiculous. It is criticized by many, but mostly on social media.
We decide to write a commentary paper to criticize the study. To explain our concern and motivation, here is a summary of the conversation between me (A) and a colleague (B) when they tell me about this study:
>
> A: So did they submit the paper to a journal? It will be rejected.
>
>
> B: They don't need to if the purpose is media attention.
>
>
> A: But we do have things like [PubPeer](http://pubpeer.com) that allow people to
> criticize anyway.
>
>
> (checking PubPeer)
>
>
> A: OK ... DASH does not assign DOI, so the paper is not indexed by
> PubPeer ...
>
>
> B: Yeah, that's how they announce shitty studies now. Post online,
> news release, then who cares about publication.
>
>
> A: Not necessarily. We can always write a manuscript criticizing it,
> and post it to arXiv.
>
>
> B: Can we? Let's do it.
>
>
>
So I organized a team and drafted a paper. We fact-checked many information, rerun the statistical analysis to spot the main fallacy, and asked many people (academics and journalists) for proofreading. We identified many problems, including statistical fallacies and cherry-pickings.
### Our attempts
Our original plan: posting our commentary to arXiv so that everyone sees it. Then we wait for the original paper. If they get published in a journal (to my surprise), we will submit our comment to the same journal.
As a mathematician by training, I'm a big fan of preprints, and a heavy user of arXiv. I usually post to maths category, occasionally to condensed matter physics category. I know that arXiv accepts commentary papers like ours. Since we are criticizing a paper about "digital epidemiology", I checked related arXiv preprints, and determined that "stat.AP" is the most suitable category.
But to my surprise, our submission is put on hold by arXiv. Then the major category is changed to "None". So I wrote to arXiv moderators to explain our choice of category. Then I get the following "rejection letter":
>
> Our moderators have determined that your work would benefit from additional review and revision that is outside of the services we provide. Our volunteer moderators are not referees and do not provide reviews or other detailed feedback for improvement of submissions with their decisions.
>
>
> As a result, we have removed your submission. Please instead send your paper to a conventional journal for the necessary reviews.
>
>
> Please do not resubmit this paper without seeking permission and obtaining a positive response. Resubmission of removed papers may result in loss of submission privileges. We will reconsider this decision if your work is published or accepted with a resolving DOI (Digital Object Identifier) or link to the journal's website showing the status of the work.
>
>
>
This was very shocking to me, but I will refrain from commenting on this decision.
We then think about medRxiv and bioRxiv, but they made clear in their policies that they do not accept commentary papers.
We ended up posting the commentary on [my personal academic website](http://num.math.uni-goettingen.de/%7Ehchen/documents/COVID19.pdf).
### My question
Announcing scientific studies by press release is becoming a trend now.
Imagine someone, out of malicious motivation, decided to post misinformation in the disguise of an "academic paper". To avoid peer review, they do not plan to submit the "paper" to any journal. To avoid PubPeer, they intentionally avoided arXiv, medRxiv, or anything that assigns a DOI. Then they promote their "paper" in media, and gained significant attention. They might receive critics, but only on social media. The critics are mixed up with other misinformations and conspiracies, and will not be taken serious.
In this situation, what can I do as a concerned peer? If I made effort to write a detailed critical analysis, how is that helping if no preprint repositories accept it?<issue_comment>username_1: Arxiv normally accepts commentaries. But your commentary is not just a technical criticism of Nsoesie et al. Starting with the abstract, you include non-technical considerations such as "This claim received widespread
media coverage despite the lack of validation from peers.", "This review serves as a pre-
publication evaluation of the study.", "We also reflect on scientific publishing in a time of public emergency."
This might by why arXiv rejected your commentary. In this case, the solution would be to rewrite it in a technical style, and leave the sociological comments for another venue. (Interviews with the press?)
Also, it would probably not hurt if you framed your commentary less as a denunciation of the errors by Nsoesie et al (since their paper is unpublished, and not even on arXiv), and more as an assertion of your own conclusions regarding the pandemic, even if you only have negative results.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You stated that you "wrote a commentary paper to criticize and rebut it" in order to do something about "bad science".
However, your preprint does much more that that: it does not solely focus on the content of the manuscript, but it attacks the authors!
The most striking instance of that is found in your Section 6:
>
> The authors do not show an adequate statistical literacy. They
> misused statistical tools on insufficient data and misinterpreted the
> result, leading to premature claims that only bring media popularity
> but harm academic reputation. It is a pity that a field at such
> an early stage already gets plagued by statistical fallacies.The
> cherry-picking of search keywords for internet trends is a very
> questionable research practice [21]. We understand that digital
> epidemiology suffers from insufficient data, as the authors admit in
> the manuscript. This does not justify the abuse of statistical
> methods and the suppression of evidence. In the case of insufficient
> evidence, the only right thing is to refrain from making any claim and
> simply stop writing a paper.
>
>
>
Personal attacks on authors instead addressing the shortcomings of a manuscript is widely seen as bad science. This could have contributed the rejection by arXiv.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/07/07
| 853
| 3,822
|
<issue_start>username_0: For my master thesis in clinical medicine I have collected and analyzed data for a retrospective cohort study. Now one year later, a research assistant of the group is about to submit a manuscript based on my master thesis and I have been offered shared first co-authorship with said research assistant. Upon internal review I have noticed the following issues:
* Definitions of clinical outcomes of the study have been changed such that they are now not well defined and not even of clinical interest
* The statistical analysis I had performed for my thesis was completely ignored and omitted in the manuscript. For the manuscript, the research assistant employed statistical models I deem inappropriate as confirmed by fellow researchers external to the group. In addition, reporting of methods and results is poorly written with critical information missing.
I have provided feedback concerning the statistical methods but it was ignored. My advisor refused my request to see the new statistical analysis (in particular, I asked for the statistical software files edited by the research assistant), telling me that even though I have shared co-first authorship for the paper, I am not entitled to any insight in the statistical analysis, since the research assistant is in charge of it. I’m having a hard time accepting publication of a study of which I’m co-first author but haven’t seen the analysis behind it, especially since I highly suspect it is inappropriate. My advisor threatened to remove me from the paper completely if I don’t agree blindly.
Shall I renounce and let it be published without my name? Shall I agree and accept to have a paper published with my name and the knowledge that the quality might be really bad? Shall I contact the editors of the journal they want to submit it to?
Edit: Thank you all so much for your thoughtful answers and comments! I appreciate your help!<issue_comment>username_1: You have to decide between not being an author and keeping yourself away from the paper or being an author with all the benefits and, possibly consequences, that come with it.
Will it be worth the authorship or not - you need to decide, but given the way you express your concerns I feel you are leaning to not being an author.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: If you are to co-author a paper, you need to agree with its methodology and conclusions. You don't.
My advice, in general, is to offer to work with others to improve the paper to meet everyone's standards. You indicate that this might not be possible, which would be a fault of the PI. If you can't convince them to work with you, then I don't see a real way forward without saying that you won't be part of it in any way.
They can then go forward if they like, citing your past work properly. If they don't do that, it would be time to contact editors.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: For me, the most telling phrase is this one:
>
> My advisor refused my request to see the new statistical analysis (in particular, I asked for the statistical software files edited by the research assistant), telling me that even though I have shared co-first authorship for the paper, I am not entitled to any insight in the statistical analysis, since the research assistant is in charge of it.
>
>
>
If you are an author of a paper, you should be allowed access to all aspects of it. Your advisor is completely out of line in telling you that you cannot get insight in the statistical analysis performed. This is a huge red flag for me, and I would suggest that you withdraw your name from the author list: if your co-authors won't allow you to even look at the statistical analysis, I wouldn't want to take responsibility for their actions by putting my name at the top of the paper.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/07/07
| 1,439
| 5,201
|
<issue_start>username_0: The title of the question pretty much says it all: starting Fall 2020, my university should resume face-to-face classes, requiring that
>
> all faculty, staff, students, and visitors […] wear an appropriate face covering while inside campus facilities/buildings where six feet social distancing may not always be possible
>
>
>
*Assuming that social distancing will not be possible while I'm teaching at the white board* (we may have to use the first row, which is fairly close to the white board), **what are the best practices to teach while wearing a mask**?
My main concern is my voice may be muffled, but there may be other issues that I've overlooked.<issue_comment>username_1: My Uni will have the whole next semester at "online" regime.
However, I was an observer on several usual exams and test-lectures.
We reduced amount of students - they sit at each 2nd row, at least 4 seats in between two students. The first row is free.
They enter through one door and do not move inside the room - they go directly to their seats. After lecture, they use other door as an exit to not be mixed.
At their places face masks are not necessary. You are far away from them and do not need mask as well.
Additional question about ventilation. We sat in a huge audience without windows and direct air flow. For 1 lecture it was comfortable enough.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I grew up in Canada and was a PhD student and lecturer in England, before moving to Japan from 2013-2016. Before 2013, like most Westerners I did not wear a mask during flu season, and couldn't imagine wearing one while teaching. When I arrived in Japan in 2013, there was no COVID-19 or SARS-2003 going on, **but people everywhere were wearing masks**: On day 1 people were wearing masks at the airport when I landed, at the convenience store where I asked for directions when I was lost, and in the audience when I gave my first talk at Kyoto University.
>
> "My main concern is my voice may be muffled"
>
>
>
**Don't worry:** People have been teaching with masks for decades in East Asia (I witnessed it myself for 3 years in Japan and know from my colleagues that it was nothing new).
**My advice for best practices:**
* **First try to get used to wearing a mask**. If you're like me, I had never worn one before 2013 and wasn't used to it right away. But it's like wearing glasses: it's a bit annoying to see the side arms of the glasses at first but after wearing them everyday for years you don't notice that anymore. Maybe wear a mask when you go out to the store, between now and Fall 2020, **so that when you start teaching you are not uncomfortable.**
* **Get a mask that's comfortable for you to be speaking loud for long periods of time.** When teaching we often have to project our voice so that people can hear us in the back, which means we speak louder than normal, and might be moving our jaw more than normal. A lose mask that falls off or moves around if you move your jaw bones too much, might be a bad idea. You can try various masks before Fall 2020 to find which one you'll be comfortable in. This is the type I use and it's the type they were wearing all the time in Japan:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QOp2p.jpg)
(source: [homedics.com](https://cdn.homedics.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/1000x/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/m/s/msk-f1.jpg))
I got 50 of them for $30 in Canada with inflated COVID prices (they were cheaper before). I don't find myself needing to speak louder, and my voice is pretty much the same as without a mask (if you stick with this classic mask instead of trying to use an N95 or some t-shirt fabric turned into a mask, I think you'll be fine and don't need a visor).
* The [first comment](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7390/dctlib) pointed out that if you use a microphone between your mouth and mask your letter "p" can sound bad. I agree and I never wear a microphone when teaching, and in fact I ask the conference chair to turn down my microphone when I'm giving recorded talks at conferences, because early in my career people told me I was too loud. For centuries we didn't have microphones and lecturers like <NAME> [didn't use one in lectures like the one in this link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k), so getting used to projecting your voice is part of teaching (even at conferences they don't always have microphones). If you do still prefer wearing microphones for some reason, I think you are teaching at a rather huge lecture hall where the students will be more than 1 meter away from you, so you are likely not to need a mask. Your question says "Assuming that social distancing will not be possible while I'm teaching at the white board" which makes me assume you're in a small enough room that you don't need a microphone.
+ If you absolutely must record your lecture, notice that the microphone in [<NAME>'s 900+ youtube lectures](https://www.youtube.com/user/kuprov/videos) is nowhere near his mouth/mask. You can use a body-microphone or put it on a microphone stand somewhere.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/07
| 607
| 2,657
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to apply for a PhD at a Canadian university, but I currently am in a Masters Program in the US. If I attend this new university, would I be able to choose a PhD supervisor from my current university?<issue_comment>username_1: It is very unlikely, probably impossible, that you could have a *primary* supervisor from another university, especially in a different country.
You also really need someone at your doctoral university to guide you through the rules and such of that university. Someone from the States wouldn't be very good at that.
However, some universities permit co-supervisors, so that might be a possibility. It would be easier if your primary supervisor has a professional relationship, already, with the person you would like from the States. It would be up to the primary (local) supervisor to agree to such a relationship.
And bad things can happen if it turns out that your various supervisors don't agree on things.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I changed universities between my Masters (actually, German Diplom) and PhD. However, it was in the same country. And I knew my supervisor-to-be by attending her lectures – there was a collaboration of both universities.
So, a good idea might be to go to your preferred institution as an exchange student.
Else, all the other answers on choosing a supervisor on this site apply.
Oh, and the affiliation of the supervisor matters. A bit simplified, you cannot be a PhD student at one university and have a supervisor somewhere else. Exceptions mostly involve the *supervisor* moving out and are, basically, a recipe for disaster. Don't do this.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: It is technically possible to have 2 advisers, in which case one should be from the institution you are currently in and another can be from wherever you want. How exactly your interaction with them is organized concerns only the three of you but in the end both advisers should be confident signing the defense paperwork. I just had a colleague who left to another place and his student stayed. We agreed that I would become a second adviser and though I interacted with the student quite a lot (having a reading course with him, checking the progress, etc.), the main work on his dissertation was actually done with my former colleague. This was sort of a forced arrangement under the circumstances, but it can also be done from the start: we faced no formal objections when doing it. Whether somebody from your university will agree to work together with somebody else from a different university in that way is another good question, of course.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/08
| 572
| 2,436
|
<issue_start>username_0: So in my first year of university, I failed one class. I was really good at that subject and had great grades but because of my final exam, I have failed it. I felt discourages and thought that maybe I deserved it because I did not prepare for it as much as I could. I thought that I did okay on the exam but there was a thought that maybe I am just thinking that I did well but actually I didn't? Not sure how to describe it.
Next year I am going to graduate and this thought still bothers me, like did I actually do *that* badly on the exam? I keep thinking about asking the prof for my final paper but I don't know if that's okay. I checked and he is still teaching at my university.
Do you think it is okay to ask about the exam even if it's been so long?<issue_comment>username_1: It is completely fine for students to request to see their final exam scripts. As a lecturer, I am actually surprised and slightly frustrated that many students seem to be only interested in their mark, not the feedback.
However, asking for an exam dating back 3 years may be a bit more difficult. Exam papers are only kept for a particular amount of time, often ~3 years. So if you want to ask, do it as soon as possible before your exam paper is discarded.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Most universities specify in the policy / rules / regulations the amount of time between the exam taking place and any review permitted by the student.
Usually this is a few weeks to a few months after the exam board has sat and the official marks sent to the students.
Also, "odd" performance by any student will normally be noted and discussed as part of the exam board - any extenuating circumstances etc. But if the other subjects were fine then they may have simply concluded you had "had a bad day" for that one exam.
So, ask but do not be surprised if the answer is no. If you were asking about the final exams you just took then the answer would probably be an easy "yes".
I have students asking each semester - hoping for extra points... but it does not happen, because I mark looking for reasons to give points not remove them.
But instead of posting here, you could have emailed your professor directly and had a response already - which may have been that they will give you a run down of the questions / answers even if you are not allowed to physically see the script anymore.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/07/08
| 1,349
| 5,807
|
<issue_start>username_0: Some guides say to limit the references to up to 5-6 years old.
But I've speculated as to, whether it's possible that research would become "deviated to pursuits for which in the history there existed multiple paths". I.e. since old research may suggest new research, but not all new research is necessarily "all research", then wouldn't it be possible to grasp an old article and then do new work on that?
I'd assume that this could be very feasible in mathematical papers for example. What about computer science papers? Something else?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on the purpose of your reference. If you cite a paper to show the state-of-the-art, then older papers might be only acceptable for very niche fields, without too many publications. If you compare your results with an older paper, than you have to have a good explanation why such comparison is insightful.
If you refer to some general theory or idea, than older papers are still acceptable. I personally like to include the original paper for a given idea if the page limit allows it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Taken at face-value, these guides are useless or even harmful, as they would promote an organized loss of memory and lead to multiple reinventions of the wheel.
It is also important, however, to show that your research is moving at the cutting edge of the field. This is probably where the advice you mention is coming from. You should demonstrate the topicality of your project by discussing the most recent literature *to the extent that it is adequate for your research problem*. Strategically, it may be useful to highlight your project's contribution to the latest research, including new trends, especially in the introductory section. But take care not to exaggerate this tactic, as it cannot compensate for substantive shortcomings and might even come across as superficial.
To explicitly answer the question in your title: **References remain valid until superseded by later research** with respect to the aspect they are cited for. To make that judgement, you have to know the field; to know the field, you have to read. Looking at the age of the reference cannot replace making that judgement, it can only give you a rough indication as to whether the reference is likely to have been superseded. The fact that different (sub-)fields move at different speeds makes it even less reasonable to put a number on a reference's shelf-life.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: As a mathematician, this sounds like terrible advice to me.
I would be slightly wary of a paper where *every* citation is 10 or more years old; but even then, I have seen cases where such a situation makes perfect sense, because someone found a way to pick up the slack on a research avenue that had stopped 10 or 20 or more years prior.
In a good research paper the results should build upon previous work, so some recent citations are expected. But I would also expect a decent review of previous work. If all citations are less than six years old, then the paper is likely either too technical or too shallow.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: As others have mentioned, this broad-stroke advice is sufficiently **wrong in many disciplines** to be useless as general guidance. Yes, of course you need to ensure you're up to date in your subfield, but above all you need to cite whatever is needed to ground your research conceptually and empirically, whatever its datestamp might be.
With that in mind, it's worth asking: **when is such guidance valid** in a nontrivial way? I have encountered it most often in the humanities or in interdisciplinary work with a humanities or social sciences element. A strong caution about old references is actually warranted in **fields which have undergone major paradigmatic shift, especially where the old paradigms have been criticized for being biased** or rooted in privilege.
If you run around quoting "old-school", Euro-centric papers on "Primitive Art" or South Asian civilizations, especially without engaging with the paradigmatic shift in (e.g.) postcolonial theory since then, you will (rightly) get skewered. Similarly, I have read then-respected scholarship in linguistics and psychology from a few decades ago that now makes us cringe. And woe betide you if you rely blindly on psychiatric research implicitly grounded in DSM versions <=4 (6 being most recent, I believe).
That doesn't mean you can't dig up something meaningful from the historical vaults even in such fields; just that you better know what you're doing and engage deliberately with material shifts since then. Therefore a simple heuristic of "don't do it" is, in those instances, helpful.
With that in mind (and in agreement with others answering), I'd actually turn your last paragraph around. Math is pretty simple in this regard; the only issue in quoting an old paper will be the obvious one: have you failed to note a more recent substantive advance; otherwise it's fine. It's not my field, but I would expect the shifts in computer science to be more significant. While not as big a deal as in many fields in the humanities, I think your risk of coming across as anachronistically irrelevant if you're relying significantly on old references are higher in C.S. than in math.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: If you read it, and you relied on it for your research, then you **have to** cite it. To not cite it would be plagiarism.
Can you do good research without looking at anyone else's research that was published more than six years ago? Almost certainly not. Even if you were doing a review article on research from the last five years, you would want to contextualise that five years' research with the five/ten/fifty years before it.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/08
| 371
| 1,664
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a frequent long-term (more than a year) visitor (with official visitor status) to a different nearby institution, would you list it as an additional affiliation?
Much of the experimental work (the field is physics) on a project has been carried out at the other institution by myself.<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest that you do so, but specify that your position is *visitor*. This will avoid confusion, especially as you seem to have a normal position at your home institution. "University of the Sublime, 2018-20, visitor"
Or "visiting researcher". But the other university might have a say in what you call yourself there. You might ask a department head or dean.
For a paper/talk it might be important to do so if the research was carried out there.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think that this question has a general answer as there might be guidelines applying to specific institutions.
I know of some institutions that explicitly require long-term visitors to state their affiliation. You should probably inquire about this with your institution. The institutions that I know that have rules about this usually require you to state your affiliation, and I have never seen a rule where you would be disallowed from doing that. So in any case, if a lot of the work has been carried out at the other institution and thus been taking advantage of their resources, an acknowledgement of that should probably be given in some way, whether it is in the form of a full affiliation, an affiliation with a footnote, or mentioning them in the acknowledgement section of the publication.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/08
| 483
| 2,056
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently in my second year of college and since I came in with credits from high school college credit courses and AP credits I have the opportunity to graduate a year early. I would get my bachelors in 3 years and I am in a 5 year masters program where I would get my masters degree in one year as compared to two. So it would take a total of 4 years to complete my bachelors and masters. I am a psych major and I am a RA in a psych child cognitive and development lab. I am also getting into doing psych related volunteer work. Is graduating early hurting my chances of getting into a PhD program? If so what can I do increase my chances? Also I currently have a 4.0 Gpa.<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest that you do so, but specify that your position is *visitor*. This will avoid confusion, especially as you seem to have a normal position at your home institution. "University of the Sublime, 2018-20, visitor"
Or "visiting researcher". But the other university might have a say in what you call yourself there. You might ask a department head or dean.
For a paper/talk it might be important to do so if the research was carried out there.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think that this question has a general answer as there might be guidelines applying to specific institutions.
I know of some institutions that explicitly require long-term visitors to state their affiliation. You should probably inquire about this with your institution. The institutions that I know that have rules about this usually require you to state your affiliation, and I have never seen a rule where you would be disallowed from doing that. So in any case, if a lot of the work has been carried out at the other institution and thus been taking advantage of their resources, an acknowledgement of that should probably be given in some way, whether it is in the form of a full affiliation, an affiliation with a footnote, or mentioning them in the acknowledgement section of the publication.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/08
| 1,190
| 5,187
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a postdoc working with the same supervisor who supervised my PhD thesis. During my PhD time, it was tacitly assumed that my work is his work too. It went as far as me doing the entire planning and execution of a paper and writing the first draft, while he later looked over the draft and made suggestions on what to expand and what to change. None of the suggestions were fleshed out. Yet we are the only two authors on this paper and he wrote in the author contributions footnote that he and I both conceived of the study, I did the experiments, and both wrote the paper.
Since the paper used some of his data as well as experiments funded by a grant given to him, I obviously cannot publish anything on my own.
However, now, in my postdoc function at the same institution, I find myself in a situation where a PhD student and I are doing a lot of work for a paper and there are two professors involved. My advisor and another professor.
The current paper grew out of another study for which I did all the experiments and coding with a lot of input from the other professor (not my advisor), while the advisor wrote the first draft. My advisor ended up as the first author, even though only the initial idea of working on the topic was his, but he barely contributed to the design of the study, nor does he understand the statistics used or the experimental design.
In this follow-up paper it is, once more, tacitly understood that my advisor will be first author and the other professor the senior author. The work, meanwhile, is done by the PhD student and me with some input and supervision from the other professor.
Is it possible to somehow broach this inequality in my/our position without destroying one's future?
Additionally, I'm getting more and more messages that sound like I'll be part of more papers where I'm clearly the only person doing all the work. Is it normal to have the lab leader as a senior author even though he doesn't contribute any work, nor any meaningful feedback (simply because the methods are not accessible to him)?
And also I've been getting signals that sound like if I publish my own work, not using the data gathered at work, I'd still have to run it by my PI, and possibly have him as a co-author. This last part is particularly disturbing. Has anyone ever been in a similar situation? How do you discuss these things?<issue_comment>username_1: I agree that having the professor as the first author seems wildly inappropriate. However, this can sometimes be the case in countries with labs that have a "lab head" and many young faculty underneath them. As many countries and schools only consider papers on which faculty are first or corresponding author in advancement and evaluation, it sets up perverse incentives for faculty to insist on first or corresponding authorship where it isn't deserved by most journals' ethical standards. If this is the case and is likely to remain so, then I agree with SolarMike's comments to find a new position if possible.
You don't say in your question what your relationship is like with the main advisor. Could you discuss this situation with them directly? If so, I would take a some time to cool off and make sure you aren't as dismissive of their contributions as you are in your question. Rather acknowledge their advising and support, but suggest that you and the PhD student be the co-first authors, while the professor and the other advisor be the co-corresponding authors. This would be the way we would untangle this Gordian knot in my institution.
Regarding including senior authors who may be distant from the day-to-day of running the experiments (but still qualify for authorship due to setting the directions, securing lab funding, etc.), this depends strongly on the customs in your field. Some fields go alphabetically, some have the "advisor" as the 2nd author, others the advisor is as the last author. However, the advisor is typically **always** included, even if their contributions were minor. Don't forget their funds paid your salary and the PhD students, got the equipment and whatnot for the lab, and other things without which the research would have remained an idea on a drawing board.
Regarding publishing papers entirely on your own, again this may be field and country-dependent, but I personally don't see anything "disturbing" about the advisor insisting on looking it over. This is standard practice in industry, for example, and your contract with the university may even say something to this effect. All of your intellectual output, even that created "on the side", typically belongs to the employer, who, **at their discretion** may choose whether or not to exercise their right to ownership if it's truly outside the bounds of your normal duties. As a post-doc you're not hired on a 9-to-5 basis, and as the bulk of the work is intellectual, there's no easy way to disentangle what ideas were developed "on the clock" versus developed on your own time.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your supervisor's conduct is blatantly unethical. The current relationship is harming your career. You need to find a new job.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/09
| 1,134
| 4,610
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a senior in undergrad who is a physics major applying to PhD programs. I keep on hearing people saying get rec letters from PIs or contact and have a good relationship with PIs.<issue_comment>username_1: Here PI possibly means Principal Investigator. Normally, Principal Investigator is the holder of the grant and its lead researcher.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The abbreviation "P.I." stands for "Principal Investigator" and is routinely used in the United States to denote a "head of the laboratory" or "research group leader" ([wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_investigator)), and serves to refer to active researchers with potential funding for PhD students or post-doctoral researchers.
It is used by various organisms more formally, as the two examples below show.
The United States' [National Science Foundation](https://www.nsf.gov/)
======================================================================
Quoting the section D.1.g. of their [Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG)](https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf08_1/index.jsp) from January 2017 (which is the latest version to this date):
>
> g. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR (PI/PD) means the individual(s) designated by the proposer, and approved by NSF, who will be responsible for the scientific or technical direction of the project. NSF does not infer any distinction in scientific stature among multiple PIs, whether referred to as PI or co-PI. If more than one, the first one listed will serve as the contact PI, with whom all communications between NSF program officials and the project relating to the scientific, technical, and budgetary aspects of the project should take place. The PI and any identified co-PIs, however, will be jointly responsible for submission of the requisite project reports. The term "Principal Investigator" generally is used in research projects, while the term "Project Director" generally is used in centers, large facilities, and other projects. For purposes of this Guide, PI/co-PI is interchangeable with PD/co-PD.
>
>
>
The United States' [National Institutes of Health](https://www.nih.gov/)
========================================================================
Indeed, the N.I.H. uses the same term for a similar notion.
Quoting [their glossary](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm#ProgramDirector/PrincipalInvestigator(PD/PI)),
>
> ### Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI)
>
>
> The individual(s) designated by the applicant organization to have the appropriate level of authority and responsibility to direct the project or program to be supported by the award. The applicant organization may designate multiple individuals as program directors/principal investigators (PD/PIs) who share the authority and responsibility for leading and directing the project, intellectually and logistically. When multiple PD/PIs are named, each is responsible and accountable to the applicant organization, or as appropriate, to a collaborating organization for the proper conduct of the project or program including the submission of all required reports. The presence of more than one PD/PI on an application or award diminishes neither the responsibility nor the accountability of any individual PD/PI.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: PI stands for Principal Investigator, or Primary Investigator. Essentially the professor that heads a research project. With regards to a project or even lab, there may be one or more PI, in this case they would be called co-PI's (i.e., you may be technically working under more than one professor).
To address the second part of your question, while some people do mention the term PI as it stands towards getting letters of recommendations, ideally you should get letters from professors who can vouch for you best. While it may be ideal to get one from a PI, there could be a professor also affiliated with the project that may not be the PI, but who has worked with you more closely than the PI(s) have.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In Australia, "PI" means partner investigator. This is someone who is involved in a grant application but is not eligible for funding. For example, they might be an international collaborator. This is different from the rest of the world.
A grant applicant is a "Chief Investigator" or "CI."
Reference: <http://www.arc.gov.au/eligibility-matters>
[What does "PI" mean in Australia?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/108443/what-does-pi-mean-in-australia)
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/09
| 531
| 2,246
|
<issue_start>username_0: So I have a bit of a dilemma. I'm an American. I graduated with a BS in Electrical Engineering and worked for the past two years in the RF field. I'm heading to school this fall to get my master's. A somewhat unusual step, but I want to gently re-enter academia and improve my chances at getting into a good PhD program (undergrad was good, but not spectacular). Overall my goals are:
1. "Master" classical electromagnetism
2. Learn semiconductor devices design and fabrication
3. Get publications (I will be working with metamaterials)
Essentially I want to master the classical side of physics, dip my toe into quantum physics, and then for my PhD do research in solid state/device physics. The closer to basic science I get, the better. My university has plenty of classes on the semiconductor device design/fabrication and I know how I can fit that into my schedule. The problem is:
1. Can I apply to an applied physics program without filling the gaps in my physics knowledge prior to applying (statistical mechanics, solid state physics, etc.)?
2. Does the answer to question 1 change if I apply to a European university?<issue_comment>username_1: The simple to your Q. 1 would be yes. You can apply for Applied Physics Program but keep in mind that you need to take more classes as compared to usual Master's program because you need to fulfil prerequisites first.
Do not apply to European University if you can go to American one. Because the Business environment in US is way more favourable to any degree as compared to Europe.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I won't comment on Europe. The difference between a PhD in electrical engineering, applied physics, or solid state physics is often very small. There is no reason not to try switching between those fields when you start your PhD.
To successfully apply for a PhD program, you should fill gaps in your knowledge. You will likely need to obtain a good Physics GRE score and pass qualifying exams for programs in the US. Exact practices vary, but you'll find most students have gaps in their knowledge that they need to fill. Also, many of the students will have forgotten quite a bit of that material before they finish their PhDs.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/09
| 474
| 2,029
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just find an interesting call for a PhD position. In order to apply one has to submit, among all the standard thing as cv and transcript of records, also **contact information of two references**. I don't know what does this mean. Does it mean that I have to attach in the email also the contacts of two of my professors?
Regards<issue_comment>username_1: You have to supply the contact information.
So:
Address (postal)
Email address
Telephone number(s) landline definitely, mobile not always
This is so that the admissions / adjudicating committee can get a reference according to their policy. That could be a 5 minute chat or asking the referee for a personal letter, or sending the referee a particular form to be completed.
Whatever they want, you need to supply the contact information. Be sure that if you don't then it will negatively affect your application, even to the point that it gets binned immediately. They have too many to waste time coming back to you "oh, you forgot the contact info for 2 referees"...
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you should provide ways in which two people - either professors or senior postdocs - who can say something substantial about you can be reached. Most likely, an email address will suffice. You can also provide a phone number. Listing their affiliation (i.e. University of X) is also a good idea. Mailing address is certainly overkill (but won't hurt either).
In general, I would recommend to rather list someone less "professorial" who can say something more substantial about you, rather than the other way - certainly for one of the two references, this would be fine. It is much better to have someone who has worked with you on a project, thesis, or the like, rather than someone who just knows you from one course - it is much harder to get substantial feedback in such cases. (After all, for a PhD people are not so much interested how you do in coursework, but how you do in research projects.)
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/09
| 303
| 1,309
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've found interesting sounding reference written in Czech.
If wanting to read non-English references, then are there translators that work well for science papers?<issue_comment>username_1: Based on getting things like google translate to translate technical terms, I have to go with **NO**.
Works fine for simple language but technical language is a different game.
Even people who claim to be bi-lingual cannot translate technical information. I had this argument once and gave a lady who claimed she could translate anything a paper on stresses and buckling in 3 dimensions which proved she could not. :)
I have done some work translating a paper or two between 2 languages and it is challenging even for an engineer who understands the concepts to make sure what is stated is what is meant.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I would say [DeepL](https://www.deepl.com/translator). It's a free-to-use, machine-learning based translator. It deals with technical terms way better than google translate does. However, it doesn't support Czech, so it probably wont solve your problem.
Of course, it's not perfect, and as stated in other comments here... the more complex the subject is, the less probable it is that any translator will give you an accurate answer.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/09
| 10,659
| 44,095
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was wondering whether this was just a local phenomenon or it's the generally accepted status-quo around the globe.
Preface:
In my part of the world (German-speaking Europe), we have a terribly underfunded scientific landscape. I have to caveat that by stating that students don't have to pay tuition to attend university, so it's, broadly speaking, free. If we had a system like in the US (where we would have to take out loans for undergraduate), I never would have gone to college.
As a PhD student, I was given a 30 h/week contract but expected to work loads more, since this was a totally unrealistic workweek if one wants to get one's own thesis done while doing all the lab work required to do so. Moreover, since I dealt with microorganism, I spent a considerable amount of my weekends in the lab and my overall time in the lab amounted more to like 60h+ of which only 30 h were actually paid. This put me in a tricky financial situation, since salaries for PhD students are not terribly high especially if you are only "working" a 30h contract.
I saw this happen to lots of my colleagues who were struggling as much as I was, yet they went along with it. One of the issues is that PI's and professors know that there are tons of willing PhD candidates out there who will replace you at a moment's notice, if you are not conforming to the situation. On top of it, you only get a contract for a limited amount of time after which you likely have to relocate to another city or country if you want to stay in academia.
I abhor the fact that this is a situation where someone trying to get a PhD has almost no way of making the situation any better and, on top of that, everybody seems to be accepting of it and going along. Hardly ever has anyone of my colleagues commented on the situation they were in. I cannot be the only one who noticed these issues.
Hence my question: is this common practice around the globe? How can we change it?<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience this is a common practice in many places around the globe.
You mentioned a key point: "there are tons of willing PhD candidates out there who will replace you at a moments notice, if you are not conforming to the situation".
My opinion is that we should analyze this situation as a "free market paradigm".
If we want to change this, you either should push towards regulations from the governments, or we all (and I mean everyone simultaneously) change our mindsets and reject these situations so that we force the "employers" to comply with our demands. The latter case is unrealistic. The former, might worth the fight, but it will also take years of organized protesting and lobbying.
An alternative to this, is accept that this is actually a free market paradigm, and you are not forced to choose that path. You know what you should expect if you choose that path, because there will always be people who are willing to work cheap in order to take that path. If you don't like it, choose a different path or search for a place where things work differently.
I'm sure many will disagree with this view, and it's probably not the answer you were looking for, but I think it's a realistic and practical (maybe cynical) view of this situation.
Edit: For clarification, I am not saying you should not fight for better conditions - as I said it's worth to do that. But you should be prepared for a long, tiring fight. Any significant improvement will probably not come in time to benefit you directly, but it doesn't mean you should not do it for the youngsters (and because it's the right thing to do). If you do want to do something for yourself, then my advise is to accept that the rules will not change, but you can choose to play a different game.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The experience of working long hours, for little pay and little power is, unfortunately, an almost universal experience for science PhD students around the world. In the UK and many other countries PhD students are not considered employees at all, and so have no contract of any kind - they are not paid a salary, but a stipend (i.e. a grant to allow them to live).
The situation is difficult because even if you have a good supervisor, there is still a minimum amount that is needed to pass a PhD (which is outside the supervisors control), often a maximum time limit to complete it (also outside the control of the supervisor), and more often than not, a the stipend/salary paid to the student is also outside the control fo the supervisor.
However 60 hours a week is not normal for the simple reason that very few people can be productive for 60 hours a week on a long term basis. So a supervisor that demands this is not only exploiting the student, but also mostly likely not getting good science out of it either. We all have to work 60 hours a week occasionally (and that goes for pretty much any professional job), but as a basic expectation it is in no ones interests.
EDIT:
To clarify the above - I both think working 60 hours a week is unhealthy and unproductive AND that is is less common than people think it is. Long hours, yes. But 60 hours is more than people realize it is, and few students I have known work 60 hours a week, week in, week out for years on end. Not no one, but definitely not "typical" as the question asked.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: To answer the headline question of "Is it typical"
>
> As a PhD student, I was given a 30 h/week contract but expected to work loads more, since this was a totally unrealistic workweek if one wants to get ones thesis done while doing all the lab work required to do so. Moreover, since I dealt with microorganism, I spent a considerable amount of my weekends in the lab and my overall time in the lab amounted more to like 60h+ of which only 30 h were actually paid.
>
>
>
Yes, in my experience, people working with organisms, whether rats or micro-, end up getting conscripted into many more hours than their counterparts in other fields. I am in psychology, and most of us do a decent job of keeping to around 40 hours a week.
You actually have a bit more of a solution than others, because you can refuse to work longer hours, which would be bad for the organisms under your care, forcing your PI to hire more people to take care of them. I don't know how this would work in practice. But, presumably, your PI doesn't want them to die either. Of course, it would be immoral to ask an undergraduate to volunteer to do so; but you could hire one (or two, or however many).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It is quite common in the US, too. In addition, international students (which are the majority in many fields, especially in STEM) by visa requirements are not legally allowed to be employed over 20 hours/week or off campus, so there is no possibility to get a side job or tutoring or anything to make up for the very scarce salary that one gets with a teaching or research position at 20 hours/week. So, on top of it being materially impossible to work outside the PhD (because most of our awake time is spent in the lab/office) it is also legally impossible.
Apart from my PhD peers and I being in the office long evenings and weekends, some faculty (especially early career) also spent their weekends and evenings working.
But, in the US it is increasingly common to work 60+ hours/week in industries other than academia, so I guess the contrast is less pronounced than it is in Europe.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Regarding your first question, as everyone has asserted, yes it's typical. Also, in the US, if you're a student funded by an NIH grant you're restricted from working any more that 10 additional hours per week, which similarly limits your ability to work a side job, especially if the rate is hourly.
**Collective Action Works**
As far as your second question, one thing the graduate students at our university did to address this was unionize. This seems to be an increasingly common thing in the US and the arguments generally fall into one of three buckets:
* **The population of people pursuing graduate degrees has shifted in recent decades.** At least in the US this appears to be true, though I don't have data to back this common perception. For example, graduate students aren't necessarily pursing a masters or doctorate fresh out of college; often they've had some real world experience and are interested in leveraging it in a new way or pursuing a career change.
* **The policies that graduate students are subject to have changed.** For example, healthcare in the US is now technically mandated for everyone (and most people want it). If you're a mother pursuing her doctorate and have dependent coverage through the student healthcare plan at your university, it's possible to lose that dependent coverage via a unilateral decision by university administrators (this happened at our institution). In such a case, you now have to pay a large amount of money each year to have your child insured, which can easily eat up 10-30% of your stipend or more.
* **The nature of the economy and the economics of pursuing a graduate degree have changed.** For example, in many major US cities such as Boston, San Francisco, New York, Seattle and even some smaller cities the cost of living has gone up dramatically. I suspect this isn't just a US phenomenon but one that is either global or common in developed countries. The idea is that the funding given by institutions is based on a calculation that doesn't make sufficient adjustments for this and, over time, the value of a stipend becomes similarly insufficient to support the individual.
After we unionized, we recovered health insurance benefits for dependents, got a nice bump to our stipends, will be moving from 1099-MISC tax forms to W2 tax forms (which will lower our taxes), and now have novel ways for reporting abusive PIs whether it be work exploitation, sexual harassment, bullying, etc. along with some additional protections. The upshot is, ***collective action is perhaps the only path towards forcing institutions to the bargaining table and it does work.***
**A Few Words on Intellectual Property**
If you find yourself going down this path, one thing I personally would advocate is looking at your institutions intellectual property clauses in your funding agreement/contract. For much of our bargaining, our institution asserted that we were not employees and that, as students, we produce nothing of value whether it be in hours worked or research products. Despite this line, they meanwhile laid claim to literally anything that could be construed as our intellectual property.
In such a circumstance, a way to really turn the heat up is to then say, '*Okay, by that logic, you won't mind us claiming ownership over any intellectual property we produce in self-guided projects that aren't explicitly directed by our PI or a supervisor employed directly by the institution.*' They really didn't like that idea. Of course, it's good being armed with precedent. If I recall correctly, [a set of policies](https://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/policies-guidelines/ip-for-graduate-students-supervisors/) we found to be in line with what we wanted have been adopted by University of Toronto. Here are the relevant passages:
*Regarding Copyrights:*
>
> Under the Copyright Policy, a graduate student would normally retain copyright in works that he or she creates, with two exceptions. The University holds copyright in works created in the course of the student’s employment by the University or which are otherwise commissioned by the University under a written agreement with the student.
>
>
>
*Regarding Inventions:*
>
> Under the Inventions Policy, a graduate student would normally own an invention that he or she invents jointly with the University at first instance, with three exceptions. The University owns inventions that are created under the direction of a faculty or staff member specifically with the object of making the invention, that are created in the course of employment by an administrative or support staff member, or that are otherwise commissioned by the University under a written agreement with the inventor.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Let's try to figure out how to discover such a situation from outside.
Ask around
==========
Duh.
Sure, you can ask around in your future department, try to contact current PhD students of your supervisor-to-be, or at least get a statement from someone in the same field and the same country.
