date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2022/03/25
| 2,709
| 11,348
|
<issue_start>username_0: Let's say someone (me) is having a tough time deciding if they want to concentrate in machine learning or complexity theory. Instead of doing a masters first to explore research/coursework in both areas and then do a PhD, why not just choose one of them to do a PhD and then switch later as a Postdoc?
I'm in the USA. I have the choice of doing a masters first but i feel it might be too much time. I could save much more time by doing a phd first and then exploring later.<issue_comment>username_1: Ordinarily in the US, you apply to a post doc position as an academic-in-training under a professor's lab. This is a job: you are applying to an available position (whether it's posted ahead of time or not), and you'll do work related to the lab you join. Your qualifications are judged by the professor doing the hiring: if you've done research work as a PhD student in complexity theory, will you be able to convince a professor that you're the best applicant for a post doc in their lab doing machine learning? Maybe, especially if you can identify synergies between your expertise and what the lab is working on, but will you be a better applicant than other applicants who did their PhDs in machine learning? If you're totally green that means your potential supervisor needs to train you from the ground up. They might be willing to do that for a PhD student, but expect a post doc to come in more ready to work independently (and usually with a higher cost). Post docs are typically in a lab for much shorter time than a PhD student: a PhD student can founder for a couple years while they learn to float, but by that time a post doc's appointment has expired.
Alternatively or in concert, you can apply for some sort of post-doctoral fellowship; these fellowships primarily fund your development as a person learning to do independent research, and if you have money it's a lot easier to get a position under a mentor because they don't have to find the money to pay you. That gives you a bit of freedom, sure, but not the "freedom to work on whatever you want": you typically have to write some sort of research proposal to the granting agency. Can you convince a granting agency that your proposal to study some topic in complexity theory is among the best proposals they receive, when your past research work is all in machine learning? Will you be familiar enough with the open questions in complexity theory and be able to demonstrate your capability to address those questions with your background in machine learning? Maybe, especially if you can identify synergies between your background and the new topic, but will you be a better applicant than all the people who did their PhDs in complexity theory?
It's definitely possible to generalize and branch out in an academic career, but it is typically done incrementally, by applying your existing skills to an adjacent area, or through collaborations where each collaborator brings a different type of knowledge into a shared project. Later career academics have more flexibility in both of these areas than early career academics, because if you are aiming to build an academic career you're needing to compete first with other applicants for post docs, then with other applicants for professor positions, then put together a tenure package, etc.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to the [answer of username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/183610/75368), note that in the US there is no need to choose between different subfields in CS in order to apply with only a bachelors. There will be plenty of time (couple of years, perhaps), early on, for coursework that lets you choose a proper research area. You also get to spend some time looking at faculty to find a dissertation advisor.
The first task in most US CS programs is to take advanced coursework that enables you to pass the qualifying exams. There are a few exceptions to that, but it is very common.
Also, as I think you understand, there is normally no need, in the US, to get a masters in order to apply for a doctorate. In fact the early coursework in a doctoral program is likely to overlap with that of a masters. If you want a PhD, then apply for that. In some other countries (Germany...) the situation is different.
So, you may have a misconception that you can "just choose one", as there is no real need to choose early, i.e. before you apply. And another misconception that you can just switch as a fresh PhD.
As to switching fields "later" I'll agree with username_1 that immediately after earning a doctorate not a likely time. You need to get hired for something, maybe a postdoc, based on the skills you have demonstrated. There are probably a few postdocs that give you a lot of freedom, but that isn't the standard. Switching is easy for tenured faculty, since you have a secure base from which to explore. But that is down the road a bit.
In the US, the students who enter doctoral studies in most fields fall into a few categories. There are those who are undecided after a bachelors about their future, but want to know more. There are those who start a doctoral program in one place but leave for one of several reasons, but leave with a masters and want to continue doctoral study elsewhere (my case, actually). There are those who want to return to academia after a stint in industry for which they earned a masters. International students often come with a masters due to the system requirements in their home countries where a masters might be required for doctoral study.
But few students who actually want a doctorate in US decide to do a masters first, as it just isn't necessary. There are some, certainly, but it isn't the most common path. Partly because the goals of the two are usually different. Masters prepares practitioners. PhD prepares researchers. But, again, this is a US perspective.
---
See the following for more on how doctoral admissions works in the US, in case you have questions: <https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/176909/75368>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: A professor of mine told a cautionary tale about someone he went to school with. After earning their bachelor's degree, they started working on their PhD. Around three years into the process, their project lost funding and the PhD supervisor moved to another university in a different country. The student essentially had to either start over under a new supervisor in a different subject area, or drop out and leave academia. The whole experience left such a bad taste in their mouth that they chose the latter. At that point, the student had a bachelor's degree and some graduate study but no real results to show for it.
Another student in the same research group also ended up dropping out, but they went with the masters+PhD route. They had the same coursework as the first student, comparable research work and publications, etc. but at the end of the day they also had a master's degree to show for it. The second student had a considerably easier time entering the private sector and commanded a higher salary.
The moral of the story is that if you're going to do a master's degree's worth of work, don't skip the degree. You might not need it once you get the PhD, but there are a thousand potential hurdles - many outside your control - that could trip you up before you get to the finish line. It might be different if there's not much overlap and the master's degree adds an unreasonable amount of time to the time it takes to earn the PhD, but even an extra 25-33% would (IMO) be worth the safety factor of having that additional checkpoint.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I don't know your age, but if you're a traditional student then you'll finish your PhD in your mid-late twenties. By then, dicking around with Postdocs and making 40k isn't going to feel like "exploring", it's going to feel like you're getting ripped off. In my opinion, postdocs are not for "exploring". They are for people who are *sure* they want an academic job.
If you can't decide whether you want a PhD in machine learning or complexity theory, just pick the one with a better funding situation and an advisor you get along better with. Before you start your PhD you don't really know anything about either field anyway. The student-advisor relationship is what will determine if you enjoy your PhD or not. The subject matter is secondary.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: **It may not save you much time so check first**
In my case the school I was working on my PhD at (I didn’t finish) didn’t accept my courses from my masters at my previous school and made me retake them all (it didn’t make any sense)—so I effectively did the coursework for a masters plus the coursework for a Ph.D while still having the same expectations time wise for a PhD. It wasn’t fun and I think contributed to my burning out and leaving. So if you want to go this route make sure you understand the expectations in terms of course load. Of course by skipping a Masters you’d skip having to do a thesis, but you could still be on the hook for all the coursework, and you’d miss out on the research experience that a Masters brings.
**A Masters is a good way to test the waters**
Also a Masters is a much lighter lift than a PhD. There’s no guarantee that you’ll want to go for the latter and starting toward a Masters is a good way to test the waters with much less commitment.
**A Masters is an asset in industry; a PhD can be a liability**
If you wind up going to industry, a Masters will almost always help you by making you more marketable and raising your income. While a PhD can raise your income further (sometimes by a lot), it can close the door to many jobs in industry and pigeonhole you quite a bit. That’s not a bad thing as long as you’re sure what you want to do, but if you’re not sure yet a Masters is a safer starting point.
**Switching topics isn’t going to be easy**
My experience from this comes from getting into machine learning research as a switch mid-career from software development (I work in industry). I can definitively say that learning enough about a totally new domain to find a worthwhile open problem and begin to do research in it is really hard. Until you develop this expertise the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play and it seems like the problems in other fields are a piece of cake, but they’re not. I’m not writing this to discourage you from switching from time to time, just to share that doing so requires a lot of hard work to learn the new subject very very deeply, so don’t expect it to be easy.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: If you have strong interest in two complementary areas, some graduate institutions offer [interdisciplinary Ph.D. programs](https://interdisciplinarystudies.org/directory-of-ids-doctoral-programs/).
Or select one primary degree field, but be strategic about also pursuing more than one formal course and/or research experience in the second area. Seek a degree program where this will be encouraged (or at least permitted) based on information from faculty advisors and current students.
Then you might legitimately market yourself as having expertise in both areas (reporting honestly the amount of training in each) after finishing the Ph.D. degree.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/03/26
| 1,083
| 4,571
|
<issue_start>username_0: Last year, I wrote a proposal for DFG, a German body funding, with my colleague and we got money to hire three PhD students on my side, and two on my colleague’s side in another university. In the proposal, I had used some not very well-known mathematical methods to derive some results related to chemistry which was the main goal of proposal.
Now, one of my PhD students has reported me to the university authorities for plagiarism. My question is: How serious is the situation? Can they sack me for just not citing the methods that I have used? Can I call the granting body for correction and refining the proposal and updating the citations?
I had learned about these methods in some posters presented in a conference several years ago. But I had no clue that these papers are published and are available on the internet. (These methods are vital to obtain the main results of my proposal.)
Also, does any one know how these matters are handled in Germany? In my home country, in South America, it’s much more relaxed.<issue_comment>username_1: As [Buzz](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27515/buzz) mentioned in comments, the fact that your own PhD student reported you for plagiarism is deeply troubling. It indicates that your PhD student is very unhappy with you as an academic supervisor. But you do not even mention *why* your PhD student reported you to the University, as if their motivation does not matter. I would expect a PhD supervisor to be better involved in academic life of their student to be able at least spot the problem before it hits you in the back.
The way how you describe the alleged misconduct is also deeply troubling to me. The methods are clearly potent enough to help you win a significant piece of funding, yet you did not care to research them properly and establish attribution in three years. Your attempts to explain the situation sound rather weak to me.
>
> I had no clue that these papers are published and are available on
> the internet.
>
>
>
In academia, when we do not "have a clue" about things, we research them. You had three years to find out and many ways to do so: to contact the author of the poster and ask her for references, to search online, to ask a colleague in your department or from a maths department for help. I expect a PhD student to be persistent enough to find proper references for their paper; I am shocked that an established academic attempts to brush it off with a simple "I dunno" comment.
To answer your questions:
>
> Can I call the granting body for correction and refining the proposal and updating the citations?
>
>
>
Please read the definition of plagiarism or ask people from the ethical committee at your university to explain them to you. Plagiarism is an act of passing someone else's intellectual work as your own. By default, a funding panel assumes that all ideas put in your proposal are your own, unless specified otherwise. The funding you received is a recognition of the strength and value of these ideas – and these ideas are not your own! You can amend the document, but it does not wipe the fact that your proposal have likely misled the awarding panel. And obviously you cannot return the funding because it is already spent on hiring the PhD students and staff for the project.
>
> Can they sack me for just not citing the methods that I have used?
>
>
>
It depends on the policies and practices of your university, and frankly on how much support your head of department is willing to offer you. If this information is passed on to the funder – which your university is probably obligated to do – it is likely that you may be banned from making further applications for several years at least. Your university may not be pleased with it.
I am shocked, however, that you are concerned with your own safety rather with making things right. The real problem is not that your PhD student reported you, but that you clearly do not understand the ethical standards of the environment you chose to work in. Your real concern should be not to fix the proposal, but to fix your own misunderstanding of how academic research works.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you describe methods in your DFG proposal without attributing them, you claim that they are your own ideas. It does not matter whether they are published in a paper.
So the very first thing you need to do is to contact the DFG, retract the proposal and return the money. Then you need to apologise and explain yourself.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/03/26
| 990
| 3,947
|
<issue_start>username_0: I really do not want to invite PhD advisor to my commencement ceremony and would like to invite another senior professor from my committee. How to go about doing this? In the future, I plan to block him from everywhere and will have no contact with him at all.<issue_comment>username_1: When I first answered this, my assumption was that the invitation was only for attendance, not for an essential part of the ceremony. I'd guess that you don't have a lot of choice in who will do the hooding and inviting someone else to do it could easily be considered an insult.
You might have to just "grin and bear it" knowing that the future will be freer. I once had to literally kiss the ring of someone I despised. I lived through the experience.
On the other hand, it might be possible to avoid the situation by not attending the ceremony at all. I didn't attend mine, making my mother very unhappy. But rules differ and it isn't possible to do this everywhere.
But given the change in meaning, look carefully at [the answer of username_2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/183638/75368) who makes some good points.
Actually, there is no reason to invite him. He may go for other reasons, perhaps, but there is no need for an invitation.
Some faculty go to commencement and it can be quite a show, but others avoid it entirely when possible.
This may be a very local cultural thing, but I've never actually heard of it before, especially in the US.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'm going to suggest a couple of reasons to consider a more constructive approach. PhDs are stressful and maybe the anger you feel now will, in time, seem less of an issue. Keep an open mind.
**Could be an opportunity to heal things.**
As you cannot control whether the person comes to the ceremony or not, you may as well try and make the most of it. Academia, like any other career, tends to go smoother when you make friends and if you can't make friends, at least don't leave a lot of enemies in your wake.
This is just one more step and you may never have to have direct dealings with them again. Instead of parting on bad terms I'd suggest just going with the flow (at worst) or (at best) trying to offer an olive branch - a skill it's useful to learn and practice in a career.
I would certainly not try blocking them in the future - that's unprofessional and unproductive. Unless you are being abused by them there's no reason to do this and it looks bad. I'd suggest the opposite approach if you can bring yourself to do it - inviting them to the ceremony. Maybe things are too bitter between you to do that, but consider making a small effort to heal a rift. Careers are worth investing in and this is a useful skill to develop.
Remember you really have no way of knowing if this person may yet prove a useful contact in the future. It's just business.
**Potentially creating a problem for someone else.**
>
> would like to invite another senior professor from my committee
>
>
>
Do you have a particular reason for doing this ? It may actually create problems for the other professor as they still have to co-exist with your disliked advisor. You're putting the liked professor in an awkward position in terms of internal politics. Maybe don't do this unless they made a critical contribution to your success or you're very friendly with them.
>
> How to go about doing this?
>
>
>
If you feel you really need to do this I'd suggest asking the disliked advisor if they would object to you inviting the other person. Have a reason for this - e.g. you became friendly and would like to keep it going, or maybe the liked professor was especially helpful and you want to acknowledge it in some small way.
At the end of the day maybe even say thank you to your advisor. You did, after all, survive the gruelling process and will be getting that covetted PhD - not everyone does.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/03/26
| 1,127
| 4,800
|
<issue_start>username_0: I’m interested in if there’s any general answer to the question, “what is worthy of publishing in an academic journal”? Because I once read an interesting post by <NAME> (“Does one need to be a genius to do mathematics”) with an insightful catalogue of ways that a person can contribute to a field. For example, they can prove a theorem, but also organize pre-existing results, communicate findings to a lay audience, or even structure future research in the form of a research program, such as the Minimalist Program or Hilbert’s Program.
In general, it’s often said that to publish academic work, even a dissertation, you have to “create knowledge”, although I wonder if there’s some debate as to what that qualifies as, and still if there are various subtle sub-types.
Anyway, the real question is, if someone has analyzed what qualifies as “academic research worthy of publishing”, I’m really curious if in any field there’s a known article or document type that sometimes recurs which is like an attempted plan for solving a problem.
For example, any political issue such as climate change. I once saw a research review article which only briefly mentioned at the end in a few sentences some suggested topics or questions that the author recommended guide research in the near future. Much research is retrospective, and descriptive, in a way. You are only collecting or documenting, and analyzing, something you did. (This is already getting at the list I would like of various knowledge-creating “actions” which apparently make the grade for publication: description - analysis - explanation - prediction - discovery - etc.) But I’ve never seen an academic journal say, “according to this scrupulous analysis by this expert, here is a highly elaborate analysis of the factors behind why we cannot reduce carbon emissions. These political aspects, these technological aspects, etc are what is currently obstructing this goal.” And then outlining an actual plan, from an expert, about how they think a goal could be achieved.
In other words, I don’t see why a plan would be any less a legitimate academic document type than other common ones.
So which field sometimes publishes texts that are something like “plans”?
Thanks very much<issue_comment>username_1: **Policy-making or even policy-influencing is not the job of academia.**
The academia strives to answer "what happens if ...?", not "what should we do?" - unless it applies to the process of research itself. We have other structures for that in our society. For "real-life applications", the typical thing to do is to create a committee or a panel of experts to influence policy-making. Individual expert opinions do appear in the media, and they are prominent in the academic format of (invited) reviews/surveys. The latter could get fairly close to what you are proposing, and in your example, it is largely a value judgement and a moral judgement separating the two.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Clinical trials registration is a type of published plan. <https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/>
In areas of physics where the experiments are very expensive, sometimes detailed plans for data collection, with predictions, are published.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Clinical trials (and other clinical research) protocols?
There’s a selection at <https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/covidtrials> related to COVID. There’s plenty more in the literature.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> “according to this scrupulous analysis by this expert, here is a
> highly elaborate analysis of the factors behind why we cannot reduce
> carbon emissions. These political aspects, these technological
> aspects, etc are what is currently obstructing this goal.” And then
> outlining an actual plan, from an expert, about how they think a goal
> could be achieved.
>
>
>
This basically describes (part of) my job. I'm a government researcher but there are also researchers at non-governmental institutes, who do this. You are looking for a job at an institute that has a focus on policy advice. The research (with a national or EU focus) is often published as reports (instead of scientific journals). If you want peer-reviewed publications, it gets difficult. Usually, the more technical aspects (such as model descriptions etc.) can be published as a peer-reviewed paper.
Some people somehow manage to publish this stuff in journals such as Nature. But to be honest, for most of us it's not worth the effort because our main target audience is the government. And the government likes reports.
You could also contribute to meta-science organizations such as IPCC. Anyone can contribute as a reviewer and one day you might become an IPCC author.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/03/27
| 2,857
| 11,386
|
<issue_start>username_0: It's a couple of years that I have moved to Europe and working here as a research group leader. In my home country in Latin America, we are much more relaxed in our interactions with each other and enjoy life to the fullest; that is, for example, flirting with female students and have fun is something common.
I have realized that people in Europe are much more strict and prude. How can I overcome this cultural difference and enjoy my time in Germany?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you're right, there are different cultural norms at play here. Possibly right down to what is considered "flirting". Maybe I'm not the perfect person to answer this question, because I've only working in Germany briefly, but I want to jump in and answer it now, because I worry that it will get some quite aggressive reactions.
### What is flirting?
For this question, it's really important to have a common understanding of what flirting is. In many parts of Europe, "flirting" is social iteration that indicates romantic and/or sexual interest in the person you are flirting with.
Now, it's infamously difficult to determine what is and isn't flirting. For example, I would say;
* Smiling a lot, normal amount of eye-contact; not flirting
* Smiling and more eye-contact than normal; maybe flirting
* Asking a group of people "Would you all like to get coffee?"; not flirting
* Asking one person "Would you like to get coffee?"; maybe flirting
* Asking one person "Do you want to go salsa dancing with me?"; flirting
* Saying "Nice nail polish"; not flirting
* Saying "Nice legs"; flirting (and quite creepy, in most situations)
But I'm sure there will be people who would disagree with all those assessments. So it's fuzzy, there is a spectrum from "just friendly" to "very flirty" and it's likely location specific. I'm not trying to say that mine is the only correct labelling of these examples, just that we need to agree on one, in order to discuss this topic.
If you wouldn't interact that way with someone you aren't attracted to (for example, a straight man with another man), it's very likely flirting.
### May I flirt with my students in Germany?
**No**, bad idea. Never do things that may "indicate romantic and/or sexual interest" with someone who is your junior, or with whom there is significant power imbalance. The principle here is that they may feel pressured to reciprocate your advances, or unable to set boundaries, for fear of retaliation.
One potential exception; if your junior flirts with you first, some would say it's acceptable to reciprocate. *But* only less than or equal to the amount they flirt. And, at the least hint of discomfort or disinterest, you need to stop. Other people would hold the line that flirting in either direction is bad behaviour.
### You can still be friends
Just don't leave room for confusion in your actions.
Easiest way to clear up confusion is to suggest activities in groups. Invite all the students to coffee together. Ask everyone in the lab if they want to go for pizza. Organise a day-trip with everyone together. Day to day, it's normal to get lunch with a group of colleges, and chat over lunch.
If there is only you, and one other person in you're lab, find more people. Staff who do administrative work might be pleased to join you, or perhaps another lab/work group.
When the subject is strictly work, then one to one conversations and meetings are fine. If you want to be a little more cautious, you might consider leaving the door open when it's just you and one other person in a room.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: TL;DR: Get professional help.
Going by your description and comments (now moved [to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/135084)) on the issue, you likely have a serious issue with at least one of the following (or something related):
* Judging how your communication is perceived.
* Determining the personal boundaries of others.
* Making appropriate decisions on interpersonal and ethical issues.
* Controlling your impulses.
To give just one example, [you described your own communication](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/60747518#60747518) in a way that (going by your description) was sexual harassment and were not aware of this.
After many replies, you wrote that this was not intended seriously, but then neglecting this information would be a severe miscommunication on its own.
Furthermore, even jokingly saying something like this is a bad communication choice as it is not a matter to joke about and can have serious effects if the joke is not recognised as such.
Obviously, only a professional in direct conversation can judge whether the above applies and what exactly your issue is, so I will leave that to them. Cultural differences do not appear to be the root of this problem though they may exacerbate it.
Until you learn to overcome whatever the issue is with professional help, you need to keep your interactions with supervisees and co-workers on a purely professional level. Otherwise you risk to commit further errors of a similar nature, which may **severely hurt** others and further damage your career. Only after addressing these issues, you may be able to engage in non-professional and thus joyful interactions with colleagues again.
There are very likely professional services at your university that are bound by professional secrecy and can help you. Moreover, taking steps towards addressing these issues may count in your favour when the issues are investigated.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: #metoo exists in Latin America as well, and it has shown that male superiors "flirting" with female subordinates is not welcome there either, regardless of whether it is more common. In other words, I think you're taking the wrong approach if you're trying to figure out how you can "import" part of your notion of "having fun" from one country to another.
The suggestion I would have for you is to be quite clear in separating work and personal life. Keep your work life strictly professional. If you wouldn't say something to a male subordinate, don't say it to a female subordinate. If you wouldn't comment on male subordinates' clothes/hair/beauty products/body shape, then don't do it with your female subordinates. If you wouldn't "flirt" with your male subordinates, don't do it with the female ones.
Actually, let me revise that last paragraph: If you wouldn't say something to your mother, don't say it to a subordinate. If you wouldn't comment on your auntie's clothes/hair/beauty products/body shape, then don't do it with your subordinates. If you wouldn't "flirt" with your uncle, don't do it with your subordinates.
It may be surprising that this kind of advice would be necessary anywhere, but it is certainly appropriate advice for Germany.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I just want to correct your misconception here. Germans (and other Europeans) are not prude, stuck up or don't want to have fun. On the contrary. Most people here just don't perceive being on the receiving end of unwantend/inappropriate romantic or even sexual advances as "fun". They rather perceive that (rightfully so) as harrassment.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: **Harrassment laws and polcies are strict in Europe generally.**
You may not consider what you describe as harrassment, but this would be the likely interpretation by both the student body and officialdom.
Even the appearance of misconduct can lead to serious problems, all the way up to criminal charges depending on the details. Disciplinary problems are almost a certainty.
>
> It's a couple of years that I have moved to Europe and working here as a research group leader. In my home country in Latin America, we are much more relaxed in our interactions with each other and enjoy life to the fullest; that is, for example, flirting with female students and have fun is something common.
>
>
>
This "flirting" is almost certainly against the rules of any educational institute in Europe.
If you want fun have it with people who are *peers* in work or any non-student outside of it. It's that simple.
The students (and those who work under you) are seen as people you can influence using your position and it's considered an abuse of authority to engage with them in that way. You open yourself up to accusations of favoritism, abuse of power, sexual misconduct. You don't even have to engage in any physical contact to make yourself vulnerable to these accusations.
>
> I have realized that people in Europe are much more strict and prude.
>
>
>
It's not prudishness, just an acknowledgement in law and policy that women (in particular) are very vulnerable to be influenced and misused by those with some sort of power over them or their careers. Laws and policies now provide them with much needed protection and backup.
>
> How can I overcome this cultural difference and enjoy my time in Germany?
>
>
>
Draw a line between those you have influence over (students) and peers. Stay on the side of the line that has no students (or people who report to you).
It's that simple.
Frankly I would not hire someone who did not understand this idea and it's importance. Such a person would be a liability in a modern working or teaching environment. What you said made me think "lawsuit waiting to happen".
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: This answer mainly presents information from other answers in a different form.
>
> people in Europe are much more strict …
>
>
>
Strict about what? You only mention one example that makes sense:
>
> flirting with female students
>
>
>
Yes, Europe is more strict about this (and, according to [username_3’s answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/183658/131672), there are calls for Latin America to by more strict about this too), because it is considered an abuse of power. You have power over the students, so when you interact with them in a certain way, they may feel compelled to join in.
This is already a problem. But, even worse, the students may feel compelled to hide the fact that they do not want to participate. This may lead you to think they are willing when they are not – an even bigger problem.
These are already serious problems, even if the interaction is not sexual. If it is sexual and the student is not willing to participate, then it is sexual harassment, which is even worse, and which Europe is also strict about. If it is sexual and it is not clear whether the student is willing to participate, it may be treated the same way.
The question seems to imply that Europe is strict about romantic or sexual behaviour generally, or simply opposed to people having fun; this is all false.
>
> people in Europe are much more … prude.
>
>
>
They are not. They do not have a problem with romantic or sexual behaviour, as long as it is clear that all participants are willing.
>
> How can I overcome this cultural difference and enjoy my time in Germany?
>
>
>
Having established that the premises are false, this question takes on a new meaning, and the answer is obvious: When there is a power imbalance, keep your interactions strictly personal; when there is not, have fun as you usually would. (Of course, in all cases, you should respect people’s *personal* boundaries.)
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/03/28
| 1,087
| 4,631
|
<issue_start>username_0: My advisor and another student collaborated on a paper, after reading it carefully myself, I've come to the conclusion that the approach is fundamentally flawed and the main result is plain wrong.
As recommended in these instances, I've tried on several occasions to politely frame my doubts as questions and asked for further explanation (instead of directly accusing the paper to be wrong), but my advisor was not able to give me adequate explanations. After talking to the student author it seems pretty clear to me they have little idea what they are doing.
I wasn't sure if I wanted to get in this mess, but my advisor wants me to do some work building on this current approach, which they still seem to firmly believe is correct. However, I cannot build on something that makes little sense. What should I do?