The workload varies strongly by field, I would also argue that the personality of the supervisor plays a role.
It might be a legitimate question during the employment talks: "What workload do you expect from me?"
Look at the funding
===================
Now, for the shy folks: there is a way to somewhat induce the workload from other sources. Look at the rates of your local funding agency. In Germany, this is DFG. They often mandate the part-time positions (50%, 65%) for more popular and in-demand fields. They also allow full-time positions (100%) for the fields where it is hard to get good candidates. (For example, computer science is barely floating, because even with full-time funding you'd be paying a PhD candidate roughly a third less they would get in the industry.) Looking at typical position offers might help, too.
So, fields with lower rates have higher supply and [by a previous argument](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/151587/46265), more is demanded from PhD students.
The next thing to look at, are the requirements of the industry. For example, I've heard that a chemist without a PhD is basically worthless, so everyone and his cat try to get a PhD, leading to a higher supply. The rates seems to support this, but if you are aware of such a situation "extrinsically", it might help your judgement.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: In my experience (in the USA), the norm was closer to 80 than 60 hours, but here in Mexico it might be slightly less--maybe around 50-60 hours. I am assuming that by "work," you mean both work for your professor and/or department, and work on your thesis and courses. Officially, we were only paid to dedicate 20 hours a week to the first type of week, and a combination of stipend and loans was meant to cover the second half. In reality, though, the distinction is rarely all that clear, and most professors expected us to put in much more time than that. Having now seen the other side, it is also possible that your professor does not have much control over the situation. As a student, I assumed that my professor was using me as a workhorse while he just sat around reaping the benefits. As a professor, I have found that the workload is even larger (think about it: as a student, you *take* classes, but as a professor, you have to *prepare* them; as a student, you have to work on funded projects, but as a professor, you have to find the plan the project, find the funding, and then deliver on the promised results). This does not mean that it is fair for the students. In reality, everybody but the high-level administrators with six-figure incomes gets screwed, and the students, being near the bottom of the hierarchy, bear the brunt of it.
My experience as a graduate student also gave me a decent sense of what can be done about this, at least in the short term. Individually, there is not much you can do. You can talk to your professor, and if s/he is a decent person, s/he might should work with you to try to lighten your workload. The better course of action is collective. At the university where I did my Master's, the graduate students had a union, and were able to demand slightly better salaries, better health insurance, and other resources. There was no union where I did my doctorate, and the difference showed. Workloads were larger, salaries were lower, and health care was more restricted. While a union will not solve the bigger problems with universities, including the disparity between academics (both students and professors) and administration, the slashing of budgets in the name of "austerity," etc., and they can create other problems if they become detached from the students they represent, they are an important line of defense for students, who are essentially workers. If enough of your fellow students are willing, I strongly suggest you (quietly) look into organizing options. You can start by looking around on the Internet to see if an existing union or other organization would be willing to help organize the students. Be careful, though, as universities, like businesses, have been known to retaliate, and as a student, your individual position is extremely vulnerable.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: It's the norm in the US. It's been that way for a very, very long time, too. In fact, in 2010, when I was still a Master's student in engineering, it was the sole reason I decided against a PhD.
There was a very popular blog back then by an especially vocal PhD student who perfectly phrased many of the things wrong with our current system---<NAME>, studied under <NAME>.
Sadly the blog is gone, though you can find it in the web archives. There is nothing I can say that he didn't say better, so I'll let you search for the web archives from that time if you're interested. Just google "<NAME>" and you'll find it.
Yes, we deserve a new system, and I'd support it as an outsider despite not having gotten a PhD myself. You guys deserve fair compensation, fair treatment, and a humane schedule. You're not serfs, and no one should want bright talented well-meaning ambitious people to live like serfs.
But... Things have been this way for very long. The system has inertia. You'll have to organize and make noise is my guess. I mean protest. Let people know how things are in academia. You're not machines but people with priorities in life beside just lab work.
Maybe focus on incremental change. Things won't happen overnight. You'll face a lot of resistance from people who just don't get it. They'll say you're spoiled, entitled, that you don't have what it takes to be in academia if you feel that way. All bullshit, but they'll say it. They'll take offense to you taking issue with the system that... well... made them?
Truth is a punishing system that persists so long does so for a reason... though it could be something as basic as a fear to speak out... and one thing is for sure, no change will come if you don't speak out... So that seems a good place to start ;-)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Based on my experience working a CS PhD in a reasonably well known UK university, No, it is not expected to work 60 hours a week. My supervisor refused to let me take less than 4 weeks holiday a year, and would make sure I wasn't working silly hours - I can count the number of times I worked more than 45 hours a week on one hand.
I passed with minor corrections and published 2 journal papers within the project.
I knew people who were expected to work long hours: people studying under the leaders of their fields are generally worked very hard. I also know people who tried to finish in 2/2.5 years, and as a result worked very long weeks (I do not recommend this).
At the end of the day, it boils down to your supervisor: pick an established scientist with a family, and you'll likely work a regular work week. Pick a field leader, you'll get better publications and potentially be present for some awesome breakthroughs, but you'll likely have less of a life outside of academia.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: Yes, it's very typical, and there are quite a few factors that resulted in the system evolving to end up being the way it is.
The first factor is that many PhD students are little use in research. They are highly inexperienced and low-efficient, often have difficulties organizing themselves to do complex tasks, have no idea how to write research articles, and absorb a lot of time and effort of their mentors. On top of that, if we are talking about non-English-speaking countries, almost all local students don't have the skills to express their research findings in English in a way the editors of top journals would be happy with. Some PhD students become real pain for their mentors, and you never know in advance whether a particular student will be a problem or not. And you generally can't trust research results obtained by a PhD student, because an error may be everywhere, so you have to verify in one or another way. I remember a professor saying, "I'd rather spend my grant funds to hire an experienced postdoc than three PhD students." In view of their low value, it well may be that PhD students are actually overpaid rather than underpaid! Now that PhD stipends are fixed and can't be negotiated between professors and students, what's left to compensate for the low efficiency is working hours.
The second factor is that accepting a PhD student position is the easy way for graduates. You know, you graduate from a university, and you have done some research for your Master diploma and have some connections with some professors. One of them is offering you a PhD position, and all you have to do to secure a white-collar job for yourself for the next few years is to simply say yes to his offer. You don't need to acquire new skills to get that job, and you don't need to send out your CV to hundreds of companies. And you don't need to pass numerous interviews and adapt to a new kind of working environment. You aren't afraid to get fired quickly and be left without any money to pay your bills and rent an accommodation. But everything in this world has a price - and you have to pay for the easiness of this way by earning less money and/or working longer hours.
And I guess there is a third factor, albeit it's debatable. There are many university graduates in relatively poor countries who want to migrate to the West. They consider a PhD student position at a Western university as a stepping stone and are happy to work in this stage just for food and a shared room. A Western professor gets a highly motivated hard-working student graduated from, let's say, one of the top universities in China or India and pays him very little money from a grant, and the student gets an excellent opportunity to get a Western degree and build a career in the West. It's a win-win situation, so why would scientists be motivated to change that? And here comes the expectation of long working hours: Otherwise why would a professor hire you, a local, if he can instead hire someone from abroad who will happily work hard 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, for the same stipend?
Also, only a small part of PhD students can get a tenure position later in their lives, for there are too few tenure positions available. It's a kind of bottleneck, and this is pretty unhealthy for science and results in a fierce competition and the publish-or-perish attitude. Many early-career researchers get obsessed with publishing as many articles as possible, no matter the quality and actual significance. Some young scientists even conspire to mutually include each other as co-authors to their papers. The old good spirit of science is getting lost, and nowadays it's about the number of publications and the h-factor, to a considerable degree. So what can be done about that, if increasing the number of tenure positions is out of question? Demotivate prospective PhD students by low pay and long working hours in order to ensure that only those who truly love science enter the game. And those students will be happy to do research 60 hours a week, because that's what they are passionate about.
I'm afraid it's hard to change the system without addressing the factors listed above.
I humbly hope that my answer helps look at the issue from a somewhat different perspective as compared to what is offered in other answers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: Several points come to my mind. I'm speaking from [germany](/questions/tagged/germany "show questions tagged 'germany'").
To sum up, I think:
* With the current system of PhD students being employees we do have an inherent conflict of interest since the PhD has (also) exam nature. The question about fair wages is only one aspect here, and maybe not even the most severe one. Unfortunately, the whole situation is quite susceptible to abuse of power.
* Unaided estimates of personal workload are very unrealiable. I suspect that boasting and/or complaining of 60 h work weeks is far more widespread than actual 60 h work weeks.
* Recommendation: start a personal work time diary.
60h/week *rumours* don't help because they *are* questionable. Reliably recorded 48 h/week are far more useful, both as personal feedback and for negotiating conditions.
* There are known groups of students who can and will put in many hours of work. In that respect, long working hours are not unusual in academia.
* My personal experience suggests that your negotiating power may be much better than you think. But you'll never know if you don't stand up for your rights.
* PhD studies in Germany have evolved from being the PhD student's "private fun" (i.e. fully qualified professionaly not being paid for the research *work*) towards PhD students being *employed* for their research. However, this improvement in money has been bought also by some drawbacks for the PhD students which IMHO need to be discussed, and at the very least the PhD students need to be aware of these consequences. Personally I think that even full-time *employment* is not a good solution here.
---
TL - DR:
### Conflict between Exam and Employment and Abuse of Power
* Like a Master thesis, a PhD thesis is graded over here, and it has a decided exam-like nature.
IMHO, like for other exams the strategy of tackling the exam is a personal decision. You can decide put in your best effort, to aim at a sweet spot between workload and resulting grade, or to go for pass with low effort.
But as long as the PhD is an exam, you'll have to compete with students who choose to put in as much effort as they possibly can - and since they are adults it is their right to honestly put in substantially more work than an employer may ask of an employee.
* If the PhD student is employed for their research, legally the employer *has* to make sure they don't work more than allowed, and also that the salary does not fall below the legal minimum hourly wage. Here we do have a first point of conflict.
* But even worse, the exam nature of the PhD makes the whole thing far more prone to abuse of power than a normal work contract: a PhD student cancelling their work contract looses far more than just their employment. They are likely to loose the goodwill of their supervisor and most of the work put into their thesis so far.
Up to the Master thesis, the situation in Germany is very clear that there cannot be any money (work contract or otherwise) involved between the group where the student does their Master thesis and the student (a student can be employed there before and after their thesis, but not during), and also that intellectual property produced during the thesis is the student's (contracts to assign IP to the university are safest made only after the thesis is finished, incl. graded and defended). (Also, to avoid abuse of power of the type that the supervisor asks more and more additions to the work, the duration of Bachelor and Master theses is limited.)
For some reason that I've not yet understood, all these rules (which are there for very good reasons) are considered irrelevant for PhD theses.
* There is also the conflict of interest that on the one hand the student is supposed to show *their own* good judgment in deciding and organizing their research work, but they are legally subordinate to their employer, i.e. their PI can legally tell them what to do and what not to do.
This is also relevant here, because high workload may result from the PI excercising their rights as employer in a way that prevents the student from getting along with their PhD thesis - resulting in a high workload when the student tries to catch up with the thesis work.
* The "old" PhD "system" in Germany had the PhD students not paid for their PhD thesis research - thus treating the PhD thesis more like a Master thesis. However, those PhDs did not have a time limit. It was not unheard of that an external candidate did their PhD research in their free time while working a full job in industry - such a thesis could take many years (so the total work was comparable to, say, 3 years of full time research). A typical alternative was to work part time as TA - the employment being explicitly only for TAing, not for the research.
The critique here was obviously that fully qualified professionals would do research *work* for free. The potential to abuse of power of requiring more and more work to be done until the supervisor agreed to accept the thesis was (and still is) *somewhat* limited by the PhD student being free to hand in their thesis at whatever university they find a professor who agrees to handing in, without any requirement that the thesis needs to be done there. So at least in theory, a student can take their existing work with them to a new university if the conditions are too bad at their old institute.
Another side effect of the employment contracts for PhD students is that this is not possible any more since the resulting IP is owned by the employer.
* So what to do? I'm not entirely sure.
+ Stipends/scholarships (or extending Bafög) breaking this bad mix of being at the same time legally subordinate and by exam rules required to work independently may be an ingredient to the solution - but right now, I'm also not aware of any scholarships in Germany that pay out a *fair* amount compared to the PhD salaries, so could be PhD committees that are actually independent of the group where the PhD student works.
+ A truly independent external committees judging whether the ongoing PhD work is on track may be another ingredient.
+ Also: making changing the PhD supervisor an actual, practical option would help.
* Joining a union as PhD student may be one step (since I'm personally not convinced pushing for "more" employment contract is a good solution that is not the way to go for *me*. Your opinion may differ.)
* For a (part time) employed PhD student in Germany: there is a staff council (Betriebsrat), you are a member of the akademischer Mittelbau (and as such can elect and be elected into the respective faculty/university councils) and there even may be a Doktorandenvertretung (if not, you can start one). And if you are also enrolled as student, you may already be unionized via the Asta.
---
### Factors contributing to PhD Students working very hard
* (Already mentioned above: candidates who treat the PhD as exam and decide to put their very best effort.)
* The PhD and postdoc may be seen as the academic version of journeyman's years: it is rather common to also use PhD/postdoc positions to get experience in foreign countries and/or to get an entry into foreign countries.
Someone new in a different environment may have
+ less time and energy to pursue their studies/work since the change in culture and environment tends to be strenuous in the sense that the life there cannot be managed with the same ease one does in familiar surroundings (burocratic requirements, learning language & culture, ...)
+ OTOH, such students do not have as many ties and friends in the new place. They may need to organize meeting their friends back home online or offline due to time shift. In the end, they may also decide to use (part of) the time they don't spend with the local friends they don't have for work - resulting in lots of work.
I can certainly say that particularly during not too long research stays where it was clear that I won't stay forever at that group I worked far more than "back home".
To some extent this may also be true for native students that "only" moved to a new city.
* A related effect may be that some will choose to work hard in order to then take off some time for longer trips "back home". This may *look* like working more than it actually is.
---
### Difficulty in Estimating Workload
* I agree with @IanSudbury [and others](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/64440/725) that 60 h / week far less common than people think. Both for boasting CEOs and students. IMHO it is very difficult to estimate working times unless one keeps a dedicated diary, works on the clock or uses some other method of time tracking.
Two studies from Germany that are relevant in this context although they are with Bachelor/Master students rather than PhD students are the ongoing [Studierendensurveys](https://www.soziologie.uni-konstanz.de/ag-hochschulforschung/studierendensurvey/) and the ZeitLast study using online diaries ([report](http://rolf.schulmeister.com/pdfs/Workload%20und%20Studierverhalten.pdf), there were also a number of articles in the general of news, often with quite [snarky headlines](https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/a-718885.html)). The survey found students to estimate spending an average of 30 h/week for their studies, while the online diaries showed only 23 h/week (with a range across students of 8 - 53 h weekly study time and btw, the time spent on studying did not correlate with achievements/grades). Also relevant: the ZeitLast report does point out that being higly stressed by workload can happen with short study hours.
We may say that retrospective estimates such as recorded in the survey could overestiate study time by 30 %. 60 h/week are workloads that some students reach in the few weeks during and immediately before the exams. This may be a useful "anchor" or plausibility check for OP's work load: is the PhD work on average as intense as during their studies, say, 2 weeks before the first exams until the exams each semester were over?
There are some factors here that may apply less to PhD students than to undergrad students (such as loosing a lot of time between lectures). Personally, when making prospective time estimates, I find that the rule of thumb "reserve 2.5 - 3 x as long as you think it will take" works for me, and I hear the same from others - another indicator that estimating work load is extremely uncertain, at least until you're experienced in estimating that type of task (which a PhD student almost by definition won't be).
* Still, there are those who do work hard and do work a lot in academia. I *do* suspect that not recording excessive work load is one of the reasons why very few academic institutions use punch clocks. (Besides some effective and efficient academic work practices not lending themselves well to such recording approaches)
There is a reason people in academia do get congratulations when they manage to get a *technical* job that allows them to work on a punch clock (but here the same factors that lead to high stress regardless of short study hours may play a role).
* Meanwhile, I'd recommend that OP may start by keeping a personal work-time diary. Such a diary may help in two ways: it will provide you with hard numbers to discuss/negotiate with the PI, and it may show potential for more efficient time management for OP.
---
### Personal Experience and some Comments
* >
> Hardly ever has anyone of my colleagues commented on the situation they were in.
>
>
>
I've been talking with many colleagues about the working conditions in academia. In my experience this is a topic that comes up every so often. Just maybe not when the PI or the institute director is around.
* BTW, I've also worked night shifts when my experiments finally worked fine (chemist) - with a student doing the day shift as their research practicum.
I also know the thoroughly exhausting and unsatisfying times where one does measurements or preparation with waiting times that do not allow to do anything sensbile in between. And I also know that the resulting feeling of "having done nothing besides those measurements" may result in actually long work hours doing stuff that is still undone.
The upside here is that I find I can actually work longer in an efficient manner if the type of work changes between practical work, office/brain work and administrative (no brain) stuff that also needs to be done. Though there are limits for the practical + office brain work combination when the lab work needs a lot of concentration rather than elbow grease.
* I've met my share of abuse of power, e.g. by being required to do far more TAing than my scholarship contract allowed, and at some other point when I had an industry offer to work 2 d/wk to have 3 d/wk for my PhD thesis by being told by my professor that if I stay there as PhD student, I still need to TA 4 d/wk during lecture time, regardless of whether I take the industry job or not. I may add that the professor was himself with the back to the wall with teaching because the budget the university assigned for teaching compared to the number of students and the course requirements was completely impossible (he said when he started, they had twice the number of teaching staff for less than half the number of students) - which makes the action understandable, but no less abuse of power.
Looking backward, I'd say *now* that I should probably have taken the industry position, shifted my thesis towards more theoretic topics so to not require lab access any more. My guess now is that had I asked the professor - do you want this thesis to be submitted under your supervision or not, they would probably have accepted. As it was, I did not do anything the like and also my "industry boss" advised to rather do the PhD (they themselves had experienced trouble with their PhD)
* I did notice, though that it was a new experience for my supervisor when I told them after the probationary period of my TA contract ended that I was very much aware of the fact that this means *I* cannot just cancel the contract anymore. And I can confirm from some postdoc positions later on that the PIs are not at all used to subordinates bringing up the possibility of quitting.
Reminding them that noone can force me to sign a follow up contract turned out to be decidedly helpful in making supervisors stop misbehaving.
* (Somewhat related, my experience is also that bringing up topics (professionally!) that may be considered lèse-majesté by fellow PhD students/postdocs or the supervisor in the end tended to gain me a better professional reputation/position with said majesty. Of course, this is not a conflict-free course of action, and at least in my own estimate of the situation I never was foolhardy, only blunt [German fashion] and honest.)
* After my first glimpses into academic work and contract conditions, I decided that I *need* to attain a level of financial independence that allows me to negotiate at eye level, and I've let my academic employers know that I got there whenever I thought it would help my negotiation position.
There were a number of factors that helped me *a lot* with this: e.g.
+ having moved to Eastern Germany rather than, say, Munich for studies (particularly for readers from the US: Germany basically doesn't have elite universities - if the university offers the field and specialization you're after, a university in a cheap region will give as good an education as a university in one of the expensive cities)
(And I still hold that living downtown Munich is not a human right. Particularly not if living in a village outside Cottbus or Gießen gets you the same quality of education for a fraction of the cost of living)
+ cheap hobbies, e.g. hiking, biking and stealth camping rather than a craving for alcoholic all-inclusive holidays, cross country skiing in Czech/German hills rather than downhill in the Alps, meeting with friends to cook/bbq ourselves rather than pub tours, DIY: renting a shared flat where we renovated the wooden floor in exchange for a substantial reduction in rent.
+ As chemist I went for highly paid student jobs rather than the McDonalds/waiter jobs: programming, after I finished my Diplom also working as chemometrician (chemistry version of data analyst, i.e. my specialization).
+ I may say that even though those jobs added a non-negligible income, in the end the factors reducing the money spent did more to my savings.
+ I also got myself a plan B (freelancing) ready to be put into action whenever there may not be a follow-up contract. I started a tiny side-business as freelancer. Self-employment however is not for everyone - but if you think this could be an option, I'd like to encourage you to use your time in academia to also gather the relevant knowledge for this (my university had e.g. evening lectures for people considering to start their own business)
* OTOH, I've encountered lots of colleagues complaining about the working conditions and not even considering it remotely possible for them to attain any level of independence to actually negotiate rather than gratefully accept whatever follow-up contract they are offered. And of course, academic employers are used to this, and there will be those who take advantage of students/postdocs. But to a certain extent, I think that also a fully qualified academic needs to take care of themselves. And giving up a negotiation that hasn't even started is IMHO not taking care of yourself.
As a PhD student, **you are not a doormat**. Unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary to remind people of this - but if this is necessary you *need* to do this.
Also, when I see a colleague or PhD student treated like a doormat, I do my best to encourage them to stop the abuse *themselves*, but I'm reluctant to directly interfere between student and supervisor: a 3rd party interfering means a high risk that the student will end up in an even worse position whereas the student showing their supervisor their limits has much better chances of attaining a lasting improvement.
* BTW: I left the university where I did most of my PhD work without handing in my thesis when I got an offer for a full position somewhere else. In the end, I obtained my PhD (with that work plus some more) at another university many years later (always being paid full time for doing research). None of the work from the first university was lost. I did not leave the fist university in bad blood, though, and my first professor was part of my PhD commission.
* >
> In [...] (German-speaking Europe), we have a terribly underfunded scientific landscape.
>
>
>
I won't say anything like this. And especially not after having worked in academia in Italy for some years.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: Widen your horizon to adjust your expectations. There are several doubtful statements in your question.
"In German-speaking Europe, we have a terribly underfunded scientific landscape" - This is absurd, and an offense to the taxpayer. Look into other countries, less than 1000 km away, or even bordering Austria, to understand what "underfunded" really means.
"As a PhD student, I was given a 30 h/week contract but expected to work loads more" - You are not paid for writing a thesis, which few people will read, and to gain a title. You are paid for doing specific work, and along with that you are given the *opportunity* to write a thesis. Therefore it is entirely normal, and morally right, that you are expected to work a lot more than written in your work contract.
"This put me in a tricky financial situation, since salaries for PhD students are not terribly high especially" - Your salary is 3/4 of a full position, in public service tariff, taking into account your previous degree (master's?), right? Ask the secretaries and lab assistants what salary they are paid, and how they are making their living.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/09
| 793
| 3,182
|
<issue_start>username_0: Background: I submitted an article (denoted by A) on arXiv half a year ago and have replaced it several times later. Due to frequent replacements, one of my further replacements is removed, and I'm **restricted** to replace the article at most once per calendar month.
Question 1: Several days ago I submitted another one (denoted by B) onto arXiv and succeeded. Now I have some new ideas added to B and want to replace it. I wonder if the **restriction is only on article A, or both article A and B?** In other words, can I update B within this calendar month?
Question 2: I sent several e-mails to arXiv moderation (<EMAIL>), but all of them are rejected, saying "Your message was missing suitable identifying information" etc. Nevertheless, I've included all relevant informations following the instruction, also "Dear arXiv," is added in preface. Can someone show me **how can I modify my message to deliver my email**? Are arXiv moderators really that hard to contact with?
Any suggestions is appreciated.
---
I retried sending emails to arXiv moderation but all my attemptions failed. Therefore I update the article B directly, as a result, the replacement succeeded. Thus, question 1 is solved.
Still I have no idea about the second question, since all of my 2 mailboxes (academic/private) failed to deliver the email.<issue_comment>username_1: My best suggestion is to **stop making replacements so frequently** and wait until you think you have a ready pre-print, before you submit to arXiv. The arXiv is, after all, an archive for pre-prints and articles, and not a server for uploading new drafts on a daily basis.
I honestly fail to see the need to make updates to an arXiv entry, more frequently than monthly, on a regular basis. My own work-flow - for an article with many replacements - is roughly the following:
* Pre-print ready, upload to the arXiv.
* (+2 weeks) Get comments on the arXiv pre-print from colleagues, incorporate then, make a replacement, submit to journal.
* (+1-2 months) Get comments from journal referee, incorporate, make a replacement, resubmit to journal.
* (+1 month) Possibly final comments, final proofs, replacement to final version.
I assume that you upload your work to arXiv to allow other people to read it. Consider that it only serves to confuse your readers, if you make too frequent updates. I would never expect that a pre-print I have once read, will change drastically on a weekly basis after I read it the first time.
Perhaps you should re-consider your format? If you want to be able to write down thoughts quickly, and release them to the world, perhaps a blog would be more suitable?
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You wrote
>
> Question 2: I sent several e-mails to arXiv moderation (<EMAIL>), but all of them are rejected, saying "Your message was missing suitable identifying information" etc.
>
>
>
From [Contacting arXiv](https://arxiv.org/help/contact)
>
> If you have questions about the status of your submission, contact us at <EMAIL>
>
>
>
Are you sure you sent your query to the correct e-mail address?
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/09
| 1,197
| 5,076
|
<issue_start>username_0: I hope I am not at the end of the road. I had flunked advanced engineering mathematics and applied mechanics during my undergrad second year. Though I scored decently in the reexamination during the subsequent semester, I never recovered from the blow to the self-esteem from flunking first and last time in my education.
I liked applied mathematics and mechanics, though I was never good at it. I was very good at experimental mechanics but I hated the manual process of sample preparation, lack of theoretical studies. When it came to choose a research field during master's degree, I chose computational mechanics. I figured, though I might not be good at this, I can always learn and not repeat my undergrad debacle.
My error was, not taking enough courses. My grad school courses were not mathematically rigorous enough and were quite superficial. I did not take the harder courses as I feared failure and repeat of my undergrad flunking.
My PhD advisor, committee did not force me to take the rigorous and advanced courses as I had a PhD topic that did not involve much rigorous mathematical framework development. I did not ask help and guidance from professors due to my social ineptitude, worrying about what they would think about me.
I should have taken the 3 graduate level courses when I had the opportunity. I believe, I would have had more confidence, had done better PhD research.
Now, I am doing postdoc in same topic as my PhD. I am searching for postdoc positions and industry Jobs, I find requirement for candidates with rigorous research experience and graduate level coursework. I have none. I have published papers in non-rigorous journals. I am still afraid of mathematics and numerical methods.
I have screwed up my career, now I would like some advice how I can recover? I should have done things differently 5 years ago. I am old now, and inept at my field of study. I have been trying to self study for the past few years, I still suck big time. I should have stayed in experimental mechanics research. I was natural in it. Computational mechanics is not my cup of tea. I bit off more than I can chew.<issue_comment>username_1: It is likely that only someone familiar with your field and your portfolio can really help you assess your options. But since you asked for advice, I will offer some observations:
* You spent about half your post looking backwards (all the way to undergrad). This is not productive. Instead, look forwards. **Where do you want to go? What is the next step?**
* When considering "where do you want to go," I recommend you consider *all* your options. Many people who have never left the university tend to make only superficial inquiries into career options outside of the university.
* For a research career, the biggest concrete problem is your poor track record in research. Note, I am assuming that your research record is truly poor as you say, though self-assessment can be very difficult. The academic job market is brutal even for well-qualified candidates, so a poor research record may close some doors, at least temporarily.
* I'm not sure what you mean by "I find requirements for...graduate-level coursework. I have none." I'm very skeptical. In my experience (granted, I'm in the US), it is *very* unusual for anyone to care about your coursework once you have a PhD. Second, you *do* have a graduate-level coursework, though you don't think the courses were sufficiently rigorous.
* A PhD certifies that you can do research without supervision -- this includes learning new skills. So, your self-studying seems like a good option. Another good option would be to redirect your focus onto areas which are a better match for your interests *and* skills. Which brings us back to the bolded questions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **You have the signs of [Imposter Syndrome](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11765/ive-somehow-convinced-everyone-that-im-actually-good-at-this-how-to-effect).**
Graduating with a PhD is a huge milestone. Externally to others, it indicates aptitude and expertise and success. While you are blaming yourself, saying that you lack these qualities, the external appearance is that you *do* have these qualities. Take a moment to step back and consider what you have accomplished.
Try talking to someone who is not an expert in your area about your area. You will likely realize how much more you know about your area than they do. You will likely see that, despite your beliefs, and despite your efforts to sabotage yourself, you have actually become an expert!
Confidence varies widely within people with the same level of expertise and capabilities. Think of people who you have considered impressive or accomplished. Have they all been equally confident? Many people who are successful and obtain a PhD still somehow believe to the end that they did not deserve it all along (and you seem to be in that category), but this is often only partially correlated with whether they actually made a strong contribution.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/09
| 513
| 2,027
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a BDS (dental undergraduate) student in India in final year. I am interested in psychiatry after completing my graduation.
I have heard that I could pursue an Msc in Psychology after my graduation. But, I can't find whether I could do a medical degree in psychiatry. From what I can tell, it might not be allowed.
So: (1) are dental students eligible for medical school in India? (2) if not, is there any way I could become eligible?<issue_comment>username_1: Let me summarize.
In the US, an undergraduate degree is not completely specialized. Students study lots of things outside their "major". So, graduate programs don't expect as much specialized knowledge of an incoming student as might be typical in other places.
As most places, psychiatry is a medical profession and the normal path is to get a medical degree, say an M.D., and then specialize in psychiatry beyond that. Medical schools might require a number of science courses for entry, however, especially chemistry and biology. A dentistry undergraduate degree might already include those. Otherwise you have a deficit and a harder path. And the path is quite long in any case. In the US, a psychiatrist would require a license as well as a degree in order to practice. I don't know what that entails, but probably at least an examination. But a researcher, as opposed to a practitioner, might not need a license.
I think the Canadian educational system is similar in some ways to the US system, but I'm not sure it is similar enough to help in your case, especially for medical school. But it might be worth an initial search to discover the options.
But look for medical schools that have an option for a psychiatry specialization.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Psychiatrist and therapists are different things , to become a psychiatrist you will have to clear Neet-ug and Study mbbs for 5 years and then clear neet-pg and take a seat in MD psychiatry, no shortcuts even if you are a BDS
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/09
| 1,059
| 4,693
|
<issue_start>username_0: Here are constraints for my course (which will be delivered remotely):
1. The class size is **huge** (250+ students).
2. Lecture contents will be delivered asynchronously (with pre-recorded videos and live Q&A sessions).
3. **Synchronous** (scheduled weekly for 20 minutes), frequent, **small** assessments will be used to test lecture contents.
4. Each assessment is **web-based** and can be automatically graded (say manual grading is not possible, given the TA hours, for this large class).
Given that it's an online course, is it **fair to assume** the responsibility of stable internet connection (so that each assessment can be started and submitted in time) on students?
If such an assumption is not fair, then does it mean any student claiming a network-related problem can be **accommodated unconditionally** for extra time or another test?<issue_comment>username_1: This is something you need to work out locally and before the course starts if possible. People here will have opinions, but only the local opinions at the university will have any actual weight.
Some things here seem foolish to me. Especially a large student population with insufficient TA support. There should be a dozen or so TAs to make this possible. Harvard's CS 50 course is also huge, but the student to staff ratio is about 20 to 1.
It may not be fair for the course designers to make such assumptions but you are probably going to be stuck with them whatever they are.
You point out some of the deficiencies of online instruction at this time. Even worse is that some students just don't have access to the equipment or bandwidth. But it is a chaotic situation.
Probably the best you can do is file a statement, say with a department head, and get acknowledgement of it that (a) internet connections can be flaky (b) cheating can be rampant no matter the technology (c) policies need to be established to fairly account for as many of the potential problems that might occur. And the policies will need to be somewhat flexible.
But **demands** are likely to be ignored. Enter into a conversation so that you have some assurance that fairness will be maintained.
On the other hand, some things about this course seem fine to me, such as frequent small assessments rather than a few high risk exams. Question-answer sessions is also a good idea if the times are flexible. Mailing lists can also be used to increase communication.
The course may actually need to oscillate a bit toward a successful outcome as there has bee insufficient time to even design the research needed for successful pedagogy. But if those assessments are well designed it can work out.
And you should prepare a quiet place in which to work if that is at all possible. Especially for the assessments.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Given that it's an online course, is it fair to assume the responsibility of stable internet connection (so that each assessment can be started and submitted in time) on students?
>
>
>
No, I don't think it's particularly fair to have the students shoulder the entire responsibility for something that is largely outside their control without giving them some alternative way to complete the assignment. Moreover, it's unrealistic to assume they have any reasonable way of ensuring connectivity. Internet connections can go down, the power can go down, and hardware can fail. I understand you may be trying to avoid people taking advantage of you, but these things happen and should be accounted for. (Personally, I've experienced the first two during video calls with collaborators during the last couple of months.) Further, some students (perhaps rural or less well-off) will have less table connections than others. Do you want the assignments to test students' learning, or the reliability of their internet connections?
>
> If such an assumption is not fair, then does it mean any student claiming a network-related problem can be accommodated unconditionally for extra time or another test?
>
>
>
I think you should make some accommodations, but unconditional ones seem unnecessary. *Reductio ad absurdum*: if a particular student doesn't have a way of accessing the internet at all, they shouldn't be registered for an online class. If the student has recurring connection problems they should take steps to address that. But accommodations allowing for missing or delaying some number of quizzes (the number could be specified in the syllabus and/or kept flexible) seem important. There's somewhat of a parallel in mandatory physical attendance policies, which usually allow for missing some lectures even in normal times.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/10
| 5,493
| 22,369
|
<issue_start>username_0: So I am considering a PhD position as it appears one opened up and I was contacted about it by a professor. I'm not desperate to get a PhD. I think it's a nice goal and I am interested in the subject but its completion is not something I am dead set on.
I have read some horror stories about hours worked which I refuse to fall into. I plan on documenting my hours worked and limit it to about 9-5, mon-fri, basically view it as a very poorly paying industry job while maintaining time for personal projects/startup ideas.
So my question is if my advisor starts to get pushy and demand I spend more time working, what's the best way to respectfully maintain my boundaries?
I figure the worst that could happen is my advisor cuts my funding at which point I would terminate. Practically speaking my MS is complete so besides giving me a bad reference there's not a ton that could be done to me.<issue_comment>username_1: One of the nice things about working at a university is that the working hours tend to be very flexible. In my experience, this is the main reason why PhD students (and faculty) don't have a 9 to 5 workday. Some work late, but many of those start late. Some work in burst, working long hours for some weeks (before a deadline), and taking it easy in other weeks. This flexibility is realy nice, but it does make it easier for advisors to demand unreasonable working hours from PhD students. We have all heard horror stories, but none of this happened to me or anyone I know directly. Most advisors are just normal humans who don't want to exploit others. Also, the topic of the power imbalance between advisors and PhD students is very well known in universities, and in all universities I have been at there are many faculty who may not be actively searching for signs of abuse, but do keep an eye open. None of this guarantees that no abuse happens, but it does put the horror stories in perspective (that does not help if you find yourself in such a horror story)
I have known one PhD student who maintained a Monday to Friday 9-5 workweek. This requires a lot of discipline, as you cannot rely on the institution to impose those hours on you (that is the flip-side of flexibility). She could do that by being very efficient while at work. By doing so, she got more work done than most PhD students who worked long hours. People, including her advisor, knew that, and respected her for that.
However, given the way you describe your "interest" in the position (not interested in completing, very poorly paid industry job), it does not seems you have the right motivation for this job. So I would recommend you think again whether this is really what you want to do.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: First of all, I know many PhD students (also myself) who did exactly that and finished their phd:
They worked 40 hours a week (or less), had a "normal life" , knew they would go to industry afterwards and wanted to learn/do research before (and stay connected to the system "university") because they loved uni/studying. It helps that in my country, studying and also titles are traditionally seen as something valuable (so there is no feeling of "only study if this aids you in your future job" in my country).
Some students also saw it as a fun experience to live abroad before returning home.
For me, it was similar: I didn't want to become a researcher because for me the postdoc life seems horrible -- but one can do a phd realtively risk-free. (Now I teach at university).
It is certainly not possible to work only 40h with all profs/in all subjects. Maybe also not in all countries (in which one do you want to study?) Probably it is also not possible with the most famous universities/professors.
I do recommend you to do good research on your prof what kind of person they are. Is it possible to do this kind of work with them or not?
I do think your attitude "I am not dead set on completing" is great. If the prof makes unreasonable demands (or other things like misconduct), just go. When they suggest longer working hours, tell them you don't want to do this unless absolutely necessary, if they keep insisting, just go.
Do keep your eyes open while doing the phd for skills you need in industry.
Note that there are even (incredible) people who finish a PhD and have little kids (and some of them, no partner!)
(Of course, you might have two fewer papers afterwards for a good university career, but as this doesn't seem to be your goal..)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: *"basically view [the PhD] as a very poorly paying industry job while maintaining time for personal projects/startup ideas"*
Only that a PhD is *not* an industry job. In fact it is not even a *job*, at least not in most cases, or the successful cases.
How does the following sound like?
*"I want to star in films by <NAME> or <NAME> and become a Hollywood star. But I'm afraid they will push me to work beyond 40 hours per week for each film I'm starring in!*"
Like any other highly creative and competitive work (e.g., film starring), doing research is *not* a job (again, in the successful cases). It is a dedication that one usually is passionate about. Viewing research and being an academic as a job is flawed in my opinion. Although it is possible to reduce it merely to "a job", it is logically flawed. If it is merely a job then it is not a good one: you can work less, be under much less pressure, and earn more and faster in other jobs.
Hence, my answer is that the premise of your question is dubious, and thus there seems not to be an appropriate answer to your question in the first place.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I do think it is possible to do a PhD and only work 40 hrs a week on a normal week, if you are head down, supper efficient and committed with in that time. I'm not sure how possible it is if you are absolutely ridged about that, never working more than 9-5 irrespective of the circumstances. There will be times when experiments take longer, or deadlines are approaching when more is needed. The better organised you and the supervisor are, the less common such time will be, but I don't think they can ever be completely eliminated. For what its worth, I think this is also true of any profession job, academic or not.
In terms of commitment, I think its healthy to feel that you could walk away if it doesn't work out. But do have to want it to work out. The way you word things makes me feel like it working out and you finishing are not even your best case scenario (which would be your side hussle to pay off). If you are taking a PhD, the supervisor (at least a good one) if investing a lot of their personal capital and work into you. A student who leaves is a black mark against a supervisor. For a young supervisor in a competitive field it can be career-ending. For a poor or abusive supervisor this is deserved. And if the PhD is making somebody unhappy, hopefully a good supervisor would be able to take it on the chin. But to go in with this being your preferred outcome is not a good sign. This is what I meant when I talked about taking a PhD "in good faith" [on your previous question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/150191/82972).
If what you want is a poorly paying industry job, get a poorly paid industry job. A PhD is not an equivalent experience.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: If you want to maintain this boundary, I would say it's quite simple. You tell the professor now, before starting the PhD: "I will not work beyond 5pm or on the weekends. I do want to keep side hustles going. Do you still want to offer me the PhD position?"
If they say yes, awesome, start the job. If they ask for more time from you, remind them of the boundaries you told them about before starting. As you say, there is not a whole lot that can be done to you, if getting the PhD or the recommendation is not important to you. However, do not be surprised if under these conditions, they do not want to offer it to you: I know of multiple professors who refused to take students who wanted to keep their own company going during the PhD. Precisely for the reason you mention: if the company takes off, the student will usually want to focus on that and not their PhD. And do be honest about this: pretending the PhD is your ultimate goal to the professor, while it's not, is not ok.
That said, even if the professor says yes, I would think really hard about whether you want to do this. There is nothing wrong with protecting your time off, and I actually think that on average I did not work much more than 40 hours per week during my PhD (I did some 80-hour work weeks before conference deadlines, but there was probably also enough slacking to offset the extremely busy weeks).
But this attitude of really not wanting to work a minute more and not caring (a whole lot) whether you finish is not often found in PhD students. It is also an attitude that may limit what you get from the PhD in terms of opportunities. If you're also happy to walk away after two years with no papers and no new opportunities (and possibly some burnt bridges) - then you have nothing to lose. If you would not be happy with that outcome, then consider it some more.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Talk about this in your interview. If you aren’t having an interview, you need to make sure there is one - you need to hear the professors expectations, and share yours. If you aren’t on the same page with the professor about hours and other factors, you’ll have a challenge staying in the limits you want to set yourself, or it will lead to conflict.
A 40-hour per week doctorate is possible, if you are not expected to teach or pick up other duties besides those purely related to your research.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I like your question. I don't think so what you propose is possible. Time limits would only be enforceable in jobs which are well defined for example cutting the grass, fielding sales calls, etc. PhD is an open-ended job, quite unlike conventional ones. It is done with a fixed goal in mind. The goal may be to publish a certain amount of papers, do sufficient research, etc. Basically do some amount of work which would satisfy your supervisor. When the works are ill-defined they are less enforceable in the amount of time they take. This problem is surely going to torpedo your working hour limits. Hence it would either cause you to leave within a month or so or you would continue to solder on having completely betrayed yourself.
>
> Of-course all this is assuming you can get an advisor to agree with your terms of working hour limits. You should count yourself to be very lucky indeed to get hold of such an advisor in the first place.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: You state clearly that you wish to have finite commitment because you want to reserve time for other projects. What you are describing is *de facto* part-time studies.
If you are serious about your PhD, it will require as much time as needed to complete it, with little to no time for start-ups. If you are serious about a start-up, this will also require as much time as needed, leaving no time for a PhD. [Famous quote: you do not own a start-up, the start-up owns you.]
In a PhD or in the start-up world, there will be moments when 40hrs/week will be vastly insufficient because of deadlines, *i.e.* exams, presentations, prototyping *etc* to prepare. If you are working on an experiment or doing field work, you need to do as much as possible when the apparatus works or when you are in the field: one does not stop at 5pm after spending all day correctly tuning some piece of equipment. If you have an investor meeting on a Monday morning, expect to spend the weekend working on your product, or the sales pitch, or whatever is required by your boss on Monday morning or before.
Finally, if you want your supervisor to commit time and resources towards your success, you better first show that you yourself are willing commit all the time needed.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: It is an interesting question. What you did not mention is what discipline you want to do a PhD in and in what country.
For instance, in the UK, PhD costs a lot of money (about £9000 per year for at least 3 years for home students and at least twice that for internationals). So, if you are paying and have done 2 years already (and spent £18000 only on fees and about the same on living costs) you are unlikely to do out.
Saying that, most people do not pay for themselves though. There are a lot of funded positions (and you will even get reasonable bursary), but they have a catch. If you are funded by the department or university, you will have to do teaching (usually, 500 hours per year, lab sessions, marking, etc). Alternatively, your position can be funded through the project grant which your supervisor has. In that case you will have to work on the project besides your PhD topic. In any case, you will effectively have two jobs.
Also, discipline do matter. I cannot say for Humanities (probably reading enormous amount of literature), but on physics, chemistry, biology you will have at least some experimental work. Some experiments are very-very long and/or require attendance over several days (including weekends). You may have some resources they require regular maintenance, e.g. mice or mosquitoes which need to be fed and cared for 7 days a week. So, in this case keeping it to 40 hours a week is virtually impossible.
In disciplines like maths, computer science, data science etc it is a bit easier. You can choose when and where you are working, but these disciplines usually involve a lot of coding, which again usually requires about 10 times more time than planned (due to code debugging).
I have done PhD in applied math, I was definitely working much less than 40 hours a week (except about 2 months during writing thesis) and still did it in less than 3 years. Yes, I was also teaching and doing actually much more than 500 hours a year (getting very generous pay for the extra hours).
In general, I would not say that normal prof will demand you to work any specific number of hours. Academia is about flexibility. Nobody cares whether you are working 1 hour a day or 20 hours a day. All people care is the results you get.
The biggest issue here is that I am afraid, you have a bit wrong attitude towards academic work in general and PhD in particular. Even if you do not actively working on something, you usually keep thinking about something ("where is the mistake?", "How to make this work?", "How to improve this?", etc). Academia is not an industrial job, it is a way of life. And PhD is not different. And you should enjoy this way of life. At the same time I should admit that I can spend a lot of time with family and maintain healthy work-life balance.
So, if you are not sure, I would suggest going to industry for several years and then decide whether you need a PhD or not. Actually, many large companies would happily fund your PhD course if you will make a compelling case that you need it to fulfill your duties better.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: >
> basically view it as a very poorly paying industry job while maintaining time for personal projects/startup ideas.
>
>
>
That is a bad way to start a PHD. There are a lot of "poorly paid industry jobs" in which the misalignment between you and your supervisors expectations will be smaller.
Yes, you can do a PHD 9 to 5, yes you may even get the title, and yes, maybe your supervisor is ok with the 9 to 5 part. What they definitely will be not ok with is that getting the phd for you is a low priority.
Maybe they would be happy to hire you as a lab technician (yes, bright people are needed there too, even if they don't want to get professor). But the continued mismatch between your goals and what you signed up for can not be a persistent thing. What I could imagine what works is: you check for 6 months, maybe you opinion changes. If it doesn't, you talk to you prof an tell him you are willing to work in the lab, but that a scientific career may not be for you (that is a discussion they will have had more often in their life).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: Same as with a [related question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/151585/is-it-typical-to-work-60-hours-per-week-as-a-phd-student), there is an issue of the field.
You might not be able to, if your field does not permit
=======================================================
* Are you basically doing an office job in a low-competitive field? Probably, yes.
* Are you literary working in a field? Probably, no.
* Are you working with animals or cell cultures? Probably, no. And also forget about holidays and weekends for the duration of your PhD.
* Is it easier / cheaper to get machine / instrument time during non-working hours and you really need those 1000000 cores / 100000 MWh / 1E14 MeV / 7 meter dishes for your research? Probably, no.
* Do the experiments take a lot of time and typically finish in the middle of the night? Probably, no.
* Do you need to perform observations at night, because Sun is evil? You guess it!
* It is well accepted in your field that a person cannot maintain top intellectual performance for the full 8 hours and you really need that to get your research done? Probably, yes. (However, my impression is that mathematicians use quite every single moment of time for their research, they just interweb highly demanding parts with routine.)
* Are there too many aspiring PhD candidates and too few positions? Probably, no. Because, why get someone, who works 40 hours/week, if you can get someone willing to work 80 hours/week for the same money? Sorry, this is cynical and probably against the law.
* Again, are there too many aspiring PhD candidates and too few positions? Then it would be possible to hire someone for 20 hours/week and to coerce them to work 40+ hours and also on a weekend. Again, labor laws might have a different opinion on that. But, probably, no.
What are your goals?
====================
People here mentioned a lot about PhD studies not being a job, research passion, and so on. If some anecdotical evidence helps you, most people I know, who have *remained* in academia, do not work 9-to-5.
So, if your goal is to stay at the university after your PhD: probably, no.
But why?
========
You might ask, why are we doing all this? Why are many of us sacrificing a lot of non-working time to do work-related things? Very simple. Research, and, by extension, academia, is not a job. It's a passion, which, coincidently, gets the bills payed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_12: It is actually very difficult to maintain any boundaries while doing PhD. Up to degree that in some universities PhD students employed 50 % are expected to work somewhat 120 %, and whose who do not are quickly dismissed by professor simply saying "I think you are not the right person type for a scientist".
Researchers are, you see, mad a little bit, just like a pop culture pictures them. If you want to "balance life and work" or something the like, just do not join them.
Similarly, students are often expected to work hard and not to "balance life and work" instead. PhD is still considered an education.
I do not know, maybe somebody see this answer as disrespect to something but I would like bystanders to know how the knowledge and technology we all later enjoy is built. Regardless if you search for a new planet or a new algorithm of computing, it is always a real hell of work and uncertainty.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_13: The first thing would be to make sure the professor you would be working with does not expect anything else. That would mean speaking to people who know them, have worked with them, or even email some of their past PhD students to see what they are like as a supervisor. Even better if there is someone in the department you know well that you can ask about them (via unofficial channels as any bad habits are more likely to be glossed over via email ect). And when speaking to them about it, it is worth raising this as a concern and ask about it. If they try to emotionally manipulate you (e.g. 'you should do this because you love it' or something to similar effect) then you can just safely ignore the offer.
A practical point if you do start is to organise regular meetings with your supervisor (which you can also ask them about) and keep track of what you accomplished in the last week and what you aim to do in the next week and in the next month to help keep you on track. This may help you be more productive, but you are going to have to work smart during those 9-5 hours. You may also have to be flexible and expect to work longer some weeks and less other weeks, or working a non-standard work week (particularly if you have international collaborators or experiments to run).
But the **most important question** is why are you considering doing this PhD? You said that you would be happy not to complete. Is this a field that you are interested in and want to learn more about? Is this a field you want to work in at some point in the future or are open to an academic career? Are the skills you would pick up important for future work or would you like to do a start-up in this field? Is this a placeholder that you aren't against doing but really is just there to fill time?
If this is not important for your goal career or not something that you *really* want to learn more about (and are willing to dedicate a number of years of your life to) then you might want to ask yourself what other options could you take that would help you towards that goal. If you are interested in start-ups you could try to get employed at a start up to see how people run them, as well as potentially getting some connections that are important for initial funding. But also keep in mind that if you are interested in start ups in this field you have been working on then the skills you would gain in a PhD would be useful, particularly there are some similarities between a start-up's lean development, and the hypothesis design/testing of research (I'm particularly thinking in the sciences).
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/10
| 845
| 3,587
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had some Ph.D positions available to me after my undergraduation which I could not take owing to some personal reasons and instead chose to take an industrial job which basically is also research based. However, the environment is not heavily research based and the collaborative opportunities are less, with . The prospect of doing a Ph.D while being in the industry is also miniscule. I have published research in good journals during my undergraduation and while in job too, and deeply desire to publish more and enjoy the research process. However at times, I feel directionless and without guidance, I have to spend too much time going through relevant papers/books which at times lead to diversions which I realize at a later time. I have some questions which I would be grateful to, for the answers.
a) How should I increase collaborations in this scenario? I participate in conferences whenever I can get chance, however I feel I don't have the pre-requisite subject knowledge in depth which a Ph.D student would have. Thus I feel hesitant in communicating with researchers. For this, I try to study course books relevant to the topic.
b) How can one avoid and know diversions from the research topics in absence of someone to discuss with? What role does peer group play in a graduate school in such scenarios ?<issue_comment>username_1: I do not think that you'd be limited in publishing your research results or finding collaborations if you do not have a PhD. You pretty much need a PhD for the academic career path, basically if you want to become a professor some day.
The major issue is if you are able to support yourself doing what you do. And if you can allow yourself to do research, and to do the research you want to do, while working in the industry.
To give an example, <NAME> [published](https://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/1985-44-170/S0025-5718-1985-0777282-X/home.html) his multiplication long before he obtained his PhD, while he was working in the industry, as far as I understand his circumstances.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I know of a researcher in computer graphics who has won two awards from the Academy for his contribution to CGI. He just completed his PhD with my supervisor. He actually has a better profile than his supervisors combined. While doing his PhD he also was a secondary supervisor a few students.
In this day and age where things are going digital so fast, you have a large number of essential courses online. So you can learn at your pace. Unless you need a lab to do research, say involving wet work, I do not see why you cannot do research by yourself.
You say you attend conferences, this is the place where you look for collaborators. That is the main purpose of attending conferences. You get new ideas, you interact with people and you forge collaborations.
Why not talk to your undergraduate professors you already published with and continue collaborating. A large number of researchers do that.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: In my experience, the only way that academic researchers will take you seriously is if you begin to answer some of their questions, build on their results, or take their research into a new and interesting direction. Eventually they will notice, and collaborations may be possible then. But I think first you must demonstrate that you understand their work by doing something with it.
Reading tons of books to build up knowledge is mostly a waste of time. Just find 5 or 10 papers that really interest you, and go from there.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/10
| 2,304
| 9,580
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently there have been a couple of questions generating discussion on the level of personal commitment required for PhD positions and what kind of personal sacrifices students should be willing to make if they want to do a PhD. I wanted to ask similar questions but as someone thinking about pursuing a postdoc.
I love doing research. I love the freedom to think about projects that I find interesting and chipping away at them piece by piece. I also love university/research environments and having the resources to constantly be learning. The thing is, more than a year ago, I had a period of burnout and poor mental/physical health that I am still recovering from (actively, with the help of therapists etc). Part of this recovery is that I can no longer work as hard and for as long as I previously could. I sometimes struggle with 8 hour work days. While I am now much better than I was, I don't know how long it will take before I can again function at my best. Possibly it will take at least several more years. Given this, I don't plan on ever applying for a professor position since I think I physically will be unable to handle the tenure track years. But I was hoping to stick around in academia for as long as I can doing postdocs (in my area, doing at least two postdocs is common prior to applying for tenure-track) to keep doing what I love. Luckily during this time, money is not likely to be much of an issue, and probably when people stop hiring me after I've done too many postdocs, I will look for a more boring job.
In terms of my research output, I have had remarkable luck in the projects I have been working on, and have been producing results despite reduced effort. I still have a few years before I'm due to finish my PhD, but currently, I may finish as a competitive candidate for a postdoc. The question I'm now mulling over is whether I should be applying for one when the time comes. Will it be unfair to the PI who hires me to insist on a work-life balance? Will it be dishonest to take up postdoc positions if I do not intend to go further in academia (and taking them away from candidates who might)? Is it even realistic to expect to be able to do a postdoc with (on average) ~8 hour days? I'm also considering the possibility of taking a few months to a year off between PhD and postdoc to more intensively work on my recovery, but I've heard that these breaks might make me look bad as a candidate -- just how bad would this be?
If it is ok to apply, would it be dishonest to not reveal to the PI that I do not intend to stay in academia? Also at what point in the hiring process ideally would a conversation about expectations take place?<issue_comment>username_1: Every position is different. Every PI is different. Every field is different. In math you can probably set your schedule to suit yourself. In some lab sciences with demanding PIs it isn't so easy. But a few points to consider:
First it is fair to explore your working conditions before you start, though it may be a bit risky. If you can manage a visit, you may be able to get a sense of it from other post docs at the institution. But you can also just ask for expectations. You aren't required to damage your health, but some PIs don't know where to draw the line.
Next, you may find that the burnout you experienced and your need for a reduced schedule doesn't continue into the future and it might just go away. Lots of people have such a period, some in the middle of their studies and some shortly after. But a change of scenery, literally, might have a positive effect.
Don't worry about the future too much. Your situation, health, and attitudes may change. But a positive post doc experience could go a long way to helping. Many professors work long hours, but it is because they truly love to do the work. It ceases to be a job and becomes an avocation. What could be better than to be paid to think?
If you take time off, make sure you can explain it as something other than recovery. Have a flexible plan for your return if you decide to do that, and find something to do that keeps you from getting rusty. If you come back, you want to seem enthusiastic about it to anyone who reviews your CV and SoP.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would say that the expected level of commitment of a postdoc is extremely high.
The expected level of a PhD student is very high. Being a postdoc brings you even closer to the "top" in the pyramid of academic life, hence it is *extremely high*.
Notice that this has not much to do with your PI or your postdoc host. It is *you* who should expect to be extremely committed in order to be competitive. Your host may be already established, if you are not extremely committed he/she may be somewhat disappointed, but it is *you* who is going to pay the price and need to end your academic career.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: To add to the previous answers, most people in postdoc positions are there with the goal of being a future faculty member at some university level (not necessarily research-intensive, lots of teaching-focused schools now require postdoctoral training for their hires). If you truly believe there is ZERO chance you want an academic position of any kind, a postdoctoral position at a university may not be the best fit for you.
There are industrial postdocs that might fit your needs/interests better. You'll still be doing research, but without the same publication pressure and attendant 100-hour weeks, and there will be a natural transition to a "regular" job if things go well.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: First, at the risk of stating the obvious, a postdoc position is a standard work contract. It happens to involve research work in academia, and it is true that there is often (not always) a culture of competitiveness and high expectations associated to it. But like any work contract you are only required to do the job that you are officially paid for, and pressure by a PI to do more than that is moral harassment, plain and simple (and it's illegal in most countries). Sure, it's quite common for postdocs to put in more hours than required, and some PIs might even expect that, but this is definitely up to you and nobody else.
So no, it's definitely not unfair or dishonest to take a postdoc position without intending to work more than what the contract says. Same thing for the intent to stay in academia: it's a temporary contract, not a marriage! If the institution wants their researchers to stay, they should at least offer permanent contracts. Additionally the vast majority of people who do a postdoc don't end up with a permanent position in academia, and many of them know from the start that they want a job in industry, they just want the postdoc on their resume.
Certainly there are places where the high level of competitiveness would make it hard for you to keep a healthy work-life balance. But this is not the case everywhere, there are very decent institutions and PIs who are perfectly ok with postdocs doing their research work like normal human beings. I've been a postdoc for 14 years, in the same institution for the last 10 years and apparently my work, while not especially impressive, is judged good enough for my contract to be renewed every time. I've been on a 75% part-time for the last three years by choice, simply because I prefer to have some time to myself rather than a full-time salary. So yes, it is possible to be a postdoc and keep your sanity too ;)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> I have had remarkable luck in the projects I have been working on,
> and have been producing results despite reduced effort. I still have a
> few years before I'm due to finish my PhD, but currently, I may finish
> as a competitive candidate for a postdoc.
>
>
>
Don't do yourself down. Sounds like you are pretty good! And it sounds like you have been productive despite reduced working hours - keep that up and people will be happy to have you as a postdoc.
>
> Will it be dishonest to take up postdoc positions if I do not intend
> to go further in academia
>
>
>
No. Its completely fine to do a postdoc without an intention of staying to become a professor.
>
> Will it be unfair to the PI who hires me to insist on a work-life balance? ... Is it even realistic to expect to be able to do a postdoc with (on average) ~8 hour days?
>
>
>
It can be perfectly possible to do a postdoc and only work 8 hours a day in a normal week. Whether its possible will depend to some extent on the project - some projects have experiments that just require more than 8 hours a day to complete and there is no way around it. How easy it will be will depend on the PI, so my biggest advice is **choose your PI very carefully**. That said most PIs will be more than happy if you are working efficiently and producing the research irrespective of the hours you work. The most productive postdoc I ever knew came in at 9, went home at 5:30 and didn't work weekends, unless it was their turn to care for the flies, or they needed to start a protocol that took 6 days (but only 30 minutes on the first day).
Another thing you might look for, given that it sounds like productivity wise your PhD went well, is a fellowship such that the funding that supports your position is for you and not for the project. If you have your own funding, then how much you work is no skin off anyones nose other than your own, and anything you do for your host lab is just a bonus.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/10
| 1,080
| 4,177
|
<issue_start>username_0: My question is based on the example of a startup.
I have come across a "company" which claims to be providing services in Quantum Computing. However, various features of this company sound fishy to me and even unethical and illegal in academia.
The company is called "[Bikash's Quantum](https://bikashsquantum.com/)" which claims to be charging money from students in exchange of promise for 'internship'. And then spread this idea for earning more money by 'referring' to more students and presenting it as a money earning scheme (without any academic basis). According to my interpretation it is precisely the pyramid scheme in the disguise of an "internship" as the scheme asks a student to refer to this internship scheme to about 10 students each day where each new student will be charged 500 INR directly paid to this startup.
Next is the idea of awarding people with degree and making them pay for it. Even for a Ph.D. There is no idea of a scholarship or a stipend, rather on top of that the chosen candidate has to pay the fee. The question I want to ask here is more fundamental. The founder is in midst of his Ph.D. (see [here](https://iiserkol.academia.edu/bikashbehera) & [here](https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=if1XXEwAAAAJ&hl=en)). On top of this there is NO clue to what the company is affiliated with, in order to provide a legal degree (for BS, MS and a Ph.D.). And the payment options are quickly given even by a UPI address via the GooglePay app into a personal account. The founder is also heavily self-cited.
Is it legal to operate like this in academia? To award degree (not even clear from what affiliation)? Can a startup like this offer any desired 'degree' to anyone in exchange of money?
The main task done by this "company" is making the quantum circuits for various recent PRAs and PRL papers and try to publish them in Springer QIP journal. First and second year undergraduates are hired for this in exchange of money and they design these quantum circuits in IBM Quantum Experience environment.
(This admission information from the website was removed recently after a social media post was made against this company, and now is protected by a login. I had screenshots in my previous edits but was told to take them down, so I obeyed.)<issue_comment>username_1: This sounds like a straight up pyramid scheme. It may or may not be "legal" in your country but it's not a legitimate company. Run away from this.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The company that you say is offering PhD degrees to people without being an accredited university, is in India. According to India's Department of Education, regarding institutions without accreditation or an Act of Parliament:
>
> ""It is
> emphasized that these fake institutions have no legal entity to call
> themselves as University/Vishwvidyalaya and to award ‘degrees’ which
> are not treated as valid for academic/employment purposes."
>
>
>
So it is likely illegal for this company called "Bikash's Quantum" to be advertising that they can award a PhD to people that pay 200 USD/month to a PhD student named Bikash who is himself a PhD student that is basically asking for research assistants to carry out the research for his PhD.
Let me now comment on this part of the ["partnership policy"](https://bikashsquantum.com/partnership-policy/):
>
> "A monthly compensation of 10000 INR or 200 USD has to be paid to BQ
> within the 7th day of Every English calendar month."
>
>
>
200 USD/month is also a ***lot*** of money in India. Many people will say that it's unethical to get people to pay you 200 USD/month do to research ***for*** you. I don't imagine this type of thing working in USA, Canada, or most of Europe, because most people are under the impression that research assistant work is either voluntary or paid, but ***never the other way around where the ressearch assistant pays the supervisor.***
Whether or not what this guy is doing is legal in India, is something that might be a very good question to ask, and [this is one place you can start](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/ask).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/10
| 862
| 3,544
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a new tenure track faculty. Last semester, I met a professor in a different college in the same university in a committee meeting. She was very nice; she said that she wanted to be my older sister. However, I felt like she was not reasonable and so I stopped talking with her about 1.5 months. For example, she made me pay for her meal; she made me cook for her 6 times in row for two months; she asked me to search papers for her study about 3 times in a semester; so on.
I was wondering if it is ok to keep the distance from her as a new faculty? Can she be influential on my tenure review in the future? The reason I am asking this is that I'm kicked out of a dissertation committee today. The dissertation committee chair is the person she always indicated as "her best friend". So I begin to worry....
I'd truly appreciate it if you'd help!<issue_comment>username_1: It is difficult to advise you from afar. The direct answer to your question is yes, but that is because politics can run rampant in some universities with many factions. You aren't asking whether she can be part of your formal tenure committee, I realize, but that is possible in some institutions also. Even a member from another university is a possibility.
However, having a mentor as a new faculty member can be a valuable thing, especially if you are a woman, which you don't say. At some places that mentorship can make the difference between success and failure. But a mentor needs to be pretty selfless in most respects. It is hard to interpret her request that you do research for her. That could be a good or a bad thing, depending on what you get out of the task itself. Being selfless doesn't necessarily mean that the mentor doesn't push you a bit. But, again, it is impossible to judge from here.
So, think about whether her actions are selfish or just encouragement for you to look at new things.
As for cooking and such, it is possibly worrisome unless there are some special circumstances.
But, the one piece of advice I can give is not to let your distancing be interpreted as an indication of a negative attitude, even if you have one. If you can distance and keep it neutral, then it is less likely that, in case she is selfish (or worse) that it will come back to reflect on you. Don't poke the bear in its den. But that, too, might be an unnecessary worry.
So, think first about whether she is offering mentorship and what that might mean for you in a positive way if you accept it. You might also explore her relationship to others in your institution that are in similar circumstances in order to come to a judgement on whether this is a good or a bad thing.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: If your department chair (or chair of your tenure committee) is going to be asking external academics for input in your tenure review (this is not uncommon!) then you might want to tell them this:
>
> "This person asked me to cook meals for her 6 times in a row for 2 months, along with other things that I found to be unreasonable, therefore I distanced myself from her, which apparently she did not like, based on at least one incident that seems to have been inflicted on me recently with her pulling the strings".
>
>
>
If your university has a "faculty association" or "union" representing its faculty members, you may want to seek their assistance in delivering this message to your department chair or chair of tenure committee, so that you do not have to do it directly.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/11
| 466
| 2,050
|
<issue_start>username_0: Are reputations earned and questions answered on Stack Exchange community considered as worthy publications?
Can they be included or considered as publications?<issue_comment>username_1: No.
In academia, only publications in traditional academic venues count as publications. Publications might have the same content as stack exchange answers, such as in <https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2970/papers-that-originated-on-math-se>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Useful work in academia (I'm coming from a US perspective; perspectives elsewhere I think follow similar trends but may differ a bit) falls into three broad boats:
* Research
* Teaching/education/mentorship
* Service/outreach
Publications fall under the category of "research". Stack Exchange participation definitely does not fall under this category (except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances; I don't think those circumstances are much worth considering in any general answer given how rare they are).
Teaching/education typically considers activity *within the university*. That's the stuff that students pay for (or more generally, the university receives some compensation for the benefit of the students).
Service/outreach includes all the "extra" stuff academics do: it includes participation on faculty committees (service to the university) and also includes service to the broader community. If, for example, an academic volunteered at a local primary/secondary school, that would fall under "service".
Service is almost certainly the least appreciated of the academic trinity, and service to the whole world is probably not weighted as heavily as service to the local community. Service in a local community or to the university itself is more easily justified to other stakeholders, like government officials who control university budgets. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value, just that it has the most chance to be undervalued.
Stack Exchange participation might, at best, be seen as a form of Service.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/07/11
| 360
| 1,330
|
<issue_start>username_0: Say, I have a paper written up. I wish to publish it in a reputed journal without submitting it to arXiv. The first journal(A) I submit it to rejects it. I send the paper to a 2nd journal (B) for submission. At the same time, some other group submits a paper to another journal (C) and it gets published there. Is there any way to avoid this problem without using arXiv?<issue_comment>username_1: You could pre-register your study (e.g. on [OSF: Open Science Framework](https://osf.io/)), attach your paper draft to it, and add a temporal embargo on the pre-registration (OSF allows for this option).
That way, the pre-registration (including the paper draft) is saved with a timestamp, but invisible to the public until a pre-specified date or until you choose to end the embargo earlier than the pre-specified date (e.g. after paper acceptance or publication - see: *[End an Embargo Early](https://help.osf.io/hc/en-us/articles/360019930973-End-an-Embargo-Early)*).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: My main advice is that this is not something you need to do.
You could use an alternate repository. Many universities have one. Some have embargoes.
The old way to do it was to mail the paper to yourself in a sealed, postmarked envelope. I suppose you could have it notarized as well.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/11
| 2,044
| 8,872
|
<issue_start>username_0: This is a slightly seperate question from before.
I was curious on hearing any tips from the community regarding: Preventing perfectionism when it comes to notetaking?
It can be trying to make the notes look perfect (aesthetically + information-wise it troubles me not understanding a couple of key points after having written a bunch of notes down and I'm reviewing them).
I don't do color-coding and doodles, but I like underlining key parts of my notes a bit too much.
I feel like it's all about having this nice condensed packet of beautifully written notes for future review, which is wrong. *I know some people will address how this is not a good way to get information in my brain and I agree you should address that, but also please address the perfectionism aspect of my notes because I will still have to take notes in life anyways and that is why I'm asking this question*
This is tied to preventing perfectionism in general I guess too.
Note: I wouldn't say I have OCD as I'm not at that level in other aspects of life or to an extent in academics, but still it is a 'perfectionist attitude' or 'minimalistic, beautiful notes', etc<issue_comment>username_1: This question, combined with your previous one, makes me think that you are confusing two issues: transcribing information and understanding information. These are not the same thing. In fact, if you focus more on transcribing information in detail, but you might actually learn *less* than if you had taken no notes at all. See for example this article: <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-learning-secret-don-t-take-notes-with-a-laptop/>
I think you need to break yourself of the habit of taking too many notes. Here's what I suggest: read an entire chapter or lesson without taking a single note. Don't write anything down at all, just focus on understanding the material. Sit on your hands if you have to to prevent yourself from writing. If you don't understand the material, read it again (or maybe look in a different book, find a relevant website etc,). Once you think you have an understanding, try to summarize the entire chapter very concisely, for example just 10 bullet points. if you can't do it that concisely, you probably didn't understand it. Go back and read again.
After while, once you've broken yourself of the habit of taking too many notes, you can go back to taking a few short notes as you read.
Edit: To clarify based on username_3's comment: I'm not suggesting this as a long term strategy. Long term you need to find a balance with the right level of note taking. I'm suggesting this as a short term (say a week or two) approach to get you out of the habit of excess note taking.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I was curious on hearing any tips from the community regarding: Preventing perfectionism when it comes to notetaking?
>
>
>
You shouldn't prevent perfectionism, and you shouldn't stop trying to make your notes as perfectly as you can. What you should do is to understand that aesthetics has little to do with perfectness. Perfectness is about how well your notes are taken in view of the purpose with which you take them. If the purpose is to help you recall what was said by the lecturer, and help you prepare for an exam, then the main criterion is completeness. If you fail to write down an important piece of information because your mind is occupied by making your notes aesthetically pleasing, then your notes are simply not perfect. And it goes without saying that you should ensure that your notes are readable and understandable for yourself. So completeness and clarity are the main criteria.
In short, remain a perfectionist, but redefine what is perfect.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: One of the answers here suggests you go to the opposite extreme and not take notes at all. Another suggests that you just ignore the issue and be perfect, but maybe in a different way. I think both are misguided.
A scribe can take aesthetically beautiful notes with no knowledge at the start or at the end other than knowledge of the alphabet and a bit of penmanship (for notes on paper). It has nothing to do with learning.
I want to suggest that you learn to become more *effective* in your notetaking.
Of course, if you have tons of time on your hands and nothing better to do, then "wasting" time isn't an issue. But as you advance in your education, that will become less true since more will be asked of you.
Background: To learn something, you need to do more than see or hear it once. In order to make it part of your knowledge you need to reinforce the learning. In a course, the reinforcement usually comes from the instructor asking students to do various exercises, whether technical or not. The teacher also provides the second element: feedback. This gives you an idea about whether you have learned the right lesson from readings or lectures. Reinforcement can be negative as well as positive and I've had a few students struggle because they reinforced the wrong thing early on. But another thing that exercises do is to help you apply the knowledge to various tasks. If you can do that, then you have some assurance that you have actually learned it.
Advice. Let me suggest that you spend your time more effectively directed at learning, rather than copying. Since you are mostly learning from books, I'll give advice that would be different if you were learning from lecture.
Most books written for study are divided into chapters and the chapters are divided into sections. We won't go into the paragraph level of division that might be important if you were learning from scientific papers rather than books. But books also have page numbers.
I suggest that when you read a section of a book, you do so three times. The first time you just read it to get an overview. The second time you read it, perhaps later the same day, or the next day, you read it to try to extract the most important ideas that the author is trying to convey in that section.
But for the first two readings you don't try to take notes, or not your final notes, in any case. In the third reading you do take notes, but they are very sparse. What you want to capture in your notes is the single most important idea in that section. Capture it in as few sentences as you can. Two or three sentences ideally. You can also try to capture one or two subsidiary ideas, but make sure you note the relationship. On this reading you are taking notes, but you can annotate those notes with page numbers from the book you are reading so that if when you later look at the notes you don't immediately remember the details, you can go back to the place in the book immediately for more reinforcement. But use your own words, don't copy sentences. Don't be a scribe.
At the end of a chapter, you can take some additional notes. What are the key ideas of this chapter. Not all of the ideas, just the key ideas. If you can do this from memory, without rereading or looking at the section-level notes then you have probably learned something.
One level I've neglected here, which is to connect the flow of ideas through the chapters. One of the notes you can take, separately from the above, is how the key ideas of a section or chapter flow from and are connected to the ideas from the earlier sections and chapters.
You aren't just copying things. What you wind up with at the end is a structured outline of the book. And if you've been good about page numbers, then you can go back to the book if necessary to find the detail.
But, this "plan" for reading might not be a lot less "obsessive" than what you are now doing. But it will give you more than a faithful copy of the book that you already have in hand. The main idea here is to capture *ideas* from the readings, not words.
And if the book provides exercises for you, then do those. Ideally all of them.
---
Note that this "read it three times" idea was used as a recommendation for doctoral students who need to learn from academic/scientific papers. I don't know its actual original source.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Perfectionism is a positive trait, and I share your sentiment about organization (which is what I assume you mean by "aesthetic looking" notes). However, I would recommend not worrying too much about this as you're taking the notes in class. Just try to write down as much as you can, and then you can rewrite/reorganize them later; this way you're actually copying them twice, which will help you retain the information.
Just be careful not to over-edit them for the sake of having a "condensed packet of beautifully written notes." The idea of notes is to help you remember the information, so the more comprehensive they are, the better. (They can be comprehensive and organized at the same time.)
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/12
| 922
| 3,674
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have written a math paper and I think/hope it is ready for peer review. I am 40+ years removed from academia and have no access to 'publications' but I have learned from my many re-writes and I have tried to follow the format of a sample "Journal.tex" from the Journal of the American Mathematical Society for my abstract, subject classification, and bibliography.
I would like to have peer review of my work. How do I begin?<issue_comment>username_1: I suggest the following tasks for you:
* register on all of: [orcid.org](https://orcid.org), [Google scholar](http://scholar.google.com), [academia.edu](https://academia.edu), [researchgate.net](https://researchgate.net), [mendeley.com](https://mendeley.com), [arXiv.org](https://arXiv.org), [hq.ssrn.com](https://hq.ssrn.com), [publons.com](https://publons.com), [linkedin.com](https://linkedin.com) , so that you look like a real researcher.
* upload a preprint. You'd feel bad if your paper is actually good, but some unscrupulous person tries to steal your work. I've seen this happen.
* figure out some of the math professors who recently published something related to you preprint, and send a very polite friendly letter, something like:
>
> Dear Prof. X
>
>
> I got this result and I posted this preprint (URL and printout) and I noticed that you recently published Y and I would be very greatful to you for any comments or some advice on where to publish it.
>
>
>
You will probably hear back from some but not all of the people you contact.
* if you can turn it into a good contributed paper or a poster at a [joint AMS /MAA meeting](http://jointmathematicsmeetings.org) or a [section meeting](https://www.maa.org/programs-and-communities/member-communities/maa-sections/section-meetings), consider submitting your proposal and attending if it accepted. I'm not sure how soon they'll have these again because of the pandemic. There's a chance you'll talk to people interested in your work and hear some feedback.
* figure out a reputable journal that doesn't mind if authors upload preprints. (You will probably receive solicitations from not so reputable journals that will publish almost anything as long as the author pays; they won't be able to get you a good peer review.) It is very likely that you will get fair and diligent reviews, even if your paper is never accepted.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Figure out what journal is appropriate. To do this, there are two aspects. One is essentially "readers interested in the articles published there are likely to also be interested in your work", the other similar level of how ground-breaking the results are. Without a subscription, you should still be able to see the abstracts of the recently published papers, and quite often you'll be able to access the content somehow (preprint on the arXiv, author's website, scihub,...).
Once you have identified the **one** journal you want to submit to, just look for their "instructions to authors" or similar, and follow them. This will typically be very straight-forward. They might ask you for your affiliation, but you can just respond with "Independent Researcher" there. Then patiently wait for the referee reports (expect something between 3 months and 1 year).
If you've chosen in an inappropriate journal, or if your draft appears to be very off (eg almost no references), the editor of the journal could forgo sending it out to review, and directly reject it ("desk reject"). So make sure that your draft is sufficiently polished, and that you've picked a reasonable journal. On the upside, a desk reject will typically happen much faster.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/07/12
| 716
| 3,255
|
<issue_start>username_0: This is my first time that I am asked to evaluate a master thesis. I would appreciate if some one can give me some tips in this manner:
1. Should the thesis contains any new results (NEW = Something that has not been done before).
2. How thoroughly should the literature review be?
3. what dificulty level should I consider while asking during defense?
Thanks you in advance.<issue_comment>username_1: This is probably best evaluated in the context of the individual institution. Standards differ and both the student and the professor should have a common understanding. Some places it is sufficient to give a good summary understanding of a deep problem or area of research. Others requires some new results, which may be minor or not. Some require publishable results.
So talk to some colleagues and get an understanding of the local culture. It is harder, of course, if you are an external evaluator. In such cases ask someone at the student's institution for a bit of guidance and ask whether you should evaluate based on their criteria or that of your home institution. Some places use external evaluators (also at the doctoral level) to assure themselves that their own standards are correct.
But at this level, the literature review might be more important than other parts, since one of the purposes of the MS thesis is to give the student some practice in carrying out deeper research where the lit review can make or break problem selection.
During the defense, you can be as hard as you like, but you need to evaluate answers for "reasonableness" as much as literal correctness. If the student can demonstrate a reasonable approach to something it may be enough. Requiring correct answers to difficult questions under duress is probably too much. But they should have ready answers to foundational questions, of course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: ad 1, should the thesis contains any new results: Depends on the field. In theoretical sciences, it is perfectly possible that the difficulty of the area is such that no more than a literature review can be expected from a master thesis. In the experimental sciences, experiments may fail so badly that no new results are obtained. Consider that in most systems master theses have fixed duration, as opposed to PhD where you expect the candidate to continue research until at least some new results have been obtained.
ad 2, how thoroughly should the literature review be: Depends on the field. In an experimental thesis, a short chapter with 5-10 references may do. Reading papers and keeping track of references is hard initially and must be learned. Therefore expectations on a master thesis are *much* lower than on a PhD thesis.
ad 3, what difficulty level should I consider while asking during defense: Start with extremely simple questions. Raise level cautiously, as long as the candidate is able to respond. Be gentle, the more so if the defense is public. The more experienced an examiner, the gentler he is for most of the defense's duration. A few insecure answers are sufficient to distinguish a weak from a strong candidate. Even weak candidates should be rightfully proud of having completed a master thesis; don't shame them.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/13
| 860
| 3,476
|
<issue_start>username_0: There are quite a few professors at my school that do not have a Google Scholar profile at all. I may search them in Google Scholar's search engine and hope their most recent papers come up, but I am not able to access their h-index or any of the other metrics supplied by Google Scholar. If I search a paper by them, I can see it listed, but the author's name is not underlined and it doesn't seem as though they have a profile.
Microsoft Academic seems to create "profiles" for people and then allow them to claim it, letting others at least view data about the person in question even if they have not created an account. Is there any way to do this with Google Scholar?<issue_comment>username_1: No, finding the H-index from Google Scholar of someone else who does not have a profile does not seem to be possible. While I could not find a source that confirms this, there is no mention of such an option in the [help pages](https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html) of Google Scholar, and the wording strongly suggests that seeing those metrics at an individual author level are one of the benefits of creating a profile.
From [this page](https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/citations.html#overview) (emphasis mine):
>
> **Google Scholar Citations provide a simple way for authors to keep track of citations to their articles. You can check who is citing your publications, graph citations over time, and compute several citation metrics.** You can also make your profile public, so that it may appear in Google Scholar results when people search for your name, e.g., <NAME>.
>
>
>
However, a few relevant notes:
1. A profile may exist and be public, but may not be searchable. A profile, even if public, [needs to have a verified institutional email address added in order to appear in the search results](https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/citations.html#setup). To account for such a scenario, you could check if you can find a link from elsewhere, such as the researcher's web page, or from the "Co-authors" list in the profile of one of their co-authors.
2. To just search by author, you can filter your results better by using the [`author:` operator](https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/help.html#searching) or using [Advanced search](https://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_asd).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Supposing the person has a fairly unique name (within their discipline), you can search for the name. Google scholar will typically start with the highest cited papers first, more-or-less. Then you can count papers they are an author of. When this count matches the number of citations a paper of theirs has, you have the h-index, up to an unknown error margin. If the count of papers exceeds the number of citations, subtract one to get the h-index. Check the next few publications in case some of them are more highly cited than the immediately previous ones for a bit of extra accuracy.
Note that if you only take a look at a subset of papers authored by a researcher, you get a lower bound on the h-index. This method gives you such a lower bound.
Since h-index is fairly robust to missing single papers or having a few extra ones, supposing the person publishes under a single name that Google finds and you do not confuse them with a productive researcher with the same name, you should get a fairly accurate number.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/13
| 762
| 3,160
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was using Google Scholar to judge the rank of a researcher, but then realized I couldn't find everyone I wanted to and came across [this question which highlighted this problem](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/98208). Looking at Scorpus, which was suggested in that same answer, seems to downvalue any non-Elsevisor publications and not have any current data (from the last year). Microsoft Research seems altogether unintuitive to use and [doesn't seem to have h-index at all](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/11436/126356). I tried PublishorPerish, but filtering data to find the correct researcher's papers seems ridiculously difficult.
I would like to be able to judge status somewhat programmatically, understanding there may be some flaws in this method, as it would be somewhat cumbersome to do it by hand on the scale I would like to. I will probably supplement it my sorting the top 3-5 by hand, but I would not like to do the entire set by hand.
Is there any proper solution to this problem? If not, what is the generally accepted method to do this?
At the behest of many people, I am a student, but this question is geared to generally understanding the current methods of researcher evaluation, not necessarily just by students<issue_comment>username_1: Use Scopus, because:
* Sure it's maintained by Elsevier, but it also includes non-Elsevier papers.
* Even if it does not have data from the last year, papers published in the last year probably have not have had time to accrue enough citations to change the h-index of well-established researchers.
Alternatively you could use a database such as Google Scholar or Web of Science.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: The best signifiers of status in a community will be being invited to give (plenary/keynote) at the (top) conferences for that community, and to win the prizes and awards that community bestows.
Having many highly cited papers will often correlate with that (publishing papers other people are interested in contributes to gaining status, high status makes your papers more likely to be cited), but this can be gamed; and there will be cases where people earn high status with a single remarkable accomplishment not translating well into citations, stuff like that.