**Update**: I have shown the error in the paper clearly, I have given counterexamples, however I still don't think I'm getting through. While my advisor does agree there are issues in the paper, I get the feeling that he is still brushing these off as minor issues.<issue_comment>username_1: Write down all the discrepancies the advisor's paper has. Also explain why this approach cannot (or should not) be pursued further. Give this summary to the advisor and tell them politely to read this in their spare time and give it a serious consideration.
I hope they will understand if they want to.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Bail out. Say firmly you think the method believe a stronger theoretical approach and you do not have time to commit so much time at this stage of your career.
You are doing a PhD, so you will have chance to publish. Even on the same topic: you cannot correct the current approach of your advisor, but you can show a more meaningful approach.
Keep in mind however that following a certain (correct or wrong) approach is much easier and quicker than lay down a new (correct) approach ... like 3-12 months, I w would say, you know the deficiencies of current approach so you know in which direction you have to look at.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Keep pushing until you arrive to a point of contradiction evident to both sides. It seems that you have asked some questions and deemed answers inadequate, whereas your advisor and fellow student found them solid enough. Assuming that - what is there to prevent you from demonstrating a clear contradiction of their result, which you claim to be "plain wrong", with some well-established result?
The next stage after asking questions is asking questions with some extra evidence at hand. "Here are 2 textbooks and 15 papers claiming the opposite, and this is how I was taught and what I know about the subject. How can these things simultaneously be true?". Your fellow student might indeed be out of their depth and the advisor none the wiser - we are blessed with having a great tool called the scientific debate at our disposal to sort these things out. It is possible that they are, indeed, simultaneously true - but how would one uncover it if not for asking questions?
If they persevere in their heretical ways even after that, welp, not much you could do. Find a better advisor and avoid dealing with cranks.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: The first step you should take is confirm that your assumption (the paper is flawed and wrong) is indeed correct. It would not shed a very good light on you if you accused your peers of making mistakes when in fact they didn't. So before going any further, make sure you are right.
Find another (or better, more than one) competent person able to judge the correctness of the paper -- while I don't doubt that you are competent to judge the papers' results, it is always wise to have a second pair of eyes. If the other(s) come to the same conclusion (the paper IS wrong), you can still follow the (good) advise given by others in their answers.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: You consider their paper to be wrong? They want you to write your own paper building on it? Then give them what they want and write a paper which does exactly that:
1. *Attempt* to replicate their results / build on them.
2. Arrive at different results / results which are contradicted by hard data.
3. Analyze what could explain those discrepancies.
4. Come to the conclusions that their results are wrong and yours are correct, because they made mistakes which you didn't.
5. Explain what their actual conclusion *should* have been.
This is how the scientific process is supposed to work. Bad science getting corrected by better science.
Upvotes: 4
|
2022/03/28
| 1,428
| 5,447
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm doing an assignment on early warning score (EWS) systems as part of a postgraduate diploma in Medical Technologies.
The progenitor of the system is cited in several papers as Morgan et al.
<NAME>., <NAME>. and <NAME>., 1997. An early warning scoring system for detecting developing critical illness. Clin Intensive Care, 8(2), p.100.
However, it appears everywhere I look there is no abstract let alone a full text. For example; <https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=28251d22-8476-40a6-916d-1a34796816e4>
Clin, Intensive Care does not seem to show the contents:
<https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/icic20/8/2?nav=tocList>
My university offers some access to tandf but does not seem to give access to the issue of this journal.
Does anyone know where I can find awkward papers such as the above?<issue_comment>username_1: Ask your librarian. They are really (*really*) good at finding these articles.
That said, the article you're looking for isn't actually an article. [This link](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/tcic.8.2.93.110) indicates it's actually a poster at the Intensive Care Society Spring Meeting, 1997. Your best bet might be to check for that conference's proceedings, if there is one, which again is something your librarian will be very able to help with.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: In general, for journals that have not been digitized or at least are unavailable in the databases you have access to, you can try to track down a print copy of the journal. For instance, I would search *Clinical Intensive Care* in your university's library site. If that turns up nothing, run the same search on [WorldCat](https://www.worldcat.org/), which will let you see which major libraries have copies of the journal, after which you could visit those libraries' sites to confirm the right volume and issue are accessible.
If you're in the US, your library may also participate in Interlibrary Loan, which would allow them to make a request for materials from another library. Commonly, short articles or excerpts can be scanned and delivered digitally, though actual practice may differ from library to library.
Contacting research librarians (as username_1 mentions) is also a good step. No matter what you try, they may have another tool or bit of experience that can help you track a source down.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You could try to find the authors email, affiliation, ResearchGate, etc (although it may have changed since 1997) and try to email them directly for a copy of the poster (maybe not likely for a 1997 poster) or a copy of the original abstract submitted. Most authors are happy to share this information.
This approach might not work well for something 25 years old, but would be really useful for more recent, similar things that are conference presentations or posters.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Some libraries have a catalog that you can try.
For instance, the university libraries of Germany have a joint catalog, in which your journal can be found. They even have a reference to the electronic version, but they also show which university libraries have which issues on the shelves. Perhaps in Ireland, there is something similar.
If you follow the links, you get the information that page 100 of the issue that your paper is in seems to be *part* of the article "Abstracts – Intensive Care Society Spring Meeting, May 1997", which tells you why you don't find an abstract -- this is a collection of abstracts, so a single abstract for it would not make sense (or would just say in which context the presentations took place).
If you don't get access through your institution, ask a librarian of the library of your institution. Perhaps you can make a inter-library loan or something like that to obtain the paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: You won't be able to find the full text of this particular article because it doesn't exist!
The work was actually a poster presentation at the *Intensive Care Society*'s Spring 1997 meeting. The journal merely reprinted the program and abstracts of the presentation. If you follow the OP's link above to Volume 8, Issue 2 of *Clinical Intensive Care*, the last entry in the Table of Contents is "Abstracts – Intensive Care Society Spring Meeting, May 1997." That "article" has its own table of contents, one of which was the abstract.
In fact, the journal has a (very small) reproduction of the poster on p. 100. This one is mostly text, but I imagine that poster reprints weren't slated for digitization since they'd be harder to put into a standard format.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tv1l5.png)
The full table of contents may not show up if your institution doesn't subscribe the journal. However, @SeanJ reports that you can find a link to it under "Related Research -> People also read."
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Bf7a.png)
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: Ask the authors directly. This letter in the BMJ has two of the authors email addresses. Will an intensivist have a copy of a 25 year old poster in their portfolio? Let us know if you find out!
<https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1501/rapid-responses>
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/03/28
| 1,175
| 5,335
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am preparing my article to submit to a journal. The journal requires a maximum of 15% similarity **including** bibliography. My paper has 6% similarity without bibliography but 18% with bibliography according to Turnitin. I tried my best to reduce the similarity to 15% but it is now impossible. Because, except bibliography section, Turnitin only getting similarity in very few words scattered around the article, not even a complete sentence. After discussing it with some colleagues as well as some internet searches, the only solution is to **exclude the bibliography** while checking it in Turnitin. I contacted the journal but they said the bibliography must need to be included while generating the similarity. Please, have a look to the image below, do you think it's fair? I mean, I cannot paraphrase a reference and I have to use it as it is.
[Please have a look](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bbqtj.jpg)
Is there any way to reduce similarity in the reference section/bibliography? Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know how the algorithm works, but adding additional references might reduce similarity. Adding material to the paper with or without additional non-overlapping biblio material will almost certainly reduce it. Unfortunately it may not improve the paper, of course.
But also note that most such algorithms are pretty stupid. If you are quoting material extensively, similarity goes up. If you paraphrase (with citation, of course) it probably goes down. If you bring down overall similarity then the bibliography won't be an issue. But these tricks don't necessarily improve the paper either.
But if the journal is overly dependent on such superficial measures without human evaluation (review), then I question its reputability.
And, also give a thought to what you say in the paper itself. Does the similarity actually indicate a problem or not?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You could:
1. Cite fewer references. That will make your bibliography shorter relative to the rest of the paper, and reduce the overall similarity. However, you've probably chosen the sources you have because they are relevant to your paper; reducing the number arbitrarily to meet this arbitrary threshold would then make your paper worse. Removing any citations that are key to the paper or leaving in citable content without a citation could be considered academic misconduct.
2. Make the rest of your paper longer. That will make your bibliography shorter relative to the rest of the paper, and reduce the overall similarity. You could make all your language less concise, or add further speculation and opinion that is entirely your own. Presumably, you've already included an appropriate amount of discussion, so this would probably be adding non-useful content or make your paper overall worse to read.
3. Cite references that no one else has cited before and remove ones that have been cited before, so that those references don't show up in the similarity check. Of course, leaving out important references could be considered academic misconduct or plagiarism, and presumably you've already chosen the references that fit your paper best, so this would make your paper worse.
4. Cite incorrectly. Use the wrong date, misspell the author names, use non-standard abbreviations for journals, wrong page numbers, arbitrary punctuation. These changes will make your bibliography look less like the bibliography of other papers that have cited the same sources. They will also make it difficult for people to follow your references and constitute academic misconduct for willfully citing incorrectly. This would make your paper worse.
Services like "Turnitin" are only appropriate to be used as "flags" for a human to check against, to alert them to the most blatant examples of plagiarism. There is no minimum percentage that means a work is not plagiarized; there is no maximum percentage above which all work is plagiarism. An automated tool like this is just a helper. If the journal is using "Turnitin" this way, they are misusing the service in an absolutely asinine fashion, and encouraging authors to make damaging changes to their manuscript in order to comply with this fatuous criterion. To me, this seems more than sufficient reason to *submit somewhere else*. You do not want your work associated with incompetence. This is not a normal requirement, so it is not something you need to tolerate.
If you have high confidence in this journal otherwise, it is possible you are corresponding with merely one person who does not have any idea what they are doing. You could consider escalating to someone else at the journal to let them know that this person is making them look silly, but if it were me I don't think I would bother.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I fully agree with the other answers that this demand is fully nonsensical.
That said, if you're still determined to submit to this journal, from the screenshot you provided, one possible "hack" could be to change your citation style (unless that too is reglemented). One which includes the first names of authors, for instance, could possibly dilute the matches a bit, possibly to be used in conjunction with the other techniques to whittle down those percentages.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/03/28
| 238
| 971
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it permissible to publish a pre-print article on many sites, or is one sufficient? Do intellectual property rights allow this?<issue_comment>username_1: This may be limited by the rules of the various sites, but, so long as you retain copyright you can publish without violating "intellectual property" rights. Likewise if you give a broad license.
But, it seems sub-optimal to do so, since any citations made will be to the various sites, not to a single one.
Moreover, if you want to publish with a commercial publisher, you might close out your chances, since some of them want more control.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Arxiv's default license is a non-exclusive license to distribute the text: <https://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/license.html>
Obviously it does not prevent you from posting the text anywhere else. This is very different from what happens when you cede your rights to a publisher.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/03/29
| 5,552
| 23,632
|
<issue_start>username_0: The Law Stack Exchange question [“Can you take action against a miserable pass-rate of an exam?”](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/78900/35266) is about an exam at a German university where:
>
> The first exam had a failure-rate of 58% (265 paticipants), after the bound to pass was lowered. The second exam had a failure-rate of 93% (111 paticipants). [The German commentors assume that students only needed to pass one exam (either one), not both.]
>
>
>
The author of the question states that such low pass rates are obviously unacceptable; several comments say the opposite. [One such comment by Wrzlprmft](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/78900/can-you-take-action-against-a-miserable-pass-rate-of-an-exam?noredirect=1#comment168548_78900) invites interested users to ask for more details on this site:
>
> As already noted, the failure rates you describe are pretty normal and generally accepted in at least some fields in Germany (including at least maths and physics). I have myself organised an exam with similar rates and I will happily explain to you why. However, since this would exceed the space and purpose of a comment, …, I invite you to ask about this on [Academia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/).
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: At the university I was studying at, (at least in the engineering and science specialities) they accepted quite a large number of students into the first semesters, and then "weeded" out the not-so-great ones through very hard exams with a low pass rate in the first couple of semesters.
The reason behind this is (I guess) that the average grades from schools are not a great indicator, as school exit exams and teaching quality are not uniform, and also some people with very good specialized skills might have bad average grades because they were not overall good students in school. By using the "weeding out" method, you will filter out the students that are actually capable in the specific subject.
Even though this method might be questionable from some perspectives, it nevertheless seems quite effective to find those that really fit well with a certain subject.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: ### My background
I studied physics and maths in Germany where such failure rates (50% in the first exam, 90% in the make-up exam) were common. I also organised one first-semester physics course with similar failure rates in the exams. Finally, I attended many exam corrections as a tutor. I will limit my self to these subjects, though I am quite confident that my answer also holds for others.
### Relevant aspects of the German academic system
* German students pick a field of study when entering university.
* Studying is essentially free in Germany.
* As a result, universities do not treat students as customers.
* In many fields, including maths and physics, there is no admission cut-off by high-school grades (“Numerus Clausus”) or only a very lenient one.
* There is a considerable number of “eternal” students who unsuccessfully study a subject for many years before eventually dropping out.
As a result, everybody who completed high school ([Abitur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abitur)) can enrol in such programmes.
Also see [this answer of mine](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/148204/7734).
### Why do many students fail?
The drop-out rates for students of maths and physics are rather high in Germany. There are several reasons for this and not all are good, but in my experience, the following are predominant:
* At a university level, these subjects are quite different from their school counterparts. The level of abstraction and speed is higher. Many students encounter proofs for the first time at university.
* Students are required to work much more independently at university. If they decide not to do anything at all, nobody will reprimand them quickly.
* Exams (and exercises) focus much more on understanding and being able to apply things than memorisation and blindly applying methods.
In my estimate, roughly half the students who begin studying physics or math are just not in the right field of study and have no chance of completing the programme, no matter how well the courses and exams are designed. (A considerable portion of these realises this very early and never writes a single exam.) On top, there are many students who need a few semesters to get the hang of studying.
### Why it is accepted that many students fail?
Due to the above reasons, there are no good predictors of whether somebody succeeds studying. For example, some students who excel at school maths are completely unsuited for studying mathematics and cannot know before they actually study it. Conversely, entrance restrictions for these fields would keep away some excellent students who have struggled with the school system (I know some of these).
Therefore, the best way to tell whether somebody is really suited to study maths or physics is to let them do it.
As a result you get many students who fail exams, in particular in the first semesters.
### Why not let more students pass?
The general idea is that students who fail an exam missed the rudimentary goals of the course and will only have more trouble with advanced courses (which are considered to be even harder). Therefore it will be best for them to repeat the course or drop out. Yes, the course might have been didactically bad or similar, but even then, there is no benefit to let students pass to make up for that. In particular, you do not want that students graduate who have not learnt what they should, as it devalues the degree and causes all the problems people doing jobs they are not qualified for.
I witnessed and participated in some discussions around setting fail–pass thresholds for exams with different people. The main focus was always whether all people who would pass the exam had met the minimal goals of the course, not on whether the right amount of people passed or similar.
In “my” exam, the vast majority of students who failed made a series of fundamental mistakes that indicated a severe lack of understanding. For example, many used energy conservation to solve a problem with explicit and unknown friction. Mind that this was a fully open-book exam, so skills like memorising played hardly any role. I acknowledge that some people were suffering from examination anxiety and were failing due to other issues, but I am quite confident that most people who failed the exam had no chance of ever obtaining a physics degree (at least one that wasn’t completely worthless). Also, a considerable portion of students failing this first-semester course had already been studying for years.
In physics, another aspect is that often only students who passed their first exam may enter the lab courses, which require more resources per student, in particular students who put in no effort whatsoever and may break things as a result. By contrast, another student in a lecture with exercises costs almost nothing.
### What about the second exam?
If both exams are equally difficult, a 90% failure rate in the second exam indicates that the exams are fair and have a reasonable difficulty. If exam success completely depends on luck, you would expect the failure rates to be the same for both exams.
By contrast, if most students who bring in the requirements for the course and put in the effort pass the first exam, mostly “bad” students remain for the second exam and those are more likely to fail. Of course, you also have students who were sick for the first exam, had a bad day, or really made an effort between the exams and those make up the 10% that pass the second exam.
I also witnessed some cases where both exams were badly designed and focussed on different skills and topics than the exercises or common sense would let you expect. Here the pass rates in the second exams was much higher because then everybody was prepared for what the exam designer was throwing at them.
### Reverse example: medicine
In Germany, access to medicine programmes is highly restricted. You essentially need to finish high school (Abitur) with the best possible grade or wait very long or meet pre-conditions such as having worked as a nurse, etc. Also, the contents of the field are less abstract, etc. People tend to joke that the entrance criteria for medicine capture exactly the skills required for studying medicine, namely blind memorising and similar (and unfortunately these skills are less relevant for practising medicine). As a result, drop-out rates for medicine programmes are much lower and the mentioned failure rates may cause a ruckus.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: In a nutshell, because the universities test *qualification*, not *endurance*.
In other words, if a hundred morons with enough money study to be a doctor, how many do you think should pass?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: My answer would cover the same aspects as username_2's excellent answer, but with a slightly different weighting due to my field of study: Chemistry. The fail rate on the first Chemistry exam (there were also auxiliary exams in Math and Physics) was above 60% (exam plus make-up exam). Contributing factors are: large difference in available lab space versus number of first-semester students and students with no intention of studying Chemistry, who are hoping to score credit useful in their intended field of study, which is typically Medicine, Dentistry or something else that they could not get in at that point in time, but believe to get in later. In subsequent exams, the fail rate was far lower, except for the last two exams, which were just hard.
I was involved in the student government and we discussed this on occasion. The general consensus was that it was better to let everyone, regardless of achievement in high school (beyond passing the diploma: Abitur), have a chance at getting into the field. High school chemistry typically has little to do with what is taught and practically done at university level, so neither overall grade average nor Chemistry grades would be a good indicator of a successful student. While I do not have quantitative data, I can easily recall students who did well in high school, but floundered in Chemistry at university and vice versa.
Overall, it may be more useful to consider drop-out rates, especially students who do not leave e.g. Chemistry for Medicine, but "complete" drop-outs without a degree.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I am currently enrolled in a public university (in my case known as "Hochschule") for economic computer science so I can offer some of my insight.
The difficulty of the subjects ranges from very basic and essentially freebies up to insanely difficult with the latter being usually a 1st semester subject. The goal of the teachers in the first semester is to filter out a lot of the less determined students thus causing high failure rates. The further you progress into your major, the easier it usually becomes.
Since the lecturers decide the contents of the exams it can not be said that x subject has the same difficulty across the country. In my university, the math basics for computer science that is being taught in the first semester is the highest difficulty exam you can experience in our university. It is not uncommon for students to have cleared out every single exam and have 145 out of 150 credit points due to not being able to finish this subject.
At the same time, many subjects have a final exam that lasts 60 or 90 minutes with the former being more common due to corona regulations. A semesters worth of content is impossible to condense down to this short of a exam time so luck becomes a factor. A student has about 6 subjects to pass each semester so being prepared perfectly for each is unlikely.´This means that many students that studied decent enough are still at odds to fail if a question that is worth 20 out of 60 points isn't something they are well prepared for.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: It could be tactical behaviour by students
------------------------------------------
Now, for Germany in particular, I cannot answer, but as a student of a European university I have some experience. I failed plenty of courses. As long as there are "infinite" do-overs and you didn't at any time have more than one failed semester of courses you could proceed. If ever you got more than one semester the administrators would start making your life hard for you if you wanted to attend your classes for next year. They'd essentially make you do the year again, to catch up.
Thing is, a passing grade cannot be retaken. So if you have ambitions of getting a good grade on that particular exam, it could be tactically sound to fail it, and try it again. Especially on courses which retake-exams were organized in the end of the mid summer break. All the time in the world to prepare for one particular exam, no ongoing classes, projects or work to be delivered the same time.
Another justification would be the opposite, here are 2 difficult and 1 "easy" exams in a short interval. Let's punt the short one to next summer, focus on the hard ones.
And then there is the "oh snap" moment on the exam where you realize that your grade will be weak. Decision time: Accept weak outcome or try for better? Only way for the latter outcome is to fail the exam. Crumble your answers so far, deliver blank sheet, retake next semester.
I had my share of tactical "conts" (continuation examination). Some planned from the start of the semester, some as a split second decision in situ. But all of them on purpose. And no time lost in the end, I spent 5 years on a 5 year program.
Driving forces for this was:
1. Low tuition (~50$ for 2 semesters)
2. As many "conts" as you want
3. Passing grades stand! (you have to retake the *entire* course, tasks, laboratory exercises and all to get a do-over with a passing grade! on a failing grade you were automatically signed up for the do-over)
4. Short period for examinations, fairly unbalanced loads from semester to semester and enough courses in total that the hand you were dealt could be back-to-back examinations.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Chemist here. In addition to the points already covered in other answers:
When I was studying (≈20 years ago), *the* exam in our 1st semester had a fraction of IIRC 1/4 passing at the first attempt, I don't recall how many passed 2nd attempt, but all in all, about half of us eventually dropped out. Most of that happened at the beginning - and it was considered good policy to have a harsh exam first rather than finding out years later that one didn't pass the thesis exam after all.
Since someone mentioned the difficulty of lab space: back then there was an economic crisis in the chemical industry, with the side effect that we were so few students that we could have had 2 lab places each if we wanted. And the library held sufficient copies of the relevant text books for everyone. So in *my case*, we can exclude difficulties with these resources as reason.
* That exam was put together from a large (and known! - we could look up as many old exams as we liked for preparation) pool of exam questions that had been in use for several decades,
* the failure rates had also been high throughout these decades.
* We did not see anything unfair, it is not that there were questions of overwhelmingly high difficulty, or misleading questions. Not even the concepts needed were all *that* difficult - many of them we had met to some extent in school (redox equations, law of mass action).
It didn't really make sense to go on deeper into this until one had mastered those basics.
* But the sheer workload at university was radically more than what we used from school. Many of us had been very good at school (at least in natural sciences) - and in consequence we did not know yet how to actually study hard (and efficiently).
* So that exam did serve as a wake-up call.
We had clearly been told that our chances are slim unless we actively put in time to study on our own throughout the whole semester. But telling was't sufficient for most of us (and I decidedly include myself here, even though I passed at the first attempt).
* University told us early on that we were not treated like school children any more. No one cared how much we study at home, whether we do homework exercises or not. No one cared which textbook we use, if any. In principle, no one cared whether one attended the lecture or not (at least unless attendance was so low that it upset the lecturer, say, less than 3 [= half of us in the higher semesters]; unfortunately this argument has been abused to try to excuse bad teaching.).
All they cared was that in order to pass, we were able to solve a given amount of questions about certain topics in a given (not too large) amount of time.
* Since it is discussed in some comments: Memorization was actually required to a certain extent - we very much resented it since we considered it much harder work than understanding and applying concepts (I think chemistry is heavier on this than maths or physics). Exam questions typically required both, and good scores/grades required one to be sufficiently fluent in the subject matter to actually solve all or most of the questions in time.
---
There were also some factors that mitigate this harsh grading policy:
* The score/grade did not have any influence later on.
This changed with the transition to BSc/MSc, though.
* There was no limit on how often you could take that exam (guessing wouldn't get you anywhere with those exams, btw.) or on how many years you can study (at 0 tuition). The exam was offered every semester, plus a 2nd attempt (typically later during the semester holidays, so there'd be a realistic chance to put time and effort into studying that subject). If you failed for 2 semesters (i.e. after having failed 4 times), you had to go and have a talk with the dean who'd try to find out whether chemistry is genuinely not the right subject for you, or whether the reasons were not related to your general ability to study chemistry.
Back then, it was still considered a perfectly valid approach to work for your living and in consequence require substantially longer for your studies.
* Having failed that exam prevented you from taking the follow up one. However, there was typically some leeway in the sense that you could take that exam as well, and as soon as the first failure was fixed would get that pass, too. So there was another chance not to lose a whole semester even after 2 failed attempts. (Same for labwork, btw.)
And you could go on with all subjects that did not depend on that particular exam. A failed inorganic chemistry exam would not hamper you wrt physics or math. (In math, you could anyway take math II before math I, IIRC the same for physics.)
---
In general, if you want to achieve consistent grading over the years:
* If you think your questions may be inadvertently varying in difficulty, and this variation is larger than the (random) variation in student output => adjust the grading scale or pass level according to the score distribution
* If you think your questions are of consistent level of difficulty, but student output may in fact vary more (from 2nd - 4th semester, we were between 4 and 8 students) => grade according to preset score scale
I may add that in Germany grading by a pre-specified scale applies to the vast majority of [written] exams for all subjects I'm familiar with.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: I want to add another perspective.
Background: I was a tutor/teaching assistant for a first semester engineering mechanics course for several years (doing exercises, exam creation, exam grading, etc.) during my PhD at a German university.
We usually had failure rates at around 60 %, even with a low passing threshold of 1/3 of the total points. However, this was considered acceptable, because in every cohort, there was always a number of students who "got it" and achieved excellent grades with above 90 % of the total points. This showed us that the exam was not impossible or unfair. The grade distribution always looked like a skewed bathtub curve; many "failed", some "good/very good", almost nothing in between.
We usually had to deal with a great number of students in the first semester (around 500) and students assumed that our course was used to "weed out" weak students. However, we never intentionally aimed at this goal.
After the first four semesters, most weak students have dropped out and failure rates generally decline, although courses are becoming more advanced and exams more difficult.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Not an answer to the question specifically, but this is not unique to Germany. I would offer a perspective from Russian universities, where advanced education is free like in Germany and we also have those "eternal students", and I believe the answer should generalize reasonably well.
Now, there are all combinations of dropout rates (low/high) and how hard/prestigious the program itself is. For example, MSU/NSU would drop about 50% of their students in the first couple of years, while in MIPT this figure would range from about 10% to 30% (and harder to get into programs would have lower dropout rates). And you would also have some low-tier universities with virtually no dropouts and barely any entry requirements as well.
The reason for that is that **the goal of the process is not to make students and their families feel good, it is to provide the society with highly skilled specialists** - who will, in turn, have job security based on their credentials actually meaning something (in Russia, this is actually problematic now, but, as far as I know, less so in Germany). Universities fill a certain role in society, and for students, dropping out of a program they have no hopes of completing does not necessarily translate to a "failure in life". Many of the failing students would be transferred to easier programs or try to find something else entirely. I personally know quite a lot of people who either never finished their education, stopped at BSc (which is still considered weird here, despite the change to the Bologna process), or dropped out 3+ times before completing their studies. All of them do not view this experience as something hampering their future success - it is just time they have spent on soul searching and maturing.