As mentioned in the comments, quality and status are different things. As much as we'd like academia to be a pure meritocracy, it isnt. In a similar line, you won't be able to see who gets invited to give plenary talks, only who accepts. Some people being unable to travel (ill health, no funding/remote location, care responsibilities) will distort the picture.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Assuming the question is about status and not quality:
Job title is a strong indicator of status. The meaning of each title typically depends on the country. For the US, as an example, named professorships have the highest status, followed by professors and associate professors.
The status of the university is also a strong predictor of status of the researcher.
"Status" is not quantitative and attempting to rank status is not productive.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/07/14
| 1,504
| 6,355
|
<issue_start>username_0: My PhD in computational mechanics (field is materials science) involves writing Fortran subroutines for implementing new constitutive equations. More specifically, my research involves continuum mechanics, finite-element analysis and other numerical methods. Though theoretically I have a decent understanding of the subjects, I find it impossible to implement them in code.
I have published a paper on implementing a modified model through a subroutine. But the truth is that I have not written the code from scratch. More than 80% of the code was written by someone else. Here's the [original code](http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejk2079/Kysar_Research_Laboratory/Single_Crystal_UMAT.html). I just modified the hardening law to suit my purpose. I did not change the integration method or the structure of the code. I have cited their paper of course.
Truth is, I would not have been able to write the code from scratch even if I had been given five years to do that. I just can think of how to implement theory to code.
Now, I am about to defend my PhD, which is based on this code.
I feel like a charlatan and that I can’t justify my PhD. My advisor doesn’t know this. I am not suited for a career in computational mechanics or materials science. How can I reconcile this?<issue_comment>username_1: You weren’t earning a PhD in FORTRAN Coding (gasp – I shudder to think of it). You were working in continuum mechanics. That is where your contribution was, and is.
If I read it correctly, you took an existing tool and adapted it for a new purpose. I can’t find anything wrong with that, especially as you cited the creators of the original version. If you keep it up and continue to make contributions to continuum mechanics you will do fine. You didn’t screw up. You did what any sensible person should do. FORTRAN was my first computing language. I doubt that I would even recognize it anymore.
Relax, have a culturally appropriate beverage and celebrate your success.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: You are not Newton. You do not have to develop/discover laws of physics on your own. And even Newton said that he stood on the shoulders of giants.
What you need to make sure is that you appropriately cite the code and advance the existing knowledge (i.e. how things were developed in this code) to a new field. Make your studies, experiments, theories, whatever open questions in the field are, and make it transparent where you started, and you are perfectly fine.
Not everybody's PhD thesis discovers new laws, some consist of mapping further in a field made accessible by others. Have a chat with your advisor where the open questions in your field are **once such a code is available**!
I'll conclude with another analogy: You would also not expect to have to invent the computer to be able to work on one - just find a good field of study to develop based on its existence.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: "I screwed up. What should I do?"
NO. You have not screwed up in any way.
Before I dwell deeper into addressing your specific concerns, I am compelled to throw some light on what a PhD entails, IMHO.
I recently graduated, a bad time to do so when the world is locked down ina pandemic. PhD is a project which teaches a number of skills. A significant skill is, of course, becoming an expert in the very specific and narrow area of your research. But that is NOT the only important skill. In the long run, that is not even most significant.
During your PhD, you do a number of things, like learning to write a research proposal, doing the legwork, managing resources efficiently. Learning to write effectively for conferences, journals etc. If I may take the liberty, you also understand the politics in scientific and technological community. You learn the ethics behind collaborating effectively and sharing credit. You learn the art of conversation and arguing effectively, something you will need during your defence of the thesis. Itis the combination of all these activities (and more) and your skill in doing these which will help you in your career.
Now, since you are so worried about using code from another source ( assuming it was open source), it means that some of the aforementioned skills are still lacking. You need to understand that no PhD work or for that matter any body of work is done from scratch. In fact, in this world, it is foolhardy to do so.
At a stage when you are defending your thesis, why do you put yourself down by worrying about your ability to achieve a successful and rewarding career in the said field of your choice? If you have honestly worked hard and your 20% contribution ( as you pointed out) is good enough for you to successfully defend your PhD, you can also have a career in the same field. More importantly, you have also learnt a number of other significant skills which are crucial for success in any career.
When you are defending your thesis, it is not just the work you have done, but also your ability as a researcher to convincingly present your arguments and address the questions raised by the examiner. That is a skill. You have a written a paper, and got it accepted for publication. That is a skill. So focus on improving each of those skills because all of these collectively make you a good researcher.
So be confident, you have done nothing wrong. Apparently, you are on the right track. Best of luck with your defence.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I am your opposite. I know very little physics, and my mathematics is bachelor's degree level but very rusty. On the other hand, I would be a very good person to have around if you needed a computer program designed and implemented.
You may find that, at times during your career, you need to collaborate with a computer programmer. That should not be a problem. If you are working at a university you may be able to get a graduate student researcher from the computer science department relatively cheaply. In industry, your employer would have to pay a bit more, but there are plenty of scientific programmers who can read equations and solve them in Fortran or some other language.
The world does not need everyone to be good at everything. Concentrate on the things you are good at, and work with others to cover any skill you need and do not have.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/07/14
| 713
| 2,757
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm submitting my paper to Quantitative Finance (instruction to authors [here](https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?show=instructions&journalCode=rquf20)). The structure of the paper should be:
>
> Manuscripts should be compiled in the following order: title page (including Acknowledgements as well as Funding and grant-awarding bodies); abstract; keywords; main text; references; appendices (as appropriate); table(s) with caption(s) (on individual pages); figure caption(s) (as a list).
>
>
>
I'm a bit confused by this requirement. Does anyone know how a title page is meant to look like? All the papers I've seen simply have Title up top, followed by authors, keywords and abstract. The same goes for figure captions as a list. Did they mean itemize all the captions?!<issue_comment>username_1: Usually, when I write a paper for a conference or a journal, I download their template and start adding my content into the empty template. Things invariably fall into the right place. Even if you have written the paper in another template, it is a good idea to open both the documents and copy section by section into the new template.
So look for the templates e.g. <http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/rqufLatex.zip>
and use start using it.
As suggested by @Buffy above, you should consider looking at published papers. I think they are trying to stress upon the fact that in your title page, which is nothing but the first page of your paper, you must include acknowledgements, and other information properly. So title page which is the first page will also include your paper sections.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It looks like a journal where you don't do the final layout yourself, but rather submit a word document (or similar).
The style guide is unfortunately down.... But generally it works like this:
The "title page" contains all the information that will be added at the appropriate positions later. For example, just write, without much formatting:
```
Title: Paper of fancy stuff.
Running title: #fancystuff
Authors:
<NAME>
<NAME>
<NAME>
Affiliations
Institute of Awesomeness
Acknowledgements:
We thank Dr X and Dr Y for doing all the work and the technical support group of Institute of Awesomeness for putting it together.
Word count (* especially when they have word limits)
Abstract: 249
Introduction: 1234
Discussion: 2345
Funding: co-authors grandma
```
The figure captions should indeed be on a separate page, as a list (without the figures):
```
Figure 1: This is Figure 1. We show stuff.
Figure 2: Fancy stuff. Very nice.
Figure 3: Other stuff. Somewhat nice.
```
Tables should come on separete pages, not in text.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/14
| 617
| 2,683
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got an invitation to review a scientific paper from a journal. I accepted the offer to review but was wondering what benefits I might get if I review a paper? Can I write it in my CV as I will be applying for a Ph.D. position soon?
Someone told me if I write it in my CV that I reviewed an article, no professor is gonna hire me thinking she already knows so many things and it will be hard to control her during the whole Ph.D.! Still, I accepted the offer out of excitement.
Also, if my review is not up to the mark, is it like the editors will never give me anything to review again?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you can. Service to the community is an important part of an academic CV. Be careful, though, to associate your own name only with reputable journals, otherwise it may hurt instead of help.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As mentioned in the other answer, reviewing is an important service to the community.
However, you will also profit yourself from reviewing: You will learn about a new topic. You will learn about how a review process works. You get to see the other side, which will most likely helpful for your own future paper writing: Since you know how reviewing a paper feels from the perspective of the reviewer, you can better understand how to make a paper accessible to reviewers and readers, and how to best respond to reviewer comments.
And, in addition to these benefits, you can indeed list in your CV that you review for journal X, Y, and Z - this does not only show that you are willing to help the community (which will recflect positively on an application), but it also shows that the editors of the journal consider you competent to review their papers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: It's also good because it allows you to develop reputation and rapport with the editors, who are usually "high up" in your research community. There's a good chance they have some influence over conferences, funding, etc. And of course if you submit a paper to their journal, they will be more likely to take you seriously if they know you've carefully reviewed other recent research there.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: In addition to the other answers: Being a referee might also help in obtaining a visa.
Some countries offer visas for people with special abilities (in the US e.g. the O-1 visa). This includes scientists.
Getting a letter of recommendation from a journal editor where one has performed a few reviews might be of great help in proving this specialist status. In fact this is listed as one criteria for the O-1 visa.
Also it probably does not harm to deliver good reviews.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/14
| 923
| 4,265
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently reviewed a manuscript submitted to a Journal. Today, I received the editor's response to the authors, which included all the reviews made by the (anonymous) reviewers.
I was particularly (and positively) impressed with the review of another reviewer for several reasons. I'd gladly appreciate the possibility of contacting this reviewer, both to express my thoughts and also to discuss about similar topics.
Hence the question: **would it be acceptable if I asked the editor to disclose information about this reviewer?**
My only concern is that the editor may not appreciate a similar request, which could lead to not being invited to review manuscripts of this journal anymore (which is something I really like doing).
To provide more specific context:
* The field is Computer Science;
* The reviewing process assumes that the reviewers do not know the identity of other reviewers, but they **do** know the identity of the manuscript's authors;
* The reviewers carried out their reviewing duties independently: they were able to read the other reviewers' opinion only *after* the editor sent their decision to the authors.
* The (associate) editor knows the identity of both the reviewers *and* the authors;
* It is safe to assume that no conflict of interest exists between reviewers and authors.
Finally, I remark that I am asking this question as a **reviewer** (and not as an *author*).<issue_comment>username_1: I've never encountered this. My inclination would be to ask the other reviewer if they're OK with the request. If they decline, then that would be final. After all there is usually nothing stopping a reviewer from identifying themselves if they wish; I certainly know of people who gave away their reviewer duties during private conversations.
It probably won't hurt to ask, because the worst that can happen is the editor says "no". If you do ask, I would definitely give the reason, since otherwise it's rather suspicious. You may also have to reveal your own identity first.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I have a very simple solution to propose:
* Write a message directly to the other reviewer whom you would like to know. Address it to the reviewer, not to the editor.
* In the message, identify yourself and give your contact information. Ask the reviewer to contact you if they are interested.
* Send that message to the editor and ask the editor to please transfer it to the other reviewer, either immediately, or later in the review process (perhaps after a decision is made) when the editor feels comfortable doing so.
Note one important difference from what you ask in your question: rather than asking to be able to contact the reviewer directly, you are asking the reviewer to contact you. This is a very important difference because it gives other people more choice in the matter.
The editor will either transfer the message to the other reviewer (either immediately or after a decision is made, perhaps after you have sent a reminder) or will explain to you why they do not feel comfortable with your request. The advantages of this proposal are:
* There is no moral concern because you do everything openly before the editor; you even show the editor the contents of the message, so the editor has no concern of anything improper going on.
* You give the other reviewer the choice if they are comfortable with the contact. If they are not, the editor has not divulged their information to you. This relieves pressure from the editor.
* You leave the editor free to judge the appropriateness of the contact. So, it is not your responsibility, but the editor's.
* Even if the editor decides not to give you the reviewer's contact information, the editor should be able to respect that your intention was sincere, your approach was transparent without pressuring anyone, and the editor should not have any negative impression of you.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In the UK or Europe, it would normally be illegal for the institution to disclose any information about that reviewer… even to confirm your guess about an identity.
Why would it be a problem for you to ask the editor to pass on your own details, with a request for contact?
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/07/15
| 512
| 2,184
|
<issue_start>username_0: My wife and I are applying to US universities for master's and PhD programmes. We both have a electrical engg. degree and are applying to the same department. However we would like to get into the same university.
Is it possible to mention this in the application? Do universities take this into consideration when making admission decisions?<issue_comment>username_1: Different universities will have different rules. At some you will be strictly considered as individuals. At others some accommodation might be made, but only at the margins. You can just state in your cover material that you are seeking positions together for personal reasons.
But it is worth mentioning, so that the admissions committee is aware that you have some constraints. But if you are both marginally qualified, by their rules, it would be more a reason to reject both than to admit both.
But is is unlikely that one would be admitted if unqualified even if the other is highly qualified. Being married is probably better than just being "together".
Another possibility for you, however, if you are willing to live in a large city, is to make applications to several universities in some city, like NYC or San Francisco. Then it would be feasible to attend different universities, though such places tend to be expensive to live in.
And the application would be for the doctorate. It is unnecessary to mention a masters in such an application. A masters is normally earned "along the way" to the doctorate, sometimes just by asking and sometimes with some fairly minor additional requirement.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Is it possible to mention this in the application?
>
>
>
Yes it is possible to mention it, but it is unlikely to help and unwise.
>
> Do universities take this into consideration when making admission
> decisions?
>
>
>
Possibly, if one of you is admitted and the other is not, mentioning you need a second offer to enrol might result in a second offer. If you have a credible alternative (another university that admitted both of you) this might be more effective.
Some cities have more than one good PhD program.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/07/15
| 493
| 1,977
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have sent my manuscript to a professor of math about one month ago. This manuscript was written according to his encouragement for a joint research work. He told me that send him what I have done from my side, and then he will add additional materials from his own side. I want to send a tracking email about the status of that. Should I do that or I must wait for his reply?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> "I want to send an email email asking him for an update about the
> status of that. Should I do that or I must wait for his reply?"
>
>
>
**Absolutely.** Why? Because it has been 1 month and you have not received any communication from him yet. Usually after waiting a full 7 days, it is not inappropriate to send a **follow-up** email.
>
> "How much is an average time of waiting to recieve a reply from
> Professional co-author?"
>
>
>
It varies. Some people reply the same day, some the same hour, but it's also not uncommon for people to take a month or two to reply.
Usually it is not inappropriate to ask for an update 7 days after the first email. Another one after another 7 days can also often be considered okay. It's when you send more than 2 follow-up emails, or when you do not wait ~7 days between them, that it *might* start to be seen as "nagging", but even then that's not always the case. Please send him a follow-up email and ask us what to do if you still have problems after that. My guess is that he'll reply (since he asked you for the manuscript).
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: When communication becomes difficult, when human sensitivity comes into play, don't write mail after mail: call your collaborator by phone. Maybe on phone you can get them to make a credible promise; maybe they will make you understand how overburdened they are right now; maybe they will enjoy a little chat with you; hopefully, your relation with them will grow through direct conversation.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/07/16
| 1,166
| 4,774
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently graduated with a Ph.D. in a STEM field from a reputed university in the US. I took more time than what it normally takes to finish the Ph.D.(over 6 years), partly due to some personal, familial issues I was coping with. For the same reason, my GPA during my doctoral studies remained around 3.4. Neither I had any internships during the Ph.D. Recently, I sent my first paper to a journal and I am expecting to work on a few more in the coming months. Clearly, my academic credentials are far from being stellar.
Before starting my Ph.D., I was hoping for continuing with a postdoctoral job after Ph.D. studies, followed by a career in academia in my native place.
I see the following options right now:
1. Ask my advisor for a position to work on some more papers
2. Apply for postdoctoral positions elsewhere (hindrance: lack of published papers)
3. Apply for industry jobs (hindrance: GPA is not good enough)
Here I am asking you all to offer me a reality check on whether options (2) and (3) are really realistic in a case similar to mine. I will also appreciate your valuable guidance on how I should build my credentials hereafter (I know, I am already late) that will help me get into good academic positions.<issue_comment>username_1: You are putting up your own roadblocks. Your GPA isn't material if you have a doctorate. The quality of your dissertation might be. The recommendations from your advisor and others might be.
But you should at least apply to a few external places, perhaps both for post docs and for regular positions. If you go to industry it might be hard to return to academia if that is your goal.
But, in the US, at least there are a lot of institutions whose faculty doesn't focus primarily on research. If you can teach and inspire undergraduates then you can probably find a position if you try hard enough.
The conditions and requirements in your "own place" can't be judged here. And much depends on the economy at the time. And now, the pandemic also.
But don't give up before you start.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As username_1 points out, the premise of the question
>
> Clearly, my academic credentials are far from being stellar.
>
>
>
is a bit questionable in your case, as in terms of academic credentials research quality and recommendation letters are likely the most important things, and time to completion and GPA do not really matter.
However, taken at face value, the answer to "what can I do in this situation" is probably that it depends. While you may not have the credentials for a very competitive postdoc, a starting academic position, or a competitive industry research position, you don't describe a situation with truly awful credentials, either (and completion of a PhD in the first place usually indicates an important baseline of expertise). Whether you can continue in each of the directions (1), (2), and (3) depends on some individual factors:
>
> 1. Ask my advisor for a position to work on some more papers
>
>
>
This seems like an ideal option if you have a good relationship with your advisor and are excited about continuing this research, as well as continuing in academia, but (in your advisor's estimation), your CV is not strong enough to get postdocs in your area. The plan would be to just spend some extra time to get a couple more papers so that you can get a good postdoc. (Incidentally, I'm not sure what the position would formally be, but I guess it would probably be a postdoc.)
>
> 2. Apply for postdoctoral positions elsewhere
>
>
>
It is possible this is a good option if the small publication that you have is promising enough, and if your advisor can strongly recommend you without qualifications. You would probably have to ask your advisor unambiguously if they can recommend you enough to get good positions. This is also a better option than (1) (even for a weaker postdoc) if your PhD research is not generally successful or not exciting to you anymore, and you want to switch directions to build a better resume.
>
> 3. Apply for industry jobs
>
>
>
What industries are looking for varies by field, and it also depends on if you are looking for *research industry* or non-research industry. In general for non-research industry, companies are less concerned about sheer number of papers and more about abstract qualities such as work ethic, ability to learn, and knowledge of the basic fundamentals of the field (rather than knowledge of esoteric research topics), so this is a strong option for many people. Note however that if your intention is to go into academia, taking this route (again assuming non-research industry) will not open any new doors, and might close some existing ones.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/16
| 1,797
| 5,166
|
<issue_start>username_0: Given a DOI, how can I programmatically obtain all the author affiliations? The coding part isn't the issue, but finding a proper database/API is.
E.g. for DOI [10.1186/s12920-019-0598-0](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6936069), the author affiliations are:
>
> 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, S7N 5A9 Canada
> 2. Division of Biomedical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, S7N 5A9 Canada
> 3. School of Mathematics and Statistics, Hainan Normal University, Haikou, 571158 China
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: First of all, the main sources of citation data are:
* Proprietary data sources:
+ Google Scholar
+ Scopus
+ Web of Science (WoS)
* Open access data:
+ Crossref
+ MEDLINE (focusing on medical papers)
Some papers compare the comprehensiveness between these different sources, e.g. see {1,2}.
---
To extract the author affiliations given a DOI, a few options (search for "affiliations" on the links below) :
1. <https://support.datacite.org/docs/api-get-doi>
2. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/licensee/elements_descriptions.html> (MEDLINE database <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/medline.html>)
3. <https://github.com/CrossRef/rest-api-doc> suggested by [Anyon](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17254/anyon).
---
For option 3 (CrossRef API), one can use the <https://github.com/CrossRef/rest-api-doc> API via the Python library <https://gitlab.com/crossref/crossref_commons_py>:
```
# If testing in Docker
docker run --interactive --tty ubuntu:18.04 bash
apt update; apt install -y git nano wget htop python3 python3-pip unzip
# Requirements
pip3 install crossref-commons
# Python code
import crossref_commons.retrieval
crossref_commons.retrieval.get_publication_as_json('10.5621/sciefictstud.40.2.0382') # affiliations are empty
crossref_commons.retrieval.get_publication_as_json('10.1148/radiol.2018180887') # affiliations are present
```
though it seems that quite often authors have no affiliations on CrossRef.
My guess is that MEDLINE (option 2) has more thorough metainformation (I based my guess given the information I see on the PubMed website, which relies on MEDLINE database, e.g. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6936069/> has author affiliations, but not `crossref_commons.retrieval.get_publication_as_json('10.1186/s12920-019-0598-0')`, even though 10.1186/s12920-019-0598-0 = PMC6936069. [Anyon](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17254/anyon)'s comment also questions CrossRef's comprehensiveness for the author affiliations field). The MEDLINE database can either be downloaded or accessed via API (<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/home/develop/api/>). See <https://stackoverflow.com/a/62974197/395857> on how to access the MEDLINE database in Python.
---
If one cannot find the affiliation in the metainformation and if the PDF can be obtained from the DOI, one could use PDF-to-text extraction programs for scientific papers, such as:
* <https://github.com/kermitt2/grobid> (has the ability to parse affiliation and address blocks)
* <https://github.com/allenai/science-parse>
* <https://github.com/allenai/spv2>
---
To test [`pybliometrics`](https://github.com/pybliometrics-dev/pybliometrics) that [BND](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/87690/bnd) refers to in their [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/151890/452):
```
# If testing in Docker
docker run --interactive --tty ubuntu:18.04 bash
apt update; apt install -y git nano wget htop python3 python3-pip unzip
# Install and configure pybliometrics
pip3 install pybliometrics
from pybliometrics.scopus.utils import config
config['Authentication']['APIKey'] = '' # Enter Elsevier API key obtained on http//dev.elsevier.com/myapikey.html
# Retrieve author affiliations
from pybliometrics.scopus import AbstractRetrieval
ab = AbstractRetrieval("10.1016/j.softx.2019.100263")
from pybliometrics.scopus import AuthorRetrieval
au1 = AuthorRetrieval(ab.authors[0].auid)
print(au1.affiliation_current)
```
Unfortunately pybliometrics relies on Elsevier Scopus's API, which isn't free: some institutions have subscribed to it, but fewer and fewer are willing to feed the Elsevier sharks.
---
References:
* {1} Harzing, Anne-Wil, and <NAME>. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison." Scientometrics 106, no. 2 (2016): 787-804. <https://web.archive.org/web/20170922223941/http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/18511/1/gsscowos.pdf>
* {2} <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, and <NAME>. "Crossref as a new source of citation data: A comparison with Web of Science and Scopus." A blog post in the website of the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, URL: <https://www.cwts.nl/blog> (2018). <https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2s234> ([mirror](https://web.archive.org/web/20200718205848/https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n-r2s234))
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: <https://github.com/pybliometrics-dev/pybliometrics>
The example on the github page is quite close to what you want to do.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/17
| 1,321
| 4,975
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've had a habit of always starting with "Dear Prof. X" but have noticed professors sometimes drop the header past the first reply. For shorter emails, is it polite to omit these formalities from my end? Like "Dear Prof. X, Thanks for the information, I'll make sure to do that. Best, Me" seems a bit cumbersome.<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience, it should be fine to drop the salutation given that the other person has done so before you *in that same chain*. But if in doubt then err on the more formal side. It's always a good idea to emulate the email style of the other person in a one-on-one chain (unless you have some reason for wanting to maintain formality).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: An important thing to note here is that often these dropped headers don't happen because the email is merely short, but usually because the email chain starts to approximate a conversation, i.e. a quick succession of short replies. So the formalities shift from those of writing letters to those of talking in person. So maybe take some cues from there.
In particular, even if it is short, not starting the first message with some greeting would be a bit impolite. The same is true if some time has passed between messages. (You'd greet somebody if you meet them again, even if you just met them yesterday and didn't talk to anyone in between) But a quick ABAB-exchange within a few minutes doesn't really warrant repeated greetings.
And of course, as mentioned in the other answer, when in doubt, just err on the formal side.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: **Yes**, with some exceptions, especially cultural.
Writing salutations wastes time, they take up unnecessary screen real estate, and reading them wastes time too.
But, some people and cultures expect them, so take a little care.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I usually find it's good to start and end formally, but for little in-between messages that are around one line and easy to answer it's fine to be informal. Unless the person is really arrogant, they won't find it disrespectful if you do this (especially if they've done it first), although it depends a bit on your relationship to them. Maybe something like this:
>
> You: Dear Prof X, can you please tell me about *whatever*. Regards, Infinitus.
>
>
> Prof: Dear Infinitus, *here's some information*, Signed, X
>
>
> You: Is that *A* or *B*?
>
>
> Prof: *A.*
>
>
> You: Thank you, I'll get on it. Regards, Infinitus.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: *(I'm in the US - I lived in Canada way back when I was first a grad student)*
I don't inhabit the academy, but I did a graduate degree 5 years ago, and I did graduate work a long time ago (way before the advent of email).
I don't think I've ever used "Dear" in an email - ever, and I don't think I ever addressed anything to my research supervisor in the pre-email days with "Dear". I did always include a salutation along the lines of "Dr. Whatzit" or "Prof. Whosit" in the first email of a chain (or in a memo to my supervisor way back in the day). Like others have said, it goes away after the first use.
I never expected a salutation in return. I have no idea if I ever got one. As you may have figured out, I was older than most of my profs (all but one) when I did the degree a few years ago.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> Is it fine to exclude an email salutation for short messages?
>
>
>
In academia or not, a good reason to avoid short e-mails is to help the receiver know the *beginning* of a chain is **legitimate**.
---
Consider,
```
<NAME>,
I'm having trouble with today's assignment [link to a "picture"].
```
This is does not provide the recipient enough info and has the appearance of some click-on-my-link exploit.
---
Versus
```
Prof<NAME>,
In your lecture about apples falling from the tree to earth,
I did not understand the shift to earth and sun. [link to a picture].
Student name
```
Certainly one should be careful before clicking any embedded link, yet providing *relevant and timely* info, along with what-ever courtesies you like, helps the Prof *save time* in deciding your e-mail's legitimacy.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: I see a lot of answers supporting dropping salutations once a particular email chain gets going. But I also don't use them with anybody who I interact with a lot. This includes family members and friends, but also my boss and close colleagues. When I was a grad student it included my advisor and professors that I was in a small class with. But when I email someone who rarely hears from me, I'll start with a "Hi [Name]" or something. When I was a grad student emailing a prof at another university to ask about one of their papers, I would start "Dear Prof. [LastName]," just to be especially deferential since I was a total stranger. I think a lot of people operate this way.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/17
| 563
| 2,474
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently finished a paper and send it to my supervisor for review. He corrected it and before submission, he added some authors (some labmates, collaborators) who have no idea about my project. Also, he did not even ask me before adding though I worked so hard for that project. How ethical it is? Because he is my supervisor, I could not raise my voice. But I think this is not right. Is it so common phenomenon in academia?<issue_comment>username_1: This is known as padding and is not ethical.
Will you take a stand?
Well, will that affect your supervisor / student relationship? Your degree completion?
That is probably why this practice happens and will continue to happen. You have to decide if you will talk to your supervisor, if that fails then the department head, then the head of research or even contact the editor.
The consequences could be huge for you...
If it has not been submitted yet and you do the submission, then you could make a "mistake" and remove those names... "Sorry I sent the wrong version"...
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: **No, it is not ethical.
Yes, it is common.**
Particularly for countries that have requirements on absolute number of papers to be published by grad students prior to graduation, this is a relatively common practice. Many journals now ask for the authors to explicitly list what was each author's contribution to the article, but of course this is also quite easily padded.
A question to consider, however, is whether or not these other authors had any contribution to your project you're not aware of. For example, if you are doing experimental work, perhaps they built the system you use to acquire your data - even if they have no idea about your data or experiments. In these cases some argument *could* be made for their inclusion. Whether that's true or not in your case is up to you.
As to what to do about it, if you have a good relationship with your advisor, ask him why they are being added using the most neutral language you can find. They may have some very good reason for adding them. If you don't agree, you can voice your disagreement and go from there. If you have a poor relationship with your advisor, you probably will just have to accept it and move on. I **don't** recommend secretly or "accidentally" going against your advisor's wishes since this will likely backfire, and they will in any case simply correct it at the proof stage.
Upvotes: 3
|
2020/07/17
| 1,107
| 4,445
|
<issue_start>username_0: Required information: Germany, maths, and undergraduate
**Situation:** In order to finish my undergraduate degree, I have to do one final oral exam with two professors (A & B). However, A and B **refuse** to communicate directly with each other and use me to communicate. The first exam was "postponed" indefinitely due to pandemic and now **I** have to organize a new one.
**Problem:** Professor A is very odd. He does not use email. He does not answer his phone (I was told to call him by the exam office and professor B) and now with only online learning, I had to communicate with A using text messages.
I asked him for available exam dates and he replied with a "yes" and nothing else. He then ignored my other messages. The examination office said if both A and B agree, I can do each part separately. Of course the B replied immediately with a yes. A did not reply at all.
Should I try to reach out to other professors or the dean? I have to do this exam to graduate so I can start my graduate studies, but I do not want escalate the situation.<issue_comment>username_1: The professor most likely has a secretary taking care of administration. Visit and talk to them, it is likely that they are aware of these difficulties. If you explain your situation and politely ask for help chances are that they will help you communicating with the Prof. to get what you need.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If prof. A is indeed as 'odd' to communicate with as you indicate, the problem will be known by the rest of the faculty, probably including the dean. If you want to move forward, you need to escalate. But if you do it in a respectful manner - keeping the focus on your need to move forward, and not on the oddities by prof. A - you can probably manage to do it without hurting any fragile egos too much. A nice trick here, is to blame external circumstances, instead of a persons' inability to communicate.
So: Write to the dean. Tell him or her that you have unsuccessfully tried to set up an exam date with prof. A in these trying times of COVID, but to no avail. Tell the dean that you have already set up an exam date with prof. B, but would like the dean's help or suggestions to set up an appointment with A.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Given the reluctance of anyone else to communicate with Prof A, it seems less a case of you not knowing the secret handshake to get in touch with him, but more a case of Prof A simply not communicating. It is unlikely that anyone (including the dean) can make him communicate in a reasonable way.
What you need to do is to make sure that the path-of-least-resistance for your department is something that ends with you graduating very soon. My guess is that the best bet for that would be to get someone else to examine you. The "Vorsitzende(r) des Pruefungsausschuss" should be able to authorize such a thing. Phrase it as "Prof A is unavailable for examinations", not as "I failed to get in touch with him". If they claim that Prof A is available, ask them to demonstrate by telling you the date for the exam. Be polite but persistent.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Speak to your department and explain the situation. Many faculties have directors of studies whose job it is to deal with issues such as this. If you are concerned about irking your examiner(s), you can also mention this to the department and ask for appropriate discretion. They should be able to advise you best and clear this up sooner rather than later, even if it means assigning you a new examiner.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: In this sort of impossible situation in life in general, it is generally best not to focus on blame or complaint about someone else's behaviour. Instead (preferably in consultation with a neutral advisor) formulate what *you* think is the best way forward. In other words, *you* need to find the solution.
The reason is that no-one (at whatever level) like to be presented with a problem. Everybody likes to be presented with the answer to a problem.
For example:
>
> Dear X
>
>
> I am having trouble arranging \*\*\*\*\*. It's difficult to see a way
> forward although I have done my best. Would it be possible for me to
> have the following alternative? Blah blah blah. If so I would be most
> grateful if you could direct me to the right person to help me achieve
> this. Many thanks.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/17
| 2,011
| 8,771
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the past, I was only teaching graduate-level courses where I was creating the material myself. It was slides with material from various books, research papers, and my own work. Accompanied by exercises and small projects that I would build from scratch.
This year I have to teach a new undergraduate-level course. The material I need to cover is more standardized and there are at least two very good textbooks that cover the material nicely (pdfs available at the library, incl nice examples, etc.).
1. Should I still build my own material? It seems like a waste of time since the material is very basic and standard and I could not reach the quality of the textbooks that are at several revisions. On the other hand, I would avoid issues like this: [Professor only teaches what is already in textbook. Should I quit going to the lectures?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/13363/42952)
2. If I teach the textbook, doesn't it feel like cheating? I mean, I'm explaining things they can find in the textbook. For some students, it's useful because they need someone to ease them into the subject before they dig deeper. For others, they can simply read the book.
3. Another way to go is to develop complementary material to the textbook (lab exercises, computer examples, etc.) but still, teach the book. But, I am not sure how I feel developing supplementary material to someone else's textbook.
Any experience to be shared or references?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that the third option is widely accepted. Students will complain about the other two, though different students and for different reasons.
The book is an outline and is a fallback for students. If it has good exercises, then they can get practice. But you will still want your own exercises to supplement in many cases, and certainly for exams. But I think a lot of, maybe most, professors follow the outline of the book even if they don't lecture precisely from it. Their exercises may be a mix of those taken from the book and those they develop themselves.
And, encourage students to take good lecture notes and not depend completely on the book.
And using your own material lets you adapt a bit for your students if they don't fit a standard model.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Even for most graduate courses, I find having a textbook useful. Part of the reason for this is that I think it benefits students to get multiple perspectives on the same material. From my personal experience as a student, I know that sometimes having an instructor follow a text too closely can be a problem, since if a student has trouble grasping the particular presentation of an idea—and that idea is presented exactly the same way in the textbook and in class—it can be real difficulty. (This can be particularly an issue when a lecturer is teaching from a book they wrote.)
When I develop a course, using a given text, I try to do a few things. First, to avoid confusion, I adopt the textbook’s notation whenever possible. That means that students will have a consistent mathematical description of the material, whether they are looking at their notes from my lectures or reading in the book. Second, I try to choose examples for my lectures that complement the book. Sometimes, the specific derivations or examples in the textbook are complicated enough or important enough that I cover them in class in the same way that the book covers them. Other times, I let the students read the text and choose different examples, so as to expose them a variety of different approaches to the same kinds of problems. Third, I try to identify points in the book’s treatment that may be unclear, so that I can provide extra elucidation of these specific points.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I had a similar situation twice during my adjunct teaching career. Maybe my experiences are useful.
1 I was teaching an all-new undergraduate course. At that time, there were no textbooks (there are some now). I planned to teach entirely from my notes. I was advised by the more experienced members of the department that students really like to have a textbook assigned. So I assigned some text (which covered about 1/3 of what we did in class) and used a lot of my notes.
2 I was teaching an undergraduate course that other people taught before in this department. Everyone involved felt that the books used before were unsuitable. (One was someone's Ph.D. thesis - a very good one, actually, but it assumed from page 1 that the students already knew everything that they were supposed to learn in this course, and then proceeded to discuss interesting stuff outside the scope of the course. Another is a "popular entertainment" style text, not suitable as a textbook at all.) Once again, I said I wanted to teach from my notes and was advised by other more experienced members of the department that students really like to have a textbook. After a lot of searching, I found a combination of 2 books that covered most of what I needed (I still have out lots of notes).
TLDR: Students like to have a textbook, to have homework problems assigned from a textbook, and to have assigned readings, even if you don't use all of the textbook, and supplement it with a lot of your own materials. Therefore I vote for option #3.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: This is from the perspective of someone remembering what it was like to be a student.
These are some reasons why having a textbook was very useful.
* When you are solving a hard problem on a problem set, it helps to be able to go and study text and examples written up very carefully to check every step of your understanding. Notes taken in class are imperfect records of a lecture and so are not a substitute. A good set of lecture notes from the teacher could serve this role as well, but they won't be as "student-tested" as a text book, which can lead to them being too high level or skipping too many steps.
* The same goes for studying for exams. The lecture notes are often a really good starting point for remembering what material was covered and going through examples done in class. But if there's a point where one can't remember what the point was based on the notes (or maybe never understood), having a textbook means you can go back and review those points in detail.
* Being able to read ahead in the book before a lecture lets you have an idea of what the material is before seeing it in lecture, which can mean you know what parts are tricky and that you need to pay attention to. Although, to be honest, I did not do this as much as a student as I probably should have.
Having said that, these are some reasons why I *didn't* like it when professors did some version of "just teaching out of the textbook" without adding any of their own insight (for example, showing slides that were just going through the textbook material in order)
* The lectures often felt "stale". I think classroom learning is partly about transferring material, but on a deeper level it is also about transferring enthusiasm about the subject and showing how an experienced person thinks about it... in other words, how to learn and to "be" a practitioner of that field. This comes across much more clearly if the professor organizes the material in the way they find the most logical. It is very obvious if the lecturer is bored with the material.
* The lectures often felt pointless. Even if this wasn't strictly true because one can ask questions to a lecturer they can't ask to a book, it is hard to feel motivated about attending a lecture as a student if you know you are only going to get information you can also get in a textbook.
* A person can explain something in different ways than a book. Much like a film should not be a shot-for-shot remake of a book, a lecture should not be a word-for-word reading of a text. The lecturer should take advantage of the medium and their experience to explain things in a way that *can't* be done in a textbook (demos, live coding, videos, informal arguments, little tricks, adding some personality, tangents, examples of how these concepts show up in the wild, making the material "feel" more personal and approachable by having a person talk about it...), and leave aside things that *can* be better done better in a book (every single step with every notational i dotted and t crossed of a 10+ page derivation).
* Having access to different explanations of the same material is incredibly valuable. If your lectures are based on, but modified versions of, material in the text, then students automatically have access to two different ways through the terrain.
For these reasons, from a student-centered perspective, I would vote for option 3.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/17
| 1,873
| 8,297
|
<issue_start>username_0: I work as a consultant in industry where I often get to publish scientific articles on "advanced" methods with pharma. Unfortunately, there is a often a fair amount of politics in the background that serves to (mostly) diminish the quality of the manuscript. For example, authors will simply change the wording or grammar for no apparent reason and move themselves up the author list, or insert/delete assertions without a sufficient understanding of the analysis or the results. There are also many more internal review cycles and numbers of reviewers before the draft is ever submitted to a journal, leading to a lot more frustration and indignation on my part going through the edits and comments and seeing how my precious manuscript has fallen, causing me a fair amount of anguish.
I just wanted to ask how to not feel offended or indignant as first author at comments that you have to incorporate (because they're from people above my pay grade) but would rather not.<issue_comment>username_1: I think that the third option is widely accepted. Students will complain about the other two, though different students and for different reasons.
The book is an outline and is a fallback for students. If it has good exercises, then they can get practice. But you will still want your own exercises to supplement in many cases, and certainly for exams. But I think a lot of, maybe most, professors follow the outline of the book even if they don't lecture precisely from it. Their exercises may be a mix of those taken from the book and those they develop themselves.
And, encourage students to take good lecture notes and not depend completely on the book.
And using your own material lets you adapt a bit for your students if they don't fit a standard model.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Even for most graduate courses, I find having a textbook useful. Part of the reason for this is that I think it benefits students to get multiple perspectives on the same material. From my personal experience as a student, I know that sometimes having an instructor follow a text too closely can be a problem, since if a student has trouble grasping the particular presentation of an idea—and that idea is presented exactly the same way in the textbook and in class—it can be real difficulty. (This can be particularly an issue when a lecturer is teaching from a book they wrote.)
When I develop a course, using a given text, I try to do a few things. First, to avoid confusion, I adopt the textbook’s notation whenever possible. That means that students will have a consistent mathematical description of the material, whether they are looking at their notes from my lectures or reading in the book. Second, I try to choose examples for my lectures that complement the book. Sometimes, the specific derivations or examples in the textbook are complicated enough or important enough that I cover them in class in the same way that the book covers them. Other times, I let the students read the text and choose different examples, so as to expose them a variety of different approaches to the same kinds of problems. Third, I try to identify points in the book’s treatment that may be unclear, so that I can provide extra elucidation of these specific points.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I had a similar situation twice during my adjunct teaching career. Maybe my experiences are useful.
1 I was teaching an all-new undergraduate course. At that time, there were no textbooks (there are some now). I planned to teach entirely from my notes. I was advised by the more experienced members of the department that students really like to have a textbook assigned. So I assigned some text (which covered about 1/3 of what we did in class) and used a lot of my notes.
2 I was teaching an undergraduate course that other people taught before in this department. Everyone involved felt that the books used before were unsuitable. (One was someone's Ph.D. thesis - a very good one, actually, but it assumed from page 1 that the students already knew everything that they were supposed to learn in this course, and then proceeded to discuss interesting stuff outside the scope of the course. Another is a "popular entertainment" style text, not suitable as a textbook at all.) Once again, I said I wanted to teach from my notes and was advised by other more experienced members of the department that students really like to have a textbook. After a lot of searching, I found a combination of 2 books that covered most of what I needed (I still have out lots of notes).
TLDR: Students like to have a textbook, to have homework problems assigned from a textbook, and to have assigned readings, even if you don't use all of the textbook, and supplement it with a lot of your own materials. Therefore I vote for option #3.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: This is from the perspective of someone remembering what it was like to be a student.
These are some reasons why having a textbook was very useful.
* When you are solving a hard problem on a problem set, it helps to be able to go and study text and examples written up very carefully to check every step of your understanding. Notes taken in class are imperfect records of a lecture and so are not a substitute. A good set of lecture notes from the teacher could serve this role as well, but they won't be as "student-tested" as a text book, which can lead to them being too high level or skipping too many steps.
* The same goes for studying for exams. The lecture notes are often a really good starting point for remembering what material was covered and going through examples done in class. But if there's a point where one can't remember what the point was based on the notes (or maybe never understood), having a textbook means you can go back and review those points in detail.
* Being able to read ahead in the book before a lecture lets you have an idea of what the material is before seeing it in lecture, which can mean you know what parts are tricky and that you need to pay attention to. Although, to be honest, I did not do this as much as a student as I probably should have.
Having said that, these are some reasons why I *didn't* like it when professors did some version of "just teaching out of the textbook" without adding any of their own insight (for example, showing slides that were just going through the textbook material in order)
* The lectures often felt "stale". I think classroom learning is partly about transferring material, but on a deeper level it is also about transferring enthusiasm about the subject and showing how an experienced person thinks about it... in other words, how to learn and to "be" a practitioner of that field. This comes across much more clearly if the professor organizes the material in the way they find the most logical. It is very obvious if the lecturer is bored with the material.
* The lectures often felt pointless. Even if this wasn't strictly true because one can ask questions to a lecturer they can't ask to a book, it is hard to feel motivated about attending a lecture as a student if you know you are only going to get information you can also get in a textbook.
* A person can explain something in different ways than a book. Much like a film should not be a shot-for-shot remake of a book, a lecture should not be a word-for-word reading of a text. The lecturer should take advantage of the medium and their experience to explain things in a way that *can't* be done in a textbook (demos, live coding, videos, informal arguments, little tricks, adding some personality, tangents, examples of how these concepts show up in the wild, making the material "feel" more personal and approachable by having a person talk about it...), and leave aside things that *can* be better done better in a book (every single step with every notational i dotted and t crossed of a 10+ page derivation).
* Having access to different explanations of the same material is incredibly valuable. If your lectures are based on, but modified versions of, material in the text, then students automatically have access to two different ways through the terrain.
For these reasons, from a student-centered perspective, I would vote for option 3.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/18
| 1,025
| 4,345
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know that certain journals are often lauded by academics as being highly prestigious (e.g. Nature/Science/etc).
However, how important is journal prestige really? Is it absolutely life changing? Is it the difference between being taken seriously or outright dismissed by the larger community? Or is this just a fad in certain elitist circles and doesn't really impact the reception of the research?
What has been your experience like with prestigious journals in general? Are they all that people make them out to be?<issue_comment>username_1: In principle, publishing in a prestigious journal may help reach many readers and/or boost your career. The practice of judging articles by the journals they appear in is widespread although also widely denounced (cf the [San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Declaration_on_Research_Assessment)).
In practice, a lot depends on your field of research, your career stage, and the organizations that pay your salary and/or grants. At one extreme, some people would boycott "luxury journals" as a matter of principle ([<NAME>](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals)) or ignore journals altogether and just post their results on arXiv ([Grigori Perelman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman)). At the other extreme, some will tell you that their careers entirely depend on how many articles they publish in their discipline's elite journals.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: From my perspective, you shall choose the journal that meets your research field and direction. It should be peer-reviewed and respected in your narrow area of research (ask your advisor/colleagues).
Many groups prefer to publish mostly in Nature-like journals. I would say that there you see more like a future prospects rather than full results with explanations. Language there is not specifically scientific as it is expected to be read by people from all possible spheres of life and work.
Journals directed to full research description are less read by the "wide" audience - that's why you can freely use "dry scientific language" and explain results and your work in details.
Good research will be found by the ones who are interested. Just be sure to create an adequate title and keywords. In addition, send out your paper to colleagues and post it via social networks to spread further.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I am completely disillusioned with prestige at this point in my academic career. It is all about the strength of the peer review committee for me now, nothing less.
I work on the intersection between engineering and computer science, so I get to read literature from both community and I cannot tell you how many completely \*\*\*\* paper makes it through the "peer review" process at top ML conferences/journals such as ICML, JMRL, ICLR, AAAI and NeurIPS. These "prestigious" journals are publishing crank-level papers with extraordinarily poor citation practices.
Of course, if you look at their peer review process then it is all revealed: two-three reviewers (possibly students) not too familiar with the field or the literature giving superficial and uncritical reviews to not hurt any feelings. There is an over-emphasis on simulation results, which are barely reproducible. Finally these reviews are rarely completely blind as well, because a paper is almost always simultaneously uploaded to Arxiv. Just because they are Google employees doesn't make their research good.
The same probably can be said for a minority of journals in engineering. I have definitely seen a share of bad papers here but I always ensure that they do not make it through.
It is all about the peer review process.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: By comparing the CVs of academis who have permanent jobs with those who do not, you can show that publishing in a prestigious journal is, in fact, *career changing*. Having publications in prestigious journals is strongly correlated with later receiving a stable academic job.
This in no way means that everyone should spend all their time on trying to publish in those journals. For many people, worrying less about prestige would be *life changing* in a good way.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/18
| 1,107
| 4,569
|
<issue_start>username_0: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/pj2Bn.png)
In the [above table](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_student#Destinations_of_foreign_students), we see that 4/10 countries are from the anglosphere. I am surprised to see **Ireland** and **New Zealand** not making into the list despite having well-developed economies and higher education sectors.
**Switzerland** and **South Africa** are also missing pieces.
**China** and **Japan**'s popularity surprised me as China is not a developed country and doesn't have that many jobs to offer, and Japan has an unfriendly immigration policy.
Why are some countries more popular destinations for higher education than the other?<issue_comment>username_1: In principle, publishing in a prestigious journal may help reach many readers and/or boost your career. The practice of judging articles by the journals they appear in is widespread although also widely denounced (cf the [San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Declaration_on_Research_Assessment)).
In practice, a lot depends on your field of research, your career stage, and the organizations that pay your salary and/or grants. At one extreme, some people would boycott "luxury journals" as a matter of principle ([Randy Schekman](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals)) or ignore journals altogether and just post their results on arXiv ([Grigori Perelman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman)). At the other extreme, some will tell you that their careers entirely depend on how many articles they publish in their discipline's elite journals.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: From my perspective, you shall choose the journal that meets your research field and direction. It should be peer-reviewed and respected in your narrow area of research (ask your advisor/colleagues).
Many groups prefer to publish mostly in Nature-like journals. I would say that there you see more like a future prospects rather than full results with explanations. Language there is not specifically scientific as it is expected to be read by people from all possible spheres of life and work.
Journals directed to full research description are less read by the "wide" audience - that's why you can freely use "dry scientific language" and explain results and your work in details.
Good research will be found by the ones who are interested. Just be sure to create an adequate title and keywords. In addition, send out your paper to colleagues and post it via social networks to spread further.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I am completely disillusioned with prestige at this point in my academic career. It is all about the strength of the peer review committee for me now, nothing less.
I work on the intersection between engineering and computer science, so I get to read literature from both community and I cannot tell you how many completely \*\*\*\* paper makes it through the "peer review" process at top ML conferences/journals such as ICML, JMRL, ICLR, AAAI and NeurIPS. These "prestigious" journals are publishing crank-level papers with extraordinarily poor citation practices.
Of course, if you look at their peer review process then it is all revealed: two-three reviewers (possibly students) not too familiar with the field or the literature giving superficial and uncritical reviews to not hurt any feelings. There is an over-emphasis on simulation results, which are barely reproducible. Finally these reviews are rarely completely blind as well, because a paper is almost always simultaneously uploaded to Arxiv. Just because they are Google employees doesn't make their research good.
The same probably can be said for a minority of journals in engineering. I have definitely seen a share of bad papers here but I always ensure that they do not make it through.
It is all about the peer review process.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: By comparing the CVs of academis who have permanent jobs with those who do not, you can show that publishing in a prestigious journal is, in fact, *career changing*. Having publications in prestigious journals is strongly correlated with later receiving a stable academic job.
This in no way means that everyone should spend all their time on trying to publish in those journals. For many people, worrying less about prestige would be *life changing* in a good way.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/18
| 961
| 4,096
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm submitting to a journal. There is a drop down menu to choose your area, and each area has a specified editor with his name readily found on the journal instructions. So the assigned editor is known. Should I refer the cover letter to the editor in chief or the editor.<issue_comment>username_1: In principle, publishing in a prestigious journal may help reach many readers and/or boost your career. The practice of judging articles by the journals they appear in is widespread although also widely denounced (cf the [San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Declaration_on_Research_Assessment)).
In practice, a lot depends on your field of research, your career stage, and the organizations that pay your salary and/or grants. At one extreme, some people would boycott "luxury journals" as a matter of principle ([<NAME>](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals)) or ignore journals altogether and just post their results on arXiv ([<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman)). At the other extreme, some will tell you that their careers entirely depend on how many articles they publish in their discipline's elite journals.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: From my perspective, you shall choose the journal that meets your research field and direction. It should be peer-reviewed and respected in your narrow area of research (ask your advisor/colleagues).
Many groups prefer to publish mostly in Nature-like journals. I would say that there you see more like a future prospects rather than full results with explanations. Language there is not specifically scientific as it is expected to be read by people from all possible spheres of life and work.
Journals directed to full research description are less read by the "wide" audience - that's why you can freely use "dry scientific language" and explain results and your work in details.
Good research will be found by the ones who are interested. Just be sure to create an adequate title and keywords. In addition, send out your paper to colleagues and post it via social networks to spread further.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I am completely disillusioned with prestige at this point in my academic career. It is all about the strength of the peer review committee for me now, nothing less.
I work on the intersection between engineering and computer science, so I get to read literature from both community and I cannot tell you how many completely \*\*\*\* paper makes it through the "peer review" process at top ML conferences/journals such as ICML, JMRL, ICLR, AAAI and NeurIPS. These "prestigious" journals are publishing crank-level papers with extraordinarily poor citation practices.
Of course, if you look at their peer review process then it is all revealed: two-three reviewers (possibly students) not too familiar with the field or the literature giving superficial and uncritical reviews to not hurt any feelings. There is an over-emphasis on simulation results, which are barely reproducible. Finally these reviews are rarely completely blind as well, because a paper is almost always simultaneously uploaded to Arxiv. Just because they are Google employees doesn't make their research good.
The same probably can be said for a minority of journals in engineering. I have definitely seen a share of bad papers here but I always ensure that they do not make it through.
It is all about the peer review process.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: By comparing the CVs of academis who have permanent jobs with those who do not, you can show that publishing in a prestigious journal is, in fact, *career changing*. Having publications in prestigious journals is strongly correlated with later receiving a stable academic job.
This in no way means that everyone should spend all their time on trying to publish in those journals. For many people, worrying less about prestige would be *life changing* in a good way.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/18
| 1,837
| 7,664
|
<issue_start>username_0: While SCI/SCIE journals (journals included in the Clarivate indices of Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded) are the gold list of journals and (my guess) the truly international science community considers only the publications that are published in the SCI/SCIE journals, there are some good or emerging journals which are not in SCI/SCIE. I know that some countries (e.g. Easter European countries) in their idiosyncratic evaluation systems allows the SCOPUS and other publications to count as real publications, as I understand, then the serious and international community considers only SCI/SCIE publications as serious ones which can be counted for the evaluation of research proposals, grant applications and position applications.
But as I said, then there are good journals outside SCI/SCIE as well. E.g. I am trying to do research in the nascent field of Artificial General Intelligence (e.g. there is Third Wave AI Campaign by US DARPA <https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/ai-next-campaign>) and Computational Creativity and I am looking on two journals in their respective fields: Journal of AGI <https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/jagi/jagi-overview.xml> and Journal of Computational Creativity <https://jcc.computationalcreativity.net/>. The first journal has rather long history and it has very high standard as I can judge from the published articles (this is my subjective evaluation, but I believe my gut feelings to distinguish bad research from the good one). But the other journal is still awaiting its first issue.
My senses (trying to be good person) advises me to prepare papers exactly for those 2 journals to support the community (of AGI and CC that is still growing and still awaiting status deserving to them), to support the status of the journal. But as those journals are not included in SCI/SCIE, then rationally thinking it would be waste of energy. Instead I can tweak my papers and submit them to the traditional journals (e.g. Cognitive Systems Research or Physics of Life Reviews by Elsevier).
But it is not an easy decision. When I am seeing that from time to time Journal of AGI still receives very high quality articles, I need to ask - why researcher still submitted to this journal knowing that his or her publication is not counted in the indices?
So - what is the **personal economic (mercantile) motivation and benefits to publish in high-standard non-SCI/SCIE journals?** I am interested only in the mercantile motivation as I clearly understand the social/emotional/moral motivation.
And just curios - why Journal of AGI is not listed in SCIE? Because it is small-scale journal (articles are published rarely)?<issue_comment>username_1: You are massively mistaken in your assumptions.
Generally, the experts know the rough reputation and standards of the publication venues in their area. If they are not familiar with a specific one, then looking at the recent papers and the editorial board, or asking colleagues will typically be preferred to a binary check of whether or not that venue is listed on a particular index. There certainly is a strong correlation between "is a reasonable journal" and "is listed in SCI/SCIE", but it is the former that matters, not the latter, when being evaluated by experts.
For grant applications, none of EPSRC (UK), Royal Society (UK), ERC, DFG (Germany), NWO (Netherlands) restrict applicants to only list publications in SCI-listed venues. As someone who was on the job market a few years ago, I've never seen any job advert asking for only SCI-listed publications either.
The UK has the Research Excellence Framework (REF), a huge exercise to judge research quality of all researchers at British Universities. Everyone submits their top 5 published papers, and there is again no restriction to SCI-listed venues.
I've been around in the CS/Math area for 12 years now, and in fact only directly encountered a situation where something being or not being listed on SCI(E) was relevant: We were planning a special issue dedicated to a conference, and as one of the prospective author was a Slovenian PhD student who needed SCI-listed publications to graduate, we picked a particular journal. For colleagues from South Africa and Russia, some journal indices seem to matter, too.
So unless you consider it likely that your academic career will substantially take place in a few select countries, it really won't matter whether the journals you publish in are SCI(E)-listed or not.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I disagree with others who say you are mistaken in your assumptions. There are many countries where SCI/SCIE indexed publications are the only publications considered in academic hiring, grant review, and advancement evaluations. Even in countries like the UK where this may not be an "explicit" standard, the majority (**though not all**) "highly respected" journals are already SCI/SCIE-indexed. Academic chauvinism exists in both explicit and implicit forms. However, I can think of a few reasons why it might personally benefit your grant or employment prospects to submit to a non-indexed journal:
(1) You believe/know that the journal will be indexed in a few years. This might happen if the journal is new, but is part of a suite of society journals where all of the other journals are indexed (i.e. if the American Chemical Society launched a new journal, it will definitely be indexed in a few years).
(2) If the journal as a whole is widely read/cited by your academic niche community, then even if your article is not explicitly taken into account by your university or grant agency, it can still increase your stature within your field, getting you invited talks, etc., or boosting the citation rates of your other SCI-indexed papers, and increasing your chances of receiving funding, positions, etc. through these "knock-on" effects.
(3) There would be social/relationship benefits. For example, there is a "big shot" in your field who's taken an interest in your work, perhaps they run their own journal that for various reasons might not be SCI-indexed (for example, it's a journal in the local language, like a Japanese-language journal). Thus, it might be important in the home-country's scientific community, but have little international reach. If that big shot invites you to submit something, then contributing an article to their journal is a great way to build your personal network. Later on, they might help you get shortlisted for a position at their university, give you an invited talk at a conference they're organizing, etc.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Possible reasons are:
* Invited by personal contacts (typically members of the editorial board of the journal).
* They believe the new journal will rise up the ranks quickly. This happened for, e.g., *Nature Astronomy* (which is in turn likely to rise up the ranks quickly because the journal is backed by *Nature*).
* Ideological reasons. [Example](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals), [example](https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/).
* They don't think their paper is particularly good (or it has already been rejected by top journals) so they figure, why not.
That's about it.
With all due respect to the other answers, statements such as "If the journal as a whole is widely read/cited by your academic niche community ... " are misleading, because if the journal is widely read/cited by your academic niche community, it won't be very long before the journal ends up in the SCI or SCIE.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/18
| 638
| 2,671
|
<issue_start>username_0: Soon, I'll start my last year of undergraduate studies in physics.
At my university it is possible (but not too common for undergraduates) to be employed as a teaching assistant for a first year's course. In order to get some work experience and do what I really enjoy, namely explaining physics-stuff to other students, I would be ecstatic if I got such a position. However, on the university website, there is no information given about how to apply, or whether they aleady have enough teaching assistants for the next semester.
Therefore, I plan to directly "apply" to the lecturer of the course I would enjoy getting involved in the most, and ask her if she would employ me as a teaching assistant. I'm planning to include the following things in the application e-mail I'm sending her:
* A cv (created using LaTeX, to show I'm capable of using LaTeX)
* My grades (that aren't too bad, especially the ones of when I took this course myself)
* A well-designed guide I created in LaTeX, which describes how she could use the video communication software Zoom's "breakout rooms" as a system to host the otherwise in-person question time each week, in the likely case the university doesn't allow attendance classes
Now, my question is about if the above listed attachments will be effective in making a good impression and persuading her to consider me for the position.
I'm especially unsure whether including this "guide for doing the question time in Zoom" is any good, as I might leave an impression of being overly controlling, or she might feel obliged to use this guide if he employs me, and, thus, won't do it in the first place. On the other hand, including it would show her that I am highly motivated and have a lot of initiative.
I highly appreciate your answers and advice. Getting this position would mean a whole lot to me.<issue_comment>username_1: I would omit all the materials in your initial email, and just ask the lecturer a simple concise question:
>
> I would be interested in working as a teaching assistant for your course. Are there any openings, and if so, what is the procedure to apply?
>
>
> If not, do you know who I would contact about working as a teaching assistant for another course?
>
>
>
There is no point in attaching your materials until you know that they are wanted and that you are sending them to the right person.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Nate's letter is good, but I would recommend attaching an unofficial copy of your transcript. Undergraduate TAs are usually selected based on their grades or on the faculty's personal knowledge of the TA.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/18
| 693
| 2,893
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am preparing to submit my first paper to an applied math journal and I am wondering how important it is to find all the typos in a paper before submission? Of course I would always strive for there not to be typos; however, I am wondering if the journal will help with editing once accepted?
I am a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to these sorts of things so it would be helpful for me to know if the paper should be 100% typo free before submission or if that is not necessary.
I found a post [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/96540/how-many-times-should-one-proofread-their-paper-before-submission) talking about this topic a little bit and I was wondering if most people agree it is not worth over editing for an initial submission since there may be reviewer comments, etc. that must be addressed.
Thank you for your help and ideas.<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience, journals usually provide no useful editing help whatsoever. Copy editors are just as likely to introduce flaws as they are to fix them.
Referees might point out mistakes, but spotting typos is not really their task - and don't forget, referees are volunteers. I think the vast majority of referees won't think badly of you if they spot a handful of typos in a 25 page paper, but I can say frm personal experience that getting a lengthy list of typos back is extremely embarrassing.
What is probably a more contentious point is how polished the typesetting should be. It obviously needs to be clearly readable, but whether having a formula protuding into the margins is a problem or not is less obvious.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Strive for perfection, but if you fail to achieve it, then it won't be the end of the world. But you write a paper for people to read it, so you should make every effort to make it as good as you can, including grammar and such. Try to stamp out typos. Use an editor that knows about spelling, for example. Or at least, paste your content into such an editor so that you can see where there are errors.
The more readable your paper, in the initial submission, the less the reviewers will need to "fight" with it, getting more and more frustrated if they think you are sloppy. If you aren't a native speaker/writer of the language of the paper, try to get a native speaker to review it.
In fact, it is a good idea to have someone you trust review your paper before you submit it, perhaps a paper copy, simply marking errors for you to correct. It is very difficult to proof read your own work, since your mind will see what you wanted to write and not what you actually wrote.
Reviewers aren't likely to reject your work for such things, but you will get a more useful review, and quicker, if they can focus on what you say and not be distracted with things that you should have fixed.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/18
| 909
| 3,835
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to break into academia by becoming a PhD student of computer science. However, I need publications and letters of recommendation in order to strengthen my application. The ordinary way of doing this, as I understand it, is to become a masters student and publish in the course of earning that degree.
That seems wasteful to me. I've taken graduate level courses. I can write a proof. I know my way around the pumping lemmas. I have read higher level papers and texts on my own.
Having an advisor or mentor would help, though. I don't know what's a reasonable problem to study, and publication has some arcane processes that an advisor might help me to understand.
How do I go about contacting a potential advisor? Is this even a reasonable course of action?<issue_comment>username_1: It's not impossible, but it seems hard. The problem is that faculty members at research universities typically get credit for advising students **who are enrolled in their programs**; in turn, universities give them credit because students pay tuition, which supports the salaries of the faculty.
The other way that faculty members get credit is by authoring (and co-authoring) papers. If you want to convince an username_2 (or I guess someone in industry, although I don't know much about how industry works - I would guess that they would have even less slack for "side projects" such as advising an external student), I'd say you need to make a good case that:
* working with you is likely to lead to publications on which they can be listed as a co-author;
* you won't take up too much of their time — that is, the time they invest in advising you will be commensurate with the number and impact of papers that you co-author with them. Among other things, you'll need to convince them that you're well-prepared to start on a research topic, and that you're capable of working more independently than is typical for a graduate student. The "papers/advising hour" ratio might need to be higher than for a typical student (since you won't be paying tuition/countable for credit in the usual university metrics).
As for "how do I go about contacting a potential advisor?", the answer is pretty much the same as for students looking for a graduate supervisor. Find people who are working in your desired field; consider contacting their students (or former students) to find out what they're like to work with; and send them a *brief* e-mail outlining your goals and persuasively explaining the points above.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: First of all, I wouldn't seek an *advisor*. Under your circumstances, you shouldn't expect a professor to assume any sort of responsibility for you. That said, you might be able to find someone who is willing to help you. Here are two ideas:
1. Find a graduate course that you are interested in, and ask the professor if you can sit in on it. The professor might well say no, but they might say yes. If they say yes, then work hard, do all the homework and do it well, and ask good questions. When I was applying to graduate school, I was very fortunate to have a professor who was willing to do this for me.
2. Attend a scientific conference. Go to talks, and talk to people afterwards. Ask questions. If you have an idea for how to make progress on a question of interest to one of the speakers, you may be able to strike up a collaboration.
In either case, you could ask for a rec letter later.
Finally, at least in the US, it's common to apply to PhD programs with only an undergraduate degree in the same field, and to get letters of recommendation from your undergrad professors. So, if you recently completed an undergrad program in CS, and you made a strong impression on your professors, then you might try simply applying to PhD programs now.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/19
| 1,081
| 4,833
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my previous postdoc, I had completed work with my supervisor. The idea was provided to me and I did all the mathematical derivation and generating all the results. We published two conference papers, one with me as the first author, and the second one in which he was the first author. We also submitted the work to a journal but it was rejected. Then, I moved out and took another academic job. I did not have time to work on the rejected journal paper and incorporate all his suggestions. Therefore, we stopped discussing it. Very recently I found that this paper is accepted in a journal paper, and he is the sole author of this paper.
The published paper is 80-90% the same as the rejected paper that was submitted to the journal, and 60% the same to the conference paper that he is the first author (in IEEE they allow the same work to be published in conference and journal). This is completely unethical, to remove my name from the article. In this case, can I complain against him to the editor of the journal, and IEEE? What action can they take, retraction?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you can complain to the editor. If you complain to IEEE, the publisher, they will probably refer you to the editor.
You can request retraction or request a correction adding your name as an author. A correction would require the agreement of all authors.
You can also complain to the university, but the university can only punish the supervisor. They cannot cause the journal to do anything.
These are options. They are not necessarily useful options.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Wow, yes that is completely unethical. I recently stopped working at an academic institution, but I still collaborate with my former colleagues and we continue to publish old projects that I was involved in, with me being an author still.
I think you have two options:
1. Contacting the university you did you postdoc at. Email the head of faculty, or if necessary higher up, and explain what this person has done. It may prompt them to retract the paper and take disciplinary measures against him, which would hopefully stop him repeat offending.
2. Contact the journal, as you suggested. When someone publishes a article, they usually have to agree to an authorship contribution statement. If he has claimed 100% authorship, this is a pretty serious offence, and any journal worth their salt would take an accusation of false misrepresentation seriously. The hard part for you might be proving your contribution. Do you still have the copy that was rejected from the previous attempt to publish, and the rejection email? This would be valuable evidence.
Good luck with you endeavour.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It could be that your co-author attempted to reach out to you in order to get your permission to use your name but never got a response, i.e. old email/ not known address, ran out of time and had to publish without your name.
I would advise getting in touch with your colleague first in order to establish what happened before using the nuclear option. It may be your colleague will assist in amending the published article.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: You're putting the cart before the horse here. Step 0 is to contact your previous supervisor and ask for clarifications. You may or may not get an answer, and if you get one it may very well disappoint you, but I'm willing to bet no journal editor or university administrator will want to proceed unless you first tried to resolve the issue with your old supervisor.
If the situation is as you describe, then indeed there is a case for a correction to the paper (or at least some editorial action). Although you have left your previous institution, they would not be enchanted to hear that one of their employee is accused of this form of plagiarism, so if you have a case they *are* stakeholders in this story.
You might want to be quite careful when giving percentages as you did in your OP. The published paper might differ only in some small but crucial aspect from the rejected one even if the texts show significant overlap, and one can easily imagine that this is what your old supervisor will use in defending his position. Also from a strictly semantic perspective, your supervisor did not "remove your name from a published article": he did not properly include your name as co-author when he resubmitted a rejected manuscript to a new journal. That's not quite the same, although of course the outcome is the same: you're not a co-author.
This is why contacting your former supervisor to clearly understand the rationale behind his actions is essential. The last thing you want is for you to *loose* this case as it could impact your reputation at your new institution and with journal editors.
Upvotes: 5
|
2020/07/19
| 1,121
| 5,056
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently read a paper in the Journal of Empirical Finance.
I was interested in the methodology that the author was using, but in terms of the data collection, the writing was particularly brief and I struggled to replicate their results.
This could have been clarified easily by the author, but they choose not to reply.
Is there anything I can do here or is it the authors choice not to answer questions about a published article?<issue_comment>username_1: I would consider it all right if you write one or two reminder emails, maybe after three weeks and six weeks.
A lot of people just forget about emails, or put them aside, especially if they cannot answer the questions immediately.
Furthermore, try to make your email as "easy" as possible, so if your email is a wall of text or more than five bullet points, it is much less likely to receive an answer as if you just ask one short and precise question.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Ideally, all researchers respond to reasonable\* requests, however, quite often they don't. Here are a few things you can do to increase your chances they even get your email (adding to <NAME>'s answer on how to increase your chance to get a response):
* make sure you have the correct email address - many people change institutes and are no longer checking old accounts, or have left science altogether, even for papers that were just published
* try contacting co-authors, if any. If possible, aim for those that might know something (in case author contributions are published; generally reserch assistants, PhD students, postdocs; less likely old professors and co-authors from a different institute)
* for recently published papers, check outlets such as twitter for posts by the (co)authors metioning the paper, and reply to those
However, in the end it is the authors choice to answer your question. Unless you are a reviewer, then you have a bit more leverage - but still cannot force them (the editor might, but they could refuse and even retract the paper).
\*\* something not obviously stated in the paper, basic knowledge in the field, or probably suggestions for future studies etc
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It is the choice of the author to answer emails, or not. Presumably the contents were sufficiently clear to warrant publication, so if the authors choose not to reply there remains the indirect route of extracting details from several papers on the topic, either by the same author or by others cited in the bibliography.
Note that you might have more leverage in getting data from the authors, if this is possible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I get far more emails than I can reply to, but occasionally I do reply to random emails from people I don't know concerning papers I have written. The main factors that lead to me replying are: (1) I can see that the person is genuinely interested and has tried pretty hard to understand. (2) The person has a very concrete question that I can easily write down the answer to. (3) I am not overly pressed for time from other obligations.
In your case I cannot tell what kind of email you wrote. But if it says roughly "Dear X, I am interested in your paper but I don't understand your data collection methodology. Could you explain it in more detail? Best regards, Y." then I would ignore it for sure. Why? Basically the person has written a minimal-effort email, and so I assume they probably read the paper with minimal effort too. And what they want from me is completely unreasonable: They want me to write an expanded methods section just for them.
On the other hand, if the email would show a deeper understanding of the topic, and they would clearly explain their confusion and ask a specific question that I can easily clarify, then I am happy to do so, even if it takes a couple of paragraphs of explanation. However, such emails are rare.
When you publish a paper, the paper stands on its own, with all its strengths and weaknesses. A paper does not come with any warranty or guarantee that the author will freely provide all interested readers with further personalized instruction on the topic of the paper.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Write a paper detailing your failure to replicate their results.
================================================================
If you replicated their methodology and got a different result, then that's something noteworthy in itself. As a result, the most logical thing to do is to write a paper citing their paper, and then explaining how in your attempt at replicating their paper, you have obtained different results. Given that the ongoing [replication crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_economics) is apparently affecting economics, producing proof that a paper has failed to replicate should be eminently publishable.
It might be polite to give the authors of the original paper a little bit of warning of what you're planning on doing, though.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/07/19
| 724
| 3,158
|
<issue_start>username_0: My supervisor told me that it is not required to publish my papers before submitting my thesis.
We are required (in German universities), however, to published our monograph thesis later as a book.
One of my chapters is already published as a book chapter in Routledge (it's too good an opportunity to miss). The published chapter is not entirely the same as my thesis chapter, as the Routledge editor edited it too (asking me to add this and that, which I did).
Now, another chapter of my thesis can be published in a conference proceeding too, if I so wish.
I understand that this is common practice for a cumulative thesis, but can it also be done with a monograph thesis?<issue_comment>username_1: In most places, PhD theses whose chapters are simply reproductions of work published elsewhere is acceptable. At the very least that's the case when you just publish the thesis yourself -- the situation might be different if you publish with a company that will likely insist on transferring your copyright to them.
Regardless of this, as in most of the other questions on this forum, the right answer is almost always "Talk to your adviser".
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You need to ask the relevant people and sources for the information you need.
* Ask your advisor what he will accept for a PhD thesis. I suppose having the chapters accepted in peer-reviewed journals will be welcomed as it proves a high quality standard.
* Read the copyright agreements of the journals. Usually you transfer the copyright to the journal, but most often they grant you the right to use the paper in your thesis. But you only know it for sure when you read the agreement that you accept(ed) when publishing it there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: From what I can think of there are two potential issues.
First is the copyright issue. In my previous university, for example, when each of the chapters could be either a conference or a journal paper, the university still could publish it online, but it was a grey area. But if you wish to publish your whole thesis to a new publisher as a monograph but excerpts of it, in the form of chapters, are already published with another publisher, then I see a conflict, if you have signed the copyright form. So you need to read on what you have signed, particularly if you are dealing with two different publishers.
The second problem, which could arise even if you are publishing with the same publisher will arise in the form of self-plagiarism. The plagiarism detecting software will obviously flag already published chapters as "copied" and your thesis might not be able to cross the threshold to be accepted for publication. Again, this might require you to convince the editor.
This completely depends on the copyright documents of the publishers which usually vary. So it is necessary to go through that.
Personally, as an aside, I sometimes feel dismayed at the current state of academia when researchers are compelled to look for avenues to regurgitate their work like this. Marketing has taken more prominence over doing original research.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/19
| 822
| 3,587
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've been hired to teach two courses as an adjunct professor in the US (my first time teaching). I would like to review syllabi previously used for these courses, simply to inform my thinking on these courses. Is this an inappropriate request? It is likely I would ask the department head's administrative assistant for these documents. (As far as I can tell, they are not available online.)<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, it is quite appropriate. You could also ask for a list of the professors who previously taught the course. You could then ask them if they are willing to share materials to help bootstrap the course.
In fact, the administrative assistant might not have easy access directly, partly due to the pandemic. But the professors would normally retain their materials.
You might also find recent course information online if each course has a website or if professors have websites with course material.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: The first thing I did when asked to teach already existing courses was to ask the previous lecturers for copies of syllabi, teaching materials, exams, tutorials....
Probably depends a little on office politics, but I was just handed everything in a nice manner and took over from there.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It is completely appropriate, and can be valuable in the context of the greater curriculum. When I used to teach classes, I would ask the previous lecturer for the syllabus. Most importantly, I would also speak to whomever is teaching a follow-on class to see if there's something that should be added or removed based on the changes to the general curriculum.
As an example, I was teaching a sophomore electrical engineering course as an introduction to analog circuits. I ended up spending a week on the actual device physics because students were going to be required to have either device physics or analog design as a follow-on.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I do the adjunct hiring for my community college department, and we have a certain set of problems that we see repeatedly. One is people teaching a course at the wrong intellectual level (usually too low). Another is not assigning enough work or not giving enough feedback. I would not want a newly hired person to go to an administrative assistant, get a syllabus from one of those people, and then replicate that.
I suggest that you start by talking to the person who hired you and who will be making the decision on whether to rehire you later. Say that you're interested in seeing what people have done in the past when they did a *good* job of teaching this course. If you said that to me, I would respond by handing you a sample syllabus and also telling you in writing about my expectations. (Well, actually, I would have done those things without your having to ask.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: A possibility to consider in addition to the other answers: there may be a syllabus template, and you may be *required* to use it. So yes, ask for existing documents.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: You should also check to see what classes have your class as a pre-requisite. You want to ensure your students are prepared for what follows.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: In the one department I have taught in, it was stated that you have to run the course along similar lines to previous/other instructors (some courses run w/ multiple sections so they need consistency). So absolutely, ask for the existing syllabi. And good luck with your first teaches!
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/19
| 556
| 2,576
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently, my team's abstract was accepted for a poster presentation at a conference. The abstract submitted is not a complete work. Over time, we still don't have the desired results that are worth publishing / presenting.
... what should we do in this situation?
I worry that our contribution is not good enough - or bad.<issue_comment>username_1: I suppose that standards differ, but in my experience (CS) posters don't need to be all that refined. Unless your standards are different, I suspect that you could put enough together to inform people about your project, its current state, and its direction, if not the conclusions that aren't yet ready.
Many posters are "work in progress", rather than completed.
Alternatively you can withdraw if it is impossible to do enough to meet your own standards.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You may not have a complete set of results, but presumably you have a clearly defined research question and method. You may have already encountered and learned things along the way. Perhaps you have preliminary results. It could be an option to present these and look for feedback on your research question and approach and perhaps even get valuable input to improve your research. One of the things that is so appealing about conferences is to see updates about progress in various research projects, even when it isn't yet ready for publication in a journal.
Unless you intimated in your abstract that you had specific results which you don't have, or you do not have a research question or method, I would personally still present. Especially a poster.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: From my point of view - you already submitted an abstract so let it be (if your results still agree with the content).
On your poster collect all the information that you have in the way that you can explain the idea and steps that were done. Leave the space to describe an outlook with everything what wasn't done yet and what you want to achieve.
Conferences are necessary for the scientific exchange. You will get one along with new ideas. Maybe you will hear some novel approaches that can boost your work and you can finish these results faster.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Someone has to say it: simply withdraw the poster presentation. Of course, no one wants to do this. But there is nothing wrong with simply yielding to reality: things just did not work out as expected. Then, next time you submit an abstract, bear this one in mind! Best of success with future submissions!
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/07/20
| 3,339
| 13,693
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am about to enter a 3-year PhD. Neither my bachelor’s nor my master’s were research-oriented nor very typical for my field, and I had to find a potential supervisor on my own. Due to my background, I also do not have a good grasp of academia’s unwritten rules.
Last year, I fortuitously met a rock star professor, one of the top 5 most cited scholars in quite a large field. He got interested in my project, gave me huge support for my proposal, and wrote a wonderful LoR. We also got very well along on a personal level and would chat about things loosely related to academia. He is someone with a very casual style but with clear respect for boundaries. I admire him enormously, both as a scholar and as a person.
I was accepted under his supervision by a very laudatory committee. **Academia being a very hierarchical world, I feel compelled to show "extra respect" to him, partly because he is famous and partly because my unconventional background sets me at a disadvantage compared to others.** It seems likely that high-status academics would tacitly expect their students (i.e. without explicitly asking for it) to go to greater length for them, whether in terms of work output or in overall signs of deference. I know that they are "just human", but they are also around the top of a very special system.
I tried mentioning this to my now-supervisor, but he keeps blushing when I remind him of his academic status. He seemed to think that I was worried about my application "not being good enough" rather than about failing to show adequate deference to *him*. The obvious thing I could do for him would be to submit a paper before the start of my PhD. I have never written a paper before, as it seems uncommon in my field (but not unheard of) to do one that early. **But he said a few times that he does not need me to do that right now, and I do not know if he means "don’t do that" or "I politely say no but would be happy if you did it anyway, and slightly disappointed if you didn’t".**
I have a half-done paper addressing a recent debate around my supervisor’s main theoretical contribution, and I am confident that it can be a substantial paper *if well-executed*. Yet I am exhausted, and my supervisor is unlikely to help me on it before I start my PhD. What should I do?
---
EDIT: To clarify, this is a question about the "extra" that famous professors may expect from their PhD students. In my case, I went for a writing a paper on a subject of my choice, then submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal and hopefully avoiding desk-rejection. It feels like a huge task, but how to do it is not really the issue at hand. I would happily have presented at a major conference instead, but the conference I was accepted to did not manage to move online. A couple editors from reputable journals encouraged me to submit a paper as a master’s student, so I assumed it was a tough but realistic thing I could as that little "extra" for my supervisor.
For context, I studied in France and my supervisor is in/from Northern Europe. My field is in the social sciences.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know what field you're in, but in mine, writing such a paper would be viewed as unnecessary and perhaps a bit strange. You seem to feel that you don't deserve your place with this supervisor, and so you need to prove your worth, or impress them, by writing a paper. This is unecessary, as you have already impressed them with your project idea and PhD application. They would not have taken you on as a student otherwise. Along these lines, you might want to search the term "impostor syndrome", both on this site and on Google.
"I am exhausted...". The last thing you need to be doing right now is writing an unnecessary paper with no help from anyone. A PhD is a several-year-long marathon, and you will need all your energy and stamina to complete it. Take a break, rest and recharge before you start. This will have a far greater benefit to your PhD, and accordingly to your relationship with your supervisor, than writing a paper.
Once you have started the PhD, show your current paper draft to your supervisor and work on it together. The paper will be much better for it. Again, this is field dependent, but in mine it would be extremely rare for a beginning PhD student to be capable of writing a publishable paper entirely on their own. You may be underestimating the challenge. This is something that your supervisor will help you with.
But for now, have a holiday, and celebrate your success at being accepted for a PhD with a great supervisor!
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: *Disclaimer:* Customs and individual preferences can differ, and this is my best guess.
I wouldn't recommend that you show particular deference to your advisor, just because he is famous. Be respectful and polite of course, and deferential to some extent, but it's not necessary to be more so than if your advisor was lesser-known.
I wouldn't recommend reminding him of his own username_2 status. He is well aware of it already. He will be constantly reminded of this, by the large number of people asking him for recommendation letters, for advice, for input on this or that, wanting to show off their papers to him, etc.
When "he said a few times that he does not need me to do that right now", my best guess is that you should take him at his word. If you have time and energy to spare, you might do some background reading related to the topic of your thesis; this might help you get off to a strong start. Alternatively, you say you are exhausted, so a break might do you a world of good.
Congratulations and good luck!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: First of all, Well done and Good luck mate! I hope you make full use of this opportunity.
Secondly, don't be that cautious or THAT MUCH courteous. As you have said that your professor does not care much about what others think of him. Actually, most of the high-profile username_2s (at least in my humble opinion) think that way. This humbleness, coupled with excessive hard work, take them to the high levels.
They are usually highly professional as well. This is evident in your case as he has himself told you not to do any work because you are not bound to him. It is a give-and-take world mate! You will give him good publications and he will give you good supervision. The rest is being HUMAN - i.e. excelling at everything, be it one's profession or be it one's behaviour. If he is excellent in what he does, plus in his conduct and actions, it shows he is a nice human being. What else can you do to a nice human being than return him the respect, and be nice to other humans imitating him!
The few ways you can give him respect is to be humble yourself, be respectful to him, try to do as much hard work as you can, and later guide the junior researchers that join his lab. Maybe write a few research grants in the third year of your Ph.D. for him. Every now and then giving a few gifts, like a souvenir when you go to any international conferences will also be good.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I have worked with supervisors who are very humble while successful to those who are extremely egoistic due to their accomplishments. In my personal opinion, it is not wise to give Godly status to any person. He is your PhD supervisor, a famous one, but there are thousands of famous people in this world. And fame is subjective. Be professional, be polite and show respect. Do not overdo it as it might cause following issues.