I share the view that it is highly harmful for education to make guarantees about the future employment, even if it is being provided as a service. Failures happen; it is deceptive to paint them over, reframe them and present as successes. It is impossible to mind control the students, and without that, they may not learn no matter how much effort one expends teaching them. So, then, the best approach is to admit the problem as soon as possible instead of engaging in goalposting and redefining the program requirements to accommodate the students.
Finally, one may suggest that the dropout rates so high is a failure at the screening stage. Possibly so, but common solutions are incredibly restrictive to the student ("you will never be good at maths so there is no way we would admit you to any of the maths programs"), and the overall efficiency is debatable.
So the short answer is: **more readiness to admit failure, less burden of a dropout (this includes both monetary and opportunity costs), less associated stigma**.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/03/29
| 1,095
| 4,885
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently a PhD student and I have done some research and got great results. I have a Twitter account in which I have not mentioned anything about my research. My followers are mainly normal people with a few researchers.
I want to share some of my research results in my Twitter account. However these are planned to be published in a journal later this year. I do not know if it is acceptable to share a figure or two that may reveal many things about the research and the results.
So, how will this impact my research future and journal publications? I have seen some researchers who share their results after their work is published. But I am excited about my results and I want to share some parts informally with the world.<issue_comment>username_1: My suggestion is to avoid social media for such things. There are a couple of issues to consider. While you seem to retain copyright for posts to Twitter et. al. it might be hard to actually protect your rights since so many people see such things and they are in different legal jurisdictions.
But a possibly more serious issue is whether posting constitutes "publication" of the material, including graphics. Some publications won't consider things that have been previously "published" other than in certain restricted ways, such as a preprint server.
A website [used by poets](https://writingcooperative.com/is-posting-on-social-media-publication-or-not-1f720e414c2c), for example, suggests that some poetry publishers won't consider things posted online in any form, discouraging poets from tweeting their work. Poetry is a bit different from most academic publishing, of course, but it is a consideration.
I'd suggest holding expressions of your ideas a bit closer until you have a publisher. There are other forms of communication that don't "broadcast" your expression. While there are some advantages in being widely seen, it seems to me to be better if it is a bit more formal. You also avoid the possible problem of attracting cranks.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If your field widely uses preprints and conferences, it would be acceptable. ML/AI research is largely fine with it. Otherwise, abstain from doing that prior to publication. And not just because of copyright/possible scooping.
Do not get me wrong, blogging about your research is great! But instead of the cutting edge ideas you have not even explored yourself in full, you might want to stick to general insights and "current literature reviews" instead. It would likely be a whole lot more digestible to your audience. One possible exception is providing updates on the experimental setup, the way CERN or NASA would do it. This gets into a very complex territory, however: sometimes the whole culture, from journals to the university press office, allows for that kind of dissemination, sometimes not. Even if such system is in place, it often would not be using a personal social media account. Derailing even further - if you have seen this type of social media posts in your field but not your university specifically, it might be plausible to float the idea around with the administration stating you would like to explore giving more visibility to your research using that venue.
TL;DR: Do not do that unless you are in a field where it already is a big part of the research culture. If it is not obviously accepted, but you see a possibility of that being accepted, talk to relevant people first (PI, if you are not one, research administration, press office). All this provided that there are no known incidents in your field preventing people who did that from publishing.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I definitely recommend academic twitter for sharing your published work.
However, I would **NOT recommend tweeting about initial results** / in-progress work, because:
* Perhaps a bit paranoid, but doing so gives others (who are maybe doing something similar) ideas, and perhaps they could beat you to publishing it.
* You mention that your twitter audience also includes non-scientists. There is a reason that the peer-review process exists, and prematurely reporting something, I think, can lead to the dilution the public's faith in science. For example, if there's a strong/bold conclusion from your work, and the public takes interest in this, then you've dug yourself a hole. I saw a scientist in my field do this (who doesn't like getting coverage by the BBC I guess), but they were torn apart by the field afterwards for publicizing results that were provocative and had not yet undergone the scrutiny of peer-review. So heads up that premature twitter-publishing can aggravate your colleagues and do you a disservice.
* (+ the notes about legal considerations and what is considered a previous publication of some work, brought up by @username_1)
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/03/29
| 1,331
| 5,597
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm going to defend my dissertation soon and the school has a strict requirement for allowing remote defense. Under highly unusual circumstances they'll approve a remote defense, and they said convenience is not enough for justification, but "travel restrictions" are.
Right now I am out of the country and to be honest, the true reason why I want to apply for a remote defense are:
a) The flight ticket is extremely expensive and with great uncertainty, last time it took me some 5k USD to fly back to my home country (it's the lowest price I can get in 6 months), not to mention that required quarantine took me another 2k. Now it might be even more expensive considering that it's going to be a round trip, I probably need to budget of 20k or higher this time for just a round trip since there's aggregated quarantine requirement to get back to my country.
b) The flight might be canceled for no reason and it's not a random thing. As far as I know, they have canceled more than half the number of the planned flight this year. No one can guarantee that I can fly to the school nor back.
c) There's no guarantee that I can get back once I finished my defense. Say, if I get infected by COVID, I will have to wait for another 6 months before I can get back to my country, according to its policy. No exceptions are allowed. This will be another huge money issue, plus, if I get a job in my country I would not be able to return to my country and meet the job requirement on time, given a quarantine requirement of at least 28 days.
I don't know if the money issue sounds compelling but I guess that's not the one that will make the graduate school easily say yes? I don't know.
Things are changing as of COVID policies and my country has a really strict one. I really don't want to take the risk and do something that is foreseeable of low probability. I'm not sure if the school cares about whether I can get back to my country or how expensive and difficult the whole procedure is going to be.
Any suggestions?
Many thanks in advance.<issue_comment>username_1: You can only ask and learn, but I'd think that the combination of cost and COVID (including the lack of social distancing in air travel) goes beyond questions of "convenience".
If the defense is a few months away, then there is a certain amount of uncertainty that the best plans can actually be executed. There is a new variant sweeping the Earth at the moment.
You give good reasons in your post, but it is the department/university that makes the rules. It is worth asking. And it is worth getting your advisor to support you.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> The flight ticket is extremely expensive
>
>
>
A reasonable person would consider that a compelling reason.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: All your reasons are compelling. There are clearly major travel restrictions in place, and your reasons are not just a matter of simple convenience.
The pandemic counts as "highly unusual" circumstances. And in addition, your country has much stronger restrictions than most other countries, which make your circumstances "highly unusual" even within the pandemic.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It's worth pointing out that defending a dissertation is a [rite of passage] for completing a Ph.D. For many programs it's one of two rites of passage: (1) qualifying exam and (2) dissertation defense. The members of your committee went through these rites of passage themselves and suffered to make it through. They will naturally want to resist making it any easier for you to earn a Ph.D. than it was for them.
It's unclear from the original question what your long term plan is. Would you ever return to the country of your graduate school? Expensive airfare seems like an argument in your favor, but it may not be enough to sway your committee/graduate school. Maybe some other particulars of your situation would be enough to convince them:
* You're working serving the poor and it pays little or nothing and it would be too expensive to fly back
* You're doing some exciting research in your field, but it pays little or nothing and it would be too expensive to fly back.
* You have some life threatening illness and the risk of being at the mercy of quarantine rules is too great.
* You have a pre-existing condition and the risk of contracting Covid during travel is too great.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Your reasons seem perfectly valid to me (and most of the others here). However, the wording of your question and your reasons makes most of it sound like convenience ("oh, it's so expensive", "I might not be back in time for a new job").
Then, at the end of paragraph a and c, you mention quarantine. Short of not being allowed to travel at all, that's a really strong restriction. Put that first! Mention the details like duration and the fact that you cannot "home quarantine". Most of the things you put as your reasons (the cost for a ticket and quarantine, the number of cancelled flights, the personal impacts) are direct or indirect consequences of those restrictions and should be phrased as such.
Mention what happens if you get infected, but put that last, as it's only a possibility, while quarantine is apparently mandatory.
Don't expect the university to know those things already. You don't say where the university is located (US?), but here in Germany, COVID-related rules have become so complicated, I'm not even up to date with the local rules, let alone the rules related to travel to / from a random country.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/03/30
| 3,998
| 17,704
|
<issue_start>username_0: (Sorry, I just couldn't resist the temptation to use this somewhat provoking title.)
[This recent question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/183700/135841) motivated me to finally ask the following, somewhat dual, question which I've been wondering about for quite some time. My experience is mainly in maths, bit I am interested in the situation in other subjects, too.
**Background.** I've been teaching maths classes at German universities for several years; the situation over here tends to be as follows:
* German undergraduates have to decide about their major before entering the undergraduate program.
* There is a single exam at the end of each course which decides about the overall grade. Students who fail can typically take a second exam some weeks later in the same semester.
* For first year undergraduates in maths, the failure rate tends to be somewhere between 30% and 60%. It's more or less comparable for related subjects such as physics.
* The exams of those students who fail, do in most cases clearly show that those students did not understand central concepts of the course.
**My (subjective and possibly wrong) impression of the situation at many places in the US:**
* Such high failure rates of courses would be deemed inacceptable and thus, failure rates there are much lower.
* Course grades are not determined solely by exams; instead, graded homework often counts considerable weight towards the overall grade.
**Question.**
As the high failure rates that I am used to are, in my experience, mainly due the failing students' insufficient understanding of the contents of the course, I am wondering how the purportedly low failure rates in the US are possible. To put it more concisely:
Why are high pass rates considered acceptable for university courses in the US?
**Potential reasons.**
I can think of with several potential reasons. I am unable, though, to check how valid they are since I lack personal experience in the US.
1. My premise is false: Failure rates in the US are not significantly lower than in Germany, in general.
2. First year courses in Germany should rather be compared to, say, third year courses in the US, since this is, if I understand correctly, where most maths students in the US start to work with proofs to some extent. If this alone was the major part of the explanation though, I would expect failure rates in the US to be particularly high in third year courses.
3. A large number of US universities are just much better in teaching their students a good understanding of the course contents.
4. The average understanding of students in the US is not higher compared to Germany, but universities simply let them pass anyway.
5. The US approach to choose a major only when several years into the program, has some kind of early "matching effect": students gradually narrow down the subjects in which they take courses, which results in a good fit between students and subjects before the more advanced courses start. (While this "matching" is rather designed as "filtering" in Germany, via high failure rates in first year courses.)
6. Quite high tuition fees in the US are an economical incentive for students to focus on courses which are reasonably within their capabilities, while this is not so much the case in Germany due to the mainly tax funded university system.<issue_comment>username_1: The top answer to the linked question states:
>
> Studying is essentially free in Germany...in many fields...there is no admission cut-off...or only a very lenient one.
>
>
>
The situation in the US is inverted: most reputable universities have relatively strict admissions requirements (the top schools have *very* strict requirements), and stronger applicants tend to attend more competitive schools. The resulting student body profile in the US is therefore much more homogeneous than in Germany: picture a bell curve with a fairly narrow width, plus a few outliers. The expectation is that students in the center of this bell curve should be *challenged*: the average student must work hard to get a B, and will really struggle to get an A. But if the average student is at risk of failing, the course's difficulty is likely not aligned with the college's admissions requirements.
This is one reason why school reputations matter so much in the US. All degrees are not equal; rather, more competitive schools have stronger students and therefore offer more challenging courses (and vice versa). As stated in the comments, this can lead to almost-meaningless degrees, such as math degree holders who can't write a simple proof or calculate an eigenvalue. Thus, we should be careful what we mean by "pass rate"; a student in the US who "passes" college and gets a degree may still not be competitive for certain jobs or graduate schools.
A related factor is that students need to pass most of their courses on the first attempt. Retaking failed classes is expensive for the student; further, competitive schools will actual expel students who fail too many classes.
These factors can produce a vicious cycle: students expect to pass (often they expect an A), and universities expect most students to pass (many of them with As). Instructors can feel some pressure to go along with this, in that it is easy to give an easy course and pass all the students, while it is much harder and less pleasant to give a very difficult course and fail many students (even if the "very difficult" course is actually quite reasonable).
Finally, note that the above discussion applies to reputable schools with meaningful admissions requirements. But many other colleges (including, but not limited to, "community colleges") effectively have open admissions (without even any equivalent of the Abitur). There are over 5000 schools in this category, so it is difficult to make generalizations; some of these offer a good education, or at least a pathway to begin a good education. But my impression is that most such colleges have classes with very minimal requirements (e.g., show up once a week, participate in class, do a group project, and write a one-page essay) and yet still have very high failure rates.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: In the majority of American universities, the standards are indeed much lower than in German universities. I can mention several factors contributing to this phenomenon.
1. Bachelors degrees are not thought of as vocational degrees or degrees in a subject. They are rather a mark to be considered 'well-educated' in some sense, and the idea of having a specialization is to force every graduate to study some subject in greater depth, not to actually train them for work in the subject. Less than half of the studies required for a mathematics degree are actually in mathematics. Most graduates, even at top schools, will go on to careers that don't have anything specific to do with their studies. If you look at top executives at US corporations, you will find that most of them have a bachelors degree in English or Political Science or Psychology or Chemistry, and an MBA. Most of the students earning a degree in Mathematics here are actually earning a double degree in Education and go on to become high school math teachers. Most of the remainder end up in jobs that don't really require a college degree, such as being a manager at a supermarket. Only a few go on to jobs that require mathematics to some extent, and even then they rarely end up using anything more complicated than calculus or introductory statistics (without needing to know proofs). Up to rounding error, none of our students go on to graduate school.
2. US universities are much more streamed than German ones. Roughly every student at Harvard or Princeton is among the top 0.5% of US high school graduates. Stanford students are all within the top 2%, and UC--Berkeley or University of Michigan students are all within the top 7% or so. My university, the University of Idaho, is the best university in a predominantly rural state, and, up to rounding error, none of our students are from the top 10% in the country, and few are from the top 25%. (High school education is relatively poor in our state, so top 10% in the country probably means top 7% in our state.) All the better students go to more highly-ranked universities elsewhere. Given only about 50% of students go to university (both in the US and Germany), this means most of our students are from the bottom 50% of the university-attending population. If we had German standards and high school performance was a perfect indicator (which it isn't, but it isn't meaningless either), then few of our students would pass. (As it is, I think less than a quarter of our graduating students could pass a first-year class in Germany.)
3. The general ideology in the US is that anyone can learn anything, at least up through the level of a bachelor's degree. It is generally believed that anyone who worked reasonably hard (and not unreasonably hard) should be able to earn a bachelor's degree in any subject. This is in part because most of the US (including people who have university degrees) believe that learning only involves memorizing facts.
4. Universities are funded to a large extent based on how good a job they do of graduating students. If our university graduated fewer students, the politicians would perceive us as a failure (see (3)) and greatly cut the funding to the university. Students (who pay about half the costs of the university) would also stop coming. Given what I wrote in (2), if our university applied German standards, it would effectively cease to exist.
5. Different departments at a university are in competition with each other to lower standards. Over the long term, departments are allocated funding based on how many students they have. Students choose their department one or two years into their studies, and can switch fairly easily. Especially at lower-ranked universities, many students choose their department based on how easy it is. You see what happens.
There may also be reasons to suspect that US universities do a better job at teaching than German ones that don't imply German instructors are doing anything wrong. Even average US universities spend more per student on instruction than German universities, with most of the money going to having smaller classes. The top universities easily spend twice as much per student, or even more, as German universities.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: TLDR In Germany, it is a matter of when the selection is done.
It may be worthwhile pointing out that this is the norm in maths and physics in Germany, it is not in other subjects. For example, to study psychology or biology you need a very good school grade (NC) but you don't expect to fail courses during your bachelors studies. This also goes for the grades while only an exceptional student will consistently achieve 1 in physics, a good student can expect to finish their bachelors with a 1.5 in biology. My experiences are based in Berlin but I have heard similar from other parts of Germany.
This corresponds to the situation as you have described it in the USA and therefore I think that it is based on the admissions.
Whereas in maths or physics the students are 'filtered out' by exams, this is done by entrance grade for other subjects, which corresponds much more to the USA system.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: This may not directly answer the question, but my perception has been that over the last decade US universities have begun to incorporate more holistic practices of evaluating students.
There has been a significant amount of education research indicating that exams are not the best measure of intelligence or mastery of a subject matter, and that this form of evaluation encourages memorization over mastery. With that in mind, it seems illogical and outdated to continue to rely on one or a few exams to filter through capable students. Consider that by using exams, Universities are limiting themselves to only a single type of student. I think this is one reason (in addition to those mentioned above), why it is acceptable in the US for so many students to pass.
At this time, in the United States, most students even at top universities are weeded out not by their exams or even their grades (especially for graduate study), but by what they have produced and achieved across multiple metrics.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> There is a single exam at the end of each course which
> decides about the overall grade.
>
>
>
>
> The exams of those students who fail, do in most cases
> clearly show that those students did not understand central
> concepts of the course.
>
>
>
In the American universities that I'm familiar with, grading for most courses is more than just a single exam. There is a final exam at the end of the course that makes up a considerable portion of the overall grade, but additional exams are given throughout the course. In essence, the feedback cycles are much shorter. If a student isn't understanding something critical, it will be obvious by poor results on early exams. That gives them time to either make a renewed effort to learn the material and catch up, or to drop the course entirely. Some particularly difficult "weed-out" courses can see almost half the students drop the course mid-way through the semester. Without early feedback, many of these would translate into course failures and you'd see failure rates approaching the rates you quoted for German universities.
And since you mentioned first-year courses in particular: the first year of courses in American universities is tricky to use for these sorts of statistics. Incoming students came from different high schools and have very different academic backgrounds. First-year courses - especially in math - often have to do a lot of catch-up work to get all the students to the same level. For example, in my engineering program, some students came from states where high school pre-calculus courses focused on linear algebra and trigonometry, while others came from states where pre-calculus focused on statistics. Some of my early engineering courses had to include material that much of the class already knew (thus was easy for them), but was new to the rest of the class and was necessary for understanding the rest of the course material. My first-year calculus course was essentially just a re-hash of my high school calculus course, but most of the class came from high schools where calculus wasn't even offered as an option. Grades for these sorts of first-year courses will skewed since many people already know the material.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: There are several posts proposing essentially cynical explanations, and several offering reasons why high pass rates might be acceptable. I'd like to offer a reason that suggests that a high pass rate is actively desirable.
Ask your self "what is the purpose of education"? One might imagine two answerd to this question. The first is that the an education gives you the skills required for a job, and exams certify that you have reached some objective minimum standard required for a job or academia.
But an alternative to that is that the job of an educator is to help which ever student is in front of them achieve the most of their personal potential, whatever that might be. In this conception, what is the purpose of an assessemnt? To motivate the student, and give them feedback - help them to understand what they understand, and where they should be apply their effort. For such a metric to be useful, most student should be somewhere in the middle. If either everyone fails, or everyone gets As, then the metric is low information. A fail should suggest that the student will gain no benefit from the next class. The difficulty level of that class should be calibrated so that the most people derive the most benefit from it. A small number of failing students might suggest that bringing the next class down to a level that would benefit them would deny opportunity for the majority to achieve their potential, but if the failure rate is high, then probably more people could gain more benefit by bringing the level of the next class down so that more of the fail students could benefit from it.
In this conception their is no idea of an object set of standards that must be achieved in a degree. The downside is that having a degree dows not provide much information on the abilities of the student. The upside is that more people derive more personal development from the degree.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Many answers have interacted with the actual intention of your question, which should have been called "focusing upon the American experience, what accounts for the significant differences between pass rates for higher education in courses between the United States and Germany?"
I suppose if you are to ask an intentionally provocative question in order to get more clicks, I will not feel bad for addressing that question directly.
High pass rates are considered acceptable in the United States because the purpose of teaching a student is for them to learn the material. As is such, there is no outrage when a course achieves a metric that indicates success in that capacity. At least, there is no outrage based only upon the fact that the metric has been met (whether that metric is trustworthy or not is another question). This is to say that in the United States, if 100 persons take a course and 100 of them learn the material, this is considered a **success**, not a failure.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/03/30
| 1,175
| 4,819
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm one year into my PhD, but doing mainly side-projects so far, that brought me a couple of publications in high impact journals. Happy so far.
I have my annual review in a couple of days and my supervisor put my presentation down in front of the whole lab, it was quite harsh, being really critical of me. It was kind of humiliating and demolished my confidence right before I gave my annual presentation. The PPT was previously approved by my other supervisor but I think he wasn't upfront with me on how crap it was.
I'm aware my background reading is not as advanced as I would like but my supervisor is really pushy with some side-projects he wants me to do (I can code quite well which is rare in my field) although I'm struggling to keep up with my actual project.
We have weekly lab meeting, and everytime he mocks that some of the side projects are on the waiting list but all I'm trying to do is catching up with my own project.
I don't know how to communicate with him, I do care about my PhD a lot but unfortunately it becomes increasingly more difficult to dig myself out. My mental state is getting worse as well.
I hope I was able to paint the whole picture here. I felt really unmotivated to work for the past two weeks. Not sure what I'm doing and this kind of scares me. I never thought I'll be a weak PhD, I always got good feedback on my presentations and ability to sell my project however I'm regressing at the moment. Do you have any advice? :)
P.S Doing my PhD in the UK, have two more years left.<issue_comment>username_1: **Build confidence**
First of all, build confidence in yourself. After all, you have been working so hard and you have publications also. Unmotivating things happen in life, but life must go on. Don't be dishearted. You can gain only if you get up with more confidence.
**Give improved presentation**
Once I gave a presentation and professor disliked it. I noted the points he disliked and what he expected. So I requested him that I wanted to improve my presentation. He gave me one week. I studied and made a new presentation improving the points he disliked and adding more he was expecting. He was happy.
**Side project as main project**
You have some publications in a side project and your supervisor is pushing you to do that. Can you ask your professor to make it as the main project?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is all too common to be buried under side projects. And it is an important part of being an independent researcher - or, indeed, a functioning adult - to learn to say no. Time management is incredibly hard. Some advisors like to make a point about that, and I have a feeling you have exactly this type of advisor.
>
> "But when do I do my own research if I have four side projects to take care of and you say they all are urgent?!"
>
>
> "Not my problem."
>
>
>
**Learn to set your own priorities and push back on assignments as needed.**
There is not much you could do right now except for learning your lesson. Getting harsh critique for your presentation may be a good thing to have. It is supposed to build up resilience and starting to look after yourself first and foremost. These people did not like what you have accomplished, so what? What is in it for you? What do you need *them* to do for you to have a successful career? How do you go about that?
If you do not put your own research interest first, no one would. Framing it as "taking advantage of you" is another way of saying the same, but it is not about shifting blame, really. This is about you and your research.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: >
> I'm aware my background reading is not as advanced as I would like but my supervisor is really pushy with some side-projects he wants me to do (I can code quite well which is rare in my field) although I'm struggling to keep up with my actual project.
>
>
>
Be aware that your supervisor is exploiting you for your coding skills, and probably you're happy to help since you feel more in your comfort zone doing it, possibly giving yourself an excuse to procrastinate on your main work.
Doing various things in the first year is not unreasonable, but you should be clear with yourself and with your supervisor about where your priorities stand. It's possible that the supervisor will try to keep exploiting you this way. In this case, depending on the relationship, try to make them give you a clear plan, so that they see themselves the problem. If they're unable or if this turn to clear abuse, you may have to go to the ombudsman (or any person with this kind of role).
Btw it's possible to hire programmers, maybe the supervisor should budget that in his projects instead of counting on you. Of course it's not the same cost...
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/03/30
| 939
| 3,981
|
<issue_start>username_0: As the title says, I wish to publicly share a dataset used in one of my articles which has already been published (by MDPI, if that helps). I do not think the data is worthy of an article by itself, so I just want to upload them online **and be able to link them to my already published article**.
After some searching on the internet, I found that [**Mendeley Data**](https://www.elsevier.com/authors/tools-and-resources/research-data/mendeley-data-for-journals) does exactly what I need, but it is quite unclear if linking articles works only for Elsevier publications or for others too. Another possible solution is [**OSF**](https://osf.io/), but it is also unclear whether it's possible to link a published article to the data.
If you can confirm that any of these services works in my situation, or propose other solutions, you would be helping greatly. Thanks in advance!<issue_comment>username_1: Have a look at Zenodo (<https://zenodo.org/>). It is free, gives you a DOI, and you can link your article with the data. It lets you upload 50 GB by default, but you can ask for more space if needed.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I've used [Figshare](https://figshare.com/); it's free, gives you a DOI, and you can make a link **from** the data **back to** the article yourself.
What is presumably more useful is the ability to make a link **from the article** to your newly uploaded data. In general I do that by somehow citing the data's DOI within the article when submitting, but since your article has already been published you will need to contact the publisher, as they are the ones that must create that link.
Edit: just to expand on the latter:
I expect your article has a DOI - used in other papers when they cite it - which redirects to a webpage run by the publisher; that webpage is or has a link to the "Version of Record" of your article. It would be nice to also have a link to your source data. This second link has to be inserted by the publisher, since they control their webpage, but they first need to verify a couple of things:
* is this the right data? Nobody ever accidentally clicks on the wrong file in the upload dialogue, of course... what if someone faked a screen name and then uploaded a version of the dataset maliciously modified so that the existing paper's analysis section now appears to be wrong or some form of misconduct?
* is the data allowed to be shared? Have all the data's creators given permission? Study participants? Suitable licence?
Checking these at *submission* is straightforward: the Corresponding Author (submitter) provides the data (or link to it), and the Corresponding Author can sign off on any required permissions, ethical approval, etc. just as they do for the paper itself.
Making these checks *after publication* will be more problematic, and (personal opinion) I would be very wary of any process that allows this without direct communication with the original Corresponding Author.