Your colleagues will show distrust in you if you eulogized him, especially if they have a poor relationship with him. By keeping it completely professional you will less likely belong to a specific group in your lab. Same is with other potential supervisors and co-supervisors.
The 3 year PhD journey is not small. There will be ups and downs and without a doubt, there will be times when you will feel poorly treated or exploited. Those time will feel more awful if it comes from the same person who you eulogized.
Most importantly, you must keep your research above person. Write a paper because it needs to be written. Because you want to convey your findings to the community. Not because you wish to impress your supervisor or prove to yourself that you are worthy of doing research. You would end up doing a poor job in your research with that mindset.
You supervisor is just an ordinary human being who did some good research work. There are millions like him. And in a few years, you could be one too.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: Even though you have not indicated where your Ph.D. studies are going to be, it is clear from your description of your advisor's behavior that he is not expecting special deference to him.
I would say that the way to show him respect is to trust him when he says "don't do that." Then learn as much as you can in the program, and accomplish great things in your career. That is what he ultimately wants from you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Best way to show your gratitude and respect would be to do good/great work during this program. Show that he made the right choice.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: This is very dependent on your cultural environment (country) and field of studies. In my field and part of the world (Geology, Western cultures) the level of visible marks of respect between student and advisor is very limited - of course, this probably has to do with the fact that during your first field season, you're likely to see your advisor dripping wet half naked out of the shower, covered in mud at the end of a field day or pissed after a beer evening...
This does not mean there is no scientific or professional respect, of course - there is a lot of it- it is not just expressed in very formal ways, and it is routine for geology students to be on first name basis with their supervisor, nearly immediately. And there is certainly a tendency for outside marks or respect to actually decrease with supervisor's reputation (the best do not need to be "Sir-ed" to know that they are respected, those who need the formal respect are more likely than not unsure about their own status).
Now I'm bringing this up as a somewhat extreme example to demonstrate that things can, and do widely differ between communities and countries, so my answer is probably useless to you! :-)
Surely, as username_6 pointed out, the best way is to do good work and good science. At the end of the day (or the career), a top username_2s will be judged as much by his own achievements than the quality of his students, and the day I'll retire, I'd love to be able to say "yup, I was the PhD supervisor of so-and-so" ....
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: For completeness, one might mention that there exists a type of publication venue explicitly designed to have contributions that honor an influential researcher: [Festschrift](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festschrift). Festschriften are usually bound to a certain event like the celebration a distinguished birthday, like 50 or 60, or the decease of the researcher (in case of which one uses the term ''Gedenkschrift'' instead).
So, you might stash your idea, keep in contact with your professor's other students, and later dig out the idea when the time for it has come.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Congratulations! It sounds like your work has already impressed your new supervisor. And after so many years of working for top grades in your undergrad and Master’s, you naturally want to know how to do the same in your PhD.
Here’s the thing: you can’t, not exactly. In the world of research there is usually no unambiguous "top of the class", no one list of achievements that all the best students are expected to aim for.
As a PhD student you will have a project, and over time you’ll get feedback from your supervisor on how you’re doing. From your description, a committee of experts have already expressed their confidence that completing the degree is well within your abilities. There is no scale to measure "how well" you complete it.
After two previous degrees it's a confusing transition, and it's common for students to struggle with this throughout their PhD. I’m sure that astronat is spot on when she invites you to search for information on impostor syndrome, and to take a break. I would also say you’re already going in exactly the right direction by setting achievable goals for yourself: you chose for yourself the target of working with your PhD supervisor, and you got there!
If you want to set yourself some extra targets now, no-one can stop you. But it really sounds like there is nothing more you need to do except recover from all your effort so far. When there is, someone ought to tell you (and not in code, but in plain language).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: One tangible thing that could do is to nominate your supervisor/advisor for an award if you feel they have done an exemplary job. In my field there are awards for mentorship, research, etc. Sometimes these require a reference letter, which is a significant amount of work, and your supervisor would surely appreciate that.
Edit:
I agree with the other answers cautioning against prematurely elevating a supervisor before you actually being working with them. Like @username_8's suggestion with regard to Festschrift, just keep in mind the possibility of award nomination as you progress.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_11: >
> he keeps blushing
>
>
>
Simple answer. You are embarrassing him. No-one wants to be embarrassed. Stop doing it and behave normally.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/20
| 941
| 4,128
|
<issue_start>username_0: Consider a course (say machine learning). Professors attend to deal with a theoretical part and then does not involve in the coding part.
The task of handling the coding part is left to the TAs of the course.
What is the reason behind this?
I am asking this question because I personally feel that dealing with a theoretical part does not need any expertise in the coding part. But coding part expects expertise in both the areas. (Why difficult part is assigned to TAs?). Am I wrong anywhere?<issue_comment>username_1: First, I would challenge your assumptions that professors are not involved in the coding part. Even if they are not directly involved in *delivering* the labs, many professors are in fact involved in *designing* the lab classes, including problems that are offered to students. Sometimes professors also include suggestions on how to deal with most common learning obstacles, how to respond to most common questions, and which hints to give at which situations. Professors also design assessment problems and the marking scheme, i.e. instruct TAs onhow to evaluate the codes submitted by students. To summarise, there is a lot of work behind the scenes, which is Professor's responsibility.
Designing the course requires a lot of high-level expertise and understanding of the subject. It takes certain mastery to structure the material and arrange it in a way which keeps students involved, interested, and appropriately challenged along the course. To design a course which runs smoothly, professors have to create a sequence of effective teaching events which spans several weeks / months and involves tens / hundreds of students. TAs usually are given precise instructions for each class and plan how to effectively discuss the given problem in a small(er) tutorial group, or how to answer questions of a single student. Although this work also requires some creativity, it's more scoped and therefore easier to plan and prepare to.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think your question extends beyond programming-related courses and also applies to virtually any course with a significant hands-on laboratory component (think chemistry labs, biology labs, physics labs, etc).
The main reason that TAs or lab instructors are used in these subjects is because hands-on instruction does not scale as well as lecture-style instruction. A professor can easily lecture about an algorithm to hundreds of students at the same time. But can the professor also help hundreds of students implement and debug the algorithm on their computers? Not very efficiently.
This is why TAs and lab instructors are hired. They can provide more individualized guidance and instruction with hands-on learning than a single professor probably ever could, and they are much cheaper.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: As suggested by [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/151980/124760) designing and teaching a course requires expertise. Therefore, TAs do not take lectures since they are not very experienced in teaching. This leaves us with the remaining work that must be distributed to decrease the workload on an instructor. Therefore, the TAs are assigned the coding and grading part. Generally, these assignments are focused on a specific concept so a TA do not need to know everything about the course.
---
Note: Sometimes professors also ask TAs to take a tutorial or a small lecture so that they can acquire some teaching experience and skills. I am lucky that professors in my department do so.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: TAs exist because they are cheaper than professors.
username_2 wrote
>
> The main reason that TAs or lab instructors are used in these subjects is because hands-on instruction does not scale as well as lecture-style instruction.
>
>
>
This is a euphemistic way of saying TAs are cheaper.
Sometimes it is claimed that TAs exist so that the TAs can learn to teach. This is not true. They exist because they are cheaper. Sometimes they do learn something about teaching, and this may be part of their compensation.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/20
| 425
| 1,828
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I have been asked by a journal to review an article as a referee. I did it within 3 days, and the very next day another mail came asking me to review another article. I was reviewing it when, aft after 2 days, the editor sent me an email saying I don't need to review it anymore. What might be the reasons behind this?<issue_comment>username_1: There are many possible reasons. Perhaps the author(s) withdrew it. Perhaps the editor made a decision somehow, though given the time, probably a reject.
Of course, you can ask the editor, and you may or may not get a real reason.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The most likely explanation: The editor invited too many reviewers, with the expectation that most of them would decline. Other reviewers submitted their review before you, so your review was no longer needed.
It is like an overbooked flight.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The editor hastily selected reviewers, and after the fact encountered information or 'came to a realization' that having you review the article would constitute a conflict of interest. This may be real or perceived. I believe, however, this would be a less likely scenario than those suggested in the other answers above.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Another explanation: The editor forgot that they had already asked you for a review a short while ago. Realizing this and not wanting to burden you twice in a short time, they paddled back.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: Another review was submitted that left the editor in no doubt that the paper should be rejected (typically for reasons where there is no room for a different opinion, e.g. incontrovertible evidence of plagiarism, duplicate submission, a fatal flaw in the problem definition, etc).
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/21
| 1,000
| 3,872
|
<issue_start>username_0: Based on the following posts:
[Posting master's thesis on arxiv?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/58943/posting-masters-thesis-on-arxiv)
[Should one put their Master's thesis online?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/24201/should-one-put-their-masters-thesis-online)
although my question differs in that my "Master's thesis" was not part of a formal Masters program. Rather it is more of an extensive reading project that I did over the last 10 months under a very well-known advisor in my field through the Fulbright Scholarship. I've a 150+ page review on a topic I think would be of interested to others in my field at my level of knowledge. However it does not contain anything new, and I think this means it has no place on the arXiv. It solely summarizes the inception of a topic from the 1960s, and summarizes a new take on the topic that my adviser uncovered in some seminal work around 2010.
Can I get some input on the pros and cons of posting it on the arxiv/ [inspireHEP](https://inspirehep.net/authors/983328) profile?
Pros:
* easy to send to friends, peers, potential collaborators, and most importantly, potential PhD advisors at my uni
Cons:
* it might look petty/immature<issue_comment>username_1: In my field (cosmology), plenty of researchers and professors post lecture notes on arXiv, and of course many people write and publish review articles which don't contain any new results. So there's no requirement of novelty to post on arXiv.
Whether it looks immature largely depends on the quality of your writing. A poorly written review will not be read, and could reflect badly on you if you continue in academia (employers and grant reviewers will look at your Inspire and/or ADS profile). Bear in mind that you can't remove things from arXiv.
I would highly recommend asking your supervisor about this. They are best placed to tell you whether it's appropriate or not, according to the quality of your work and the conventions in your field. If you don't post on arXiv, you could consider uploading the pdf to your own website, a public github repository, google drive or similar. Then you can still share the link with interested people.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Putting it online usually cannot hurt, but do not expect many people to read it. I would only recommend against putting it online when you know larger flaws.
Minor flaws should be not big problem, because people know that a masters thesis is one of your first works and probably not perfect. And they probably know that their own master thesis is less important than their recent works as well.
You write
>
> However it **does not contain anything new**, and I think this means it has no place on the arXiv. It solely summarizes the inception of a topic from the 1960s, and **summarizes a new take on the topic that my adviser uncovered** in some seminal work around 2010.
>
>
>
Reading this, I would think you and your advisor actually did write about something new. Maybe not a major breakthrough, but you're thinking about putting it on arXiv and not about submitting it to nature.
It reads a bit like you are thinking the actual work could be the work of your advisor. But when it was his idea and your work to actually work on it, verify it and write it down, you still would be the main contributor and the first author on a paper.
Having a great idea justifies being an author (often the last author), but the actual work was delegated to you and the quality of the work was good enough to earn you a masters degree.
So I do not think you have anything to lose. But I am not sure if you will gain much, so I would just do what I am feeling what's right. Given your question, you seem to like to upload it, but when you are doubting it too much you do not have to.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/07/21
| 954
| 3,981
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an International Student perusing a Masters in Actuarial Science in the US. I did my Bachelors here in the US (Actuarial Science), worked for 2 years as an Actuarial Analyst in the US. I am doing my Masters now with emphasis on AI (I could not get into an AI program for Masters due to my circumstances, so this is the closest I could get).
I want to continue with AI and I am looking into a PhD in the N.America or Europe. I am excited about Europe (never been there), but feel N.America will be a safer bet. Which location would be better to do my PhD in, if I am looking at eventually migrating and getting into tech entrepreneurship?<issue_comment>username_1: I am afraid your question reveals a rather superficial attitude to the matter. You are talking about the whole *continents* as places for "better PhD" and mention "AI" as a field you are interested in. A fairly standard textbook on AI sitting on my shelf is nearly 1200 pages long, so how can one judge a *continent* for being a better place for studying every single topic listed in this book?
You are going to spend several years doing your PhD. So, first go spend at least several days (or, better, weeks) thinking harder what exactly are you interested in. One good starting point would be to think first what you are good at right now. Then, figure out good publications in this area (Google Scholar is your friend) and find out which labs they come from. These labs are the places of your interest, and they might pop up in quite unlikely places (though, granted, in most cases they don't come as a surprise).
Then, of course, there is a question of a job market, but I believe people coming from reputable labs are able to find a job. In any case, this isn't a question of your immediate future.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You are the best and should be the only person to answer this question. If I were in your shoes I would consider these points.
First, you need to answer the question: what is the objective of you pursuing a PhD degree?
Do you wish to become a professor while trying to get into tech entrepreneurship? Do you wish to invent/discover something unique and transformative? Do you wish to get overseas experience and eventually come back to your original country?
Once you nail down your objective, you need to look at the associated issues. For example, if you wish to migrate, then getting a citizenship/visa in the continent/country of your choice must be first considered. It is not straightforward and it is also not something which is consistent with time.
Second, are you looking for funding or are you self-funded? That will limit your choices to specific universities and groups.
Third, and perhaps, most importantly, you need to identify the area of your choice. Not all universities offer all kinds of research directions. You need to determine what area in AI appeals to you. In fact, this should be the motivation for your PhD and determine the objective. Anything else and you will surely struggle to do a good job with your research.
In my personal opinion, you must also consider you compatibility with potential supervisors. You must align your objectives with the expectations with him or her. Only then will your journey be smooth. You say you want to do tech entrepreneurship. Not all research groups will enable you to do that. Most of the groups consist of academicians whose main goal is to publish and grow in their field, not pursue business opportunities by developing technologies.
This is a serious business and one must give a lot of thought to it. If you want to be a tech entrepreneur, then do you really wish to wait for 3 years (7 years in US) while doing a PhD? PhD will entail a number of things which does not align with that goal. Would you be motivated enough to do it?
As you answer these questions, you will find that choice between continents is too high level a question to think about.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/21
| 2,008
| 8,379
|
<issue_start>username_0: Many academic positions are advertised for PhD students. Does it make sense to apply for such a position *even if you already have a PhD*, in the hope that they might also consider a post-doc instead? Why would the hiring institution *not* want a post-doc instead of a PhD student? Why would a prospective post-doc *not* want such a position?
In case somebody wonders why I'm asking:
* Often, there are many more projects advertised for prospective PhD students than for prospective post-docs.
* Many of the projects seem to be scientifically challenging enough to be interesting also for a post-doc, especially if one is switching fields or completing the project in a shorter time frame.
* I cannot see why institutions would be opposed to hiring post-docs instead of PhD students, considering the much higher qualification they bring. I can imagine that there are some limitations attached to funding, though.
For context, I am in an engineering / computer science field in Europe, where PhD and post-doc positions offer comparable salaries.<issue_comment>username_1: General answer: `Where there's a will there's a way`. If the PI/lab is interested in your talent or proposal, there is a chance they will make it work.
I think you are correct noticing that advertisement for position means they need something. And you as postdoc can fill the gap. The issues is that PhD positions often seems to be funded from different sources than postdoc positions.
That being said, you can only try to reach out. There is nothing you can lose.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Does it make sense to apply for such a position even if you already have a PhD, in the hope that they might also consider a post-doc instead?
>
>
>
Yes, in general, this makes sense, because there is a chance that the position can be converted into a postdoc position. Whether that's indeed the case will depend on the nature of the funding. In some cases it will be possible, in others not.
Therefore, before you apply, it's best to contact the PI and ask them if such conversion is possible.
Benefits:
1. You are now already on the PI's radar, which is a positive thing if you're a good candidate.
2. The PI might appreciate that you proactively sought contact. That's a good behavior pattern.
3. If the particular position cannot be turned into a postdoc, you will know it earlier and save time for applying and waiting.
Drawbacks:
1. Apparently none.
>
> Why would the hiring institution not want a post-doc instead of a PhD student?
>
>
>
There can be rules, for example, if dedicated funding is allocated for PhD students. I know that this is the case for some positions in Germany. Beyond rules, there can be some benefits in hiring a PhD student. For example, graduated PhD students is a success metric in hiring decisions.
>
> Why would a prospective post-doc not want such a position?
>
>
>
From the perspective of the post-doc, I don't see how the position (if a conversion is possible) would be different than any other post-doc position. This assumes that the institution not tries to lowball your salary somehow because the position was initially meant for a PhD student (which would be a red flag).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: While it might sometimes be possible to convert the funding from a PhD to a postdoc position, in general I don't think it's a good idea to apply as a postdoc for a PhD position. That being said, you can always contact the PI and ask whether they would have another position for a postdoc.
>
> * Often, there are many more projects advertised for prospective PhD students than for prospective post-docs.
>
>
>
This is due to several reasons:
* First not every PhD student continues as a postdoc: a lot of them go to industry, some of them quit or fail... and some of them achieve a mediocre PhD which doesn't allow them to get a postdoc job. So mathematically there must be more PhD positions than postdoc positions: if say only 20% of PhDs continue as postdocs, there must be roughly 5 times more PhD positions offered than postdoc ones.
* Universities have a duty to teach students, they don't have a duty to hire temporary research staff. The number of PhD students taught is an important target indicator for an institution, whereas the number of postdocs is more a result of their success at grant applications.
>
> * Many of the projects seem to be scientifically challenging enough to be interesting also for a post-doc, especially if one is switching fields or completing the project in a shorter time frame.
> * I cannot see why institutions would be opposed to hiring post-docs instead of PhD students, considering the much higher qualification they bring. I can imagine that there are some limitations attached to funding, though.
>
>
>
I've heard the very vague estimation that one year of postdoc is equivalent to 3 years of PhD in terms of research productivity (incidentally, they are often paid around 3 times more in countries where the PhD is a grant). There's some truth to the idea that a postdoc can do the same job as a PhD faster.
However there are also important differences which can make a PI choose a PhD rather than a postdoc:
* a PhD topic can be more prospective and evolve over time.
* the PI might want the PhD to test their own research ideas, so they want to supervise the work closely. On the contrary, a postdoc is usually more independent.
* supervising PhDs is a must to advance their career.
* co-supervising a PhD student is a common way to start a collaboration with a colleague, whereas a postdoc doesn't need much supervision (if any).
It's important to understand that universities are not like companies, they are not looking for the best quality/price ratio for a task. The goal of funding a PhD is not only to answer a research question, it's also to teach somebody how to do research so that they can contribute to society later. This is why the main reason for an institution to hire PhD students is simply that it's an essential part of their mission, that's why they receive public money. This is also why there are indeed very often limitations on the funding, simply because a lot of PhD funding comes from national or international programs meant to increase research capacity by training researchers.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Things are going to differ country to country, field to field and situation to situation but often PhD studentships are funded by outside funding bodies (this is not the case in the US interestingly). Those funding bodies are not primarily interested in the research that is produced from a PhD project, but in the education provided. All those PhD students that don't go on to become Postdocs? Many of them go and use their PhD in industry, which is an economic boost.
Most PIs I know would indeed rather have a postdoc than a student, but in the end its not the PI that controls the money or the priorities, its whoever is providing the funding.
That said sometimes a PI might have a non-externally funded position, or funding from a more fungible source. Normally they would aleady be advertising a postdoc positions, but I have known a PI convert 3 years of a PhD student into 1 year of postdoc (postdocs cost 3x as much as PhDs here) before.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: It does not make any sense, at least in Europe. Do not know, maybe it is different somewhere else. Do not waste the paper on such an application, protect the planet.
While it is possible to have a very naive view that more competence and experience always makes the better candidate, scientific world also has many other restrictions directed against "professional PhD students". I remember trying this really hard out of desperation, many years ago. At that time I already had post doctoral positions in leading universities, publications in good journals, but eventually was forced to yield and go to the industry, like everybody does. At the same time, people right from my university (same master degree, same specialty, very comparable grades) where finding PhD positions no problem.
The only way how it could possibly work is if the professor has multiple options and can convert a PhD grant into something that suits for you. But I have never seen this happening.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/21
| 5,715
| 23,894
|
<issue_start>username_0: I did my Bachelor's Degree in physics in the Middle East, graduating with the highest honors and an academic transcript full of A's. I was accepted to pursue my graduate studies in one of the best universities in Germany. I was able to score above the minimum required score to be admitted to the final exams. My performance was awful in the exams, even though I studied very hard.
I try not to compare myself with my colleagues but they are much better than me, or at least I believe this is what my professors might be thinking. Is this something normal because I am studying in a different country now? Or because graduate school is meant to be that hard? Does it get better? Does anyone have any advice to survive graduate school?
Clarifications:
* Language was not a problem (the course is taught in English, which I understand perfectly, though it is not my first language)
* Due to the pandemic, the teaching was suboptimal, and the material was so dense that I did not have time to prove every equation and apply every concept.<issue_comment>username_1: You ask a number of questions, but i'll focus on the title. The graduate committee accepted you as a student because they were willing to take a risk that you would be able to do well in the program. So you already have some people that think you're able to do it, so that's positive.
Graduate school, for most people, is not a walk in the park, and comparing your performance to your peers is a habit you should try to get out of. Imagine if <NAME>'s colleagues always measured their value up against his, they probably would (and should) go mad.
What you are tasked with is reflecting on why you did poorly. Perhaps what led you to success in undergraduate will not lend you success in graduate school, in which case, you may need to tailor your attitudes and habits accordingly. It sounds like you are adjusting to a new sphere of learning and you will need to be honest with yourself in why it is that you did poorly. Perhaps what you think 'studying hard' is, is wrong for your new context, perhaps you need to study more efficiently. Perhaps you didn't understand the material or lacked the proper background, in which case, you will need to figure out a way to catch up. It appears that 'studying hard' didn't work for you, so you'd be best to dissect your definition of 'studying hard' and approach your studies from a new mode of thought.
There is no real solution to your problem apart from genuine reflection, persistence, patience, seeking help from your professors when you are encountering difficulties with the material, and most importantly, resiliency in the face of adversity.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I understand your predicament. Things do not go as expected, more often than not. And when things are on the decline it is disappointing.
If I were in your shoes and were feeling really down, I would take a very short break and contemplate.
You say you worked hard. But you did not get results. It means what you consider as studying is probably not the right way. Perhaps, your notion of learning is different than what it should be. You need to figure that out. It is possible that some of the fundamentals which you thought you knew well are not that clear to you and you are not able to build upon those. You need to figure it out and revisit them carefully.
You could revisit your exam and think about each question carefully. Which particular concept's lack of understanding rendered you unable to answer the question effectively? What was the ideal solution and what thought process was required to arrive at it, but your mind could not help you? What steps must be taken to sharpen yourself?
When you say you worked hard, are saying that by considering the amount of time you spent on study table or the amount of time you actually spent concentrating? Think about that.
Do not worry about what your professors think or how good your colleagues are. You can still be the best in the world in what you wish to do.
Something is definitely wrong. Find it out. Fix it. Work harder and you will taste success. Best of luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think now is a good time to do some serious soul-searching.
You write that you scored straight A's at a university in the Middle East, before moving to one of the best universities in Germany where you did much worse, relatively speaking. By itself this isn't surprising: when you moved from high school to undergraduate, your competition got stiffer, because the not-so-good students dropped out and never went to university. Similarly, when you move from undergraduate to graduate, and especially if you move to a top institution, your competition gets stiffer. If you stay in academia, when you move from graduate to postdoc it will get even stiffer, and stiffer still when you move from postdoc to tenure-track positions.
What happened means that you are currently not as good as your peers - which is certainly not a good sign, even though it's not fatal.
Figuring out why you did so badly is the #1 priority. There could be all sorts of reasons. "The material was very dense so I did not have enough time to prove every equation and apply every concept to fully understand them" is not good enough - your peers dealt with the same material yet learned it better than you. Distance learning is also not good enough, since presumably your peers dealt with the same issues and still learned it better than you. What could be good enough then? Some examples:
* Classes taught in English when your main language is something else. If this is the case, it should get easier as you get more proficient with English.
* Your peers had a more solid foundation than you. For example, maybe you needed to know X technique to attack Y problem, and the professor assumed everyone knows X (and indeed your peers do, although you never encountered it). If this is the case, then you should close the gap with your peers after mastering the material.
* You underestimated how hard graduate school is, thinking you'll be held to the same standards as your undergraduate experience (this could also apply if your current institution has much higher standards than your former one). If this is the case, you need to raise your game, but that is something you know you can accomplish.
* You spent a lot of time figuring out one-off events that have no relation to class. For example, say you rented a room, got into a dispute with the landlord, and the dispute went to court. This distracted you and meant you had less time to study. If this is the case, since it is a one-off event, your performance should improve.
* Of course there's also the possibility that your peers are smarter/better than you. It's virtually inevitable that someone out there will be smarter/better than you in every field of human endeavor. If this is the case, you might be able to get some indication of this by working together with them with e.g. homework assignments.
After figuring out what the explanation is, you can move on to figuring out what to do about it. If the problem is fixable, then fix it. If it is not fixable - which would be the case if they're smarter than you - then figure out what you *want* to do. [Being worse than your peers isn't a death sentence](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/87668/how-do-you-come-to-terms-with-the-fact-that-you-might-never-be-among-the-best-in), but you might want to adjust your expectations. For example, perhaps topping your graduate class is unrealistic, but graduating is still an achievement, and you can still find interesting jobs afterwards even if you can't become a professor.
tl; dr: figure out why you did poorly. Be brutally honest. Then figure out what to do about it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Being the worst in your grad student peer group is an ideal situation.
What is the point of attending any school? Of course, the purpose is to learn.
When you are leaning, it is far better to be surrounded by peers who are more talented than you. This way, you can learn from them. Get with everyone who is better than you at something, and learn what you can.
If you were at a University where you didn't learn anything, why bother to go?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Students perspective here:
**Grades**
Germany and Austria are countries where bad grades are possible and commonly accepted. Getting a C or D is what > 50% of the students usually get in the hard subjects. Other countries (e.g. UK) have more of an "if you pass, you pass with at least a B" approach. This can be devastating for new students.
* So check back with your peers and see what grades they really got. If everyone got an A or B, then you need to apply the other answers.
**Different country**
Even a different university can be a hard change. Most of your peers will have received their bachelors degree from the same university, maybe even a bachelors program that is the logical precursor of your master's program.
They will have learned a lot of specific things that may be needed for the master's program. The professors might even assume that they have learned these concepts.
* They might have more courses with focus on X, while your university focused on Y.
* Their courses might allocate 3 ECTS, but are more like 6 ECTS courses, something that very commonly happens in STEM studies. If your university respected time constraints, you will be at a disadvantage.
**Graduate school is meant to be that hard**
In my experience, if you are not especially gifted *and* determined / efficient then yes, graduate school IS hard. I have to work a lot, my peers have to work a lot. There are some exceptions, but these are really outstanding students who have a very special relationship with math and logical thinking. Expect to work 60 hours a week to get done in time. Or get more efficient, which is even harder in the beginning.
**Does it get better**
No and yes. You get used to it, but my struggle is constant. In your case, I assume that it will get better. Change of location, change of program, change of people... All this will become the new normal, and you will do just fine.
**Any advice to survive graduate school?**
* Get organized
+ Set up a plan, use a calendar to allocate time for learning, and stick to that calendar.
+ Set up a list of things to do in the morning, and try to do these things. Make small, attainable goals for these lists (like: solve equation X, read paper Y, write short summary on theorem B).
* Find friends and study partners
+ Learning is hard, a group that suffers with you makes it so much more enjoyable. Try to find a group of people that likes to learn on campus / in a cafe that is a little over your current skillset. Expect to prove yourself in form of contributions (e.g. solve homework tasks, explain concepts). Especially in the beginning, try to prepare something others might not have solved yet, or show attempts and reasoning of your solutions. This will make you accepted as a valuable member and your progress will be **much** faster.
+ This is hard during Corona times, but maybe use the class chat to propose a common Facebook / Slack / Mattermost / collaboration tool of your choice to communicate outside of class about problems. Best case is that people will join and ask for help, you help them and learn. Show *initiative*, it will be recognized.
* Find out about existing online forums for this course. Most of the time there are some kinds of Wikis and Forums that already exist.
* Communicate with your professors about hard problems. In class, ask questions. Out of class, write mails. Attach your attempts and reasoning, much like when asking a question on Stackoverflow. You will learn a lot while doing it, often solving a problem in the process (because, who wants to ask a bad question :P).
+ Make yourself known. If they know you they, will care. They will have a face to the name, and they will know that you are trying hard. This requires a lot of effort, because you don't want to be the person that asks dumb questions. You want to be the person that may ask dumb questions but always shows good, constructive effort on solving it first.
* **Don't worry.** If you pass, you pass. Try to climb the bell curve of grade distribution, but keep in mind that you are in a hard program and this will be acknowledged by future employers and professors.
* **You are not alone.** There are other students that struggle. Find them, and vent with them. Don't let them drag you down to "*we can't do anything about it anyways, so why try*", but sometimes a good rant about how hard and unfair everything is, is just what one needs (Do such things in person, no one wants leaked chat protocols ;-))
* Follow the advice of the other comments about finding the culprits of your current struggles.
---
I somewhat like [this book here (free)](https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-77425-1.pdf).
It's not for everyone, but I think it can give some guidance. Don't let yourself be stopped by the PhD in the title, almost everything is applicable for your master's and master's thesis too.
It's very controlling, and maybe sometimes unrealistic but it gave me some guidance when I needed to get out of a big hole I dug for myself.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: Maybe it's the result of a difference in quality between the universities.
==========================================================================
It's possible that you did well in your Middle-Eastern university because it wasn't a very good university. This might be because it was funded by oil magnates that just want their children to have university degrees as a mark of social status, because of shariah religious rules that drive away talented staff, a simple lack of funding because it wasn't located in a wealthy country, or possibly any of a number of possible reasons.
However, when you applied for the university in Germany, you were applying to a top-quality educational institute with the funding expected of a university located in a developed country, and you were competing against students that had previously been educated to a higher standard as a result. As a result of this disparity, you might have ranked relatively lower compared to the other students.
I wouldn't be disheartened, though; even if this is the case, and you did come from a relatively poorer-quality alma mater, you were still the cream of its crop, and that has allowed you to rise to find a position in a higher-quality postgraduate program in a developed nation. If you can complete your new degree, it would be worth much more than your undergraduate degree is, both because of the nature of undergraduate and postgraduate studies, and because it's from a more prestigious institution.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Background: Some time ago, I've been working at a German university as an assistant in electrical engineering, and we had some students from Arab countries.
Generally, they were much better than the Germans in reproducing content they had learned, but had more difficulties than their colleages in applying that knowledge to the problems at hand. And the university valued knowledge application much higher than knowledge reproduction. So they had a hard time adopting to that different learning style.
Coming back to your question:
It might be that from a different cultural/educational background, you're used to a different style of learning than what the German university expects from you.
My best recommendation would be to seek contact to your professors and your colleage students, to find out what the professors expect / what the other students do differently. Try to find some colleages to form a learning group.
Your colleages are surely not brighter than you, they only have better adopted the learning style that the university expects (they grew up in the same educational system where they are studying now). Most probably, they'd have comparable problems when going to a Middle East university.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_8: I will answer the exact question you asked:
>
> Is it okay to become a student with low grades?
>
>
>
Yes it is. You attend a school to learn - some learn better, some worse.
You attend a school in Germany where tuition is either free or (for non-EU citizens) cheap compared to countries such as the US. There is no miracle, money has to come from somewhere and it comes straight from **my** pocket in the form of taxes.
But this is fine: I strongly believe that any amount of education one receives is good and helps to wider one's mind. This is why I happily pay for others to study.
The grades have zero impact on your **future** life - do not forget that school is just a step towards something you will be doing for the next 40 years (this can be academia, but also industry, ...). So learn and have fun.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: It's hard to identify the root cause for what you're experiencing based on the information you provided, but having been there, I believe you'll find the answer in a few years when you objectively look back at your situation.
This has happened to me twice and I believe there were different root causes. I wonder whether one or both may apply to you too:
* I got accepted into the best university for Computer Science in Spain many years ago. Coming from one of the best high schools in my Latin American city, being top of the class and having passed the access exam, I thought I'd do well. But I struggled to keep up and I often had to resit tests. Why? I believe the examinations and the grading was as rigorous as it was back home, but the academic curriculum back home simply lagged far behind and it was hard to keep up the pace in class when lecturers took for granted that I knew all the basics, but in many cases I didn't.
* A few years later and with real-world experience, I started reading for a master's in Software Engineering at Oxford. This time I didn't struggle to keep up at all, but I did struggle to get more than a "pass" (a mark in the range 50-69). I must've got 2 or so distinctions, and an equal number of failures. Why? The bar is far higher than I was used to back home and in Spain, where getting grades higher than 70 (or equivalent) is pretty common. To get a distinction (70+) at Oxford, in addition to completing the entirety of the assessment correctly and accurately, your solution must also be innovative.
Ultimately, unless you're planning to stay in the academia, your grades won't be relevant once you graduate. So focus more on learning than acing exams.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: I work at a German university with lots of international students, and I can only tell you that the problem you describe is very, very common. We have lots of foreign students who apply with excellent grades, but when they are here they fail. So, you are not the only one.
The reason is that students all over the world get good grades, but they do not learn the same things. They are admitted to a university in a foreign country because of their grades, but nobody asks if they really have the knowledge they need. And unfortunately, you cannot compare the grades of country 1 to the grades of country 2. The syllabes and the ways of learning can be very different. Besides, there are also universities which are simply bad and give good grades without teaching the students what they need to compete with others.
This does not mean that you are not intelligent. You just have to catch up with the others, and this might take some time. First, find out what the core of the problem is. Do the other students have some knowledge you do not have? Or is it your way of learning, are you expected to learn / work more independently? Ask your professors and TAs where your weaknesses are. Try to gain the knowledge that is missing. Do not give up, and do not lose your self-confidence.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: Been there, done that.
First years are a mess for the most coming from middle east, I had seen people with highest distinction scholarships crush and burn fairly regularly. Some of them quit due to financial instability, personal life problems, severe depression etc.
I was never 'top grades', 'highest distinction' student, I was mostly passing and above average in one or two courses etc.
My motto when I came to europe was to study 3 times more than what an average student would. For me the language was also problematic, so you might get away with less. The gap might seem large from time to time, but hey, they are human, just like you are, if they managed, you can manage as well.
I can give you some tips for improving your grades that have a high chance to work from experience:
* Focus more on improving your quality of life than your grades. Two tips:
+ Try not to think about currency difference when doing life expenses, which includes socialising. It is not wasted money on unrelated stuff of your hard working parents or your hard working self, or your hard earned scholarship (because it is never easy in middle east for the most). You are networking, and you *need* that social network for days when you don't know how to do more for an exam or not quite sure how to write to a professor etc.
+ Try doing some sports. Contrary to intellectual stuff, most sports have fairly clear logic: You do them regularly and get better at them by doing so. This would build up your confidence and your initial failures would be less traumatic.
* Ask your peers what they think the professor is expecting, and how they study to respond to it.
* Pick an undergraduate text book from the library and try to understand what an average student is expected to know.
* For written assignments, read your peers' work after the grading session is done. For good papers, this should make clear what you are expected to do with the knowledge presented in class.
* If you know seniors from your country who did the same program, get in touch with them. They can help a lot in terms of what the program is expecting or how one should study for a particular topic. If you don't know anyone, try looking at online thesis repositories and get in touch with those who are pursuing phds. I had never seen a collegue refusing to share their educational experience with his/her compatriot. Do not be afraid to ask them, you might be surprised by their willingness to offer help.
Don't worry it gets better after awhile. Grades are just grades, improve your life , be patient and study regularly, you will see that your grades improve as well. As for "low grade student", as long as you pass, don't concern yourself over it. When all of this is over, you remember what you've learnt during the program and not your grades.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: Most of the answers here are guessing the cause so here is a way for you to see if problem was just a culture shock or new university is just harder:
* compare your current tests with equivalent graduate tests in your old university(for example could you with your current knowledge ace the equivalent test in your old university)
* if possible see how other students from your university do in similarly hard universities
With regards if bad grades are OK: that depends on you personally, and you situation, so it is impossible to answer.
* Do you prefer to be in the bottom 20% of the top university or in top 5% of a weak university?
* Do you want to continue living in Europe/Germany after university(it might be easier to find a job with German degree)
* Do bad grades demotivate you, or motivate you?
* ...
All I can tell you is that it is not uncommon to struggle in graduate school.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/21
| 1,339
| 5,613
|
<issue_start>username_0: Here's my situation: I've want to get into a master's or PhD level program in biomedical engineering. However, the college I go to does not offer a biomedical engineering degree. So, out of the options I was given and at a advice of my advisor, I decided to major in chemical engineering degree.
I pursued research with a professor in the chemical engineering department and was preparing to take the GRE. Once, I got to my actual Chemical engineering courses in the second semester of my sophomore year. I really ended up disliking my courses and not doing well in them (I got mostly Bs and two Cs and it's my fault). I went to my academic advisor for advice on the situation and I was told that the average GPA for the chemical engineering class was a 3.2, and that it's really hard for people to make a high enough GPA in this major to get into graduate school and the my grades are what most people make in the classes.
I don't know if this is the standard for engineering or something but it feels really discouraging to me cause it feels like I can't fix my grades and grind through to get a good enough GPA to just get into graduate school. I like my research, but I'm unable to handle the rigor and intensity of my chemical engineering engineering classes despite reaching out to my professors and my university's tutoring center. I feel like me not liking the major is also a major factor in why I am unable to pass my classes. I will be a junior this year.
Should I just stick it out with this major that I don't like at this point and work harder to keep up my grades since I will be doing BME master's anyway? I really want to get into a good masters program for biomedical engineering, but I really dislike my current major. Would changing majors hurt my graduate school admission chances?<issue_comment>username_1: Changing majors isn't likely to be a factor in itself. When creating a CV or resumé, you can choose what to put in and omit. Ultimately you will want to shine a spotlight on a particular qualification as the proof that you meet the criteria for the particular job (or course in this case). To this end the particular major you have pursued, followed by the grade you achieve, are the most important factors. If you change major you can simply leave out the previous course your pursued.
In my experience a 1.1 or 2.1 or even 2.2 degree in a relevant subject is plenty qualification for a masters (perhaps not a 2.2 for research masters). That's what... about > 3.08 GPA. I'm not privy to your specific circumstances, either in terms of the university you are going to, or the particular course you are attending, but demanding an exceptionally high GPA to qualify for a masters seems unusual to me (unless there's some sort of scholarship element)
The issues with changing course stem from monetary concerns and those relating to motivation. Going back to scratch in terms of most of your degree is a big ask, and you would be wise to work out in advance if it's something you will be prepared for, both mentally and financially. A degree with an average GPA is infinitely better than a hypothetical degree with an excellent GPA that never gets finished. On the flip side if you don't think it's likely that you will be able to finish the current major you are doing (either because you find it too difficult or just not enjoyable enough) then you have nothing to lose by switching.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: TLDR: You should switch majors
Engineering (of any kind) is hard. If you are excited about it and love it, then putting in the work is possible. But if you hate the classes, you are going to find it very hard to be motivated enough to do the work needed to get As.
And you do want As for grad school. One bad semester won't kill your grad school chances. Four more bad semesters in a row will.
Either Electrical or Mechanical are both good starting points for BME (just as good as if not better than Chemical). Pick whichever you suits you best and switch.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Changing majors is actually more or less a good thing when it comes to graduate. It's actually more common than you think, with some people changing major in the middle of their undergrad career, between undergraduate and graduate, or even maybe during graduate studies itself. It's a sign that you know what you like and you don't like, which is a good thing when you eventually apply for graduate school. And if you know what you want to study for graduate school, you might as well get a head start while you still can, and it will also be a good thing to explain if graduate schools question your lower grades in ChemE, especially if you experience more success as a BME major.
The only issues that this will present here, is how much of the undergraduate curriculum for BME you would be able to cover, as you noted you would be a junior when transferring in. Is there any of the chemical engineering coursework that would transfer to satisfy requirements for the BME major? Since you have two years left, assuming you want to graduate within the four years, would you be able to satisfy all the BME degree requirements, as well as gain research experience or an interest into a specific subfield (through electives) by the time you graduate? You may find yourself needing to take a extra semester or two in order to finish the requirements of your new major.
TLDR: If you feel you would be happier in the new major, and you can do so with more success, I would go for it and change to the BME major. Hope this helps.
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/22
| 649
| 2,734
|
<issue_start>username_0: If I receive a PhD offer, is it typically considered acceptable or possible to defer the start of the PhD by, say, 2 years, for a job and then join the PhD program without having to reapply?<issue_comment>username_1: You may have to reapply as they may give the opportunity to someone else.
Receiving an offer of a place is often a time limited option as they may need the post filled for various reasons that they have.
You need to check with the university that made the offer if they will consider keeping the post open for you.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You should approach the professor you are applying to, or at least admissions department in your university with that question. Usually the competition is quite high for PhD programs, so in their place, I would ask you to reapply.