(My concerns about validating data integrity are, of course, independent of which data-hosting platform is used!)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think the OSF will work for your use case. Once you upload all of your files to a project, you can create a registration (a frozen copy of that project) which comes with a DOI. Like Lou mentioned earlier, you would need to contact the publisher to include that DOI in the article.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: <https://dataverse.org/> if your academic organization got an account. It is easy to use.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Springer Nature has this [list of data repositories](https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/research-data-policy/recommended-repositories) covering: mandated data types; biological sciences; chemistry and chemical biology; earth, environmental and space sciences; health sciences; materials science; physics; social science; and generalist repositories.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/03/30
| 1,195
| 5,199
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a very strong suspicion that a final written exam of a student was written by another student of mine. The style, the wording, even font, etc. are just way too similar to be random.
I am wondering what is the best way to confront them in order for them to feel comfortable to admit it instead of perhaps being defensive and denying it.
Do you have experience in confronting students in what works and what definitely does not work?
--- more context ---
The context is a Data Science class where students have to do a data science paper. Allegedly, one student, who is very good, did the work of another student who is a very beginner.
That very good student for instance wrote their code in a very specific rather advanced way and used a lot of extra libraries that we never discussed in class. When I reviewed both of their programming codes, they were written in the exact same way, with the same variables names and the same odd libraries. The newbie student could never have written this themselves in my opinion. On top of that they are family related.
How much more evidence do you need for your cognitive Bayesian model?<issue_comment>username_1: I hesitate to give advice with so little information.
That said, I have taught for years. When I was new at it I tried to resolve these kinds of questions on an *ad hoc* basis. What do I know about the student? How advanced is the course? How sure am I? Do I want to punish (and how much), or make sure the student never cheats again? How much will I be swayed/convinced by protestations of innocence or regret?
Over time I found it better to follow university policy. [Here](https://www.cs.umb.edu/%7Eeb/honesty/) is what I tell my students at the start of the course. The first homework assignment asks for a paraphrase of what it says.
In your case, perhaps ask colleagues or your chair for direction.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: No country was named in the question- this answer is from a US perspective.
Start by reviewing your institution's policies and procedures for dealing with academic dishonesty. Do whatever these policies and procedures require you to do. Do not act on your own outside of the official procedures.
Typically, you'll be required to report the incident to an office that handles cheating cases. One important reason for this is that students who cheat in one course often cheat in others. When it becomes apparent that a student is a repeat offender, the punishments may be much more severe than anything you could mete out. Another important reason for this is procedural- it gives the student an avenue to appeal against your judgment.
These policies typically require you to speak with the student about the incident before filing a report. Your conversation with the student might result in the student admitting guilt. Or, the student might convince you that they did not cheat.
Policies on assigning punishments differ between institutions. In some institutional policies, the instructor assigns a punishment (such as a grade of 0 on the assignment or even failure in the class), but the punishment might be adjusted after a student appeal. In other policies, the punishment is determined by a higher authority, perhaps based on the instructor's recommendation.
In this case, you actually should talk to both students since you think you know who wrote the exam. If one or both of the students admits guilt, then you're in a position to move forward with the process.
However, if they both deny it, then you have only weak evidence to support your accusation and it is unlikely that a higher authority would support punishment for the students. Knowing my institution's policies, I'd abandon the case at that point since I wouldn't have sufficient proof.
You should also consider whether you want to continue giving exams to students in this insecure fashion. If the exam had been conducted under your direct supervision, it would not have been possible for one student to prepare an exam paper for another student.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: **I can improve this answer dramatically if you give examples of what you found**
**If you have proof they are cheating**, call them into your office. Explain they cheated and explain consequences.
**it sounds like you don't have proof, but a suspicion. Go to your department head and ask for guidance on if this is enough to report them for cheating.**
Personally, I do not believe that style, wording and font similarity are enough to prove cheating. That could be the result of word processor choice and having the same English teacher in high school. To support cheating I think you'd need the same sentence or phrases appearing in assignments from both students.
**Try calling the student into your office and ask what their paper is about.**
Tell the student you've go some questions about their final exam. Don't give it to them, but ask what it's about. If they wrote it they should have a decent understanding of its content and should be able to discuss it with you without looking at it.
If they cannot, that may be enough to prove cheating with the other similarities.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/03/30
| 1,030
| 4,580
|
<issue_start>username_0: Our research project is ready for being shared as a preprint and submitted for peer review. What are the best practices for transforming the private research repository (which includes several pilot experiments and paths not taken) into a codebase that can be shared as supporting material?
In principle, we can create a new repository with a single cleaned-up version. The downside of this would be a split between the actual research repository and the published one, and the omission of the commit history, which provides specific credit to the different students who contributed to different parts of the code. (to make this clear, these students are also listed as authors.)
EDIT: This question originally mentioned GitHub. I edited it to remove the mention of this service. As some of the comments suggested, there are alternative platforms that can be used for the task. This is a general question on how one should transform a private codebase into something that can be shared as an open scientific code.<issue_comment>username_1: Based on my experience working in a simulation-oriented computational science, I'd recommend *simply setting the repository to visibility to public*.
**The crucial steps in making this work are:**
1. Making sure that *documentation* accompanies the repository on a per-publication basis
2. Making sure that the *state of the codebase* used to produce each publication is captured alongside the analytical code and documentation. **This includes package versions.**
3. Adding a license
Organizationally -- particularly for projects with multiple papers -- splitting the repository into separate archival branches has been critical. Paper 1 gets a branch, with a readme explaining the layout of the project and the specifics needed to replicate the results. Links to the paper itself and other supporting documentation also belong there along with the versions of the software packages used. Leaving out the packages can destroy replicability.
Paper 2, …, Paper n get the same treatment.
We keep working branches in active development for further work when relevant.
**Judging your success:**
If you can take a paper, strip out all the tables and figures, and reconstruct it using only that paper’s github branch then you have a foothold (streamlining this can yield great improvements in your analytical workflow for the next project).
You'll know that you hit actual reproducibility when you can send a link to someone who was not on the project and they can do the same.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> What are the best practices for transforming the private research GitHub repository (which includes several pilot experiments and paths not taken) into a codebase that can be shared as supporting material?
>
>
>
For best practices, first determine where you want to host your code. You have two options, each with tradeoffs. Here are the two I could consider:
1. Make your GitHub repo public and create an immutable tag with the version.
* Downsides: You depend upon GitHub being public *forever*, Some countries block GitHub, GitHub might fall out of favor with researchers.
* Upsides: GitHub is the lingua franca for open science right now, having your code public would increase it's visibility, your complete workflow is open source.
2. Put a snapshot of the code somewhere else either as a supplement with the journal or on a long term digital archive such as Zenodo.org (thanks to EarlGrey for suggesting in a comment).
* Downsides: Need to make sure you archived version matches final version, less visible, slightly more work.
* Upside: Should be around for a really long time, you get a DOI minted for your code.
Personally, I would combine options 1 and 2. Specifically, if I wanted the code to be public, I would clean up the repo and then make it public. I would create a tag for the final version of code used for the paper and then put an archive on Zenodo.org. I recently did this for a paper I had published in the [Journal of Open Source Softwware](https://joss.theoj.org/)
Second, make sure your repository is clean.
My agency has guidance for scientists who develop code, some of which would be helpful for you.
The full page is [here](https://www.usgs.gov/products/software/software-management).
I would also look for domain specific best practices.
For example, the article, [Ten Simple Rules for Taking Advantage of Git and GitHub](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004947), has been published in PLOS Computational Biology.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/03/30
| 1,057
| 4,549
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm about to finish my PhD (last semester) . at a top 100 university in the world. The University is located in Asia, but I'm not from Asia.
I have made some applications for Postdocs and Faculty Positions at high rank universities.
I got easily several acceptances for Postdoc at high rank Universities (again, world top 100), but zero acceptances for faculty positions.
Through personal connections I got recommended in a low rank (world top 3000) university (same country than previous), and got acceptance for Assistant Professor, the position includes a lot of lecturing.
The salary in the low rank university is slightly lower than the postdoc in the high ranking. But I was expecting that from a more stable and respectable position as Professor, I may be able to rise more grants and funds than from a Postdoc? Also I shall have more freedome to choose my research line? Also the faculty position seems to be linked to more stable inmigrative benefits than Postdoc that is a non-renovable contract of 3 years at most.
The question is: Should I choose the Assistant Professor position in a low rank university now or go for the Postdoc at a Top university and keep searching aftewards to become Assistant Professor at a better University?<issue_comment>username_1: This is mostly caveats, I'm afraid. There is risk in both, assuming that a career at a "low ranked" (your words) isn't acceptable to you long term.
The obvious first thought is that if you are getting numerous post doc offers from top ranked places then you are probably good enough to move to a permanent position at some "not so low ranked" place eventually. But there are no guarantees and it depends a lot on your field and on the marketplace in the next few years. Currently it is pretty terrible for most fields.
At least some of your regular faculty rejections are possibly due to a change in academia, especially in some fields. Post docs are now expected to provide "seasoning" of scholars before they get a permanent position. When I started out (long ago), postdocs were pretty rare and not "essential".
But, moving up from a faculty position at a "low ranked" place might be harder than moving to a high ranked place with a postdoc to a regular position. Not impossible. I've done it, actually, a couple of times (though not to the highest range of places).
So, it is risk, and depends on your willingness to accept risk. If the "low ranked" place is attractive to you for other reasons, it might be the safest bet. But you should also look at all other circumstances that the various options provide. Some places are more fun to live in than others.
Another consideration for the low ranked place is that, if it is small, there may be fewer opportunities for collaboration, though one can seek that elsewhere. And, truly low ranked places don't provide a lot of research opportunities or attract much grant money to support it.
I looked at a few worldwide rankings around 3000 for US universities. Not all are bad, but probably not the places to build a research career if that is your goal.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It depends on what your priorities are and what risks you are willing to take.
A faculty position presumably means a permanent position. This means you can stay there and have a stable job for a long time, potentially until retirement. If you want to live in the city/ country where the position is longterm or you have a family longterm stability can be quite valuable. It is possible to get a faculty position at a higher ranked university in a few years but difficult and relatively less likely.
If you career goal is a faculty position at a high ranking university a postdoc at a high ranking university is the better choice. However the postdoc is almost always non permanent and only lasts for a year or two. So if you take a postdoc position you will have to hunt for a job again soon. In most fields it is quite common to do several postdocs before you get a permanent position. The postdoc positions are usually in different cities, possibly in different countries. There is also a non trivial number of people who have one or two postdoc positions and then drop out of academia for some industry job. Often because a permanent position in academia is very hard to get. However if you look at the people that have faculty positions at top ranked universities they usually did postdocs at several different universities before they got their current position.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/03/30
| 466
| 1,918
|
<issue_start>username_0: A prospective postdoc PI, after looking at my application and papers, told me "I currently do not have any open positions, although that may change depending on grant applications", afterwards he invited me to give a talk at a fancy seminar at his department and told me my work is "very impressive".
Assuming that I am the perfect fit for this lab and that I deliver a good talk:
How should I approach the issue of funding with this PI during my talk? What can I offer in order to convince him to find a way to hire me?<issue_comment>username_1: Without funding there is likely no way he can hire you. It isn't a matter of convince.
I'd suggest that you give the talk. If travel is involved, ask about reimbursement. Ask him when you should contact him again when he might know more. If you give the talk and he seems impressed then good, but you can also, perhaps, use him as a resource for finding another position elsewhere. He might know of colleagues in the same field that might consider you and might be able to recommend you to them if his funding is tentative or far off.
He can't expect you to wait around, so has incentive already to keep you informed.
If the talk is in person, try to arrange a meeting with the department head to enquire about other positions that might be open or about to open. Make it a multi-pronged attack. Or "hang around" the department and talk to a bunch of people. Who knows what might develop.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> What can I offer in order to convince him to find a way to hire me?
>
>
>
Probably nothing. It's already his job to find ways to hire postdocs.
You are approaching this backwards. Instead of looking for PIs and hoping they have suitable funding, you should search the appropriate funding agency's grants database. Identify who has received funding recently. Then see if they are a suitable PI.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/03/30
| 734
| 3,092
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently got a paper published and reported a result in the body of the text that is right. However, this value is based on values in the supplementary material that are extremely close to the right values but with a difference (error, let's be honest) in the last decimal place. For example, the right would be "2,765 and 2,777" and I reported "2,764 and 2,778". The main value that results from them and that is disclosed in the paper, is right. That wrong approximation of the mentioned values do not change the conclusions at all and my advisor told me to move on and forget it, that a corrigendum would not be necessary since the mistake is minor and it could potentially damage my career. What is your advice?<issue_comment>username_1: Your advisor is probably giving good advice. They know the field and whether such "small" deviations are significant in practice or not. In some fields they might be, of course, but unlikely in most fields for most purposes.
The question is whether bad things could happen if someone relies on the slightly incorrect values. In nuclear energy the difference between "not critical mass" and "critical mass" is small. But such is unlikely for most purposes.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: How good is your accuracy? For example, if you are measuring the fine structure constant whose current accepted value is ~7.2973525693(11) x 10^(-3), then an error in the fourth decimal place matters. You'd be claiming a reasonably large deviation from the accepted value.
On the other hand, if you are measuring the parallax to Alpha Centauri, whose current accepted value is 750.81 ± 0.38 mas, then an error in the fourth decimal place simply does not matter (and you should not report it in the first place).
And if you are doing something like "express 1/13 in decimals" and write 0.07693 instead of 0.07692, it's not something to worry about - in fact if someone attempts to duplicate your results, there's a good chance they get something similar but not exactly the same, simply because of rounding errors. Perhaps they rounded an earlier result and you didn't, for example. It only starts to matter when the precision is good enough that the difference should not be there.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Don't make it an official corrigendum, but do tell readers about the errors some other way. You could put a note on your website or put a corrected version of the paper with an explanation on arXiv or another website.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I agree with other answers that this seems too minor to issue a corrigendum for. You may consider fixing the error in a preprint version though. That said, you mention that the wrong value is listed in supplementary material. I've previously been told by one publisher (APS) that they allow for (at least minor) updates to such supplemental material at any time. I do not know how widespread this practice is, but if your publisher has a similar policy it may thus be possible to correct the values without needing to issue a corrigendum.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/03/31
| 1,063
| 4,438
|
<issue_start>username_0: I study biochemistry at my university. It seems like most of the younger faculty come from a cell biology / molecular biology background, while older professors seem to come from more of a physical science / biochemistry / enzymology background (i.e., chemistry and math meets biology). From other universities in my state, this also seems to be the case. Why is this so?<issue_comment>username_1: I'm less familiar with those specific fields but I can answer a bit from my own field in biology, neuroscience.
The *word* neuroscience is quite new, [credited to the early 1960s](https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60224-0.pdf). Neuroscience degrees and departments are even newer; I earned my PhD from one of the earliest graduate programs in neuroscience and it was started in 1971. Even so, there was no "department of neuroscience" until a very recent (I forget the year, approximately last decade) merger of the physiology and anatomy departments.
Of course [neuroscience as in the study of the nervous system is not nearly as new](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_neuroscience), and it's quite straightforward to talk about a history of neuroscience that exists before the word did.
I think you can say much the same for the fields of molecular/cell biology, though I can't give the relevant years. But it's a simple fact that no one doing neuroscience in the 1960s (and there are a ton of key findings in the field in that time period) had a degree in "neuroscience". Most of their students didn't, either, because most often students get a degree named for the department that their advisor is a member of. It takes some time to reorganize academic departments and rename degrees.
Of course as technology advances and key research questions in a field shifts, the number of people doing different types of research also shifts over time. I would not overemphasize the names of certain degrees in peoples' backgrounds, though, and I would caution against extrapolating trends you see in one university to a research field as a whole. These are certainly reflective of some reorganization in the field but it isn't a one-to-one relationship.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, this has changed over time, as the number of easily answered open questions in classical biochemistry, enzymology and metabolism is reduced over time. This is much like chemistry itself, where many people (rightly or wrongly), believe that the fundamental principles of chemistry are effectively solved and all that is left is to apply them to real world problems (which many more academic types find less appealing).
This can be seen in the evolution of our own departments, where the department of metabolism (the department where Krebs worked out the TCA cycle) became the department of biochemistry, which was merged into the department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, which has just been merged into the School of Biosciences.
There are still groups that practice such things as figuring out reaction mechanisms for biological enzymes, or look at the various physical properties of biological elements, but they are rarely numerous enough these days to sustain a whole department. Instead, these days many people use the principles discovered through classical biochemistry, and the techniques founded by biochemists to student biological problems at a higher level of abstraction - how do the components that biochemists have revealed come together to form organisms and when they go wrong, how does that result in the organismal level phenotype.
Its worth pointing out that a similar process has happened in classical genetics. It happened earlier in biochemistry though. Note that while there is a nature genetics, nature immunology, nature neuroscience etc, there has never been a nature biochemistry.
This is not to say that their arn't still many people and openings working at the interface of physics, math, chemistry and biology. In many ways there are more than ever, but they study different problems - things like genomics, proteomics, gene regulatory system simulation and modelling and structural biology are all highly quantitative. Indeed, many feel the importance quantitative skills in biology in on the increase after a period where it has been left to slide because of the "unreasonable success of molecular biology".
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2022/03/31
| 1,888
| 8,418
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm trying to decide between two kinds of abstracts for an article I prepare.
* One mentions by name, goal and principle the well-studied, often taught, and commonly used theoretical construction I start from; tells I propose dual smurfs (one large, one small) rather than the usual single smurf, and that I get the benefits of both large and small smurf, with practical applications.
* The other eats like 180 words (out of the recommended 150--250) to introduce some notation¹, then my dual smurfs, an extra variable, two new formulas describing the modified relations. I hope it could trigger a "that could work!" feeling in the target readership. But I have to severely trim the rest.
I fail to find a middle ground: it's either deferring meaningful explanation of the how to the body of the article, or spending most of the limited space/attention span for a basic exposition.
---
Some context: I'm an engineer using cryptography professionally, not an academic. I only previously wrote one article as a single author², back in 1999. I now have a quite different idea, hopefully improving a well-studied, often taught, and commonly used theoretical construction. I plan to first post my article on a specialized preprint website, with three goals:
1. Raise interest of academics in the field to either get a summary refutation, or find a coauthor mastering more advanced proof techniques than I do, to get more precise security reduction.
2. Make a disclosure that prevents others from filing patent (I won't). That goal complicates privately circulating the article, since the few academics I know in the field tend to have ties to the industry.
3. If possible get published in a top conference.
The abstract matters to 1; less for 3, as I can change the abstract when I submit; not for 2.
---
¹ Four variables known to the target audience but under a plethora of notations and often two names, the usual smurf, one short formula on how the smurf relates to the variables.
² The attempt went well. LaTeX didn't kill me. I got published in a top-4 conference with peer-reviewed proceedings, then invited by academics to merge my material into an article in the reference journal of the field, sort of an obituary to the signature standard we had broken in significantly different ways.<issue_comment>username_1: This is a personal view, I suppose, and others might disagree, but the purpose of an abstract is to permit a reader to get a complete picture of the work, not an introduction or background. Those can be separate sections of a paper. But a fairly knowledgeable reader should be able to read the abstract and know what the paper's results are. If they are concerned with the details or question those results they read further, but there isn't a need if the abstract is accurate and doesn't raise questions in the mind of a reader.
In particular, the abstract's purpose is not to tickle the reader into reading further, nor to provide definitions of terms that only make sense later.
In a math paper, not so far removed from what you are doing perhaps, the abstract would contain a statement of the main theorem proved, though perhaps not in technical form. If a reader wants to see how that was arrived at then they read further. Often the proof is more interesting than the statement itself, but unless I'm very interested in that particular question I may not need to personally vet the proof. But, I need to know the paper's conclusion for the abstract to be valuable at all.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: It is hard to be sure without knowing the details. But the first way sounds better.
The only advantage of the second way seems to be that it could trigger a "that could work!" feeling. In other words, if I understand correctly, you are worried about readers losing interest without bothering to read past the abstract (your goal 1).
Just try to pique their interest in the abstract, and show that you know what you are talking about, then in the main text present the whole of the main idea as soon as possible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In my field(s) [statistics, economics, finance], it's generally bad practice to introduce notation in an abstract, unless the journal is highly specialized. My suggestion is to go with the first abstract and then get right into things using your second abstract during the introduction. I really like papers that have a well-written abstract and start laying notation almost immediately - big time saver as a reader and helps me avoid missing a useful paper.
Here are some [helpful tips for abstract writing](https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/guides/writing-an-abstract).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Think of the sequence title -> abstract -> introduction as a funnel or inverted pyramid. As we go down, the word limit increases. As we go down, the specificity increases. Finally, by the end of the introduction, the complete concept of the paper and its context should be clear. Each step in the sequence is convincing the reader to precede to the next step. I should say, convincing the **right** reader, because it is also acting as a filter, informing potential readers that "no, this paper is not quite what you're looking for". You could also imagine a sequence of filters of increasing fineness, filtering out your potential audience until you're left with only those who are precisely interested in reading your paper. This is to everyone's interest. It makes your work more visible in the literature and it saves precious time and attention for potential readers.
With this concept in mind, you can see that disrupting the order can cause problems. What happens if the abstract is too specific, say by jumping straight into technical notation? You will lose the audience who are not already familiar with the notation. You will lose the audience who think "oh so they're just doing xyz, it must be pretty obvious and basic if they can neatly present it in the abstract" because you haven't laid out the context. You haven't explained why this approach is important/interesting/novel.
It follows logically, then, that you should prefer option one.
---
I would also add that some journals (perhaps many) will not allow you to include mathematical notation in your abstract because of various issues related to indexing, rendering within databases and so-on.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: You should think of how the end users will read your abstract. In any field, there are too many papers that come out every day to read every paper in detail. The main purpose of the abstract is therefore to quickly convey to a reader who is scanning a few dozen abstracts over coffee what are the main results and conclusions of your paper, so that the reader can make a quick decision about whether or not they want to come back and look at your paper in more detail. Often (whether consciously or not) these judgments occur on both a textual level -- are your results plausible and interesting -- and a metatextual level -- does this abstract read like it was written by someone who knows what they are doing. Even if someone doesn't actually read your paper, you would like them to come away with a clear takeaway message, so they are aware of the results of your work.
Going into enough detail that you have to define non-standard notation is almost certainly a mistake. Your reader's attention and time is a resource; getting someone to follow your notation is a use of that resource that probably could be spent focusing on the main result. The abstract will necessarily be terse and of course will not contain all the evidence that supports your claims. It should provide some very brief context (this lets people decide whether your paper is even in the ballpark of what they are interested in), describe at a very high level what methods were used, and in particular what novel approaches you used (this lets people judge whether your methods are powerful enough that you can plausibly show what you are claiming to show), and explain the main results and conclusions (that's the good stuff -- what did we learn?). On a meta level, an abstract that gets too far into the weeds technically will typically signal inexperience in writing papers. At least, it will put a roadblock between your busy readers and the good stuff you want to tell them.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/03/31
| 831
| 3,486
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was recently admitted to the Top 10 Universities in Math Ph.D. The department is really strong at the Number Theory, I am primarily interested in the Number Theory so it is a good thing. I will be most likely find some faculties that research the Number Theory and wrote a Ph.D thesis on that(provided things go well).
Although, I am also interested in Mathematical Physics. Potentially in the future, I would like to study topics between to Mathematical Physics (for example Mirror symmetries) and Number Theory. Having said that at the University, no one studies Mirror Symmetry, KdV equation, Hitchin System, or Geometric Langlands(there are experts of usual Langlands though)... This means that almost no faculties researches on the topic that I am curious about it.
So my question is in this case should I abandon my curiosity about Physics, and simply focused on Number Theory? Or even there is no facilities are researching on Mathematical Physics, is it worth to keep study it? In this case how to self-study it as a graduate student?<issue_comment>username_1: For US study you will be busy enough with one topic. Your first goal is to pass the likely comprehensive exams and find an advisor. This probably requires some advanced coursework. Then you need to dive very deep into your research topic. And, keep an open mind about the specialization until you need to choose a dissertation advisor.
However, focus on what is most important.
But, you don't need to "abandon" other mathematical areas, just delay deep dives. Put them on the back burner for a while until you are in a position to set your own agenda.
Along the way, however, you will need to take breaks for your own mental health. Exercise is good for that. But fairly casual reading (and note taking) of other math ideas can also give you a break as your mind switches "gears" in a new area.
A good practice when you read, either in your specialization or elsewhere, is to keep a notebook of ideas that you might want to explore in the future. Review it occasionally and add current thoughts. Finishing a doctorate with a notebook of possible research is a great place to be.
It is possible, in face to face situations, to have informal conversations with many faculty members (coffee lounge is good for this). If you know they have a specialty that interests you, ask for papers you might explore for this. It is good to have some guidance.
Once you get a tenured position you will be free to wander the highways and byways of math, physics, ...
Good luck. Have fun. But focus.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Potentially in the future, I would like to study topics between to Mathematical Physics
>
>
>
The future can wait a while.
So first priority : get your PhD in any mathematical topic.
Once you have a PhD you can try steer your career in whatever way you want. However until you have a PhD (which for most people is going to be stressful and non-trivial) you need to focus on getting it the simplest way possible with as few other goals interfering as possible.
If you want to keep an eye on the mathematical physics side (whatever you personally mean by that - there are different interpretations) then that's fine. But don't let that become a distraction from the primary focus : the PhD. I would not think of it as self-studying mathematical physics - that's perhaps pushing the boundaries of letting it distract from the goal of a PhD.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/03/31
| 1,301
| 5,640
|
<issue_start>username_0: I received a 3 year fellowship for a 3-year PhD in computer science at a well known lab in my topic. I am in my last year and things haven't gone well. I don't have any impressive research results, feel unmotivated and only have a single publication when my peers have 3-5. Of course I am to blame for that.
Recently, my supervisor added me as an author in a publication I contributed nothing to. I told him that this is unethical and asked him to remove my name. He then told me that it is not that big of a deal and that the rest of the paper was funded partly by my fellowship. Some months passed and again without being asked, I was added as a (fake) author in another publication.
What should I do? I believe that the other authors think getting my name on publications is something I need because, as I said, my publication history is very weak, but I would rather fail in getting the PhD than having it based on fake authorships. Also I believe that they are short on funding and need to put my name on their publications to use part of my funding.<issue_comment>username_1: 1. You are right that you should not be an author on a paper in which
you did not contribute as an author.
2. It is important for anyone writing a paper to include all authors
that should be authors, and not to name anyone as an author who does
not agree to be an author; at your request, you should not be
included as an author if you don't want to be.
However...
1. It is very unlikely that any harm will come to you for being listed on a paper as an author as a junior researcher, much more likely you will benefit. The exception would be if there is something else ethically or scientifically wrong with the work that does not allow you to stand by it (an extreme example would be fabricated results). I believe your colleague/supervisors actions here are intended to be in your interests, even if they are not in the ethics of the field.
2. The systemic problems with gift authorship are mostly about senior researchers bullying their way onto papers where they do not belong, gaining benefit for no academic contribution besides perhaps funding. There is not nearly as much concern about junior researchers being over-credited; if anything, the opposite seems to come up more often.
3. Consider that your colleagues may find your input and work in the lab valuable to them, and that while you feel your contributions do not amount to anything towards their papers, even insightful side discussions can be critical to the development of a paper. Consider also that they may consider parts of your group work as a collaborative effort whereas you are focused on your individual role: if your group approaches a problem with three possible solutions, and each of three people take on one of those solutions, the total work could be considered a joint effort regardless of which effort is successful first, and the unsuccessful paths may be considered not merely as failures but as constructive efforts towards narrowing the remaining possibilities.
You should not agree to authorship merely as a way of letting them capture your funding, but I would think deeply about whether any of your contributions in the lab could be thought of as part of authorship of these works, and if so, ask that you can be more closely involved in the drafting of those papers (even if it's just re-checking analyses that were done, or contributing references and background to the introduction or discussion) so you can feel more comfortable being included as an author.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Let me add a secondary note to the [answer of username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/183781/75368).
While you are correct that this very probably crosses proper ethical boundaries it is generally a mistake to get into a fight with your supervisor as they have too much control over your advancement.
You could complain to the journal, of course, but the backlash would come to you and also reflect badly on the other students. Just as a matter of personal survival, I suggest letting it go.
You registered your objections, which was correct and bit bold, if risky.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Sit for a talk about your research and priorities with your advisor.
Be explicit about the "I would rather fail in getting the PhD" part, but also be careful with wording about fake authorships while doing so. Implications of unethical behavior are unlikely to be met well, and while you might choose to burn all the bridges, it is not necessarily what you desire, at the end of the day. Instead, a milder wording like "I really want my degree to be based on my own accomplishments and would rather not get it otherwise" might go better.
Consider their stake at the arrangement - they likely feel the need to successfully graduate you, and there is some external pressure. Possibly, to them "the student did not do much but I have pulled some strings here and there and they got to graduation nonetheless" is something to be almost proud of.
I do not agree with Bryan's implications of "gift authorship this way is not doing systemic harm so it is okay to accept it" - this is your own ethical stance, it might make your life "harder" but it is a very valid decision to follow that route nonetheless. The advice to view your contributions to the lab in a different light and not just focus on the funding is excellent, though.
So, talk to your advisor. Make decisions. Avoid drifting to the deadline passively observing it approaching. Figure out what is important to you and pursue it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/01
| 1,160
| 4,755
|
<issue_start>username_0: I ask out of curiosity. I have never seen this exception before! I know I shall not ask any student about their disability. My university is in the Anglosphere.
Using their @universitydomain.edu, a Disability Adviser (from the university's Disability Office) — and the Undergraduate Chair — emailed that one of my students has legitimate basis, and shall be expected to, email from her personal @gmail.com. All her instructors shall not expect her to email from her @universitydomain.edu. But we can still reply to her official @universitydomain.edu, that is set up to forward everything to her Gmail. I know that she's a full time four year undergraduate, not an exchange student.
What can this "legitimate basis" be? What would legitimize someone using their @gmail.com, but hamper them from their @universitydomain.edu?<issue_comment>username_1: Going completely on a whim here: it may be that the university IT department prefers it that way, without forwarding. Some universities are pretty lax about that, some [others [I just found googling]](https://www.seminolestate.edu/student-email/forwarding-mail) are not. Also, forwarded emails sometimes play nasty tricks either due to [people testing it not fully understanding the system](https://kb.mit.edu/confluence/display/istcontrib/Mail+forwarding+to+gmail+doesn%27t+appear+to+work) or just [Gmail shenanigans with labels](https://support.google.com/mail/thread/63702046/not-getting-forwarded-emails-into-inbox?hl=en).
Seriously, this *usually* works but every once in a while, for some people, it does not. And instead of trying to provide IT support for a person with a disability, it is probably easier to not have to deal with this additional layer at all.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I would hazard a guess that Gmail has accessibility features that work for her disability whereas whatever email system they use does not. I have seen some universities where the default email system is still ancient and my wild guess would be it's not screen-reader friendly.
It should, in theory, be possible for her to use Gmail on her end and none to be the wiser but either (a) your university doesn't want people to do that, or (b) the advisor doesn't know you can do that, since setting up forwarding is somewhat easier (this seems more likely).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Gmail [supports accessibility features](https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6115187?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop) such as [screen readers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_reader). Possibly those features are not supported, or not supported as well, by the university’s in-house email system. Since the directive to allow the student to contact professors from her gmail account came from the Disability Office, a likely explanation is that the student needs to be able to use those accessibility features because of a disability or medical condition, and made a request through the Disability Office to be allowed to use her gmail account. Based on the university’s policy for disability-based accommodations, and related laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (or comparable laws if this isn’t in the US), the request was approved.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: The answers given are the overwhelmingly likely ones. Though I would add that there is also a possibility of this being tied in to mental health. I have the opposite situation to the student in question: I struggle to open my gmail due to past trauma relating to emails I was receiving there. But my edu email is fine to open.
If a student has anxiety or gets easily overwhelmed, or maybe has chronic fatigue etc, it may take them a while/require support to go through their student emails (personally I get A LOT of emails every day) . They may be repyling more predictably on another email and wish to receive important emails, like from teachers and professors, there.
This scenario is pretty unlikely, but it can happen. I guess it is useful to bear in mind that when it comes to mental health, some people may have difficulty with facing very specific things. It may seem strange to others, but that's the nature of mental healthy disabilities.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Another possible issue may lie in email security protocols. Concerns about cyber-crime have led many universities to restrict access to servers via 'standard' routes. For example, my university has disabled IMAP and requires mail clients to authenticate using MS Exchange Server and two-factor authentication. I can imagine this could be problematic for users who rely on specialist software and/or hardware, which may not (readily) support the necessary protocols.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/01
| 1,158
| 4,621
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a postdoc in epidemiology. Last year I had a very rare viral infectious disease that got me admitted to the hospital for more than a week, and it is worth a case report because it's a fairly unknown disease and physicians had troubles in finding out what it was.
I had discussed writing a case report with my treating physicians, but eventually they stopped answering my emails or picking up the phone.
Therefore, I wonder if it's OK to write the case report myself, about myself, with the help of a senior physician that works with me and is willing to help, without involving the physicians who treated me. I have all the tests, diagnosis, course of the disease, and my own patient consent.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know what an ethics board would say about this, and you need to check. If they approve then I see no issue, though you may need to anonymize the attending physicians.
But whether you can actually publish it would be up to a publisher.
Be honest, of course, about the fact that you are the subject of the study unless an ethics board rules otherwise.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: As correctly pointed out by @Anonymous Physicist, the “Common Rule” defines research as:
>
> A systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.
>
>
>
Simply reading the “Common Rule” definition of research, it would seem that a case report would not qualify as “research” because it is non-systematic. If a case report is not research, then it would seem that it does not need to be reviewed by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).
But, like so much related to the requirement (or non-requirement) for review of particular activities by the IRB (or ethics board), policies about case reports in the United States are not uniform among institutions. And there are further regulatory wrinkles due to HIPAA and problems that may arise from journal policies.
HIPAA
-----
Writing up and publishing a case report generally uses protected health information, that is information that permits an individual to be identified. Access to and use of this information is regulated by the Health Information and Portability Act (HIPAA) and, at the institutional level, decisions about access to and use of such information is overseen by a “privacy board” or a “privacy officer.” The IRB often, but not always, serves both as an ethics board and a privacy board.
An institution might not require IRB review of a case report but would require review by a privacy board or a privacy office (or the IRB acting as a privacy board).
Empiric Data from 2017
-----------------------
A 2007 JAMA publication reported on the policies with regard to review requirements for case reports at medical schools in the United States. [1]
Of 124 medical schools surveyed, 116 (94%) responded. The following results were reported:
* “Ninety-one (78%) of the responding schools did not require IRB approval for a case report.”
* “None of the 25 [that required IRB approval] required full IRB board review; 17 (68%) required IRB notification; and 8 (32%) did not have a fixed policy but considered whether the report should have full or expedited review on an individual basis. Six (24%) conducted reviews because they considered case reports to be research, 8 (32%) for privacy requirement, and 11 (44%) for both purposes.”
The Journal Problem
--------------------
A further problem that can arise when attempting to publish about work that was not reviewed by an IRB is a requirement by a journal that the work being presented has been reviewed by an IRB (whether or not it was required to be reviewed) or a request by a journal for documentation from the IRB that the work was NOT required to be reviewed.
Bottom Line
------------
The advice by others to “ask your IRB” seems apt. The advice might be expanded a bit to suggest (given the additional complexities that arise because an author of the case report is also the patient whose information is being reported) that the OP ask their IRB to review the work formally and issue a formal approval of a plan to publish the information by those who will be authors/co-authors. This is the safest thing to do (although bureaucratic)
Reference
----------
[1] <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>. Research Status of Case Reports for Medical School Institutional Review Boards. JAMA. 2007;298(11):1277-1278. doi:10.1001/jama.298.11.1277
<https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/208845> Johns Hopkins University
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/04/01
| 1,889
| 8,282
|
<issue_start>username_0: My wife and I have just been notified that we may get children for adoption in the coming month (apparently, it comes at a much shorter notice than having a biological child...). The law allows me to take about 6 months of parental leave, which I will probably need very much. At the present semester I do not teach obligatory courses, and my teaching duties are mostly to advise students in various levels:
* I teach a new elective course for undergraduates, designed by me, where the grade is based on an individual project. There are 30 students.
* I advise some 10 teams in their final-year projects; 30 undergraduate students overall.
* I advise 3 master and 2 Ph.D. students.
Advising takes a lot of time for regular meetings and for reviewing the students' work. I spend about 50% of my time on advising (the other 50% I spend on preparing lessons for my course and writing papers). Most projects are research-oriented, and closely related to my field of research, so it is impossible to give them to another faculty member from a different field. Finding an external advisor from outside the university is also next to impossible. On the other hand, keeping the students "on hold" for 6 months is not fair for them.
During my parental leave, I can technically meet with students in Zoom and read their emails, but I will probably have very little time or mental energy for advising them at the same level they are used to.
Also, I heard that the law forbids me to do *any* work while on parental leave. But this can probably be solved in some way.
What do other advisors do with their students when they are on parental leave?<issue_comment>username_1: First off, congratulations.
Second, to answer your question, we transferred most of them to our colleagues. Adapting to live with children is a really big change. If you have the opportunity to have some time especially dedicated to that, then use it. Don't waste that opportunity on work.
Don't overestimate how much you can do in that period. It is not just the time you spent with the children, but it is also others things like many parents of young children will be seriously sleep deprived for the first year or so depending on how well the children sleep. Some babies cry a lot (that is pretty much their only means of communication), and don't underestimate how incredibly exhausting that is for the parents. I am not trying to scare you (really I am not).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The question here is: who will be with your child while you do this work?
Will your partner also be on leave? Will you be hiring a childcare provider while on leave?
If your child is under the age of 5, it's important to understand that working casually while you also look after your child is a fantasy. Young children do not just sit and play while you pursue emails or zoom, they very much demand constant attention. I'm not exaggerating at all when I say expecting time to even go to the bathroom alone is a stretch. Understand this first, then decide if carving out dedicated work time, including ensuring someone else is taking responsibility for your child for those hours, is worth it during a time when you are on leave.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: First of all, in my experience, most people are quite understanding when it comes to parents taking parental leave, and many are also very supportive when you ask them for help.
My personal approach was to start preparations as soon as I knew that I would have to take care of a new-born child soon, giving me about eight months time. Basically, I think it is necessary to make use of your entire network to make this work out properly because let's assume that you will not be able to focus on anything job-related in the first months. So you will need a lot of support, and my recommendation is to accept any offer you get.
For students working on their Master's thesis (and similar projects), which usually takes something like six months, I simply did not accept any new students that I could not supervise. I do supervise quite a few students regularly, so I explained the situation to my superiors and thus made it their job to make sure that future students will find the support they need elsewhere. I understand that this will not work for you due to the rather short notice. But I assume there will be some procedure in case a student supervisor drops out for any reason, so you might have to rely on that. Again, you might find the students to be quite understanding and you maybe can work something out together.
PhD students are a different matter. My approach was to find very individual solutions. Some more advanced students were standing on their own feet anyway and had no big problem to fiddle around on their own for a while. These are the easy cases. For others, who were in need of more support, I tried to find it together with them. Some were involved in a research project with other collaborators. I found it useful to ask them to support the students. They might not be experts for the exact same thing, but they know the overall project, they know which ends should meet eventually, and they are great researchers with an open and active mind. Other students might have a special need for very practical, hands-on support in the lab, like for example a Master's student could provide. In such cases, I tried to find somebody from the faculty who would be willing to officially supervise such student work. PhD students might also be able to support each other. You could arrange that your students take part in group seminars of neighboring groups. Again, my experience was that all people involved knew that there was no real alternative, so everybody acted accordingly.
Honestly, teaching should be you smallest problem. Others should be able to take over your responsibilities.
I know it is not easy to let all this go for a while, especially if you feel committed to contribute to the success of the individuals involved, but if you have the chance to dedicate these months to your family, it is absolutely worth it.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Firstly, congratulations on your upcoming adoption. I wish you and your wife joy with your new child.
I'm not aware of any laws that would make it *illegal* for you to help your students while you are on leave, but I would encourage you to take your leave seriously and ensure that it is not interrupted by unreasonable work expectations. Leave for raising a child is important to you and your family and you are entitled to have that leave respected.
As to the mechanics of accommodating your students during this time, typically you and the department would make arrangements for some other academic to substitute your role with those students while you are away. The department will probably ask you to arrange this prior to taking leave (if possible) but they should also be able to assist you if you have trouble finding other academics that can take on those duties. Dealing with reallocation of tasks due to staff leave is a standard managerial responsibility of a university department, so it is certainly not incumbent on you to do supplementary work during your leave period to assist your students. You are right that it is unfair to students to keep them "on hold" for six months. It is the responsibility of the department to take whatever measures it can to avoid this. Ideally your students will be fully cared for while you are away, but even if they aren't, that is a managerial problem that is incumbent on *your department* to solve --- it is not your job to work through your leave to fix managerial shortcomings of your department.
One other thing worth mentioning: You will find that some new parents go a bit stir-crazy spending their days at home raising a new child, and completely ceasing their professional work. Consequently, sometimes people on maternity/peternity leave *want* to do some sporadic academic/professional work to break up the routine and give their brain some exercise. That is perfectly healthy and I would encourage you to do that if you feel like it. The point here is that you should not feel *obligated* to do your academic work while on leave.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/01
| 1,569
| 6,396
|
<issue_start>username_0: Would it be unethical to earn money by putting people's name in my papers? In a sense, these people would be sponsoring the paper so I believe it is fair to have their names on it.
Edit 1: In case these people do not join as author but are acknowledge in the paper, would they benefit from it? My intention with this question is just to know how a researcher could earn money as "freelancer", that is, without depending from funding agencies, etc or without being formally employed in industry.
Edit 2: How could a researcher approach an individual or a company to demonstrate their research can benefit them even they are "only" acknowledged in the paper?
Edit 3: Most answers here state that it is unethical since these people would not have contributed to the paper. So, say people pay me to join a research project idealized by me. These people could give their contributions just as a supervisor or colleagues do, correct? Would it still be unethical to have their names published in the paper in exchange for financially supporting the project? Besides, I could even ask these people to sign a statement ensuring they did not just paid to have their names published.<issue_comment>username_1: This is not how it works.
Although supervisors are sometimes added to a paper because they "only obtained the grant money", the research proposal they had to write to obtain the grant is their intellectual contribution: coming up with a feasible and well thought-out subject for research is not easy: it may in fact be the most difficult part in the entire process from idea to execution and publication.
Paying or receiving money to add a name to a paper is unethical.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In most academic fields adding non-participants as "authors" is considered unethical. Authors are those who contribute ideas, intellectual content, not money. The people added commit a sort of plagiarism, actually.
But there are fields in which the opposite is true. Many popular books are "authored" by some famous person but written for hire by a "ghost" writer. The latter isn't always known. Works for hire are a special category of copyright for example.
In some fields the overall supervisor of a scientific lab is added to the list of authors. The rationale is that they have made the research possible through both funding and setting the goals of the lab as well as providing overall advice and direction. But they give more than money to support the research.
In academia you can acknowledge financial support in a paragraph or so of the paper as is usually done when acknowledging grants.
To respond to the edit about "benefit" of acknowledgement to a sponsor, there are several possibilities. Some companies, and maybe individuals, really want to see the results of some research but don't have the staff or other resources to carry it out. So "contracting with" an independent researcher might be an option for them. Some patronage is done because the sponsor wants to seem to be associated with a researcher or a line of research.
For the first option, a colleague and I once had some expertise that a large multinational needed and wanted a quick startup. We were given grants (not actual money) for participation, though it wasn't research as such, other than that it gave the company some feedback on the compatibility of our approach with that of the company. The grants provided funds for travel, equipment, and such.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes - it is **absolutely unethical** to sell authorship spots.
Consider reviewing abundantly available resources on what qualifies as authorship (e.g. <https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html>)
Here, it says authorship is defined as:
* substantial contributions to design / analysis / interpretation, AND
* drafting/revising of work, AND
* final approval of published work, AND
* agreement to be accountable FOR ALL ASPECTS of the work and its integrity
Consider putting the names of those who sponsored/funded the paper in the Acknowledgements section.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Yes, they may be "in" the paper.
If someone provides support (monetary or not), it is common practice to mention them in a "thanks" paragraph. Some granting agencies may **require** acknowledgement. We often see thanks to parents, spouses, co-workers, librarians, editors, and so on. I have even seen thanks given for the author's favorite snack food.
What should be avoided is adding this person **as an author**, if they have not done any of the work for the paper.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: >
> Is it ethical to give paper authorship in exchange for financially supporting a research project?
>
>
>
No, it isn't. The authors should be the people who participated significantly in the production of the scientific content of the paper.
>
> Would it be unethical to earn money by putting people's name in my papers?
>
>
>
For most interpretations of that sentence, yes. But this is vague phrasing.
>
> In a sense, these people would be sponsoring the paper so I believe it is fair to have their names on it.
>
>
>
You believe wrong. You can acknowledge sponsorship, and that is actually rather common in footnotes for author names, saying something like:
>
> The N'th author was supported by grant no. 123 of the National Endowment for blah blah blah. The M'th author's work was partly supported by BigCorp inc.
>
>
>
You could even go as far as writing an acknowledgement in the body of the paper, extolling your funders.
>
> In case these people do not join as author but are acknowledge in the paper, would they benefit from it?
>
>
>
I'd ask that as a different question. They would certainly not be able to present it as one of the papers they are authors of.
>
> My intention with this question is just to know how a researcher could earn money as "freelancer", that is, without depending from funding agencies,
>
>
>
A freelancer *does* depend on others who fund him/her, just not the same funder all the time: The free lancer offers his lance for hire. That is as opposed to being bound to some specific lord, permanently (to continue the medieval knightly analogy) - or just being a brigand or revolting peasant.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/04/02
| 398
| 1,633
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a college student in the US.
Over a year ago, I took a course that moved online because of the pandemic. The course in question is a graduation requirement. The class's lack of exam proctoring made it easy to cheat and so I did. My cheating was never discovered but as time went on, I grew to deeply regret what I did. I've since sworn off cheating ever again. I felt and still feel incredibly guilty about it, so I tried to atone for what I've done by taking what was essentially a more difficult version of the course I cheated in and passed it without resorting to cheating. This course *alone* satisfies the same requirement that the previous course does, but the previous course is its prerequisite. Students who have not satisfied the course's prerequisites would not have been allowed to enroll in it.
My question is, would my credits for this higher level course be revoked if my cheating in its prerequisite course was ever discovered? I believe that the cheating I did in the prerequisite course would have been enough for me to fail it. If the cheating were to be discovered after I graduate, would it be grounds for degree revocation?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> My question is, would my credits for this higher level course be revoked if my cheating in its prerequisite course was ever discovered?
>
>
>
No.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Move on (as has everyone else by now who was involved in the course you cheated on). You learned your lesson -- a good one indeed! -- and so it's time to spend your energies on something productive, rather than past events.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/02
| 1,554
| 6,485
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have completed my Ph.D. in cancer biology. I want to apply for a postdoc position in the USA, but my supervisor is not on good terms with me. She is a very quarrelsome and arrogant lady. I am suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. I was a victim of domestic violence, have faced bullying at school and college. My marriage failed, my husband had an affair with another woman. He cheated on me and mentally harassed me. I had to undergo a painful abortion which left a mark on my mind. My lab members (2 women) used to bully me. They would tamper with my samples and put out false accusations about me. They wanted to remove me from the lab so they would harass me. My guide is a credulous person who would believe them and always shout at me. My family didn't support my decision to get a divorce so they never supported me emotionally.
I used to take 5 anti-depressants per day. One day I tried to commit suicide and popped 15 -20 tabs of anti-depressants. Luckily, at that time my brother called me. I revealed to him that I took the pills and he informed my supervisor. I was rushed to the hospital immediately. After a few days, I got the information that the institute authorities removed me from the girl's hostel. One of my lab members, who used to trouble me, went along with her friends to the student committe and complained that they are scared of me since one night they heard me crying out loud in pain before my suicide attempt. Instead of helping me. They demanded to have me removed from the hostel. I was traumatised.
I fell from stairs 3-4 times. I was not able to walk properly. When I resumed working at the lab, nobody spoke with me. My supervisor shouted at me that I brought her shame. She used to bully me and misbehave with me. I apologised for my behaviour so many times. She even called every scientist in the institute and told them that I am a bad person who is not even on good terms with her family. There were so many rumors. A few scientists stood in my support and I was shifted back to the hostel after a few months.
Now this incident happened one year ago. But my supervisor hates me. Although I didn't say a single word about my lab members and my supervisor in front of the police at the time of my suicide attempt. She always complains that I was depressed because of my husband and I attempted suicide. This brought shame to her. I am a little worried. Can she spoil my career? What if she doesnt give me a nice recommendation letter? Also, she delayed the submission of my papers. But now finally those two papers got submitted.
The main problem is that when somebody instigates her, she immediately reacts and starts shouting without even thinking. She even gets angry if I dont click on photos with my lab members. I know it is a very long story but i am really depressed. I lost husband, a baby and have no family support. And now she is adding to my problems........<issue_comment>username_1: First of all, sorry to hear that. Some environments are not particularly supportive, period. And your situation sounds terrible on many levels.
I would give a standard advice of trying to find a mental health professional, first and foremost - you seem to be taking prescription medicines, so presumably you have it partly covered. But there is more to it than just getting your prescriptions.
Concerning the recommendation letters, well, you do not have a lot of control over the actions of your supervisor. But it is not necessarily hamstringing your future career. After all, you would be applying somewhere, and there will be actual humans reading your application. Some of them would avoid dealing with mental health issues, but others would love to do some good and help you. You are still able to produce work despite an immense pressure - that also speaks volumes.
Try to focus on what is still working for you and the support you have gotten from some of your peers already. These are people who will advocate for you. Consider asking them for recommendation letters as well - they do not necessarily need to come from your supervisor. As long as you manage to stop plunging into the dark pits of depression, there will be options. Your quarrel with the advisor can be overcome.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I have read your post and I see a good woman who is technically competent, honest, a woman who can describe her circumstances objectively without shame, a woman who sees and accepts the weakness of other people without condemning. I also see a woman who is so beaten by these events that she has forgotten how to respect herself in the way that she clearly deserves.
I can give no magic answer to your present difficulties and am not qualified to do so.
But from what I read here, I believe you are justified in respecting yourself, and that you should try regularly to tell yourself that you are good, that you can do good things, and that your place here on Earth is entirely justified.
Had you worked in my laboratory when I had a research group I would have tried hard to encourage you to see yourself as good, and always to respect yourself. For if people do not respect themselves, it is sometimes difficult for others to do so.
I wish you well and I wish you success.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I'll focus only on the practical here. I think you need to consider your options moving forward without a letter from your supervisor. The relationship seems poisonous and a letter would probably be worse than none.
You don't point to others on your faculty who might be more supportive and could write you a good letter, but see if that is possible.
You might have to take some non-standard actions to build up a career. I had to do this because of economic, not personal, conditions when I graduated, teaching at a very (very) low ranked college. But eventually I got to a good place (with supportive people).
You can probably think of more options, but teaching biology (or something) in a college might give you an economic base and some time to build a reputation along with time for working out personal/health issues with a therapist. Working in a (governmental?) research lab might be open. Both will give you contacts that can support you in future if you do well. Think about all options open to you.
A postdoc in US without a letter from your supervisor might be a difficult jump unless you can show other strong indications of success.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/02
| 7,686
| 32,462
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am new here (but have been around MSE for some time). Generally on the mathematics stack exchange it's considered inappropriate to ask for personal advice but I see many such posts on this stack, so I hope this question is suitable.
I am currently an AS (Year 12) student in the UK, thinking about applying for a mathematics degree in two year's time (ideally at Oxford, if that's relevant). However, I am not *really* an AS student. I have been self studying rigorous and higher mathematics for quite a while now from textbooks, papers, MSE and whichever scraps I may find online. To give a brief idea of what I have studied:
* An introductory term complex analysis course, finishing with rigorous treatments of the residue theorem, the polygamma functions and the contour work of [<NAME>](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257381156_Rediscovery_of_Malmsten%27s_integrals_their_evaluation_by_contour_integration_methods_and_some_related_results)
* Much linear algebra, from proofs of existence of the Jordan Normal form, the spectral theorem (and Hilbert-Schmidt's infinite dimensional extension for compact operators), the entirety of the functional and operator analysis course from Royden's textbook, and analytic functions of matrices (matrix Taylor series via contour integration!)