However, PhD program may be quite personalized, and they can indeed allow you to join without reapplication. It could also be the case that you can do both at the same time, especially if your work and prospect thesis are related: there are plenty of examples of people who managed to do that.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: It depends on the school. Many (but not all) will let you defer by 1 semester. Some will let you defer by 1 year. More than 1 year would be rare but maybe not absolutely impossible. Just ask the school in question about their policies
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: As others have said, this depends on country and discipline, and to some extent on school/department itself. So we can't give you a trustworthy answer.
In places I have known (all North America, various disciplines), it was no problem to defer *admission itself* for up to *one year*, none or very few questions asked, in programs where you had a year or two of coursework to do before settling down to 100% research. It was also not a problem to defer cohort-based, *non-competitive departmental funding*. And instances I knew about, also not a problem for the applicant to *negotiate (separately) deferrals of external funding* they had obtained.
However, *two years* would have been a special case, and subject to discussion. Probably approved for a known candidate whose future advisor, or someone else on faculty, is a strong supporter of them; but not automatic for a barely-known person.
On the flip side, admission into the *research group of a specific advisor may not be deferrable*, except in cases of logistical need (COVID, visas, etc.) That research group may well be expecting someone to start as of a specific date, and not have the flexibility to take more or less people in that and subsequent years. And *competitive internal funding* may likewise not be deferrable.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/22
| 1,484
| 6,155
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to see whether I can publish my undergraduate work after a decade.
**Context:**
This is to support my academic career as I am planning to apply for a PhD program (Biophysics/Chemistry/Structural biology) in the US soon. I do have an MA from a highly ranked Public Ivy (mastered out from PhD due to health issues). I am targetting a few very competitive programs.
The last two years of my career are a bit productive. I got two coauthor papers this year (Angewandte Chemie, Analytical Chemistry). Most probably get two others (Science, Angewandte Chemie). Around 15 conference abstracts published (citable). But on papers, my name is in the middle as I am just a research tech (except conference abstracts where I am the first and presenting author for most).
Thus, I am not satisfied as I don't have any first-author papers. Then I realized that I can publish my undergraduate work.
In my undergraduate research, I synthesized a novel hydroxamic acid hexadentate ligand and then carried out a speciation study of its iron (ІІІ) complexes using UV-Vis spectroscopy. Only one type of ligand-iron (ІІІ) complexes was revealed in spectroscopic studies. Then I was supposed to verify my results by using MD simulation. I have not completed this part. However, I can complete this now.
I did this work a decade ago and only submitted my thesis to fulfill a degree requirement. However, I believed no one synthesized the compound after that.
I am interested to know how to go and determine
1. work is publishable in quality
2. If it is good enough, how should I proceed to finish up the work and publish it?
3. Also, whether I can file a patent for this compound (I can find some useful application for the compound)
Another objective for doing this is to learn the process of publishing a first author paper and process of filing a patent rather than going after any commercial interest.
I got my undergraduate degree in Sri Lanka, and my PI never bothered to publish the work or file for a patent as he does not have an active research group. Moreover, most professors in Sri Lanka are only interested in teaching.
I appreciate any advice on this matter.
---
Update #01
Thank you @buffy
My priority is to get a first author paper out before the 2021 application session starts ( At least submit it). The patent is secondary, but I would like to get it to strengthen my green card application.
The department I work for now helps with patent filing, and they have dedicated staff for that matter.
My biggest issue right now is to find someone that can assess the quality of the work. My current PI is busy and often delay answering to my questions related to current work. So I do not have high hope there.
Also, I am mostly doing biophysics/physical chemistry/analytical chemistry/Biochemistry related work now. Thus regarding this particular work, I am not sure how to judge the quality or which journal to target.
Would it be appropriate to email a few professors that do similar work for guidance?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 02
Thank you @kosmos
I have contacted my supervisor and previous collaborators. I am waiting for their response. I will see where people published similar work and go from there. I am not interested in paying someone to proofread; instead, I would like to get an idea about the quality of the work. My current research is on the modulation of G-Protein–Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) by soft membrane matter. Thus, I have minimal exposure to physical organic chemistry to answer that question myself.<issue_comment>username_1: You may have to reapply as they may give the opportunity to someone else.
Receiving an offer of a place is often a time limited option as they may need the post filled for various reasons that they have.
You need to check with the university that made the offer if they will consider keeping the post open for you.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: You should approach the professor you are applying to, or at least admissions department in your university with that question. Usually the competition is quite high for PhD programs, so in their place, I would ask you to reapply.
However, PhD program may be quite personalized, and they can indeed allow you to join without reapplication. It could also be the case that you can do both at the same time, especially if your work and prospect thesis are related: there are plenty of examples of people who managed to do that.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: It depends on the school. Many (but not all) will let you defer by 1 semester. Some will let you defer by 1 year. More than 1 year would be rare but maybe not absolutely impossible. Just ask the school in question about their policies
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: As others have said, this depends on country and discipline, and to some extent on school/department itself. So we can't give you a trustworthy answer.
In places I have known (all North America, various disciplines), it was no problem to defer *admission itself* for up to *one year*, none or very few questions asked, in programs where you had a year or two of coursework to do before settling down to 100% research. It was also not a problem to defer cohort-based, *non-competitive departmental funding*. And instances I knew about, also not a problem for the applicant to *negotiate (separately) deferrals of external funding* they had obtained.
However, *two years* would have been a special case, and subject to discussion. Probably approved for a known candidate whose future advisor, or someone else on faculty, is a strong supporter of them; but not automatic for a barely-known person.
On the flip side, admission into the *research group of a specific advisor may not be deferrable*, except in cases of logistical need (COVID, visas, etc.) That research group may well be expecting someone to start as of a specific date, and not have the flexibility to take more or less people in that and subsequent years. And *competitive internal funding* may likewise not be deferrable.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/22
| 1,778
| 7,509
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my department, we typically have many more applications for MS/PhD students than we have open positions, so it is a "buyer's market" from the professor's point of view. Each student submits a relatively standard application package of grades, a resume, any awards or trophies from various academic contests, papers or patents they've published, and recommendation letters. Based on this, a short list of students are invited for short (<20 minutes) face-to-face interviews either in person or via teleconference.
My typical questions include:
* what kind of career do you see for yourself after graduation?
* what about my research interests you most?
* explain your particular contribution to your undergrad research project
My problem is that many students look superficially the same, and in the interviews it is difficult to move them beyond standard responses that they know I want to hear. My belief is that this is my fault because I am not asking the right questions. While most of the students I have eventually accepted ended up working out just fine in my group, my error rate is still well above 0%, both in terms of gems I let go and those who were admitted but didn't excel.
In my perfect world I would be able to probe just that one level deeper to separate the wheat from the chaff. Are there any good tips for how, in a 10-20 minute interview, to get a deeper sense of a student beyond their "on paper" appearance?<issue_comment>username_1: When interviewing candidates for industry jobs, I concentrated on two issues:
1. Is the resume accurate, or if inflated how much? A resume is a sales document, and candidates do try to present themselves as favorably as possible, but it should be fundamentally truthful.
2. Can the candidate discuss technical issues in the relevant field?
Everything else is covered by the paperwork.
Fortunately, there is one form of question that can help resolve both issues. Pick a topic, such a research project they claim to have done or a course they did well on, and ask about it. Do they know as much about the topic as the resume indicates, and can they discuss it?
As Buffy suggests in a comment, zero error rate may not be possible. Ultimately, you just have to do your best and accept you will make mistakes.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **Disclaimer**: the following answer assumes that the prospect student will be working in a "collaborative" environment.
As stated in the comments, having the certainty that the chosen student will be the right one is impossible.
That being said, I think that the main purpose of these live interviews is not to assess the *quality* (in terms of skills, knowledge or expertise) of the potential candidates: evaluating the proficiency of the candidate is very difficult in such a short time; you should trust the CV and the reference letters.
On the contrary, your goal should be to understand if the prospect student is a good choice from a **personal** point of view.
"Will I want to work with this person?", "Will this person be capable of blending in with the other people in my lab?", "Will the other people in the department be able to collaborate (if necessary) with this person?": it is questions such as these that you should try to answer with the live interview.
In order to do this, try to ask *unusual* questions that may induce the candidate to reveal his true self. You could even try putting some pressure on him (try asking some specific questions that you know in advance he will not be able to respond) and see how he reacts.
In summary, assuming a 20minutes interview, I would structure it like this:
* First 5 minutes: I will discuss the background of the candidate. The objective is to get the general picture of the student, and put them at ease.
* 5 to 15 minutes: I'll try to get to know their real persona. The candidate should be "warmed up", and this is the perfect time to evaluate their personal behavior and determine if they are fit or not for the role.
* Last 5 minutes: I will ask for their career goals/research objectives and similar long-term plans. This is just to conclude the meeting in a more relaxed way for both parties.
By following a similar structure, the candidate should expect the first and last steps, but the middle (and most important) step will be unknown to him.
As for what questions to ask in the second phase -- they should be domain-specific questions which either fall directly into your area of expertise (and for which very few people know the right answer), or more open questions for which no real answer exists (yet). You can start with an "easy" question, and then elaborate a discussion that will end with one of the two options I provided.
Remember: the goal here is *not* to determine the student's preparation, but gauge their ability to deal with unforeseen circumstances.
Finally, these answers in another site may be useful to you:
* [Is stress interview a red flag when deciding whether to accept the offer?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/69734/is-stress-interview-a-red-flag-when-deciding-whether-to-accept-the-offer)
* [Got into a (technical) argument with my interviewer - should I apologize?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/99966/got-into-a-technical-argument-with-my-interviewer-should-i-apologize)
* [As an interviewee, how to handle situations where the interviewer is unprepared or asking the wrong questions?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/57460/as-an-interviewee-how-to-handle-situations-where-the-interviewer-is-unprepared)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think this problem is more or less insoluble. But here are some things I look out for:
* I always ask candidates to give a 5 minute presentation about a research project they have done. While there is a risk that this bias' against students who have had fewer research opportunities, all accredited degrees in my field should include a capstone project with at least some research component. The key here is that you are not looking at the quality of the results, but the quality of the presentation - in particular, does the candidate understand what they were doing and why (or why the awful project their supervisor made them do made no sense :)). This weeds out about a third of student who either don't or can't communicate an understanding of what they did and why.
* I ask them to describe a recent paper they read. You'll be surprised how many can't bring a paper to mind.
* I ask them why me - this is telling because you get a feel for whether they have read your work and understood it - that is, are they actaully interested in working with you, or did they just send their CV to everyone and anyone.
Rather than allowing you to select the best student, these hopefully allow you to weed out the worst, which I think is probably the best you can do.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: There are some excellent answers here. I'll add my approach.
I select a research paper that is relevant to the project/area I'm looking a PhD candidate for. Relatively entry level difficulty. I give the candidates a week to read the paper and during the interview I ask a few questions:
* What problem is discussed in the paper?
* Why is it important?
* What solution did they propose and why was it better than the past ones?
It reveals to me a lot of things about the way they think, knowledge in the area, critical abilities, etc.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/22
| 1,589
| 6,721
|
<issue_start>username_0: A little background, I'm currently studying a masters in computer science, and I've been wondering about how I should progress my career. I've found myself mostly interested in the research side of Computer Science, and I've been trying to figure out which would be the best steps moving forward.
I've looked into a couple of studentships with some interesting topics out there, but I don't generally see much information on the day-to-day life of a PHD student for this field. I understand each position may be a unique experience but I was wondering if anyone could share any experiences which may help?
Thank you very much in advance, Stay safe.<issue_comment>username_1: When interviewing candidates for industry jobs, I concentrated on two issues:
1. Is the resume accurate, or if inflated how much? A resume is a sales document, and candidates do try to present themselves as favorably as possible, but it should be fundamentally truthful.
2. Can the candidate discuss technical issues in the relevant field?
Everything else is covered by the paperwork.
Fortunately, there is one form of question that can help resolve both issues. Pick a topic, such a research project they claim to have done or a course they did well on, and ask about it. Do they know as much about the topic as the resume indicates, and can they discuss it?
As Buffy suggests in a comment, zero error rate may not be possible. Ultimately, you just have to do your best and accept you will make mistakes.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **Disclaimer**: the following answer assumes that the prospect student will be working in a "collaborative" environment.
As stated in the comments, having the certainty that the chosen student will be the right one is impossible.
That being said, I think that the main purpose of these live interviews is not to assess the *quality* (in terms of skills, knowledge or expertise) of the potential candidates: evaluating the proficiency of the candidate is very difficult in such a short time; you should trust the CV and the reference letters.
On the contrary, your goal should be to understand if the prospect student is a good choice from a **personal** point of view.
"Will I want to work with this person?", "Will this person be capable of blending in with the other people in my lab?", "Will the other people in the department be able to collaborate (if necessary) with this person?": it is questions such as these that you should try to answer with the live interview.
In order to do this, try to ask *unusual* questions that may induce the candidate to reveal his true self. You could even try putting some pressure on him (try asking some specific questions that you know in advance he will not be able to respond) and see how he reacts.
In summary, assuming a 20minutes interview, I would structure it like this:
* First 5 minutes: I will discuss the background of the candidate. The objective is to get the general picture of the student, and put them at ease.
* 5 to 15 minutes: I'll try to get to know their real persona. The candidate should be "warmed up", and this is the perfect time to evaluate their personal behavior and determine if they are fit or not for the role.
* Last 5 minutes: I will ask for their career goals/research objectives and similar long-term plans. This is just to conclude the meeting in a more relaxed way for both parties.
By following a similar structure, the candidate should expect the first and last steps, but the middle (and most important) step will be unknown to him.
As for what questions to ask in the second phase -- they should be domain-specific questions which either fall directly into your area of expertise (and for which very few people know the right answer), or more open questions for which no real answer exists (yet). You can start with an "easy" question, and then elaborate a discussion that will end with one of the two options I provided.
Remember: the goal here is *not* to determine the student's preparation, but gauge their ability to deal with unforeseen circumstances.
Finally, these answers in another site may be useful to you:
* [Is stress interview a red flag when deciding whether to accept the offer?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/69734/is-stress-interview-a-red-flag-when-deciding-whether-to-accept-the-offer)
* [Got into a (technical) argument with my interviewer - should I apologize?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/99966/got-into-a-technical-argument-with-my-interviewer-should-i-apologize)
* [As an interviewee, how to handle situations where the interviewer is unprepared or asking the wrong questions?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/57460/as-an-interviewee-how-to-handle-situations-where-the-interviewer-is-unprepared)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think this problem is more or less insoluble. But here are some things I look out for:
* I always ask candidates to give a 5 minute presentation about a research project they have done. While there is a risk that this bias' against students who have had fewer research opportunities, all accredited degrees in my field should include a capstone project with at least some research component. The key here is that you are not looking at the quality of the results, but the quality of the presentation - in particular, does the candidate understand what they were doing and why (or why the awful project their supervisor made them do made no sense :)). This weeds out about a third of student who either don't or can't communicate an understanding of what they did and why.
* I ask them to describe a recent paper they read. You'll be surprised how many can't bring a paper to mind.
* I ask them why me - this is telling because you get a feel for whether they have read your work and understood it - that is, are they actaully interested in working with you, or did they just send their CV to everyone and anyone.
Rather than allowing you to select the best student, these hopefully allow you to weed out the worst, which I think is probably the best you can do.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: There are some excellent answers here. I'll add my approach.
I select a research paper that is relevant to the project/area I'm looking a PhD candidate for. Relatively entry level difficulty. I give the candidates a week to read the paper and during the interview I ask a few questions:
* What problem is discussed in the paper?
* Why is it important?
* What solution did they propose and why was it better than the past ones?
It reveals to me a lot of things about the way they think, knowledge in the area, critical abilities, etc.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/22
| 847
| 3,745
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a final-year Ph.D. candidate in a physics-oriented field. Over the course of my program, I have developed a postulate which leads to some contradictions with some of the tenets of my field, and I have obtained what I would consider a suitable amount of data which both supports my postulate, and conflicts with the (pre-)existing conclusions.
I am in the process of writing a paper on the matter with my supervisor. While initially supportive of my ideas/work, he has unfortunately seemed to change his mind recently, for a number of reasons which I find questionable. Of note, he has repeatedly stated in writing that the work is unsuitable, because I have failed to "either prove that the postulate is correct, or disprove the existing work" (according to further discussions, he believes that having conflicting data is not *proof* that the existing work is incorrect).
However, in my understanding of the scientific method, it is not possible to prove that my postulate is correct, or that the existing work is strictly incorrect. As I understand it, all I can do is provide data which agrees with what I am trying to say, and which contradicts with what other work has concluded. While I believe that I have done a sufficient amount of work necessary to support my thesis, he is of the opinion that I haven't, and is threatening to withhold granting my degree if I don't meet his expectations.
Perhaps related: he is an engineering professor and as far as I can tell has not published on a postulate before. However, to be fair, neither have I!
My questions are then:
* Assuming I obtained the data in the best possible manner, is my supervisor correct in that I have not reached the required threshold for my work to have suitable academic merit necessary to receive a doctoral degree? (Generally speaking - I am aware that practices may vary depending on location).
* If not, what must I do in order to reach this threshold?
* If so, what can I tell/show him in order to convince his that my work is indeed suitable?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think that anybody can possibly provide an answer without having access to many more details. The precise field matters, how well established the prevailing theories in your field are, how the quality of your data compares to previous work, how the rigor of your arguments compares to other work, etc.
Generally, making these sorts of judgements is what your advisor is for, because he/she has many years of experience in the field.
Now it can happen that your interests and those of your advisor are not perfectly aligned. Your advisor may be too conservative, because he/she does not want to make a mistake. You may be overly aggressive, because you want to get your thesis done.
The question is how to proceed. You could ask your advisor to let you finish a draft, and show it to a third person, an expert in the field (possibly a member of your thesis committee) with no direct interest in the outcome, and who you can trust to keep a confidence.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: You are right about the scientific method.
We cannot comment on the evidence you have not provided. In general, you can demonstrate that evidence is sufficient to disprove a theory with statistical tests.
In physics and related fields, disproving one theory and proposing an alternative is not usually sufficient to obtain a PhD. For tabletop experiments, you would normally conduct at least three related experiments which test different theories. A theorist would develop three related theories. Customs and student achievements vary.
You should have a dissertation committee and you should consult all of them about the quality of your work.
Upvotes: -1
|
2020/07/22
| 677
| 2,115
|
<issue_start>username_0: Before starting my PhD, I was enrolled in a master’s program for one year that I quit once I got accepted to my current PhD program.
What do you think I should write on my CV so as not to give a bad impression to potential employers?
* >
> University A, 2016 to present
>
> B.Sc., University B, 2015
>
>
>
* >
> University A, 2016 to present
>
> MA program, University B, 2015–2016 (quit to start PhD at A)
>
> B.Sc., University B, 2015
>
>
>
* >
> University A, 2016 to present
>
> B.Sc., University B, 2015 (followed by a one-year enrollment in the master’s program)
>
>
>
* something else?<issue_comment>username_1: Your second version seems clearest, but the wording might be "Abandoned on acceptance to doctoral program". And state on the first line that you are in a doctoral program. Give complete years for BSc.
>
> Doctoral Program, University A, 2016 to present
>
> MA Program, University B, 2015–2016 (abandoned on acceptance to doctoral program)
>
> B.Sc., University B, 2013–2015 (or whatever)
>
>
>
Opinion, though. Just make it as clear as possible. One line for each program.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I would suggest something like "left to pursue PhD" rather than "quit" or "abandoned". The explicit meaning is the same, but there is an implicit negativity in quitting or abandoning something.
>
> PhD student, Dept of Rocket Science, University A, 2016 to present (expected Spring 2032)
>
>
> MA student, University B, 2015-2016 (left to pursue PhD)
>
>
> B.Sc. Physics, University B, 2015
>
>
>
(I'd also probably add the program name/degree titles and anticipated graduation date)
In your case, it's a short enough window that you could also probably leave it off without any notice, especially if you are applying to industry positions.
One time to definitely not leave it off is *anything asking for your full academic record* - the cases where this typically applies are in graduate admissions (which likely longer apply to you) and some grant applications (which still could).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/22
| 1,640
| 6,802
|
<issue_start>username_0: I worked very hard on my PhD thesis, and I think it would be cool to have a nicely bound physical copy of it. I’m simply wondering if obtaining one is a common thing to do.<issue_comment>username_1: It's common enough that my program offered everyone 3 copies that they pay for: one each for you, your advisor, and the program itself. You could also have additional ones printed at the same time; I had one made for my parents and grandparents.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Absolutely! I had 5 copies bound - Me, my supervisor, my parents and two for the library (these last two were a requirement).
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I had three personal copies made, although at my own expense, but it was offered as a normal option during the thesis submission paperwork with the graduate division.
In fact, at least one colleague from another university was required to have multiple copies made and submitted to the university library.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: In my old supervisor's office he had a bookshelf with bound physical copies of all of his PhD students theses, so I am assuming the students themselves probably kept physical copies as well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I also had several copies bound. I found a local bookbinder who did a lovely job. It's been over 25 years and I'm still proud of it and glad I had it done.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Absolutely you should get your own personal copy printed and bound! After all that work, you should be able to feel proud every time you look at it for years to come.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Once all three readers approved my Ph.D. thesis, my university required me to submit 3 loose-leaf hardcopies printed on heavy-weight archival-grade (e.g., acid-free) paper. I voluntarily had four additional *bound* hardcopies made of the thesis: One each for myself, my parents, my parents-in-law, and my main advisor. If I remember correctly, the bound copies were typeset on regular-weight regular-quality paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: In the Netherlands, the custom is to publish the thesis as a small book and provide copies to the thesis committee, friends and family. I eventually ended up throwing away a box of copies of mine after ordering too many.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: The requirements depend on the University. In my case, I was only required to submit a single hardcopy as well as a version in pdf.
Any additional copies were a personal choice. At the time I was getting frustrated and only the library copy was bound according to the university's specification. However I had additional copies bound for less (I think about 10£ cheaper a copy) at my former undergraduate university which were given to my supervisors and family. Did I have a copy for myself? I don't even remember anymore... Though I know it would be meaningless given that I have the pdf and can also always get a copy of my own pdf from the "White Rose Grid" where the electronic copy is publicly accessible.
It can be noted, that the custom of publishing a thesis with a proper ISBN as would be done in Germany does NOT exist in the UK.
So this is country specific.
It is (or maybe was, definitely still in 2006) also possible in the UK to have a thesis that is not accessible to the public as it is labelled "commercially sensitive". As a result the library will not give you a copy, however the former supervisor may if they have a copy. (And whether it is truly commercially sensitive is a different discussion.)
So to sum it up:
To get the degree you need only fulfil the requirements of the university.
(For me this was pass the viva, have corrections approved is necessary, 1 hard copy submitted according to university specifications plus the pdf.0
For yourself you can do whatever you want. Print them personally, have them bound as the university copy - differently. Have gilder pages, have no copy - whatever you like. It is your choice.
In addition, easily accessible computer storage was not standard just a few decades ago. Some people would have a copy of their thesis because that was the only way they could easily retain a good copy of it. Today, the digital version is possibly of greater use to the majority of people, so whether you retain a hard copy for yourself is truly your own choice today.
(In my case I also believe I have better books to put on a bookshelf... But hey, nobody can tear a thesis apart better than the original author and life has, unfortunately, carried me out of the academic sphere into industry. Still, I am at present happy with my job so I shouldn't complain and who knows what the future holds. Anyway, I'm rambling now and should better stop ;))
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: By the time I got around to defending, my university and program only required electronic submission (this had changed in the final year or two of my program). I was a lazy and cheap grad student who was already working a full-time job, and so I never got around to having hardbound copies produced. I was rude, so nobody got a hardbound version. Everybody got a review copy on paper that I bound myself using that [plastic comb binding](https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-comb-binding.htm) system, which I could do because my job had one of the machines and the supplies and was happy to supply them if it meant I graduated sooner. I still feel a bit guilty about not doing it whenever the subject comes up. Not even my advisor got a properly bound one.
UMI/ProQuest should have a copy of my dissertation online if somebody wants it, and I can still build it from LaTeX and image sources if someone asks me directly. I'd be happy to just give someone a copy if they asked since I think the build procedure Just Works™. It's also, supposedly, in the Library of Congress, because UMI put a copy on file there as part of the copyright registration. I don't know if you can get a copy from the LoC.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: It's a pretty common thing to do, go for it.
It's also a pretty common thing to then never look at it, and throw it away when you're downsizing your house 15 years later.
It's also not unusual to not be able to find it that one time you could actually use it, and therefore have to refer to your electronic version.
Source: my and spouse's personal experience.
Facetiousness aside, you should do whatever you feel like, and enjoy the pride that comes from the accomplishment. And if you do print it out for yourself or others, it's far from being strange!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: Yes. Will you ever look at it again? Probably not. It is basically long term carbon sequestration and it's main value is environmental ;o)
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/22
| 2,936
| 12,454
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just started my PhD. I work in an interdisciplinary field so I have 3 supervisors from different fields.
Up until now, we had 4 research meetings together and the weird thing was everytime I came up with an idea, it was immediately rejected. Although, they gave me reasons why they rejected it, it always feels like they didn't really understand what I was trying to say exactly. I did not want to push on because I fear it may make them feel dumb in front of others because they don't understand what I am saying.
But yesterday, we had another meeting and I got really annoyed. One of the supervisors came up with an idea and the others all thought it was a great idea. But I actually mentioned the idea a long time ago, but it was immediately rejected back then.
This makes me feel really depressing since it feels like it's mainly my fault for not communicating properly but at the same time it somehow feels like my supervisors are willfully rejecting my ideas because of my status as a fresh PhD student.
How do I deal with this?<issue_comment>username_1: There are several possible explanations for this. First, maybe your advisors couldn't fully understand your ideas because you are still not fluent in the jargons of the field. Second, (as suggested by <NAME> in the comment), it is possible that your idea and your advisor's idea are actually different, but the difference is perhaps too subtle for you to tell. Third, there could be a status issue going on, where new students' ideas tend to not be taken seriously. Fourth, your advisors could simply be forgetful, and did not realize that the ideas they are proposing were once suggested by you.
All of these explanations are, unfortunately, quite common. Regardless, it is important for you as a student to learn to articulate clearly your ideas and to defend your ideas. It may also help to talk with other students who have worked with your advisors to see if what you are experiencing is a more persistent/serious problem; if so, it may be a good time to find some less abusive advisors.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: When I was in medical devices we had lab books to support potential patent claims etc..
Write your ideas in a lab book.
If it happens again, you could try to say something like, 'I think I may have a communication issue. I suggested this idea on xxx but it appears I may not have communicated the concept very well. Perhaps I'm letting myself down in communicating my ideas very well. If it happens again could you let me know so that I can better express myself.'
You've taken it on the chin, asked them for help in a non academic way and brought to attention your original idea. Everytime they do it, you can remind them in this manner, they'll have to take you seriously eventually; if they continue to dismiss your ideas and then suggest them later, you'll have a strong record for challenging that behaviour etc..
Very importantly be respectful, they may just find it hard to understand you.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Yes, you might have a communication problem. Hopefully that will improve over time as you are still new at this.
But, if the "new" idea appeals to you, I suggest that you swallow your pride and run with it. Never mind that someone else thinks they thought of it first. It is possible that your earlier suggestion is what put that thought into their head.
I had a somewhat similar situation when writing a book and reviewers kept asking for changes. Eventually we went around a circle and wound up where I started. I was happy, they were happy. (Well, I complained to the editor, but the pride was strong in me, then.) Anyway that is where it was left and the book got published.
If the "new" idea doesn't appeal to you then you are in the same situation. I'd suggest that, instead of presenting your ideas orally, you write them up as best you can and use that writeup as the basis of any meeting. Perhaps it will make things clearer to the supervisors. And, having those notes can also be the basis of future work when you are more independent.
But remember, for now, that the main task is to get to graduation by an acceptable path in reasonable time. Don't fight when you don't need to.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: **Take it as a learning experience.**
You can't change what happened, but you can be at least partially happy if you still think that your idea was good and if you want to work on it in the future.
There are several things you can learn from it, two of which I think are especially useful, not only in academia:
* Learn that selling an idea is important and necessary even if the idea should ideally speak for itself. Present your reasoning behind your idea, why it is worth examining, give advantages over different ways to come to a similar result.
* Learn that there is a step between having an idea and being able to sell it. *You* may be convinced by your thought, but others may want to have some sort of *proof* before they accept your reasoning. Always assume that your opponent asks for some sort of back-up to your plain claim. Be ready to have an explanation when they ask for it. Often this means that you need to invest a small amount of work into your idea even before it is clear that it will be accepted. This makes sure that some of the most basic mistakes in your argumentation can theoretically be ruled out before you even present your idea.
If your field is in natural sciences, make some basic assumptions and estimate what you could achieve when you follow this idea. Maybe you find a mistake in your idea, then you saved yourself and your colleagues time while learning simething. Maybe you realise that it is just what you expect, then, great, you can go to your supervisors with confidence and discuss it on a scientific base, with more than beliefs.
I think most of us have made similar experiences throughout their (academical) career. Although it is frustrating at first, it changes to the positive as soon as you understand how to discuss your thoughts with your colleagues and supervisors. In hindsight, this is the most important part of my time in academia.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: **Interdisciplinary!**
There is your problem right there. It's a recipe for problems. *Too many cooks ...*
Any project with more than one manager is tough. I had this problem in a job once. On appointment I had a single manager, we got on famously and everyone was happy. After restructuring imposed from above, my manager's job turned into something else and his original post wasn't renewed. This left me with three different managers in three different departments. It was hell. Each inevitably thinks their part is the most important and believes that you are working full-time for *them*.
**Solution**
Agree on the idea they agreed on. Forget your pride. In fact congratulate them on coming up with such a great idea. Instead of getting off to a bad start with all three, they will see you as having sound judgement in accepting "their" idea. This means they will be more disposed to let you get on with it rather than constantly interfering.
This will be a great lesson for you in practical psychology and in managing people - in this case you will be managing your own managers!
Being positive about others is a vital skill. If you criticise one supervisor behind their back, word will get around and no-one will trust you in the end. Praise people behind their backs and you will become someone that everyone wants to work with.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> But yesterday, we had another meeting and I got really annoyed. One of the supervisors came up with an idea and the others all thought it was a great idea. But I actually mentioned the idea a long time ago, but it was immediately rejected back then.
>
>
>
Here is everything which could have happened:
1. Your supervisors have some malicious/negative attitude towards you which motivated them to reject your idea.
2. Your supervisors are unconsciously biased against ideas coming from you, but don't have that bias against ideas by their peers.
3. You did not communicate your idea as well as your supervisor: It wasn't clear what you were suggesting; or the context/motivation wasn't clear.
4. They didn't really reject that idea last time, but you misconstrued their response. Perhaps they were voicing potential criticism, to see how committed you are or whether you've thought it through, and you just let it silence you.
5. It isn't really the same idea - it's different in a subtle way which makes it better or more acceptable to your other supervisors.
Now, I would like to take option 1 off the table right away - since I find it unlikely that people will take on junior researchers when they harbor animosity towards them. But I guess it's not impossible, even if unlikely. If you have evidence of that - you might need to be asking a different question altogether. So I'll assume that this is not the case.
So, putting that aside - I'd try to invest some effort in figuring out which of the other four options it was. This needs to be done carefully and delicately because of the possibility that it was option 2; but you also have to be open to the possibility that it's 3 or 5.
**Consider talking, in private, to the supervisor or colleague you trust the most**, describing the situation in a *non-accusative*, *non-assertive* way ("I think that X" instead of "X"; "I felt that Y" instead of "Obviously Y" etc.) - and trying, delicately, to understand which of the four latter options is actually the case. Also make it clear that you are trying to understand what happened rather than make accusations or demand action.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: There may be some kind of political turf war going on that you're not aware of. It is easy for a newbie to stumble into a political minefield without realizing it, and sometimes the results can be quite nasty. If they found an idea that they all thought was great, it might have been because it was something that didn't step on anybody's toes, so they could all agree to it. The idea wasn't interesting when YOU proposed it: you weren't one of the power players so you don't need to be taken seriously. (I'm not saying that this is what's happening in your case. Only that I've seen it happen often enough to consider it a reasonable possibility.) In any event, your coping strategy is to keep quiet and watch while the elephants dance. With luck you may eventually be able to figure out what's going on. Good luck!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: Most of the answers are sharing their perspective and it is highly likely that it might aptly suit you.
I have another perspective and some insight into how supervisors work. Of course, every supervisor is different.
Supervisors generally do not prepare before a meeting. Especially if they have high number of students to supervise. Supervisors are usually driven by their own agenda and more often than not, their goal is to have a successful PhD student who does research in the area of supervisor's strict choice.
So if your ideas are not in sync with this objective(s) it is very unlikely that they will support you or even take the effort to understand what you are trying to say. So try to be in sync with their goals. It will provide you with a pleasant experience.
Supervisors read papers, review manuscripts and thesis and also talk to other students and colleagues. They get ideas through these interactions. So, many a time your idea if happens to be similar to the ones in those interaction then it will immediately click with them.
Supervisors are human beings who are less interested in your PhD than yourself - which is fine. So you cannot expect their 100% attention or devotion.
What you should do is try to read similar papers, attend similar talks and try to understand the psychology of the people in the group to which your supervisors belong to. In time, you will understand the language which suits them and you will figure out the method of communication.
Some supervisors have a rule that unless the student tries explaining 7-8 times, it is unlikely that he could come up with good ideas. So no matter how good the idea is in the initial try it will fall to deaf ears.
Do not worry, these are early days and in time you will do great.
Upvotes: 1
|
2020/07/22
| 925
| 4,055
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am wondering if it is ethical and acceptable that a Ph.D. student receiving fund and RA from a university and a Prof collaborates on a topic with other researchers and professors (other universities)?
In this situation, should we inform our supervisors?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, it's totally ethical and acceptable. Research doesn't happen in a vacuum, and collaborations are generally beneficial to all parties. I cannot imagine any funding body or person preventing you from collaborating with others. Talk to your supervisor first, of course, as they may want to be part of the collaboration too.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **Yes it is ethical.** Whether it is acceptable will depend on your field, your stipend situation, and your advisor. **In all cases you should inform your advisor.**
**Field-dependence:** In some fields (like humanities, possibly mathematics), you are not really using the advisor's physical resources, and the advisor/advisee relationship can be rather distant. In others (like engineering), you need your advisor's lab and experimental platform to conduct research, and the relationship is necessarily much closer. In the latter case, it is more likely that the advisor will place some restrictions on where and how you spend your time. For example, if the external collaboration involves their lab, their equipment, their resources, they are not going to react well to being "cut out of the loop."
**Stipend dependence:** Your stipend's source is also critically relevant. If you are on a contract PhD stipend, you are funded to perform specific work and you must hew pretty closely to that direction, regardless of the advisor's opinion on the subject. If you are funded directly from an advisor's grant funds, but whose specific research tasks are a bit fluid (the typical case in the US, for example), then your advisor may object to you spending a lot of time pursuing research outside of what their grant funds are paying you to accomplish. If your stipend is fully paid by the university or your own grant, then you are clearly the most free to act how you choose.
**Advisor dependence:** Some advisors may not pay too much attention to what you do, so long as you finish all the work they assigned you. Others will keep a closer eye on things and would object to you doing any work outside of their laboratory. Still others may be perfectly happy for you to pursue your independent work, but they would still want to advise you and furthermore probably want co-authorship on your eventual publications. However, in every case, I would make sure you discuss your plans, including who you are planning to work with and what you are planning to work on, very clearly with your advisor, so they don't find out after the fact that you just spent the past 5 months working on a dead-end project with their most hated competitor!
**Personal perspective:** I would most likely object to a student choosing to collaborate outside of my laboratory with no involvement whatsoever from me. My thinking is as follows: when I take a student on, I am making a commitment to them to train them to the best of my ability, and to usher them safely (as safe as possible, anyways) from the starting line to their successful PhD defense. As part of that, I would want a "sign-off" at the very least of any project a student took on, if for no other reason than to make sure the student wasn't wasting their time or getting involved in a project I didn't think was going to come to a good outcome. Then, if I approved, I'd want to be involved in the project going forward for the same reason, to continue to give my advice and keep the student moving productively forward towards their final defense. If they don't want my active mentorship, they should switch advisors! Of course, as a student gets closer to graduation, they'll get more and more leeway with me to do whatever they want to help foster their independence, but I'd still want to be kept informed at the very least.
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/22
| 787
| 3,430
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am about to submit my PhD thesis and thus my studentship will terminate. Along with my studentship, naturally, my scholarship and my stipend also will be gone.
I have some savings, but I doubt I can manage more than 3-4 months.
I need to apply to postdoc positions, and unless it is a low profile university, I cannot find any positions in the country I finish my doctoral studies, and even neighboring countries. It is kind of a unwritten policy in the Central Europe.
My viable options are western Europe, Scandinavia, and the US.
How are the application and admission processes in those places? Will new positions be available in a short time? If so, will foreign applicants be able to travel there?
Comments based on experiences are highly appreciated!<issue_comment>username_1: I cannot answer this for all of Western Europe, Scandinavia, and the US. Policies may differ between continents, countries, universities, and perhaps even departments.
At my university, which is in a Western European country, there are currently 13 job vacancies for postdoctoral researchers. These are all specific positions in specific departments, so whether any job opening is suitable for you, I cannot answer. If you find a vacancy that is suitable for you, the starting date at my university can be whatever you and your supervisor will agree on. The supervisor may be bound by restrictions imposed by the funding that provided the postdoctoral vacancy.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The main problem for you now is not COVID-19 but simply the summer holidays. If you are looking now, you won't find much. The number of job offers may increase again in September, October.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I work at a Finnish university. My department established around April a moratorium that new hires could only begin their contract starting August 1st. There are also recommendations to avoid receiving visitors (and I guess new hires, but I'm not sure since I haven't attempted to hire anyone since earlier in the year) until the Autumn. We also have the policy that you need to be in Finland by the start of your contract (i.e., you can't start remotely), meaning that travel restrictions from specific countries could prevent you from getting hired in practice. Things are at a stall during July because of the holidays, but as new outbreaks take place throughout Europe and the situation continues to be quite bad in some countries, I expect the university to update their official policies in early August, after admin people are back from the holidays. Generally, even though Finland had an easier time than most of Europe during the pandemic (so far), the university has been quite strict about enforcing remote work, and we're preferentially working remotely until mid August, when we will start gradually to go back to normal. But this can be revisited at any time.
This is for my particular university in Finland. I believe other Finnish universities have similar policies. Other Nordic countries have probably similar rules and practices, although I don't know about Sweden, where the Government has been notoriously bad about their handling of the pandemic, compared to the other Nordics.
In summary, the situation is quite volatile and things can change rapidly, although right now looks much better recruitment wise than a couple of months ago.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2020/07/23
| 7,208
| 30,471
|
<issue_start>username_0: My group (engineering) is highly multicultural and diverse. Some of my students come from adversarial ethnic/religious groups, so I made it “set in stone” that politics and religion do not belong in the lab. We respect each other and sometimes discuss cultural differences and habits politely.
I recently received some applications for a new PhD position. One candidate started their C.V. with a huge “in the name of God” and continued throughout their application discussing how God will guide or guided them or God will make sure they get good results and finish their PhD. Overall, I counted the word *God* in their application twelve times. This left a bad taste to me.
In the particular case, the said candidate was classified much lower that the chosen candidate merit-wise (scores, research experience, etc.).
* Is it acceptable to disclose and declare vividly religious preferences in academic applications?
* Is this a sign that this person will also be as vocal in the group, thus creating issues?
* Should I simply ignore this information, even if the candidate decided for some reason to vocally disclose it? What should I do with it?
Clarifications:
* I am in the EU.
* There is nothing religious about my university.
* The candidate in question is from the Middle East.<issue_comment>username_1: There are several questions here.
First, most people consider their religious beliefs to be a private matter, though that is not true for all cultures. If someone is applying to a school that shares a culture in which god is "worn on the sleeve" then it would be fine, I guess, but in a cross-cultural application it might be unwise for the applicant. Not every place has policies such as yours.
Whether the person will be disruptive or not is unknown and you won't really know unless you have a conversation with them, provided that they are ranked highly enough on proper criteria to merit a close look.
In general, I would consider "disclosing" their religion to be benign and I would even expect to have to make some allowances for some folks so that they can carry out their religious practices. But proselytizing for a particular religion, whatever it is, would likely be disruptive. You might need to have some rules around that, so that people know that they have to keep to the job at hand when working.
As to the question of letting religion declarations influence your hiring decisions, I would adopt practices such as yours. Your religion is your business, not mine. Other, more relevant, things will influence the hiring decision.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: You made a hiring decision based on the appropriate criteria (stated as scores, research experience).