* Measure theory (all the major theorems, with full proof) as learnt from university lecture notes + Royden's real analysis
* Introductory to mildly complicated topology (again as learnt from Royden's real analysis)
* Applications of the above three points to ergodic theory and dynamics (up to chapter 12 of the text ["Operator Theoretic Aspects of Ergodic Theory"](https://www.math.uni-leipzig.de/%7Eeisner/book-EFHN.pdf))
The things that come to the forefront of my mind when thinking what I'd like to learn more about at university under the guidance (at long last) of a tutor:
* More advanced contour integration (Hankel, Pochhammer, keyhole, etc.) and more on special functions and advanced complex analysis (e.g. Picard's theorem, Riemann surfaces, Weierstrass factorisation, zeta function and its uses)
* More on (advanced?) ergodic/dynamic theory and its applications (e.g. physics and probability theory - I just read and understood the proof of the Strong Law of Large numbers, which was nice!)
* Differential topology and geometry
* Geometric measure theory, fractal analysis
* This one's a bit vague, but fixed point theorems and other (mostly functional analytic) ideas that are useful for solving practical problems (e.g. I have studied the Peano and Picard existence theorems for ODEs but these are limited examples)
* Integral transforms and their applications in differential equations, distribution theory, Sobolev spaces etc. and their applications in solving difficult definite integrals
* Practical skills! I am good at absorbing theory but not as good as I’d like at doing exercises and research, as I have been self taught (with the exception of the wonderful volunteers in the MSE community).
---
EDIT 26/08/22: This post has gained a frightening number of views. Something recently reminded me about this post, so I looked back - and looking back, I cringe. I don't want to delete the post, since that would be discourteous to the nice answers and comments - in particular I am very grateful to Prof. Glueck. Since so many people have seen / are seeing this, I want to clarify a few things. At the time of writing, I (a) didn't have much perspective - I hadn't gone to any open days yet, for instance - and (b) was worried that the things I "really wanted" to learn weren't going to be taught to me. But I now realise that that's actually not a problem, at all. I've recently read some algebra textbooks and ended up getting quite into certain ideas from abstract algebra and number theory - before the summer, I had thought that I disliked these topics. It just goes to show, what you think are your main interests probably won't remain your main interests - as Prof. Glueck's answer points out. So, this question was initially written from a position of mild panic, and accordingly doesn't hold up to closer inspection (again, something <NAME> helped me to realise!).
There is another thing I'd like to clarify. Some parts of what I wrote, from the original question, were very poorly phrased. Some responses on this post seemed to pick up on this and accordingly misunderstand me, which was upsetting at the time, but looking back, it makes a lot more sense to me why that happened. I don't want this internet record to represent me with that misunderstanding. Maybe I'm just being anxious, but I want to try to set it right. When I wrote that paragraph, and the whole post in general, my intentions were:
* To communicate the concern in a respectful way
* To do so without coming across as over-confident (I think this failed)
* To communicate my love for mathematics and desire to learn more (that one hopefully came across properly :) )
Where I say: "this is not hubris, I have checked", I did check, and it wasn't hubris. What it was, was lacking in perspective. Although I may recognise the titles and chapters from a set of course notes, I would still benefit from going over it again. I knew that at the time too - I wanted to communicate the familiarity, but I fear some users interpreted it as my claiming to have mastery, which I don't and never thought I did. I am very much looking forward to tutorial sessions, lectures etc. and talking about maths with other people face-to-face, to learn and improve. I was just afraid of - and this is because of my experience in secondary school! - going over things I'd already learnt *as if I'd no familiarity at all*. But of course, university is much more independent, and as other answers have pointed out, there is not any risk of this.
When I said: "... not much overlap with what I'd like to know", that was born of the mild panic that was previously mentioned. Yes, I would love to study complex analysis (e.g.) in more detail in my undergraduate. But that is certainly not the be-all and end-all of interesting mathematics. Again, that is something I also knew at the time, but I didn't think to emphasise it in the question - which was a mistake. There are many topics on the Oxford, Warwick, UCL etc. courses that I've never studied at all, and which I'll certainly find interesting once I get there. When writing the question for the first time, I didn't quite appreciate how much having prior experience with a topic affected the perceived interest of said topic.
I always have been aware of the gaps in my knowledge and ability that come with the difficulties of self-learning. I thought that highlighting that, and the fact that I knew that, would shift the focus of the question away from what I wanted to ask. I should have highlighted it more anyway!
---
But when I check the course details and lecture notes of the maths courses at Oxford (but also at Cambridge and Warwick) I find to my dismay that a sizeable amount of first and second year content is familiar to me already (this is not hubris, I have checked) and that **it seems as if only the last two bullet points will actually be taught**. Perhaps I'm blind, but the first five on the list of "major things I'd like to learn" don't seem to be particularly present in the undergraduate courses.
So I have this dilemma: I don't know how to appropriately contact universities or make decisions about courses when there is overlap with what I do know and not much overlap with what I'd like to know. I would ideally want to email a professor to say something along the lines of "Hey, I was wondering if you teach [X subject] as it doesn't appear to be in the lecture notes. What leeway is there for me to direct tutorial time to [X subjects I'd like to study] rather than [Y subjects I am familiar with]?" because university is after all rather expensive, and wasting time would be tragic.
Again, this is not hubris: I am well aware there will be gaps in my knowledge, especially as I have been learning without a curriculum, but when it comes to the topics I have studied already filling in those gaps can be adequately done through the odd tutorial, advice-asking and usage of university libraries - to spend many lectures and months on them really would be a waste.
But that type of contact seems unprofessional, perhaps, or not the best way to do things, and as a student seeking to enrol at (e.g Oxford) I really don't want to offend any professors, come across as arrogant or make problems for myself otherwise, so I am coming to this stack for advice as I have never dealt with university application processes and contact before.
My question(s):
* How should I talk to a university/department/professors about this problem (both before applying and (hopefully!) after having enrolled)? The main component of the problem being: how can I ask to get teaching in topics that aren't actually (so it appears) on the syllabus?
* How should I communicate my prior knowledge to get constructive use of teaching time and boost an application without appearing arrogant or -insert potential issue here-?
I'm aware I could get textbooks on the above, but I've been doing that for the last year and a half and self-learning can get intensely frustrating at times - I would much prefer to have a university tutor/lecturer go through them with me, which is why it is so sad to see them not present in the course notes.<issue_comment>username_1: I worry that you think you know more than you really do. Or, maybe a better way to put it is that you may have only a superficial knowledge of many topics, rather than the required deep understanding that is needed to be a mathematician. I'm not an Oxford Don, but was pretty good in some parts of maths. But if you ask a professor from Oxford or Cambridge to work with you they will ask the same sorts of questions I did here and will, if they are satisfied with the answers, give you that exam.
Here is the problem.
There is a huge (monumental) difference between being able to read and follow (and even memorize) maths written by others. When you think you understand it it might actually be more of a function of the quality of the writing than your depth of understanding.
What you seek, ultimately in maths is insight. That doesn't come from reading and memorizing, but from applying the knowledge and problem solving. If you can solve similar problems to the ones stated in a book you are getting somewhere, but it takes practice.
And you will only have achieved insight into a topic when you can conceptualize things that "might" be true but aren't yet proven - i.e. problems worth spending research effort on. Many professional mathematicians don't reach that stage by the time they earn doctorates. Some might never do.
Learning comes from reinforcement and feedback. The feedback, which you seem to be missing (in part at least) assures that you don't go astray and reinforce the wrong message. You don't get true reinforcement from reading and following along. It is too passive. You have to bring active processes to bear in almost every subject, but especially, perhaps, maths.
I worked in analysis primarily and a bit in topology. As a young student I wanted some insight into how rational functions worked (quotients of polynomials) and what derivatives could tell me about that - very elementary stuff, actually. I graphed, by hand (no computers then, no fancy calculators) literally hundreds of rational functions using mostly first and second derivative information. From that I got insight, not only into rational functions, but into the essence of derivatives. Very hard.
My advice is to find a local source, someone you can talk to - a teacher. It doesn't need to be an OxBridge professor. Go back through all of what you already think you know but apply it to the solution of textbook problems. Ideally, you should be able to solve every problem in any textbook, and not with 65% probability. And, your "correctly" solved problems are questionable without feedback. Only then can you be assured that you've "grokked it".
You may be ready, and I can't really diagnose it until you present that exam. But professors at top universities are already pretty busy and don't have a lot of incentive to work with you unless you first show them that you are exceptional. That is very difficult to do and unlikely if you can't solve the problems they would surely want to throw your way.
Let me give another warning. If you don't do the work then you might reach the point where you can't understand anything anymore. There are students for whom everything seems easy to get along the way and so they don't try very hard (solving hard problems...). But they may reach a point where their natural ability isn't enough to carry them anymore and they then actually fail since they don't know how to learn, not having worked at it.
If you don't have a teacher to give you the feedback, and if your family has the means, you might hire a university student to work with you. But you don't want a "tutor" to feed you facts and information. You want someone who will look at your work and give you feedback.
---
One caveat: There are a few textbooks that hide research problems in their exercises and don't say so. There have been a few cases where a student solved one of these, not knowing that there was no prior proof.
One note: The reason I asked if you had a teacher you worked with was also to note that if you want to approach a professor who you don't know, the best way is to do it indirectly, having another professional introduce you. It is best if they already know the professor, but not essential. But the professor will have a better idea of your skills and abilities if someone knowledgeable can attest to them.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: From personal experience I can tell you that over-confidence is what trips you up.
For a BSc I had to do a course in electronics. I'd previously done a similar course at the same level with relative ease. I then under-estimated how much of a refresh I needed and very nearly failed the exam.
Lesson learned.
Assume the worst, hope for the best. Assume you don't know it and work as if that's the case. I'd suggest you just enter university and aim for the best results you can all the time. I have no doubt you'll find that more of a challenge than you think now.
Also note that you need to learn a skill you may not have done yet : concentrating the most effort on the things you dislike the most. It's easy to get into the subjects you like. To get a good B.Sc you need to work really hard on the things you're least attracted to. I also nearly made that mistake on a couple of subjects.
From your comment :
>
> My biggest concern with researching universities recently has been the nature of the courses (where they don’t cover my main interests).
>
>
>
This is a concern for later - again from personal experience I found that my interests changed and previously uninteresting subjects because a lot more interesting when I became more familiar with them. Keep an open mind.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I think part of the problem at hand is that your perspective is a bit idiosyncratic. This is obviously not your fault, since it's very difficult to get a clear picture of higher mathematics if your knowledge as of now is mainly self-taught.
So let my try to help you to "clarify the picture" a bit:
**Mind your pace!**
The other answers have made good points, but I sense somekind of misunderstanding here. Many instructors of mathematics and related subjects have a fine-tuned automated alert that is triggered whenever somebody tries to absorb a lot of material and claims to understand it, but says they are struggeling with exercises. This is because many of us have seen too many students who said that they "understand everything in the lectures, but don't know how to go about the exercises."
Actually, the exercises are the most important (seriously!) and the most difficult (seriously!) part of studying mathematics.
I think that main point of the other answers is not that they might perceive your question as "arrogant" or something. I think they are mainly worried that you are going way too fast. Let me discuss this in a bit more detail:
(1) The most elemantary problem caused by going too fast is that some people who go fast think that they understand a lot of things, while they actually neglect the details (and details are key in mathematics). However, given the comments you wrote here and given your posts and Mathematics StachExchange I gather that this is not a problem of yours.
(2) A more advanced problem caused by going too fast is that you don't have enough opportunity too double-check, possibly rectify, and reinforce the understanding and insights that you have (or think you have) already gained.
(3) Another danger of going fast when learning mathematics is that you don't spend enough time on the basics and start to lose yourself in abstractions.
I am a bit worried about (2) and (3), mainly because you say that you have, within quite a short period of time, learned various things and read the first 12 chapters of the ergodic theory book by Eisner et. al. Please note that - as already indicated by the series in which the book appeared - this is a graduate level book!
So there is indeed the danger that you are simply proceeding too fast, thus exposing yourselve to the issues explained in (2) and (3).
**Suggestion:**
The things pointed out above are precisely the reason why you probably need somebody to give you some feedback.
Now you happened to hit precisely one of fields that I am very interested in (functional analysis, operator theory, and connections to dynamical systems). So here is an offer:
If you agree, you can send me an email, and I'll reply with some numbers of exercises from the book you mentioned, and we can then try precisely what username_1 suggested. You try to solve them - without using the internet, just books - and then send me your solutions, so that I can offer you some feedback.
I probably won't have time to do this more than once or twice - but it might still provide you some useful feedback.
**Courses you are interested in.**
Here we come back to my claim that your perspective needs to be "clarified". Your problem here seems to actually be a mixture of several problems:
* It's probably hard for you to find some of the topics your interested in within a curriculum, because you don't know precisely what you should look for. For instances, at Oxford there are courses on on "Multidimensional Analysis and Geometry" and on "Geometry of Surfaces" ([link to courses in Oxford](https://courses.maths.ox.ac.uk/)). The second one clearly belongs to the realm of differential geometry, and the first one is likely to be related to it, too.
* For other topics it's simply difficult to predict whether they will be treated in an undergraduate course or not. One of Picard's theorems (there are actually several of them) might or might not be taught in an undergraduate course on complex analysis. It might even depend on the lecturer.
* For some topics you mention it is just unreasonable to expect that they will be taught in an undergraduate program. For instance, with respect to ergodic theory, it is safe to say that the vast (really, really vast) majority of undergraduate programs throughout the world will not routinely teach material that is more advanced than the stuff you can find in the book by Eisner et. al. For most universities it would be pointless to do so, because none of their undergraduates would have sufficient preliminary knowledge to understand anything in such a course. (If you are looking for an exception, you might for instance check the website of Imperial College London and hope for the best - but I wouldn't bet on it.) Some universities might offer some ergodic theory courses on a level similar to (not more advanced than) the book by Eisner et. al., but with different contents - but maybe not on a regular base, and in any case it might be hard to predict what precisely the content will be.
* Some of the topics you mention will just pop up as part of other topics. For instance, fixed point theorems play an important role in some parts of the theory of partial differential equations, but they also occur in some subfields of topology.
I thus believe that if you insist on having courses on precisely the set of topics that you listed, you are most likely to drive yourself crazy about it, with little benefit in the long run.
So here is an alternative suggestion: Instead of pointing out specific theorems and topics, try to identify certain fields of mathematics that you like. In fact, it seems that you have alrady done so: Most of what you write points quite clearly into the direction of analysis - more specifically, functional and geometrical analysis and dynamical systems.
If you would like to pursue this further, your best probably is to join a program with a strong focus on those subjects in general, and then choose your specific courses as you go. In my experience, it often happens that an individual person's interests are not so much tied to a specific topic, but rather to a specific taste or "flair" that a certain field offers. Once you like the flair of a topic or a theorem, it's quite likely that you will also enjoy other topics and results from the same field.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: (Caveat: This answer is based on experience with universities *outside* the UK.)
>
> How should I talk to a university/department/professors about this problem (both before applying and (hopefully!) after having enrolled)?
>
>
>
University administration and admissions staff will mostly not care about this. However, many universities have "honors" or "excellent students" tracks, with some closer attention and mentoring by senior academic staff. Ask about those.
>
> The main component of the problem being: how can I ask to get teaching in topics that aren't actually (so it appears) on the syllabus?
>
>
>
When you approach individual professors of courses, ask for a one-on-one session. Assuming you get one, tell them a little about your relevant background, and see what they say. They might tell you that you can skip some of the lectures; or that you can just attend the final exam; or that you can get some written assignment instead of actually taking the course; or they will insist you actually take the course and be skeptical of your background knowledge.
If they don't want to talk to you, perhaps try the teaching-assistant-in-charge, or a second professor of the same course etc.
>
> How should I communicate my prior knowledge to get constructive use of teaching time and boost an application without appearing arrogant or -insert potential issue here-?
>
>
>
Remember that, generally, you don't get individual teaching at university - certainly not as an undergraduate. That kind of relationship happens almost exclusively with graduate students, and even they doesn't always have their advisor actually sitting down to teach them things individually.
So it may (or may not) be the case that you won't benefit as much from teaching time. If you were lucky to reach some kind of arrangement with the course staff, you may be able to use that time differently; otherwise, consider it a form of practice (and perhaps even take the textbook to class and do extra exercises during the boring parts).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: One advantage you have, as a young student, is *time*. It is great that you are ambitious and want to tackle hard topics. But, let's say you did get into a good program, and did spend two years on courses that mostly covered material you know like the back of your hand. Well, perhaps you will not have covered as much ground as you wanted. But -- (a) since you are very familiar with the material, you will have built up a CV with good grades in your courses that you can use as proof that you are talented, which can help you get internships and get involved research and later get into a PhD program, (b) you can take advantage of the opportunity get to know the professors who teach your courses, who will ultimately be able to write you letters of recommendation and suggest opportunities for your career growth. *Even in the worst case scenario*, where you really are just reviewing material you know over the course of these two years, you will have a lot of chances to grow your mathematical career. And two years, at the early part of your career, is really nothing -- it is well worth the trade.
Having said that, I strongly suspect that there *will* be *significant* advantages for you to take these early level courses. First, you will get extremely valuable feedback on your problem solving skills, which will help you develop your skills as a mathematician. Second, by learning the subjects systematically rather than on your own, you will very likely find interesting connections between subjects you didn't realize and build a stronger foundation. Third, you will get to meet your peers, and at the schools you are talking about there are *very* strong candidates in mathematics -- in fact you can really learn a huge amount by having a group of "math friends" who you study with at your same level. Fourth, you will be exposed to many topics in a degree, and you may find you are interested in something that you currently do not realize that you are. Fifth, there is a lot of knowledge that is not written down in books, like informal ways of thinking or ideas that don't work or the shorthand for communicating in a given field, that are best communicated by attending lectures and talking to your peers and professors. Finally, if you really have mastered a given course, to the level where you could take the final exam and ace it, you may be able to simply ask the professor if you can take the exam up front to "opt out" of some introductory courses. At least in the US, it is common to offer exams at the beginning of the semester that advanced students can take for credit to skip introductory courses.
It's very unlikely that you know more mathematics than the entire department. By going there and showing you are a serious student, you will find doors tend to open for you to explore your interests in as much depth as you want.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: For context: I am currently one of the second year external examiners for Oxford, and have had the same role for Cambridge in the past.
At places like Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick and Imperial you will find that every year there are a few incoming students who already know a substantial chunk of the syllabus. It is not typically useful for those students to officially do anything other than take courses in the usual way. You may find that you can do that easily, in which case you will have plenty of time to do other things. You can talk informally to other talented undergraduates, either individually or in events organised by student maths societies, which are often very active at the kind of universities we are talking about. You can try going to graduate level seminars or working groups, and talking to PhD students or postdocs who are also attending. You can just spend time reading in the library. You will not have any shortage of intellectually stimulating ways to spend your time. Having the right people to talk to is much more important than the contents of the curriculum.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: >
> I find to my dismay that a sizeable amount of first and second year content is familiar to me already
>
>
>
Two key points :
1. Universities exist for the primary purpose of **certifying** your education. Providing that education is secondary.
In most cases you cannot simply skip the courses and write the exam, unfortunately, but there are exceptions and if you're confident you don't need to sit the course it doesn't hurt to ask if you can take an exemption exam. Some institutions are more open to this than others.
2. You don't have to attend all of your lectures.
If exemption is not an option, and if you already know the material, you can simply skip most of your lectures and use the time to continue your own autodidactic learning. Use the time to advance other topics so that you're better prepared for whatever you plan to do when you graduate. Just don't forget to show up to the exam and turn in any coursework that is to be graded.
Critical, here, is that you have clearly demonstrated that you do not **need** a formal course, lectures, or a professor to teach you new material. You do, however, **need** the university to *certify* that you have learned this material. So use the institution for the things you require of them and forego the things you do not need them for. This frees up your time to invest in your own continuing education at a schedule and with topics that keep your interest.
Don't feel bad about showing up just to take the grades and run. As long as you're continuing to learn at a pace you enjoy and as long as you're not missing any key topics there's no reason why you can't follow your own course of study.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I was recently at Oxford studying maths (and philosophy, though I was never good at the latter). I'll try to address some of your points.
Based on what you've stated, you are probably right in thinking that the coursework will be rather easy. **This will give you a lot of freedom,** either to learn other mathematical subjects on your own (as a friend of mine did a lot of the time) or to pursue interests outside mathematics if you happen to have any (some of my acquaintances were math nerds to the teeth, whereas others weren't).
So the fact that the coursework is easy shouldn't deter you from applying to Oxford. (Perhaps there are other reasons? I don't know what your preferences are.)
Sitting here, it's hard for me to guess where the intense frustration of self-study comes from, in your particular case. Other answers do speculate that you're perhaps rushing through your material. If I go by your question about diophantine approximation, to which I gave the answer, you might not have had enough practice acquiring or coming up with non-rigorous ideas. These non-rigorous ideas are an important shortcut for understanding and proving things. Here's a blog post about this by the great Terry Tao: <https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-mathematics-than-rigour-and-proofs/>
In this day and age, many tutors are busy bees. (In case you're wondering, it's a result of the managerialisation of the universities. Two people who have explained how this reduces the freedom that professors used to enjoy are <NAME> the literary critic who taught literature at Oxford, and Lord Sumption the former Supreme Court judge who taught history at Oxford.)
There was one year when one of the maths tutors at my college was so busy with lectures and marking problem sheets and helping his PhD students during Hilary term that the undergraduates who needed to meet him for various reasons could hardly get a word in with him.
On the other hand, I had another tutor who throughout my time at the college gave ample time to his students, myself included. He really liked the teaching side of it. (He's now at Warwick.) Ideally, by having more and more conversations about the maths that you're doing, you would organically get into the orbit of such a professor, who would then be able to give you more personal guidance. It's easier to do this than in America, where because there are "office hours" it would be more difficult to speak to a professor outside office hours --- not so at Oxford.
If research is up your street, there are plenty of researchers at the Maths Department at Oxford who want undergraduate assistants. My friend did one of these research internships during the summer, and even got his paper (now a couple of papers) published on Arxiv.
And of course, things become easier when you have peers as enthused about maths as you are.
So once again, when it comes to what you're going to experience at Oxford, my advice is not to worry too much.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/03
| 5,573
| 23,871
|
<issue_start>username_0: Sadly I stopped a PhD when halfway through. My Professor left the University, I had some family troubles and lost steam and the University terminated my registration.
I would like to finish this PhD off - the area still has not been researched, and it is likely to be of benefit to the specific groups I was researching.
How do I go about finding a University that allows this? I am Canadian, but was doing my PhD in Europe, where I live.
I am thinking of moving to Wales, so UK is where I am hoping to register to finish the PhD although I would consider any other options if you know of any.
When searching UK University research degree regulations I can't seem to find details of how to bring your project with you....are there specific UK search words I should use to find University regulations about bringing my half finished work with me
Many thanks for any suggestions of how to finish this off.<issue_comment>username_1: I worry that you think you know more than you really do. Or, maybe a better way to put it is that you may have only a superficial knowledge of many topics, rather than the required deep understanding that is needed to be a mathematician. I'm not an Oxford Don, but was pretty good in some parts of maths. But if you ask a professor from Oxford or Cambridge to work with you they will ask the same sorts of questions I did here and will, if they are satisfied with the answers, give you that exam.
Here is the problem.
There is a huge (monumental) difference between being able to read and follow (and even memorize) maths written by others. When you think you understand it it might actually be more of a function of the quality of the writing than your depth of understanding.
What you seek, ultimately in maths is insight. That doesn't come from reading and memorizing, but from applying the knowledge and problem solving. If you can solve similar problems to the ones stated in a book you are getting somewhere, but it takes practice.
And you will only have achieved insight into a topic when you can conceptualize things that "might" be true but aren't yet proven - i.e. problems worth spending research effort on. Many professional mathematicians don't reach that stage by the time they earn doctorates. Some might never do.
Learning comes from reinforcement and feedback. The feedback, which you seem to be missing (in part at least) assures that you don't go astray and reinforce the wrong message. You don't get true reinforcement from reading and following along. It is too passive. You have to bring active processes to bear in almost every subject, but especially, perhaps, maths.
I worked in analysis primarily and a bit in topology. As a young student I wanted some insight into how rational functions worked (quotients of polynomials) and what derivatives could tell me about that - very elementary stuff, actually. I graphed, by hand (no computers then, no fancy calculators) literally hundreds of rational functions using mostly first and second derivative information. From that I got insight, not only into rational functions, but into the essence of derivatives. Very hard.
My advice is to find a local source, someone you can talk to - a teacher. It doesn't need to be an OxBridge professor. Go back through all of what you already think you know but apply it to the solution of textbook problems. Ideally, you should be able to solve every problem in any textbook, and not with 65% probability. And, your "correctly" solved problems are questionable without feedback. Only then can you be assured that you've "grokked it".
You may be ready, and I can't really diagnose it until you present that exam. But professors at top universities are already pretty busy and don't have a lot of incentive to work with you unless you first show them that you are exceptional. That is very difficult to do and unlikely if you can't solve the problems they would surely want to throw your way.
Let me give another warning. If you don't do the work then you might reach the point where you can't understand anything anymore. There are students for whom everything seems easy to get along the way and so they don't try very hard (solving hard problems...). But they may reach a point where their natural ability isn't enough to carry them anymore and they then actually fail since they don't know how to learn, not having worked at it.
If you don't have a teacher to give you the feedback, and if your family has the means, you might hire a university student to work with you. But you don't want a "tutor" to feed you facts and information. You want someone who will look at your work and give you feedback.
---
One caveat: There are a few textbooks that hide research problems in their exercises and don't say so. There have been a few cases where a student solved one of these, not knowing that there was no prior proof.
One note: The reason I asked if you had a teacher you worked with was also to note that if you want to approach a professor who you don't know, the best way is to do it indirectly, having another professional introduce you. It is best if they already know the professor, but not essential. But the professor will have a better idea of your skills and abilities if someone knowledgeable can attest to them.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: From personal experience I can tell you that over-confidence is what trips you up.
For a BSc I had to do a course in electronics. I'd previously done a similar course at the same level with relative ease. I then under-estimated how much of a refresh I needed and very nearly failed the exam.
Lesson learned.
Assume the worst, hope for the best. Assume you don't know it and work as if that's the case. I'd suggest you just enter university and aim for the best results you can all the time. I have no doubt you'll find that more of a challenge than you think now.
Also note that you need to learn a skill you may not have done yet : concentrating the most effort on the things you dislike the most. It's easy to get into the subjects you like. To get a good B.Sc you need to work really hard on the things you're least attracted to. I also nearly made that mistake on a couple of subjects.
From your comment :
>
> My biggest concern with researching universities recently has been the nature of the courses (where they don’t cover my main interests).
>
>
>
This is a concern for later - again from personal experience I found that my interests changed and previously uninteresting subjects because a lot more interesting when I became more familiar with them. Keep an open mind.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I think part of the problem at hand is that your perspective is a bit idiosyncratic. This is obviously not your fault, since it's very difficult to get a clear picture of higher mathematics if your knowledge as of now is mainly self-taught.
So let my try to help you to "clarify the picture" a bit:
**Mind your pace!**
The other answers have made good points, but I sense somekind of misunderstanding here. Many instructors of mathematics and related subjects have a fine-tuned automated alert that is triggered whenever somebody tries to absorb a lot of material and claims to understand it, but says they are struggeling with exercises. This is because many of us have seen too many students who said that they "understand everything in the lectures, but don't know how to go about the exercises."
Actually, the exercises are the most important (seriously!) and the most difficult (seriously!) part of studying mathematics.
I think that main point of the other answers is not that they might perceive your question as "arrogant" or something. I think they are mainly worried that you are going way too fast. Let me discuss this in a bit more detail:
(1) The most elemantary problem caused by going too fast is that some people who go fast think that they understand a lot of things, while they actually neglect the details (and details are key in mathematics). However, given the comments you wrote here and given your posts and Mathematics StachExchange I gather that this is not a problem of yours.
(2) A more advanced problem caused by going too fast is that you don't have enough opportunity too double-check, possibly rectify, and reinforce the understanding and insights that you have (or think you have) already gained.
(3) Another danger of going fast when learning mathematics is that you don't spend enough time on the basics and start to lose yourself in abstractions.
I am a bit worried about (2) and (3), mainly because you say that you have, within quite a short period of time, learned various things and read the first 12 chapters of the ergodic theory book by Eisner et. al. Please note that - as already indicated by the series in which the book appeared - this is a graduate level book!
So there is indeed the danger that you are simply proceeding too fast, thus exposing yourselve to the issues explained in (2) and (3).
**Suggestion:**
The things pointed out above are precisely the reason why you probably need somebody to give you some feedback.
Now you happened to hit precisely one of fields that I am very interested in (functional analysis, operator theory, and connections to dynamical systems). So here is an offer:
If you agree, you can send me an email, and I'll reply with some numbers of exercises from the book you mentioned, and we can then try precisely what username_1 suggested. You try to solve them - without using the internet, just books - and then send me your solutions, so that I can offer you some feedback.
I probably won't have time to do this more than once or twice - but it might still provide you some useful feedback.
**Courses you are interested in.**
Here we come back to my claim that your perspective needs to be "clarified". Your problem here seems to actually be a mixture of several problems:
* It's probably hard for you to find some of the topics your interested in within a curriculum, because you don't know precisely what you should look for. For instances, at Oxford there are courses on on "Multidimensional Analysis and Geometry" and on "Geometry of Surfaces" ([link to courses in Oxford](https://courses.maths.ox.ac.uk/)). The second one clearly belongs to the realm of differential geometry, and the first one is likely to be related to it, too.
* For other topics it's simply difficult to predict whether they will be treated in an undergraduate course or not. One of Picard's theorems (there are actually several of them) might or might not be taught in an undergraduate course on complex analysis. It might even depend on the lecturer.
* For some topics you mention it is just unreasonable to expect that they will be taught in an undergraduate program. For instance, with respect to ergodic theory, it is safe to say that the vast (really, really vast) majority of undergraduate programs throughout the world will not routinely teach material that is more advanced than the stuff you can find in the book by Eisner et. al. For most universities it would be pointless to do so, because none of their undergraduates would have sufficient preliminary knowledge to understand anything in such a course. (If you are looking for an exception, you might for instance check the website of Imperial College London and hope for the best - but I wouldn't bet on it.) Some universities might offer some ergodic theory courses on a level similar to (not more advanced than) the book by Eisner et. al., but with different contents - but maybe not on a regular base, and in any case it might be hard to predict what precisely the content will be.
* Some of the topics you mention will just pop up as part of other topics. For instance, fixed point theorems play an important role in some parts of the theory of partial differential equations, but they also occur in some subfields of topology.
I thus believe that if you insist on having courses on precisely the set of topics that you listed, you are most likely to drive yourself crazy about it, with little benefit in the long run.
So here is an alternative suggestion: Instead of pointing out specific theorems and topics, try to identify certain fields of mathematics that you like. In fact, it seems that you have alrady done so: Most of what you write points quite clearly into the direction of analysis - more specifically, functional and geometrical analysis and dynamical systems.
If you would like to pursue this further, your best probably is to join a program with a strong focus on those subjects in general, and then choose your specific courses as you go. In my experience, it often happens that an individual person's interests are not so much tied to a specific topic, but rather to a specific taste or "flair" that a certain field offers. Once you like the flair of a topic or a theorem, it's quite likely that you will also enjoy other topics and results from the same field.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: (Caveat: This answer is based on experience with universities *outside* the UK.)
>
> How should I talk to a university/department/professors about this problem (both before applying and (hopefully!) after having enrolled)?
>
>
>
University administration and admissions staff will mostly not care about this. However, many universities have "honors" or "excellent students" tracks, with some closer attention and mentoring by senior academic staff. Ask about those.
>
> The main component of the problem being: how can I ask to get teaching in topics that aren't actually (so it appears) on the syllabus?
>
>
>
When you approach individual professors of courses, ask for a one-on-one session. Assuming you get one, tell them a little about your relevant background, and see what they say. They might tell you that you can skip some of the lectures; or that you can just attend the final exam; or that you can get some written assignment instead of actually taking the course; or they will insist you actually take the course and be skeptical of your background knowledge.
If they don't want to talk to you, perhaps try the teaching-assistant-in-charge, or a second professor of the same course etc.
>
> How should I communicate my prior knowledge to get constructive use of teaching time and boost an application without appearing arrogant or -insert potential issue here-?
>
>
>
Remember that, generally, you don't get individual teaching at university - certainly not as an undergraduate. That kind of relationship happens almost exclusively with graduate students, and even they doesn't always have their advisor actually sitting down to teach them things individually.
So it may (or may not) be the case that you won't benefit as much from teaching time. If you were lucky to reach some kind of arrangement with the course staff, you may be able to use that time differently; otherwise, consider it a form of practice (and perhaps even take the textbook to class and do extra exercises during the boring parts).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: One advantage you have, as a young student, is *time*. It is great that you are ambitious and want to tackle hard topics. But, let's say you did get into a good program, and did spend two years on courses that mostly covered material you know like the back of your hand. Well, perhaps you will not have covered as much ground as you wanted. But -- (a) since you are very familiar with the material, you will have built up a CV with good grades in your courses that you can use as proof that you are talented, which can help you get internships and get involved research and later get into a PhD program, (b) you can take advantage of the opportunity get to know the professors who teach your courses, who will ultimately be able to write you letters of recommendation and suggest opportunities for your career growth. *Even in the worst case scenario*, where you really are just reviewing material you know over the course of these two years, you will have a lot of chances to grow your mathematical career. And two years, at the early part of your career, is really nothing -- it is well worth the trade.
Having said that, I strongly suspect that there *will* be *significant* advantages for you to take these early level courses. First, you will get extremely valuable feedback on your problem solving skills, which will help you develop your skills as a mathematician. Second, by learning the subjects systematically rather than on your own, you will very likely find interesting connections between subjects you didn't realize and build a stronger foundation. Third, you will get to meet your peers, and at the schools you are talking about there are *very* strong candidates in mathematics -- in fact you can really learn a huge amount by having a group of "math friends" who you study with at your same level. Fourth, you will be exposed to many topics in a degree, and you may find you are interested in something that you currently do not realize that you are. Fifth, there is a lot of knowledge that is not written down in books, like informal ways of thinking or ideas that don't work or the shorthand for communicating in a given field, that are best communicated by attending lectures and talking to your peers and professors. Finally, if you really have mastered a given course, to the level where you could take the final exam and ace it, you may be able to simply ask the professor if you can take the exam up front to "opt out" of some introductory courses. At least in the US, it is common to offer exams at the beginning of the semester that advanced students can take for credit to skip introductory courses.
It's very unlikely that you know more mathematics than the entire department. By going there and showing you are a serious student, you will find doors tend to open for you to explore your interests in as much depth as you want.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: For context: I am currently one of the second year external examiners for Oxford, and have had the same role for Cambridge in the past.
At places like Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick and Imperial you will find that every year there are a few incoming students who already know a substantial chunk of the syllabus. It is not typically useful for those students to officially do anything other than take courses in the usual way. You may find that you can do that easily, in which case you will have plenty of time to do other things. You can talk informally to other talented undergraduates, either individually or in events organised by student maths societies, which are often very active at the kind of universities we are talking about. You can try going to graduate level seminars or working groups, and talking to PhD students or postdocs who are also attending. You can just spend time reading in the library. You will not have any shortage of intellectually stimulating ways to spend your time. Having the right people to talk to is much more important than the contents of the curriculum.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: >
> I find to my dismay that a sizeable amount of first and second year content is familiar to me already
>
>
>
Two key points :
1. Universities exist for the primary purpose of **certifying** your education. Providing that education is secondary.
In most cases you cannot simply skip the courses and write the exam, unfortunately, but there are exceptions and if you're confident you don't need to sit the course it doesn't hurt to ask if you can take an exemption exam. Some institutions are more open to this than others.
2. You don't have to attend all of your lectures.
If exemption is not an option, and if you already know the material, you can simply skip most of your lectures and use the time to continue your own autodidactic learning. Use the time to advance other topics so that you're better prepared for whatever you plan to do when you graduate. Just don't forget to show up to the exam and turn in any coursework that is to be graded.
Critical, here, is that you have clearly demonstrated that you do not **need** a formal course, lectures, or a professor to teach you new material. You do, however, **need** the university to *certify* that you have learned this material. So use the institution for the things you require of them and forego the things you do not need them for. This frees up your time to invest in your own continuing education at a schedule and with topics that keep your interest.
Don't feel bad about showing up just to take the grades and run. As long as you're continuing to learn at a pace you enjoy and as long as you're not missing any key topics there's no reason why you can't follow your own course of study.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I was recently at Oxford studying maths (and philosophy, though I was never good at the latter). I'll try to address some of your points.
Based on what you've stated, you are probably right in thinking that the coursework will be rather easy. **This will give you a lot of freedom,** either to learn other mathematical subjects on your own (as a friend of mine did a lot of the time) or to pursue interests outside mathematics if you happen to have any (some of my acquaintances were math nerds to the teeth, whereas others weren't).
So the fact that the coursework is easy shouldn't deter you from applying to Oxford. (Perhaps there are other reasons? I don't know what your preferences are.)
Sitting here, it's hard for me to guess where the intense frustration of self-study comes from, in your particular case. Other answers do speculate that you're perhaps rushing through your material. If I go by your question about diophantine approximation, to which I gave the answer, you might not have had enough practice acquiring or coming up with non-rigorous ideas. These non-rigorous ideas are an important shortcut for understanding and proving things. Here's a blog post about this by the great Terry Tao: <https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-mathematics-than-rigour-and-proofs/>
In this day and age, many tutors are busy bees. (In case you're wondering, it's a result of the managerialisation of the universities. Two people who have explained how this reduces the freedom that professors used to enjoy are <NAME> the literary critic who taught literature at Oxford, and Lord Sumption the former Supreme Court judge who taught history at Oxford.)
There was one year when one of the maths tutors at my college was so busy with lectures and marking problem sheets and helping his PhD students during Hilary term that the undergraduates who needed to meet him for various reasons could hardly get a word in with him.
On the other hand, I had another tutor who throughout my time at the college gave ample time to his students, myself included. He really liked the teaching side of it. (He's now at Warwick.) Ideally, by having more and more conversations about the maths that you're doing, you would organically get into the orbit of such a professor, who would then be able to give you more personal guidance. It's easier to do this than in America, where because there are "office hours" it would be more difficult to speak to a professor outside office hours --- not so at Oxford.
If research is up your street, there are plenty of researchers at the Maths Department at Oxford who want undergraduate assistants. My friend did one of these research internships during the summer, and even got his paper (now a couple of papers) published on Arxiv.
And of course, things become easier when you have peers as enthused about maths as you are.
So once again, when it comes to what you're going to experience at Oxford, my advice is not to worry too much.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/03
| 3,614
| 14,309
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have written a short paper (six pages) in which I empirically analyse publicly available data. Both the data and my analysis are genuine and without (intentional) errors. Still, by using statistical and argumentative tricks, the paper somewhat convincingly arrives at a conclusion that is obvious nonsense.
My goal is to demonstrate by vivid example how easily this can happen (intentionally or unintentionally) even when obeying the typical scientific procedure and rigor. That message is directed rather at the "interested public" than at the most academic readers. It is not a goal to fool anyone (so it's not a hoax paper), and I have included a "preface" that clearly states the circumstances.
Now my question is: Where should/can I publish such a paper? I thought about a parody journal like the Journal of Irreproducible Results at first, but it does not seem to exist anymore and also its scope was not 100% fitting. Should I try a "real" journal instead and hope for the editor's humor? Or should I just upload the paper to ResearchGate? My "criteria" are:
* It would like it to be published in such a way that I can tell everyone it was accepted by "prestigious and well-known journal XY" (regardless of whether the journal is really prestigious), rather than just "a website".
* The journal should be open-access or similar so that everyone can read the paper.
* It should not be a predatory journal, because I do not want to harm my real academic reputation.
* I do not want to pay publication fees, at least not high fees.
* It should not take a year or so until the paper is published.
Thematically, the paper addresses a question that could be called a politics issue, so it might fit in a corresponding journal. I also thought about journals that deal with good/bad scientific practice in general.
**Background**: In the recent months to years, I had to read a lot of pseudo papers (mere PDF files I mean that luckily have not been published) about, well, what I and many other people would call conspiracy theories. The main content of such a paper usually was an empirical analysis that resulted in completely absurd conclusions.
My job was to find errors in these analyses and to refute them, but, as always, this proved to be very difficult. However, this is something that people outside academia often do not (or do not want to) understand... So I decided to turn the tables and write an even more obvious junk paper that nevertheless no one will be able to refute.
---
As clarification, I'm rather asking in which "category" to publish such papers in general, not concrete journals (except journals like Improbable.com, which however form a category on their own).
Some have expressed concerns that the paper despite all measures will be taken seriously by some groups. I can understand this very well, but my paper is actually about a theory that itself has been made up exactly for the purpose of demonstrating how easy it is to generate believable junk science.
---
**Update 1**: My paper has been accepted! In the end, I chose to submit it to a respected statistics journal that had 1) a relationship to the topic of my paper and 2) an "under debate" section. This prooved to be a good idea it seems. I will link the publication here as soon as the paper is online.
**Update 2**: The paper has now been published. Since I was asked not to link it here, I linked it in [my profile](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/155068/remirror?tab=profile) instead.<issue_comment>username_1: I know of one such example, an investigation of correlations between star signs and health conditions. It got somewhat famous after the German "newspaper" BILD fell for it, despite being very much not written as a hoax paper (so be wary, no nonsense is so obviously nonsense that no idiot will fall for it).
The paper was published in what I assume to be a regular epidemiology journal:
[Testing multiple statistical hypotheses resulted in spurious associations: a study of astrological signs and health](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16895820/)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a pointless and potentially damaging exercise.
YouTube and the web are filled to the gills with serious analyses debunking accidentally or deliberately badly analyzed data or claims. And you know what? They're basically preaching to the choir because the people who *want* to believe the claims still believe them and the people who don't agree with the claims are not being told anything they don't know already.
The people you'd reach in a even vaguely professional journal already know how to do a proper analysis. Despite that, some of them will, for whatever reasons of personal bias, happily make conclusions they can easily see are false by e.g. ignoring inconvienent data or taking the result out of context or whatever.
I'm afraid you won't achieve anything by publishing an example of such a paper because unfortunately we have an almost endless supply of such material already out there and being greedily consumed by a target audience that doesn't want to believe it's wrong and won't listen to any proof or educational material explaining why it's false.
Remember you live in a world where the media "balance" debate by putting on the tin-foil hat brigade and giving them equal (if not more) time as actual mainstream scientists. People select their news sources as ones that confirm what they already believe. Who is going to actually benefit from your paper in such a climate?
In addition to this, the reality is publishing such a paper would probably do you more harm than good. It would be forever attached to your name and the "obviously" false conclusion would be leapt on by people who like it for their own reasons. Indeed the paper could later be cited by people who want to debunk one of your own legitimate papers by showing an example of how you messed up before and cannot be trusted.
So it's pointless and potentially personally damaging.
I would not recommend doing this.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If sufficiently useful, papers like this are published in the same journals where their message would be influential. An example would be:
*<NAME>., <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2009). Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon: an argument for multiple comparisons correction. Neuroimage, 47(Suppl 1), S125.*
This is a critique of neuroimaging methods published about fMRI of a dead salmon. It's published in a popular journal for fMRI-based and similar research.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: The sort of paper you mention is very valuable to e.g. use in education to show that statistical analyses cannot be used without also understanding the underlying data. There are several papers like this published with the expressed purpose of making a point about over-interpretation or relying on statistical numbers alone to describe relationships.
The first that comes to mind is Anscombe (1973) (see wikipedia for a picture of the [Anscombe quartet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anscombe%27s_quartet)) who produced four data sets that are statistically identical (with reference to linear regression statistics) but when plotted indicate four very different types of relationships. The point of this paper was to show the power of graphical representation to complement statistical measures.
Another example is Collins (1965) which shows a correlation between sun spot activity and the stock exchange. Although the analysis is not described in detail regarding the physical relationships between the parameters it is an indication that spurious correlations may arise if one really looks for them.
A third example concerns the issue of *p*-values. Letters by Baker (2016) and Karpen (2017) can serve as an example voicing the issue of over-interpreting the value of *p*-values in studies.
As for journals to convey messages like this there are two options as I see it. One is to go for an obviously extraneous journal such as Improbable Research (<https://improbable.com/>). In the past there was also the Journal of Irreprodicible Research. A second option is to contact the editor of a statistics journal to enquire whether or not a paper such as the suggested could be published in some format in such a journal. To submit the paper as a regular paper is probably not a wise idea but trying to locate an avenue supported by journal editors would be a useful addition to our understanding of limitation of statistical methods. In addition there are journals specifically targetting higher education where publishing around problems as these suggested may be welcome for educational purposes.
References
<NAME>. 1973. Graphs in Statistical Analysis. American Statistician. 27 (1) 17-21. doi: 10.1080/00031305.1973.10478966
<NAME>. 2016. Statisticians issue warning over misuse of P values. Nature. 531, 151
<NAME>. 1965. An Inquiry into the Effect of Sunspot Activity on the Stock Market. Financial Analysts Journal 21 (3) 45-56.
<NAME>. 2017. P-value problems. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 81 (9) 93.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: There is only one place to do this - the [Journal of Irreproducible Results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results). It's a Science Humour and Parody magazine, so there is no danger that your parody will be taken seriously.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: *[The BMJ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BMJ)* is a very serious medical journal. It has published two studies related to the use of parachutes when jumping off a plane.
The [first one](https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.short) is a review paper. It attempted to find RCT (randomized controlled trials) of parachute use, found none, and "concluded" that there is no evidence for the use of parachutes.
The [second one](https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094) actually did a trial. The abstract confidently states that intervention (parachute) vs. control (no parachute) did not change survival at all. The reason for that is that survival rate was 100% in both groups, because the jumps were performed from a small landed aircraft ("mean altitude 0.6m, mean speed 0km/h").
Those papers actually have serious messages. The first one is about [equipoise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_equipoise): there has been no gold-standard trials of parachutes, because nobody seriously doubt they work; it criticizes the rigidity of a "RCT or nothing" mentality. The second is about undue emphasis on statistical methods and abstract-skimming, when important methodological details are buried in the paper. (Also, to me at least, they’re hilarious to read.)
There is thus precedent to publish parody papers in serious journals, fairly recently (2008 and 2018).
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_7: If you work at a university, would a university periodical, departmental bulletin or similar be an option? At least here in Japan, these are plentiful (*The Kobe City University Journal*, *Shinshu Studies in Humanities*, *The Keio Journal of Arts and Letters*, etc.) and while lesser to other journals are somewhat respected. Quick to come out, no fees, open access (university repository), you can tell people it's a 'respected journal'... it seems to fit your requirements.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Depending on your field, I think there's a good chance you may be able to submit such a paper to many (open-access, per your requirement) journals: just not as a research article. As an example, PLOS Biology offers an [extensive list](https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/what-we-publish) of article types published in the journal; looking through the options, your article might fit as a Perspective or an Essay. In mathematics, I recently read a work about citation practices published as a [Viewpoint in the *Mathematical Intelligencer*](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00283-021-10146-x); it didn't invoke data but was written in a satirical style that strongly reminds me of your goal. The "Applications and Case Studies" article type in the [*Journal of the American Statistical Association*](https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?show=instructions&journalCode=UASA) might even fit the bill (although I didn't read its open access policies). As a final case study, the [*Frontiers In*](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/applied-mathematics-and-statistics#article-types) family seems to have a large selection of article types from which you can use; I linked *Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics* above.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: >
> ...by using statistical and argumentative tricks, the paper somewhat convincingly arrives at a conclusion that is obvious nonsense.
>
> My goal is to demonstrate by vivid example how easily this can happen (intentionally or unintentionally) even when obeying the typical scientific procedure and rigor.
>
>
>
If your intent is serious and you mean to produce useful science then I'd suggest abandoning the specific example you've proposed and instead focus on **generalizing** the fallacy(ies) you relied upon to produce said nonsensical result.
You will probably discover that, in generalizing, you can produce a far more useful scientific result than simply examining a single specific case. Leaving it as an exercise for the reader doesn't really provide people with a tool, metric, or algorithm with which to gauge their own methods in search of similar fallacious methods or reasoning, and so has limited value.
Science is about first being intrigued by a counter-intuitive result, but finally is about breaking down that counter-intuitive result until you can come to a place of understanding. In so doing, you may also end up discovering an entire field of research that already focuses on the topic you're just now scratching the surface of. Your work may not be as novel as you think, and you may, in addition, be an entire lit-review away from even having such an idea for the paper.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: Have you tought about a Philosophy of Science Journal? That might be an appropriate place to try.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/03
| 1,295
| 5,595
|
<issue_start>username_0: (First appeared in Mathoverflow) In May 2020, I submitted a paper to a notable Combinatorics journal where a couple of earlier papers in the topic of my paper had been published. It was one of my first papers in Mathematics, and I didn't motivate the introduction as well as the referee would have liked as it turned out, and had imagined that the major result of the paper would sell itself. I received a detailed referee report in December 2020 where the referee mentions that according to them all the results are correct, and had a lot of suggestions for improving the writing of the paper and identified typos and misspellings. Then they said the paper seems insufficiently motivated and in their opinion, the paper seems borderline for publication in that journal. The referee said they would like to get contacted by the next journal where this paper may be submitted in case the editors decided to reject the paper.
The editor rejected the paper. I sent a follow up email to this editor politely asking if he could confirm that he would be able to forward the referee report to the next journal. I did not get a reply to this email.
In February 2021, I spent time trying to motivate the paper better and reworded parts of the introduction and included some examples and references to more recent work in the area, and then submitted to another new prestigious Combinatorics journal, requesting if they could use the earlier referee report. A month later, I sent a couple of emails requesting if they could let me know if the earlier referee had been contacted, but did not get a reply. In late October 2021, I sent a further email requesting for some information on the refereeing process, and got two new referee reports the next day. One of these said the paper is well motivated and well written and is suitable for publication, but that the main long proof could be written a bit better. The other detailed report said the paper is "worthy of attention" but asked for a lot of changes in the writing and that I spend time on the main theorem. The editor's message said overall this is no guarantee of eventual acceptance.
I completed the revision in December 2021, spending some time on rewriting this proof and including diagrams. I did not hear back from the editor till a couple of weeks back. I sent a couple of polite emails asking for the status, over a weekend, but didn't get a reply.
There was a follow up paper to this paper that was written up a bit poorly and ideally should have been worked on after this paper did get published. This was causing some amount of stress. I withdrew the paper two weeks back. Only then the editor emailed me saying he had a follow up referee report which noted that the paper had "improved considerably" although the "main theorem remains hard to follow, but perhaps that is a personal opinion", and lists a couple of small further typos.
The editor said he would be willing to forward these referee reports to the next journal I submit to. I replied thanking him, but also saying that if I knew it was actually close to being completely refereed here, I would not have withdrawn it.
The editor in chief of the next journal said he wanted "formal letters" from the editors in chief of the two previous journals. I wrote to both of these earlier journals about this. However, today I received a rejection saying they could not get hold of the previous referee reports.
Now I resubmitted again to the second journal, which took around a year and had two referees go through my paper. In this case, can I expect this journal again to consider this paper objectively?<issue_comment>username_1: As the Editor-in-Chief of a reputable combinatorics journal, I find the story very strange or/and incomplete.
So an unmotivated paper is submitted to Editor A, who received two reports from referees B, C. I guess B's report was a "quick opinion". B noticed that the paper lacks motivation. Why was not the paper immediately rejected, is not clear. Then Editor A suggested that A sends report from C to another journal and to editor D, where the paper is going to be submitted.
Now either A will disclose the identity of referee C to Editor D and that violates the anonymity of the referee, or Editor D will use a report from a referee whose name Editor D does not know. Both options are impossible unless A and D are the same person.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Given that you have already resubmitted the paper to journal 2, and especially since the last contact you had from them about the content of your paper was a positive set of referee reports, I would just wait and see what happens.
(a) I don't think you are likely to be able to guarantee a faster process with a positive result at another journal. Withdrawing and resubmitting will just lead to delay and more confusion.
(b) Given that you've already withdrawn and resubmitted this paper to journal 2, withdrawing again might end up causing bad feelings with the editors.