While the extra information was there - that did not influence your decision so you don't have any concerns. Whether the candidate will try to makes "waves" citing religious persecution is a different question.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Regardless of my own faith, referring to god a dozen times in an application is highly unusual and rather unprofessional. Prospective PhD students, however, should have some understanding of the professional customs of the field. (After all, you don't go on at length about any other personal and non-work-related beliefs and preferences in applications, proposals, presentations etc..) If the rest of the application is very good, I might look past this. But it is certainly a glaring minus.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I think you would be opening yourself up to a discrimination lawsuit if you wrote that as a reason for rejecting a candidate. Naturally in your case you did no such thing, but if you had that would definitely be illegal, and possibly for multiple reasons if your lab is at a publicly funded university.
I do think that it's kind of weird to talk about God in your resume. But I've seen papers from Egyptian universities that start with "In the name of God the most merciful..."
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: One of the criteria I use in hiring is whether they are a harmonious fit for the existing team.
One of my concerns with this application is that the individual may be too dogmatic and not tolerant of others. If he passed the first screening, this would be something I would ask him about in the interview, and in follow up questions to his references (by phone). Possible questions:
* We have a Zen Buddhist, a Hindu, two Muslims, a Jew, three atheists, two agnostics, and a [Baháʼí](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith) on our staff already. Give me examples of how you, a strong {insert his religion} have gotten along with people from a widely diverse religious background. (Are they tolerant of people who have different faiths.)
* Also we have homosexuals, transvestites, and transgender individuals on our staff. What is your stance toward this? (This question looks for tolerance. Are they going to make a big hairy thing of themselves if they see a gay couple snogging in the mail room?)
* Is the bible to be taken literally? All of it? Do you follow all the rules in Deuteronomy and Leviticus? (Note: replace bible with whatever holy book they use; replace references to D & L with appropriate references to outmoded rules. The key function here is to understand if they cling to unworkable rules, or are inconsistent in their beliefs.)
* If I told you that you were not to discuss religion or God here at work, could you abide that decision?
* Give me examples of cases where you had your mind firmly set on something, and an argument or discussion changed your mind. If he answers with his own conversion experience, ask him for another example, not related to his religion.
---
But really, anyone who wears his religion on his sleeve like this should be avoided. To much potential for conflict. Find a reason to dump him in the reject pile. But be sure you have better qualified people than him in the reject pile. Do *not* trash the rest of the reject pile in his case in the event that he decides later to file a discrimination suit.
---
Edit: In all my time on a bunch of stack exchange sites, I've never collected such a set of downvotes. I find it quite amusing.
I suggest that the original poster try this same question on Workplace and see what the reactions are. Maybe I'm a stick in the mud.
I'll agree that the phrasing of my questions need work: The key element here is to get the candidate to show his (in)tolerance for others during the interview process. If he is full of faith,but also shows tolerance, then by all means, hire him. My experience with people like this is that the louder they proclaim their faith, the less tolerant they are of others' beliefs.
I am minded of that quote, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, "Preach the Gospel always. If necessary, use words."
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: You should ignore this information the candidate volunteered in their application. Instead, address diversity and inclusion at the interview stage for ALL candidates.
There is a cultural (religious) difference between yourself and the candidate. A university should be a diverse, tolerant, and inclusive place. The real test of tolerance is to tolerate views that are widely different from yours.
Diversity and inclusion should be addressed in the interview part of the application process, but you should ask all candidates the same questions, in particular for such a sensitive topic. Those questions should aim to ensure that the candidate can respect the diverse, tolerant, and inclusive place that the university is. Should the answers from one of the candidates reveal that they will not be able to respect this environment, then that will rule them out from being hired. However, you cannot infer this from the frequency of mentioning God in the application.
Everybody has prejudices. Perhaps some people think that if a candidate mentions God twelve times they might refuse to work with gays, but we don't know that. We all need to become aware of our prejudices, try to overcome them, and design systems such that our prejudices do not lead to discrimination of others.
P.S. I believe that in particular a rule "politics do not belong in the lab" is difficult to enforce. If I put a rainbow sticker on my door with the text "I stand with LGBTQ", will I be told to remove this? Is it bad if during the coffee break I discuss how I was at the March for Science or the Scientists for Future during the weekend? How about union activity, which is inherently political but you probably cannot legally keep out of the lab? If you have such a rule, you need to provide some guidelines on their interpretation.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: What do the other applicants say about (for example), how they intend to conduct their research? If one candidate says something like 'I completed this similar project, have done this reading, and my references can attest to my ability to be creative', and the other candidate says 'God will guide me to the solution', then clearly the first candidate is better. This is not because of the overt religious stance, it's because the second candidate did not actually provide any evidence that they can do research.
While I understand your discomfort with the overt religious stance taken by the applicant, the initial assessment of their suitability should be based on the information they have provided that is relevant to their ability to complete the PhD. If you discover that they have actually provided that information (as well as the religious references) and they are a strong candidate, then you interview them like you would for the others.
During the interview (for all candidates) you can mention lab rules. If diversity is part of the selection criteria, you can even have a question that specifically asks for their views of the pros and cons of diverse lab and mention that you have a lab with a range of cultural differences including religion.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: First, decide whether you are hiring a researcher or a missionary.
Then decide whether somebody who mentions God in every other sentence of a job application is the right person for the job.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that if someone does this in a job application, they will also do it if they are hired. It's your decision whether you think that is acceptable or not in your work group.
If you want a researcher, hire the best researcher who applied. If you want a missionary, hire the best missionary.
That is not discrimination against religion per se. The same would be true is somebody mentioned their favourite sport in every other sentence, for example (and working in industry, I can think of one instance where somebody was fired for doing exactly that, or more precisely because of *the amount of disruption he caused in the team* by doing it.)
I also work in a group where everyone knows there are group members with various degrees of commitment to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and probably a few more religions besides. Some of them have organized their own religious activities in unused conference rooms during lunch breaks, etc and nobody cares about that. On the other hand, if anybody started trying to preach to or convert anyone else in the normal working environment, they wouldn't last long.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: People in some Middle Eastern countries use the name of god so frequently that these words are becoming familiar even in the west:. Inshallah, wallah, ilhamdulillah, mashallah, yallah (i think) and probably a few more. For less religious people these are just phrases they use without thinking twice, but the more religious are quite conscious of their literal meaning when they say them.
So if the candidate is from the Middle East, it may just be a bad translation, or it means that the candidate is quite religious.
This is just anecdotical, but I personally have told several quite religious people from the Middle East that I have no religion and I have not gotten any (visibly) negative reaction yet. So I would not automatically assume that a religious candidate from these countries will have problems tolerating other views. These countries have different degrees of piousness too, and anyway if he/she moves abroad, they are probably aware that they have to adapt to their new environment.
Obviously the letter you received (if it was indeed from the middle east) was not particularly well-adapted to western culture, but then one might first need to become familiar with western culture before one can adapt to it.
P.S. as a native speaker of German, I quite often use Gott sei Dank (thank god) in everyday life. I would not use it in any formal letter because it is a somewhat informal expression. But it probably would not occur to me that using such a phrase might be culturally inappropriate.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_10: Your program is for engineering. Your prospective student wasn't applying to a Doctor of Ministry program, or to a PhD program at a divinity school. So establishing their bona fides in their religious practice wasn't a necessary part of their application.
And, in my experience as both an engineer and a minister, the Holy One doesn't manipulate reality to make people successful, but instead gives people strength and courage. My point is, your candidate's declarations are even a little suspect in a div school context.
You passed on this candidate for reasons of competence and experience, just like you passed on several other candidates. You have done your recruiting well.
If the candidate comes back and asks for advice on how to improve themselves for future applications, you might advise them to upgrade skills, and spend more space on their specific qualifications for YOUR program.
An **edit** to my answer.
Your recruiting issue would be different **if the candidate were clearly the best** choice for your lab. But you can still handle this in a way that's respectful of the candidate and the rest of your team (not to mention yourself). Here's my suggestion about this:
Tell the candidate you're **delighted they have spiritual resources** to sustain them through the challenges of a PhD program. "Since you brought it up in your CV..." is a good way to open the conversation. **Confronting the unknown** in the natural world is the stuff of earning science or engineering PhDs, and a student needs strength and courage to keep at it.
Tell them their colleagues-to-be have a diverse array of their own resources for doing that. Make it clear that **your group's behavioral norm** is to respect each other's ways of working, including their inner / spiritual / whatever resources. And, maybe emphasize that your group members learn a lot from each other.
If the conversation goes further, say something like this. "If you try to convert / proselytize / evangelize people in my group, you are likely to annoy them. That will do your religious cause far more harm than good. And it violates our behavioral norms."
That sets expectations and lets the candidate decide whether your lab is a good match for them.
Footnote: many people embrace religion as a way of embracing the mysteries of life. Others embrace it as a path to certainty. And, PhD-level natural science work is like the former, not the latter. Hence my suggestion to mention confronting the unknown.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: The Original Poster has stated that in this case the candidate was from the Middle East, but has not disclosed which country. They ask three questions:
>
> * Is it acceptable to disclose and declare vividly religious preferences in academic applications?
> * Is this a sign that this person will also be as vocal in the group, thus creating issues?
> * Should I simply ignore this information, even if the candidate decided for some reason to vocally disclose it? What should I do with it?
>
>
>
The answers to these questions depend on the context.
If the applicant has been through the undergraduate system, and perhaps also an MA, at a university in a largely secular country—for example in Europe or Japan—then these so-called 'declarations' would be slightly worrying, as they would seem to show that the applicant has not been able to master any type of academic register in terms of writing style, or to grasp what the important factors for an academic application are. It is not so much that such declarations are not acceptable; they are not appropriate. [That said, if the applicant had sufficient merit otherwise, this should not necessarily preclude them from consideration altogether]
In such circumstances, given that the applicant would seem to have missed these cultural academic norms, there *might* be an issue with their being proselytising or otherwise being overly vocally dogmatic about their religious beliefs within the group. However, one cannot tell. As other answers have mentioned, this would need to be dealt with at interview.
Apart from noting the points above there is little to be done with this information. The rest of the application still needs to be considered on its merits.
However, if it is the case—as it seems to be here— that the applicant has not studied in such an environment previously, then it may well be the case that such language just indicates a high degree of formality in their native country. They are simply grinding through some of the set phrases and moves that they would have to use in a formal application for a home institution. As noted by @einpoklum, the opening salutation, *In the name of God*, which clearly troubled the Original Poster, means little more than *Dear Sir/Madam* in the relevant languages and cultures. These are linguistic problems, not attitudinal ones. Consider *Bless you* after someone sneezes, or *god willing* in informal contexts, or the terms *adieu* or *a deo* or the provenence of *goodbye*: 'God be with you'. Similarly, *with God's help* and alternative phrasings, may mean little more than conventionally signalling humbleness on the part of the speaker. Consider phrases such as *should my application be successful* and so forth.
In such cases, in answer to the Original Poster's questions:
* There is probably no intention to declare any vividly religious preference. (And it seems HIGHLY unlikely in OP's case that the candidate actually "declared a preference" for a religion as opposed to translating conventional language which in their own culture mentions the word "god" or similar). Indeed, one can tell virtually nothing about the religious beliefs of the applicant from this language. They may privately be a rabid aetheist.
* This is not a sign that the applicant will be "as vocal" in the group. Just as it wouldn't be if they said "bless you" after someone sneezed. It's no guarantee against it either. As several answers have intimated, this should be determined at interview, and for all candidates.
* It shouldn't prejudice against the candidate's application along the lines that OP is suggesting it maybe should do. In this context, this language has nothing to do with religiosity or being deliberately insensitive to others' beliefs or points of view. It may indicate that the candidate will need to learn a new formal register more suitable for a professional researcher in the international academic community. But that's what a PhD's for.
If the OP's professed tolerant culture, or any of ours, is more than just lipservice, then it behoves us to consider and try to understand the situation that the people we are interacting are coming from. With tolerance, as my Aunty Ernie used to say: self-praise is no recommendation!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_12: We are not living in a century when religion played a superior role in every aspect of life including education. You are in an engineering school and a PhD application must talk only about the relevant aspects of engineering. So, definitely this is a minus for the application as the individuals wasting valuable space and your time by using phrases which do not help his cause.
Also, this being a more globalized world, imagine this being read by an atheist. The prospective student is not considerate or has not thought about such scenarios.
Ideally, though this kind of application has a clear minus the candidate must be rejected only if his engineering qualifications are poor. If selected, it is obvious that the candidate has to give up mentioning 'God' in technical manuscripts. If he is good in his skills, why not interview him and check if he is flexible and open to adapt to the professional workplace.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_13: There are a lot of people that have cultural/religion roots that mandates them to be very fervorous in praising God the most that they can. As other answers already stated, this is common in Middle East, but I already saw some Christian people in the West with the same trait (in my own family to be sincere).
For those people, **not** praising God wherever they can is bad, ranging from uncomfortable, to simply wrong, to unethical or to sinful, regardless of what the receiver of the message feels about that. Their religious belief mandates that they should praise God wherever possible.
Since you should value inclusiveness, you should not judge people that have such religious views either positively nor negatively. You might personally consider this as fanatism, lunacy, insanity or whatever, but you shouldn't allow your opinion about the candidate's religious belief contaminate your judgement.
To be frank, I also consider that those people are fanatics, and I have some of them in my own family. Also, most of them even are very aware that everyone else considers them as fanatics and they're very proud of this because this makes them believe that they are being successfully in pleasing God if everyone else is seeing them this way. They surely can be very annoying and boring with their religious views and behaviors and they are perfectly aware of that, but they strongly believe that it is an important mandatory part of the mission of their lives acting in such way. So, they are simply behaving in the way that they believe that they should behave regardless of what other people thinks about that.
As any religious belief, their way of life should be respected and tolerated, not suppressed or discriminated. Even if you find that they can behave in a somewhat annoying way to you and to everyone else.
>
> So I made it “set in stone” that politics and religion do not belong in the lab.
>
>
>
Most people would be ok with that. But for those “overly-fervorous”, this sound as religious persecution, suppression or censorship precisely because their religious belief says that they should praise God and talk about their religion as much as possible to whoever possible wherever possible even if the audience does not wants to hear them. In this case, as long as they tolerate other people and doesn't creates serious troubles about religious issues with others, everyone for the sake of inclusiveness should allow them be what they are - fervorous religious.
Inclusivity and respect is not achieved by silencing everyone, even if it is about an issue that have nothing to do with the work or the environment that you're working on. It is achieved by having everyone be ok with everyone else speaking about things that no one else believes (as long as it is not dishonest, unethical, criminal, illegal or something like that).
So, change the rule to the similar, but quite different and somewhat weaker as:
>
> “We prefer to not talk in the lab about things that does not belong to the lab as long as possible, like, for example, sports, politics, sexuality and religion.”
>
>
>
You should just ensure that no one creates trouble about that, that everyone knows the rules and that everybody respects everyone else. Just be sure that the rules don't have the unintended effect to lead to some form of censorship, suppression of free speech or something like that. This is something that have a very tenuous line and a lot of shady areas, but as long as everyone gets and understand the rules, it shouldn't create serious issues having someone saying the word "God" too much because they believe that its their obligation to do so.
To directly answer your questions:
>
> Is it acceptable to disclose and declare vividly religious preferences in academic applications?
>
>
>
Yes. This is not the ideal, surely, but should not be disallowed. Disallowing that is a form religious persecution and uninclusiveness.
>
> Is this a sign that this person will also be as vocal in the group, thus creating issues?
>
>
>
Probably. [But you can't act against someone due to some issue that they did not created yet even if you are pretty sure that they eventually will.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police)
>
> Should I simply ignore this information, even if the candidate decided for some reason to vocally disclose it? What should I do with it?
>
>
>
Ignore it and evaluate their C.V. as if that information was not there and then evaluate/score it as you would do with any other C.V.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_14: Jan's answer is correct and very good. There are cultures in the world where it is simply expected that God will be acknowledged frequently. It doesn't even necessarily denote particular piety.
To put the matter positively, if you were to exclude such applicants as a matter of course (which you have not done), it would limit the range of applicants you were considering, which would not help you to find the best engineers.
To put the matter negatively, if you were to exclude such applicants as a matter of course, then you would be excluding a fairly specific segment of the globe. I don't believe that that is morally the same as religious or nationality-based discrimination, since you have independent reasons for your concern. But it ought to give any of us pause when our actions (taken for entirely correct reasons) amount to the same action *in practice* as, e.g., what some right-wing xenophobe would endorse (fill-in-the-blank for your own country).
I reviewed a C.V. for a friend once where the first accomplishment listed was, “Participation in the glorious jihad.” I advised my friend that that probably wasn't the best opening for the job he was applying for. But that's a cultural difference, which doesn't necessarily speak to the candidate's qualification for the particular job.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_15: I don't know Arabic but, I know that this might be a case lost in translation, I know some words that could be translated as "I hope", "if all goes well", "if I may say so", "fortunately" all relating to God. If they have no prior experience in international settings, it is possible that they are just thinking they are being "formal" as this is - what I am guessing - they would write to a prof in their country.
On the other hand, I once had a great professor, a Cambridge alumni, super smart American guy who gave lectures on artificial intelligence to his church and had his church on his website etc.
I don't think it is professional though, it would be useful to maybe have a Skype interview and talk about how the team respects each other's identities etc. - an indirect warning which I hope will serve as a reminder that they will have more than one religion, perhaps no religion, communists, liberals, yadayada among group members
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_16: This type of this really just comes down to cultural differences. In some countries (particularly in the Middle-East) it is considered to be important to demonstrate one's religious piety, and so it is common to invoke appeals to God in the course of one's writing or work. I have received a similar application from a Middle-Eastern student, not replete with religious invocations, but with a few of them.
Obviously we are all aware that in secular Western universities the culture generally favours leaving one's religious preferences out of an application. Most (if not all) Western jurisdictions impose a legal obligation to avoid religious discrimination in assessing entry to educational programs, so most institutions prefer for students not to give us this information to begin with. In any case, in view of the fact that religious discrimination is to be avoided, I would recommend that one should simply ignore the appeals to God in assessing the application, treating it as neither a positive or a negative. Likewise, non-discrimination on religious grounds would also imply that the candidate should not be assessed negatively on the basis of concern that they might proselytise their religion whilst at the university or that this "might create issues". (Firstly because such an inference is premature, and secondly because even if they were to do this, it is probably legally-protected speech in most jurisdictions; to the extent that legally protected speech "creates issues" in a group, that should not be held against that person.)
Since this kind of religious appeal is out-of-place in an application to a Western university (for the aforementioned reasons), it would be reasonable let the applicant know that your university does not take account of religious preferences in assessing applications, and that it is not necessary for the candidate to invoke religious appeals in their application (but by the same token, that will not be held against them).
So, in terms of your specific questions, I would say that if a person declares vividly religious preferences in an academic application, the assessor should not treat it as a positive or a negative. Likewise, they should not infer that the person will necessarily proselytise their religion while at the school, and even if they do, any speculated instance of legally-protected speech ought not be held against them. I disagree with other answers here that suggest that this should be held against the applicant as somehow being "insulting" or "inconsiderate" to a reader who does not share the religious views of the applicant. I'm a staunch atheist and I would not find it even slightly inconsiderate for an applicant to do this (and even if I did, well, that's just tough-luck for me).
Upvotes: 0
|
2020/07/24
| 3,702
| 15,323
|
<issue_start>username_0: Let me begin by saying my Ph.D. program has been a disaster. I'm 26 and I'm finishing up year 4 in a physics Ph.D. program. I have no publications and I'm completely burnt out. I have no idea what to do.
I went into a physics Ph.D. straight out of undergrad. My advisor told me to focus on coursework to get a master's first so I did. Right around year 2 I got my masters and was ready to start research, but my advisor's wife suddenly died and he was gone for almost a year and a half. Money ran out and I had to get a teaching position to make ends meet. I tried my best to do what I could, but it's very hard to be an experimental physicist with no money. I actually got a small grant on my own that helped, but it wasn't enough. Additionally, our university grad student union went on strike for a month or two that slowed everything down.
About a year ago another professor joined the department and hired me on. It was ok for a while, he had money and I was finally getting paid to do research. Since he was building up a new lab I was helping put together all the equipment.
Now there are a few more students, all at least 2-3 years behind me, who are in the lab. I'm still expected to put the machinery together while they are getting data from experiments and actually contributing to research. They aren't collecting data, they've been given older unpublished data to analyze. Every time I bring this up I'm just told to be patient.
As of right now, I'm going into year 5 with my name on absolutely nothing. I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel anymore. My department claims 5-7 years is average but there are a lot of 7,8,9 year students here. If this would only take 2 or 3 more years I'd consider staying, but it feels like I basically had to start over halfway through.
I have one patent application in progress, one fifth or sixth author paper in progress, and a completely written review paper that I was told to not publish. My advisors won't even let me propose a thesis, saying it's "too early". I guess I just want to hear what other people would do in this situation. I was recently offered a job in industry by an old friend that pays pretty well (~$85K) which seems so tempting right now. I feel like such a failure and I think I've wasted the past four years of my life. Does anyone have any thoughts on my situation? I'm very lost in life right now.
Update: thanks for all the responses. It helps to hear other perspectives. I talked to my advisor and he keeps telling me I can graduate in two more years if I focus. I don't think I believe him. I have until Monday evening to take this job offer and I think I need to.
Update 2: I think I just quit. I spent 80 hours in the lab this week (again) only to be told I'm still not doing enough. Every day I got more and more projects piled on my plate and they all involved putting equipment together for other people. I was told by my advisor that he doesn't believe my project will even work anymore. It's just not worth it<issue_comment>username_1: First step is to figure out why you are studying. What are you hoping to accomplish anyway? You want a PhD, obvious enough, but *why* do you want one?
Ultimately the purpose of education for most people is to be the foundation of a career. The degree helps you get a job you enjoy, which also earns you $$$, which makes you rich, which lets you have children + send them to college, and retire in comfort. Does this describe you? If not, what does? Think carefully about what you are trying to achieve.
Do you have some idea what kind of job you enjoy? This is a difficult question because you usually won't have an idea until you try it out or see it firsthand. Still, you could get some indication from the things you like doing. For example do you like putting machinery together, gathering data from experiments, analyzing data, and writing patent applications? If you stay in academia, you'll be doing more of that. If you find you don't like doing these things, it's a sign to switch.
Assuming you're talking about USD, $85k a year is a tremendous amount of money. That's [more than what some professors earn](https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Humanities-Professor-Salary). Does money matter to you? It might sound shallow, but if you have a spouse to accommodate and/or intend to have children, buy your own house, etc, you'll need money.
Based on your description it's a choice between:
* Stay on in your program for an uncertain number of years. Keep doing things like putting machinery together, gathering data from experiments, etc. Probably not be paid very well. Maybe get a PhD in the future (and then what? You need to fill in the blanks of what you are going to do with the PhD).
* Leave, start earning a lot more money. You'll probably never get a PhD and feel like a failure as a result (note however that you can stop feeling like a failure when you stop treating "fail to get a PhD" as a bad thing). You'll do something else which you might enjoy more, or might not.
It's a choice only you can make since you're the only one who knows what you want to do with your life. Just remember that the second option is a legit one. You don't *have* to stay in your program if you're miserable and burnt out. It might be the preferable option if you think the burnout is temporary, that things will get better, that getting a PhD is what you really want to do - but if that's not the case, there's nothing wrong with quitting.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It certainly sounds like your advisor has not done you any service, even given their personal life taking their time (justifiably but perhaps overlong). I believe the answer by username_1 is exactly the right framework to think through, because getting a PhD really comes down to remembering why you are doing it when it gets difficult.
As far as proposing a thesis, I think it is a good call not to propose yet, because part of the proposal should be grounded in previous research done, and it also sets you up for timely expectations. Many departments intentionally slow this down because it is more important for you to have a solid background before graduating, i.e. having papers and research to set you up well, than it is for you to just fly through it and finish it. The exact amount of research depends a lot on your focus and department, but I would be hesitant to propose without already having knocked out a few papers that lead into that direction.
Another choice you have is to switch advisors, which can be beneficial if yours is not working out. Switching advisors within your school should not delay your progress, but switching schools could add some time, although it may also be shorter than the unknown amount of time it sounds like is going on.
For the job, consider the location as well. $85k sounds great until you realize that $85k in SF is equivalent to $40k in Cleveland OH. Cost of living is important and can vary dramatically in the US.
If you are looking for stability, then a job may be a good choice, especially if you are not sure why you want a PhD anymore. If you are looking to move into a role you can't get without it, then you probably want to consider how to stimulate your progress. I would recommend talking to the other professor and explaining your thoughts and what you are deciding between as well; they tend to be able to understand your perspective if you explain what you are going through.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I have found [this graphic](https://medium.com/@scyrus89/the-shape-of-your-ph-d-426975399d88) really helpful for staying motivated in the PhD and reminding me that many, many people go through this. Sounds like you have hit the trough :)
The most concrete advice I've gotten is that the PhD is an endurance sport rather than a sprint. So if you want to finish it sounds like you might need to just persist and stick it out. But I know how you're feeling and it is awful.
Concretely, I can see a few things that might help:
1. **Ask your advisors to help you work out a timeline for graduating in 6 years** (or whatever number of years -- just make it fixed). That way you will have clear milestones and deadlines to work towards. It can change later, but write something down now.
2. **Try to take concrete action towards developing a proposal.** I find it strange that they don't let you propose by the end of the fourth year; we actually can't advance past it without proposing. It does take some time to pick a topic and build related experience, but in theory, a proposal is what you *will* do. Is there something intermediate -- like a 1 page outline of the proposal, or a list of three proposal pitches, or a plan for preliminary experiments -- that you can work with them on? (the equipment you're building ostensibly has a purpose). Particularly now, that you can't fully run your experiments, it seems like a good time to take stock and figure out a direction of what will happen, so that you can run with it as soon as things normalize.
3. **Why can't you publish your review paper?** Try to understand if this is just a recommendation or a firm no. Is there something you can improve? Is there something you can salvage from it (e.g. an intro chapter of the thesis?) If you're not working on anything else, you might as well be trying to get this out. It's possible that they think it's not good enough for a top publication, but it might help motivate you to have one publication through the pipeline, even if not the most competitive.
4. **Try to find a support community.** I have found that meeting other students through summer schools or conferences has helped me a lot. You might be able to undertake some related collaborations to help motivate you, and as a bonus publish that way. For experimental work, maybe you could try to find a lab that you could visit or intern with (CERN? DOE? I am not a physicist) -- joining existing experiments might enable you to publish without setting up from scratch.
5. **Take some time off.** If you are burnt out and experiments aren't running, maybe just block off a week or two for complete rest and no physics.
It sounds like your advisor might be thinking longer-term than you are -- for him the priority is probably setting up the lab, rather than graduating you. Hopefully, once the equipment is set up, you'll be first in the queue (and get credited on the publications of the other younger students), but I can see that it would be hard to guarantee this in advance and you risk being taken advantage of. For now, I'd try to be clear that you're having a hard time and need some sort of framework or plan for moving forward. Hopefully that will take the focus back to what you want -- an end goal.
I haven't commented on your outside offer because I think that's really a personal choice. But it sounds like you want to take it *because* you are having trouble with the PhD, so I tried to think of ideas to solve that. The fact that you're asking this question suggests that you're not quite ready to give up on PhD...?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Both your advisors seems to be doing an unacceptably poor job of advising (though, of course, I'm basing this solely on your description). In addition, your program doesn't seem to be doing a good job for its students, in terms of advice or supporting timely completion. From what you've written, there doesn't seem to be a driving passion for the research topic that would be strong enough to outweigh the first two issues. And finally, you have an excellent job offer -- something plenty of people with a Ph.D. struggle to get. To me the choice would be obvious. The main thing I suggest is to definitely **not** think of the past four years as wasted, or even to regret them. Life is full of meandering paths, and you've undoubtedly learned or practiced various skills, had interesting experiences, or simply grown in your outlook. Do what is best for yourself; don't worry about the past, or about sunken costs.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I think you are overlooking another option: take the job offer from your friend, and re-evaluate whether or not you want to pursue a PhD in a year or two. It is entirely possible to leave academia and come back, although you may encounter additional questions/scrutiny from people who have taken a more linear career path. And with a bit of distance, some savings, and a [hopefully] better work-life balance, you may even find that you prefer life outside academia.
Anecdote from someone who has lived through this:
I was in a very similar situation during my physics PhD, although by the end of my fourth year I was also severely depressed and my largely absent advisor was always pretty neutral about my ability to graduate. I decided to continue in the program for two primary reasons: I was somehow convinced that I could salvage the situation and graduate in 2-3 years if I put in enough effort, and I had no idea what else to do with my life (a research career in my sub-field was still my dream job, even though I was miserable in that department). A year and a half later, my advisor decided that I would never graduate and dropped my funding. No other professor was willing to take me as a student -- I heard from a trusted third party that someone had started a smear campaign against me so I had a terrible reputation on top of my low research output -- and I left the university with 'just' my masters.
While I was (and still am) angry about the way I was let go, I do agree with the decision. It was a relief to openly acknowledge that my situation at that university was untenable and not going to improve, plus it was the kick in the pants I needed to find another job. I ended up teaching as an adjunct professor for some time and did a lot of soul searching to figure out what I wanted out of life. Ultimately, I decided to apply to other graduate programs, was accepted, obtained my PhD, and am now working as a postdoc in the same sub-field I started in (and am loving it). It remains to be seen if I will be able to find a permanent position, but my current collaborators have been nothing but supportive and encouraging about my future prospects.
If I have any regrets about the situation, they would be that a) I did not leave my first PhD program sooner and that b) I allowed my advisor to ultimately make the decision to leave for me by cutting my funding. Very few people have since asked me about my first PhD program (even during interviews), so I rarely need to explain my 'missing years'.
The decision to stay or leave is yours, and unfortunately no one can tell you what is best for you. However, I would leave you with just a few thoughts:
* You mention that you don't really trust your advisor anymore. What
would it take for you to trust their word again? Are you likely to
get it? Can you honestly see yourself finishing your PhD without that
trust?
* Has your advisor given superficial/generic comments about your
graduation, or concrete details? Based on my own experience, I would
be skeptical of the situation if your advisor only gives hand-wavy
assurances.
* Look up the 'sunk cost fallacy' and see if this applies to your situation.
Best of luck!
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/24
| 3,063
| 12,802
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am looking at moving a small online conference for around 200 ppl digital, and quotes from suppliers are all over the place. I'm sure this is because no one knows what good looks like or costs.... So, if you have run one, what are your recommendations for estimating cost?
Clarifications:
* A satellite solution is not necessary, though I imagine some participants may lack the internet connections to participate effectively. It might be necessary to send hotspots to such individuals.<issue_comment>username_1: First step is to figure out why you are studying. What are you hoping to accomplish anyway? You want a PhD, obvious enough, but *why* do you want one?
Ultimately the purpose of education for most people is to be the foundation of a career. The degree helps you get a job you enjoy, which also earns you $$$, which makes you rich, which lets you have children + send them to college, and retire in comfort. Does this describe you? If not, what does? Think carefully about what you are trying to achieve.
Do you have some idea what kind of job you enjoy? This is a difficult question because you usually won't have an idea until you try it out or see it firsthand. Still, you could get some indication from the things you like doing. For example do you like putting machinery together, gathering data from experiments, analyzing data, and writing patent applications? If you stay in academia, you'll be doing more of that. If you find you don't like doing these things, it's a sign to switch.
Assuming you're talking about USD, $85k a year is a tremendous amount of money. That's [more than what some professors earn](https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Humanities-Professor-Salary). Does money matter to you? It might sound shallow, but if you have a spouse to accommodate and/or intend to have children, buy your own house, etc, you'll need money.
Based on your description it's a choice between:
* Stay on in your program for an uncertain number of years. Keep doing things like putting machinery together, gathering data from experiments, etc. Probably not be paid very well. Maybe get a PhD in the future (and then what? You need to fill in the blanks of what you are going to do with the PhD).
* Leave, start earning a lot more money. You'll probably never get a PhD and feel like a failure as a result (note however that you can stop feeling like a failure when you stop treating "fail to get a PhD" as a bad thing). You'll do something else which you might enjoy more, or might not.
It's a choice only you can make since you're the only one who knows what you want to do with your life. Just remember that the second option is a legit one. You don't *have* to stay in your program if you're miserable and burnt out. It might be the preferable option if you think the burnout is temporary, that things will get better, that getting a PhD is what you really want to do - but if that's not the case, there's nothing wrong with quitting.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It certainly sounds like your advisor has not done you any service, even given their personal life taking their time (justifiably but perhaps overlong). I believe the answer by username_1 is exactly the right framework to think through, because getting a PhD really comes down to remembering why you are doing it when it gets difficult.
As far as proposing a thesis, I think it is a good call not to propose yet, because part of the proposal should be grounded in previous research done, and it also sets you up for timely expectations. Many departments intentionally slow this down because it is more important for you to have a solid background before graduating, i.e. having papers and research to set you up well, than it is for you to just fly through it and finish it. The exact amount of research depends a lot on your focus and department, but I would be hesitant to propose without already having knocked out a few papers that lead into that direction.
Another choice you have is to switch advisors, which can be beneficial if yours is not working out. Switching advisors within your school should not delay your progress, but switching schools could add some time, although it may also be shorter than the unknown amount of time it sounds like is going on.
For the job, consider the location as well. $85k sounds great until you realize that $85k in SF is equivalent to $40k in Cleveland OH. Cost of living is important and can vary dramatically in the US.
If you are looking for stability, then a job may be a good choice, especially if you are not sure why you want a PhD anymore. If you are looking to move into a role you can't get without it, then you probably want to consider how to stimulate your progress. I would recommend talking to the other professor and explaining your thoughts and what you are deciding between as well; they tend to be able to understand your perspective if you explain what you are going through.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I have found [this graphic](https://medium.com/@scyrus89/the-shape-of-your-ph-d-426975399d88) really helpful for staying motivated in the PhD and reminding me that many, many people go through this. Sounds like you have hit the trough :)
The most concrete advice I've gotten is that the PhD is an endurance sport rather than a sprint. So if you want to finish it sounds like you might need to just persist and stick it out. But I know how you're feeling and it is awful.
Concretely, I can see a few things that might help:
1. **Ask your advisors to help you work out a timeline for graduating in 6 years** (or whatever number of years -- just make it fixed). That way you will have clear milestones and deadlines to work towards. It can change later, but write something down now.
2. **Try to take concrete action towards developing a proposal.** I find it strange that they don't let you propose by the end of the fourth year; we actually can't advance past it without proposing. It does take some time to pick a topic and build related experience, but in theory, a proposal is what you *will* do. Is there something intermediate -- like a 1 page outline of the proposal, or a list of three proposal pitches, or a plan for preliminary experiments -- that you can work with them on? (the equipment you're building ostensibly has a purpose). Particularly now, that you can't fully run your experiments, it seems like a good time to take stock and figure out a direction of what will happen, so that you can run with it as soon as things normalize.
3. **Why can't you publish your review paper?** Try to understand if this is just a recommendation or a firm no. Is there something you can improve? Is there something you can salvage from it (e.g. an intro chapter of the thesis?) If you're not working on anything else, you might as well be trying to get this out. It's possible that they think it's not good enough for a top publication, but it might help motivate you to have one publication through the pipeline, even if not the most competitive.
4. **Try to find a support community.** I have found that meeting other students through summer schools or conferences has helped me a lot. You might be able to undertake some related collaborations to help motivate you, and as a bonus publish that way. For experimental work, maybe you could try to find a lab that you could visit or intern with (CERN? DOE? I am not a physicist) -- joining existing experiments might enable you to publish without setting up from scratch.
5. **Take some time off.** If you are burnt out and experiments aren't running, maybe just block off a week or two for complete rest and no physics.
It sounds like your advisor might be thinking longer-term than you are -- for him the priority is probably setting up the lab, rather than graduating you. Hopefully, once the equipment is set up, you'll be first in the queue (and get credited on the publications of the other younger students), but I can see that it would be hard to guarantee this in advance and you risk being taken advantage of. For now, I'd try to be clear that you're having a hard time and need some sort of framework or plan for moving forward. Hopefully that will take the focus back to what you want -- an end goal.
I haven't commented on your outside offer because I think that's really a personal choice. But it sounds like you want to take it *because* you are having trouble with the PhD, so I tried to think of ideas to solve that. The fact that you're asking this question suggests that you're not quite ready to give up on PhD...?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Both your advisors seems to be doing an unacceptably poor job of advising (though, of course, I'm basing this solely on your description). In addition, your program doesn't seem to be doing a good job for its students, in terms of advice or supporting timely completion. From what you've written, there doesn't seem to be a driving passion for the research topic that would be strong enough to outweigh the first two issues. And finally, you have an excellent job offer -- something plenty of people with a Ph.D. struggle to get. To me the choice would be obvious. The main thing I suggest is to definitely **not** think of the past four years as wasted, or even to regret them. Life is full of meandering paths, and you've undoubtedly learned or practiced various skills, had interesting experiences, or simply grown in your outlook. Do what is best for yourself; don't worry about the past, or about sunken costs.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I think you are overlooking another option: take the job offer from your friend, and re-evaluate whether or not you want to pursue a PhD in a year or two. It is entirely possible to leave academia and come back, although you may encounter additional questions/scrutiny from people who have taken a more linear career path. And with a bit of distance, some savings, and a [hopefully] better work-life balance, you may even find that you prefer life outside academia.
Anecdote from someone who has lived through this:
I was in a very similar situation during my physics PhD, although by the end of my fourth year I was also severely depressed and my largely absent advisor was always pretty neutral about my ability to graduate. I decided to continue in the program for two primary reasons: I was somehow convinced that I could salvage the situation and graduate in 2-3 years if I put in enough effort, and I had no idea what else to do with my life (a research career in my sub-field was still my dream job, even though I was miserable in that department). A year and a half later, my advisor decided that I would never graduate and dropped my funding. No other professor was willing to take me as a student -- I heard from a trusted third party that someone had started a smear campaign against me so I had a terrible reputation on top of my low research output -- and I left the university with 'just' my masters.
While I was (and still am) angry about the way I was let go, I do agree with the decision. It was a relief to openly acknowledge that my situation at that university was untenable and not going to improve, plus it was the kick in the pants I needed to find another job. I ended up teaching as an adjunct professor for some time and did a lot of soul searching to figure out what I wanted out of life. Ultimately, I decided to apply to other graduate programs, was accepted, obtained my PhD, and am now working as a postdoc in the same sub-field I started in (and am loving it). It remains to be seen if I will be able to find a permanent position, but my current collaborators have been nothing but supportive and encouraging about my future prospects.
If I have any regrets about the situation, they would be that a) I did not leave my first PhD program sooner and that b) I allowed my advisor to ultimately make the decision to leave for me by cutting my funding. Very few people have since asked me about my first PhD program (even during interviews), so I rarely need to explain my 'missing years'.
The decision to stay or leave is yours, and unfortunately no one can tell you what is best for you. However, I would leave you with just a few thoughts:
* You mention that you don't really trust your advisor anymore. What
would it take for you to trust their word again? Are you likely to
get it? Can you honestly see yourself finishing your PhD without that
trust?
* Has your advisor given superficial/generic comments about your
graduation, or concrete details? Based on my own experience, I would
be skeptical of the situation if your advisor only gives hand-wavy
assurances.
* Look up the 'sunk cost fallacy' and see if this applies to your situation.
Best of luck!
Upvotes: 2
|
2020/07/24
| 608
| 2,587
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been applying for postdoc positions recently. Yesterday I got an offer from one professor, but I didn't reply to him whether I accept it or not. The reason is that I am waiting for another professor's reply, whose university is much better. But I am not sure the second professor can give me the job. So I am worried to lose all if I refuse the first professor right now. Could you please give me some suggestions to deal with such situations?<issue_comment>username_1: If you were given a deadline to accept or reject the offer, you should respect it. Otherwise you can wait a short time (a few days) before replying. If it is longer than that you need to find an explanation for your delay and ask for a bit more time to consider.
Your situation isn't unique, of course. A few days delay is acceptable, but after a week your offer might be withdrawn if you don't explain.
But it is also acceptable to ask for a fairly short delay before giving a final answer. I doubt that you even need to give a reason. That could be the basis for an earlier reply.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are no strict rules on how and when one should respond to an informal offer (offers from academics are considered informal until you hear from HRs officially). Generally, you should treat professors as human beings and apply your best judgement. There is nothing wrong in asking how long you can consider the offer, e.g.
>
> Thank you very much for your offer. I am currently waiting for an outcome of another application. I will be able to give you my answer on DATE. Would it be possible to hold your offer until then?
>
>
>
Obviously, if they agree, you should respect this date and make your decision without further delays. The situation you are facing is not unusual, and there are likely other candidates trying to make their decisions at the same time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you are thinking of it backwards. You should use this offer to try to get an early decision from the other professor!
You can say that you're very interested in their position, but you also have another competing offer. You could ask them to make a decision, or give you a timeline for when a decision would be made. Then, to the professor you have the offer from, just write a polite e-mail thanking them for their offer. You can be honest and say you're waiting on a competing offer, or you can say something vague like you need a few days to consider, and give them a deadline (probably no more than 10 days) for your decision.
Upvotes: 3
|