(c) Journal 2 has access to the last round of positive reports. Other journals do not, and as you have experienced, getting journals to communicate with each other is complicated. I think you have the best chance of having the previous, positive reports help your case if you stick with journal 2.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: You should never tell editors which referees to use, including using earlier reports, it is their job to find referees not yours. Would you conversely let journal 2 know there is already a negative report from journal 1?
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/04
| 1,388
| 5,578
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an international undergraduate student in the US. My university sponsors my visa. I will graduate this quarter as a civil engineering major.
Before the Spring term started, I met with my academic advisor (who is also a professor in my department) to ask if he could remove the prerequisite for a class that I wanted to register for. He offered me a placement exam, but refused to let me schedule it at a convenient time. I had to take it right then with no preparation, and I could only use half of the allotted time due to a preexisting appointment. Despite this, I still managed a 40%.
The advisor decided that not to waive the prerequisite, but said that he would let me audit the class. But this was not a good option for me, due to my scholarship and other factors. Further, he said I would not even be allowed to talk to the professor, turn in homework, or take exams. So, I told the advisor that I would not take the class.
When the term started, I attended the first lecture and talked to the actual professor of the class. He interviewed me and agreed to waive the prerequisite. So I went to the registrar and they added the class.
The very next day, the advisor sent me an email and went off on me. He then scheduled a Zoom meeting, where he yelled at me some more. He said I was disrespecting him and the department. I apologized and tried to explain, but he threatened to report me for misconduct, and said that if I were his employee, he would definitely fire me.
That happened 3 days ago. I am so concerned and stressed about this. I have two main concerns:
1. I am not sure if the advisor will or will not drop me out of the class. So far I am still registered for the class. I will not drop the class.
2. This advisor is also my professor for a capstone class. I am worried that this will be awkward and that he will retaliate.<issue_comment>username_1: No one likes it when you go over their head and get their decisions overruled. However, it sounds like your advisor has no one to blame but himself: he does not teach this class, so why in the world did he take it upon himself to give you a placement exam? Particularly a haphazard one? And his threats about "misconduct" seem equally bizarre: he may not like what you did, but he must know that accusing you of misconduct would not go anywhere.
At any rate, to your questions:
>
> 1. I am not sure if the advisor will or will not drop me out of the class. So far I am still registered for the class. I will not drop the class.
>
>
>
By definition, it's hard to predict what irrational people will do. But it seems like this decision is up to the course instructor, so I rather doubt that the advisor will try to drop you. Even your advisor probably realizes that having a disagreement with another faculty member over something as trivial as this would not make much sense. It's possible the advisor will try to convince the instructor to drop you, but this is unlikely, and even more unlikely to be successful.
So: I think there is not much to do here; this matter seems like it is already resolved. If an opportunity presents itself, you could consider whether to preemptively warn the instructor about this issue. I would *definitely* not go into all the details as you did above. But you could say something *brief* like: "By the way -- I had a bit of a misunderstanding / conflict with Prof. X when I tried to register for this course. No need to go into all the details here, just wanted to give you a heads up in case he says something."
>
> 2. This advisor is also my professor for a capstone class. I am worried that this will be awkward and that he will retaliate.
>
>
>
This one is more difficult. Normally, the best response to something like this would be to avoid the professor for the next 10 weeks. But if he is teaching you in a different class, that obviously won't be possible.
Is there another professor who you trust? If so, it may be worth asking them for advice. You'll need to do this carefully: it is not their job to solve this mess. But if you keep it fact-based and concise ("<NAME> shouted at me for 10 minutes and threatened to report me for misconduct, so I'm not sure how to deal with him in my capstone class"), you may get some useful insight.
Other than that, I don't think there's much to be done here. Trying to explain to the advisor seems to be making matters worse, not better. And going over his head to complain about him is a last resort. So, all you can really do is move forward under the assumption that he will treat you fairly despite his personal dislike of you. If he continues to be abusive, or if he does something that is correctible (like giving an unfair bad grade), then you won't have much choice but to complain to higher authorities. But it's hard to students to win in such scenarios, unfortunately.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: No student should tolerate being "yelled at" by their advisor, *certainly* not an undergraduate advisor and *especially* not over something as trivial as a prerequisite waiver.
Luckily, since you are an undergraduate, changing your advisor is very simple. You may find you are much happier if you ask your head of department for a new one. You could explain the abusive behavior, or you could simply say you didn't feel that you were a good match. It happens all the time and shouldn't be any trouble to switch. I'd suggest doing this before your current advisor takes it upon himself to behave unprofessionally a second time.
Upvotes: -1
|
2022/04/04
| 1,108
| 4,759
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been invited to review a paper for a good journal. The paper is certainly on my expertise areas. However, I have reviewed papers for the same authors in the past (and accepted some/most of them), and they tend to be quite hostile and rude in their replies. I try to be polite with my comments, even with the major ones, but these authors seem to take simple things such as pointing out typos as a big offense and reply with a very harsh tone. Editors seem to not care at all about this, perhaps because one of the authors is an authority in this area.
I will decline the invitation. **My question is**: Should I indicate this reason for declining in my reply to the invitation?
This is, in this case, I am a good fit for reviewing the paper but my reason for declining is that I do not want to go through this sort of unpleasant moments again.<issue_comment>username_1: As you feel apprehension over the refereeing process here, and the expected responses of the authors you **definitely should** decline the referee request. This is both for your own sake, but also because this is likely to bias your report in one way or another.
My suggestion for what to tell the editor would be that you have a conflict of interest, and are thus unable to referee papers by these authors. Do not elaborate further. This conveys the information that it is the author, not the topic or your general willingness. It is factually correct, without maligning (whether justified or not) anyone.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Reviewing is a purely voluntary activity that you are providing for free. In particular by reviewing a work, your are doing both the journal and the authors a favour (regardless whether you recommend to accept or reject). As a reviewer you should not have to put up with any abuse from the authors, or for that matter the authors wasting your time by not seriously considering your comments.
If you have had a bad experience reviewing the works of certain author(s), you are perfectly in your right to decline to review any of their future work (I certainly have a growing blacklist of authors reviewing whose work I consider a waste of my time and energy). Also, by all means, let the editor know why you are declining the review. This will help them understand why they are having trouble finding reviewers for certain authors, and maybe encourage them to take more proactive action on abusive behaviour by authors (or reviewers for that matter).
I strongly disagree you should phrase this as having a conflict of interest. This disguises the problem and suggests that the problem resides in your personal relation with the authors, when it is the authors' (unilateral) behaviour that is the issue.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Nooooooooo.
Make up some excuse that is not likely to backfire.
I believe you when you say they are unpleasant and feel entitled to do so because they consider themselves top dog in the field.
The editor is neutral at best. But the editor may also have a beer with dr top dog at a conference and spill the beans.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Decline and explicitly give your honest reason. However, don't do so in writing, as written communication is prone to misunderstanding of tone or intent. Write a brief mail requesting a phone conversation with the editor.
This gives you the chance either to open the editor's eyes, or to learn why their view differs from yours.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: There are benefits of *not* declining the review. Especially for the case when the manuscript is from your field, to have participation and a word to say is important. You should remember that you are the one who shapes the field (together with your hostile colleagues).
Pragmatically, imagine a situation that some of your important papers were not cited by the aforementioned people. By reviewing their manuscript you have a chance to point this out. Your expertise can also be beneficial for improving the manuscript.
By declining the review, you will miss these opportunities, and, potentially, the manuscript will be reviewed by less qualified people.
As for the "pointing out typos as a big offense". Simply do not point out typos, it is not the job of referee to do that. Many do that *bona fide*, but you are not obliged. Focus on the essential things and escalate it quickly to the editor (divisional editor) if responses are not proper (not follow common rules of scientific discus). As it is expected from the authors that a manuscript must be rigorous, so is the review. Sloppy reviews should not be tolerated. If you have nothing to say and point out typos just to write something, it is a bad style.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/04
| 1,095
| 4,015
|
<issue_start>username_0: Can I write:
>
> Hi Prof. xxx,
>
>
> I am xxx, PhD student from xx University. Recently I am studying your paper titled “xxx” in xxx. Could you please help me understand why xxx? I assume that there may be two reasons: 1)xxx 2) xxx.
>
>
> Thank you so much for your time.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> xxx
>
>
> xx University
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you could write that and you might get a reply. It is possible that you won't, but it seems polite enough that the chances are good.
It might take a while for a reply (weeks), however, since people are busy and it might take some time to reflect on the proper response. And the reply might just be a pointer to somewhere you can get additional background.
As user spin notes in a comment, a more formal salutation would be better, however. Some places can be quite formal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It sounds not very professional. I would suggest writing "Dear Prof. .." Here is an edited version of your letter:
>
> Dear Prof. xxx,
>
>
> I am a PhD student from xx University. Recently, I came across your paper titled “xxx” in xxx. Could you please help me to understand why xxx? I assume that there may be two reasons: 1)xxx 2) xxx. I would greatly appreciate your response.
>
>
> Best regards, xxx, xx University
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: When I was a student I liked to also mention my advisor and my area of research, and maybe a few words about how the author's paper related to my research. Of course, this only makes sense if you already have an advisor and a project, but the more the author understands about who you are and how they are helping you, the better.
I also agree with the others that it's better to start with "Dear Prof. xxxx" (if the author is in fact a professor).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Yes you can ask. But your current version has some issues.
>
> Hi Prof. xxx,
>
>
>
Use a more formal way to address him in the first e-mail. There is a chance that he will answer less formal, but you don't know in advance, so be more formal for the first e-mail.
>
> I am xxx, PhD student from xx University. Recently I am studying your paper titled “xxx” in xxx. Could you please help me understand why xxx?
>
>
>
This sounds like "I need a teacher that helps me understand my assignments". The professor will see it as not being his duty to help students to do their work.
First, really try to do your own research. What don't you understand, do some of the references in the paper explain it? Can you find other material or textbooks that help? Ask another student or staff from your faculty.
Then, of course, the paper can be hard to read and a question is still justified. Try to explain in a concise way what you don't understand and ask a question as concrete as possible.
>
> I assume that there may be two reasons: 1)xxx 2) xxx.
>
>
>
That's a good way to approach the issue. Tell (without too much text) what you didn't understand and what you think what may be meant but doesn't quite sum up for you. Don't go into too much detail, as you obviously did not understand it and explaining your wrong version doesn't help the author. But write enough that he is able to see what you didn't understand.
>
> Thank you so much for your time.
>
>
>
Personally I would not exaggerate here. A simple "Thank you for your time" is appropriate, but the "so much" may be a bit over the top.
They may be a professor and you're "just" a student, but in the end you're both just persons and you can ask questions like any other person. So I'd be polite, but don't exaggerate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: As an author, I appreciate it when someone shows interest in my work. I have no issue with responding to specific questions or engaging in a discussion.
That said, when you reach out to an author you should show competence in the area and ask relevant questions. The template you posted looks fine.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/04
| 1,314
| 5,448
|
<issue_start>username_0: Last year I took my phd in applied math. Now I am 5 months into my first postdoc (different subject from phd but still modeling and some numerics) which is 18 months in total. Both phd and postdoc are in the same country, abroad.
A little bit of history: The first time (during the post doc interview) I was presented the project (which is in mathematical modeling) I was very excited and thought: let's do this. I was told that I would work in a group and have people to help me (including a phd student). So I accepted. The phd student proved to not help me at all. Not because he doesn't want but because he cannot.
In the first 2 months I did some brainstorming, read other people's work, found some possible approach and gave a presentation to the rest of the group about it (still nothing concrete i.e. no numerical results / simulations). When I actually started working on it (like writing equations and code) I started with a very simple case. The thing is, after almost 4 months I am still stuck to the simple case. And I am completely discouraged because I already have my phd! I don't understand what does not work (is it the equations? the code? me?).
The last two weeks I am so stressed, that I can't sleep, I cry for no reason and I have decided to go in the next days to a therapist. Next week I will talk to one of my 2 bosses and tell him that the final model I agreed to give them is something which is absolutely impossible for me to do because even if i find the right equations for the model, I need to code it (which seems too complex because the model is far too complex) and do that of course before the end of my contract. I used complicated codes during my phd but I did not develop them so as to have the experience.
I want to open up because I am tired, demotivated and stressed and I don' t want to do research like that. I am planning to talk to them in order to find a solution that works, otherwise I don't have problem to leave. I will tell them that if they are ok with it the most I can try is to continue working on the very simple problem I am doing now. I think that after such a talk I WILL have to leave (which does not make me very sad because I hate working under such conditions). I am also afraid one of my bosses (the group leader) because I have heard stories about him and a phd student that was in the project before I come. He says that the student was fired because he had a very bad character and also was working on other research projects and not the project he was assigned to (but that's his side of the story).
I have already taken my decision to talk to my bosses openly because I want to act professionally and be transparent. I don't know if they have deadlines or other related stuff to my project, so I don't want to cause them any other problem.
I feel I am totally worthless and stupid because as a postdoc this should have come easier on me. In fact I am thinking that if they throw me out after next week's meeting I will not ever come back to academia.
Do you have any other suggestion? Am I seeing it the right way?
EDIT: If I rephrase my question will you open it? I think it can be usefull also for other people.
UPDATE: In a couple months my contract expires and I have already a first draft of my paper! I guess it was very important that I had a PI that understood that I was freaking out and calming me down was the best strategy in order to help me with the research.<issue_comment>username_1: Well, welcome to the real research world beyond PhD studies. What you are experiencing is normal, believe me, I was there too. Getting help from your "boss" is completely normal. I did it all the time when I was post-doc. In fact we met every week. That's the whole point of being a post-doc - to keep learning. So, don't get discouraged. Maybe your simple problem is not that simple? Is it a software issue, or a problem with the idea itself? If it is the software, you need to design a case (maybe not realistic at all) but for which you do know the answer and try to analyze why your code cannot reproduce it. And seek the therapist's help as well to exclude other possibilities that you may have some clinical depression.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Talking to a therapist is very, very good.
Can you take a vacation? That is not a cure for depression, but it may give you some time to take the pressure off and see things with a new light.
I think being open with your advisors is a good idea. But, if possible, try to frame things in a positive light. Instead of using dramatic and negative words like "impossible" and "cannot be done" and "too complex", try to reframe your issue on what you have done and where you are stuck. Be as specific as possible. For example, "I have tried to solve toy problem X, but am running into issues Y and Z. Can you suggest an alternative path forward?"
Focus on your immediate task, and don't get overwhelmed by the long-term goals. If the full set of tasks cannot be completed by the end of your contract, then they will find other people to pick up where you left off.
Progress is very non-linear in research -- you may well find that after making it through this roadblock, the next steps are much easier. So, don't assume your current situation is permanent, and resign yourself to failure.
Research is hard. It is a marathon, not a sprint. Be sure to treat yourself well.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/04/04
| 485
| 2,240
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it possible to re-submit or re-consider a manuscript for a normal issue of the same journal that has rejected it for a special issue?
I am concerned about it since the subject of my manuscript partially overlaps with the topics of the special issue of the journal.
Would you opt for a normal issue or rather consider a special issue that relatively overlaps with your work?<issue_comment>username_1: Usually, you publish the manuscript in another journal.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Submission to a special issue is generally the "best case" scenario for acceptance at a journal.
As long as you are correct that your topic fits within the scope of the special issue (which you can check by communicating with the organizers of the special issue), you are most likely to meet the thresholds for interest and significance and have the best odds of getting reviewers who are sympathetic, interested, and knowledgeable.
Thus, if you fit with a special issue, it is generally a good idea to submit to it, and if you get rejected from a special issue, you should probably plan to either restart the paper from scratch or else take it elsewhere.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If you submitted to a normal issue and an editor suggested that the paper might be appropriate for a special issue, then ask them about the consequences of rejection for the special on grounds of scope.
Different journals might have different policies on such things and you should know the policy of this journal before you take any action. Not being included in a special issue says little about the actual quality of the paper, as opposed to its subject matter.
The "issue" with special issues is that they are very limited in number of papers and pages and such. So, the journal will look for best fit *by their standards*. And there is probably more competition for special issues as they have a bit more prestige (by some measures). So, rejection from the special issue might not imply overall rejection. But it is the editor that will know these things. So ask. The editor will have a lot more scope for a regular issue than the special, provided that your paper passes the reviews.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2022/04/04
| 1,608
| 6,873
|
<issue_start>username_0: I never get nominated for any award. I was wondering how people get nominated for society awards.
I am a full professor, and I have an h-index of 45. I have more than 11,000 citations, so there isn't any problem with my academic performance.
Most importantly, I created a computer model which has been used by dozens of scientists across the world, which resulted in at least 200 publications in leading journals in my field (without me included). I maintain that model and people explicitly ask me to get it which I gladly do. I am one of the best computer modelers in my field, objectively, creating models that rival ones created by large teams of people in national labs, for example.
Yet, I get no nominations for any awards ever in my life. Note that in my field, self-nomination is *not* allowed. And I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to actually ask someone to nominate me. I think it is not ethical and a form of cheating.
Yet, I see many people get awards for far smaller contribution to the field. Some multiple number of times. The only explanation I have is that they just explicitly ask other scientists to nominate them. Which is very wrong, in my opinion.
I just feel very demotivated by this lack of respect by my fellow colleagues with who, in general, I have good relationship. I am just a bit puzzled by all this. Is it actually common for people to ask for nomination?<issue_comment>username_1: I've been involved in two such awards. In both, the candidate had, to my knowledge, no prior knowledge of the nomination. In both situations, the nomination was made by a person more widely known than the candidate. In both situations, the decision was made by a committee of the association with competing candidates. One, the successful one, had several nominations, in addition to the primary one. The primary nominator in that case lobbied some of us to add support, which we gladly did. And we secondary contributors were able to speak to different aspects of the candidates suitability.
Unlike Hogwarts, magic doesn't happen. Either some number of your colleagues get together on their own in a "cabal" to push you forward or you have to nudge someone yourself, probably a major collaborator. In both cases above, the nominator and nominee had been collaborators in the past.
You are unlikely to be spontaneously thought of for a major award unless you have led some aspect of your field in some way. Lots of papers probably isn't enough in most cases. You need to be visible in pushing forward on some front that is seen by many as important. That could be research or service to the organization or possibly a number of other things.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with username_1, however, I'd suggest that finding a major collaborator to nominate you might not be enough. Instead of soliciting a single nomination, you should work with a person willing to coordinate the gathering of a nomination package. Ideally, that person would be soliciting nomination letters and submissions designed to boost your chances from a number of colleagues that could all support your nomination in slightly different ways. They'd contact the list of potential nominators, suggest what part of your portfolio they're most in a position to support, ping them to make sure those that said they'd submit a letter actually submit it, ...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Awards are a mark of a social recognition, and they have everything to do with visibility and networking. An absolutely stellar result does not an award make, not on its own. Working behind closed doors in your ivory tower would only bring in recognition and respect from people in a somewhat narrow field, and these are not the same people who influence award-related decisions.
How often do you engage in chest-beating compared to those less accomplished colleagues getting nominated? The research administration has some awards to distribute, was it you or someone else who had their ear the most recently talking about the greatness of their results? How much funding did you get for the school? How many students have you successfully graduated? The most decorated people have this feedback loop fueled at all times; for them, awards help getting more funding and other resources for the research and so they often talk about how great their research is and how deserving of all accolades it is. Not that this is a bad thing per se, and not all awards are like that. But the majority is.
One needs not be self-nominated to kick things off, but someone with enough motivation to get them an award should speak out directly. The most "honest", down-to-earth awards seem (to me, at least) to be given out by scientific societies such as AMS or IEEE, and you may be well on track to get one of these. But these honorary, often lifetime achievement awards usually come pretty late in one's career. "Smaller" ones often come in a "science fair"-like format, and people seem to start collecting these from the "best ... at a conference".
The last point about conferences is actually rather important, it replicates a lot of the dynamic tied to the institutional award-giving.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Awards are a popularity contest **within the group of people who give out awards**. If you want one, choose a few deserving contributors in your field and try to get them prizes. As you interact with various awards committees, remember your only goal is to get your colleagues the recognition they deserve. If, **and only if** the awards committee asks for your CV to understand how valuable your nomination is, you can share that. Your professional conduct, charismatic disposition and tireless advocacy is what impresses the various award committees. It'll also position those you advocated for to reflect on your contributions.
This method is not foolproof, but ... an award is just a notch on your belt. Put the ones you win on one side and the ones you advocated for on the other. Recognition is as much an accident of charisma, contacts and timing as it is based on your hard work.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: With respect, I appreciate that your question is meaningful, but the way you have framed it is really quite bizarre (or maybe even narcissistic). I am puzzled that someone with your experience in research is asking this question.
One goes into research because they enjoy it, are passionate about it and want to contribute, not because one expects or is searching for prizes. There have been many mathematicians (Harish-Chandra, for example) who won almost no awards although they did work of foundational importance.
Just openly stating puzzlement (and even offence) that you have not received any shiny awards for your work is really quite a bizarre and surprising statement.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/05
| 2,483
| 10,307
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have the impression that there are a lot of hidden secrets, unstated norms and rules that make or break potential researchers in academia. How do I acquire this secret knowledge?
Additional context: None of my parents even went to college; I am a first-generation college student. I grew up in a poor family. I got a PhD a few years ago but am struggling to get a postdoc and advance. There are lots of things I would like to know, like:
* how to write more papers quickly
* how to write a compelling research statement
* how to network like a professional
* how to decide which topics to work on
* how to work with academics in different career stages (junior faculty, postdoc, emeritus)
* how to start collaborations
* how to read academic papers efficiently
* how to organize all the learning materials, including journal articles and my personal notes, efficiently.
* how to tell if a talk I give is good or not, when nobody wants to give direct, honest feedback
* how to find out about useful conferences
* how to get on e-mailing lists where academics post about useful conferences
* how to get asked to referee a paper
* how to write a referee report
* how to [do everything else that academics are expected to do]
Another related question is: How can I *compensate* for not having parents who are academics? A lot of academics have relatives who are also academics -- maybe a brother, or parents, or grandparents. I don't have any of that. I know that this will disadvantage me, but I want to minimize this disadvantage.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no secret knowledge that comprises rules or recipes for success. Academic success relies on your own work, your own ability, your communicative qualities, your enthusiasm for the work you do, the opportunities you see for the application of your work elsewhere, the way you support your students, the way you work with your supervisors, the care you take to write and publish what you do, the interest you take in others’ work, the opportunities you seize for collaboration. I also recognise the role of luck, but that is beyond control. Each of these themes could be expanded into an essay.
It is damaging to your own development to think that there are secret rules. That is the way to paranoia, where you think the world is somehow arranged to keep you out. It is not: it is waiting for your contribution.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no secret WAC (World Academic Council) full of old white cigar smoking males that guard the CRR (Compendium of Rules and Regulations).
However, cultural capital is a real issue. The problem is that it mostly works on a subconscious level. Universities are bureaucracies, and there is a way to behave inside bureaucracies that is more likely to lead to success. The problem is that those "rules" are not explicit. For people inside the organization they are so self-evident that they wouldn't be able to list them. If you break those rules, then that isn't even observed as "breaking of rules", but as the breaker being rude or dumb or lazy, i.e. being rude or dumb or lazy is a property the gatekeeper assigns to the individual, whereas breaking of rules is a property the gatekeeper assigns to an action. Yes, one of the rules in academia is that *ad hominem* arguments are not allowed, but whoever said that subconscious rules have to be internally consistent?
People who are not raised in a middle class background have real trouble navigating universities. Since this is all subconscious, there is no curriculum. Many people with a lower class background who did make it had a "cultural guide", someone who explained the rules when they became relevant, or explained what happened when (s)he broke the rules and received nasty responses, and/or mediated when such a conflict arose. This is in line with the comments by @Roland and @VitaminE .
The concept of cultural capital or cultural knowledge is a huge subject in sociology. A nice accessible introduction is here (though it very focused on the qualitative side and largely ignores the quantitative side of this field):
<NAME>. (2015). Cultural Knowledge and Social Inequality. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 1–27. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414565814>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I suspect we could break your list into three categories.
1. **Things everyone struggles with.** Writing more (and better) papers faster is the name of the game in publishing. How to read and organizing documents efficiently is a very common question here; some of us have systems we like, others are okay with having no system, and others are constantly pursuing the elusive perfect system. Some people are good at networking, and others are not -- and there are classes/books about how to do it better. Starting collaborations is notoriously difficult, particularly at an early stage where you don't have so much to contribute.
2. **Things you should have learned in grad school.** Your advisor should have given you enough criticism on your talks and manuscripts that you know what is required. You should know the major conferences in your (sub)field because your advisor should have been sending you there, and your should recognize the names from the literature. You should have enough existing research that you can recognize opportunities to dive deeper or broader.
3. **Cultural factors that others take for granted.** Networking and interpreting feedback may be more difficult -- I'm reminded of the joke about Brits and Americans, where the Brit says "I have some concerns," the Americans thinks "oh good, we're close to agreeing," but the British person actually meant "I couldn't disagree more." Similarly, values like being reliable, obedient, and respectful tend to be strong positives in certain socio-economic groups but are neutral or even negative in some academic groups.
For now, my answer is to recognize that there are three different issues here, and to take some confidence in the fact that most of the bullets on your list are actually in category #1 (issues that all academics struggle with); there is no indication here that you are "hard-wired" to be unsuccessful due to your cultural background. In particular, remember that the road to a tenured position is very narrow; people across all grad schools and all backgrounds are having many of the same struggles that you are.
On the other hand, several of your bullets are in category #2, which is a little concerning. I recognize that this invites an obvious follow-up question: how do I learn the things I should have learned in grad school? I invite you to search our archives for any past questions along these lines, and if there are not any, to consider posting that question separately.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The best answer to those things that you should or could know (and to be able to recognise which those things are) is to find your self a trusted mentor. Doesn't have to be someone senior (although that often helps), but could just be someone of your own generation how seems to be clued up about these things. Have coffee with them frequently and just chat about whats going on in your life and theirs. This will be easier if/when you get a postdoc. Perhaps its even worth focusing your search on advisors who have a reputation as good mentors rather than good practitioners of your field.
Recognising that that might not be possible, you might try looking for online communities that can help. This community is one such place, although the advice here is, but design, focused on a pretty narrow set of questions. Another place is twitter. Follow #AcademicChatter for example, or pick some profs/well known postdocs in your field that spend their time live tweeting conferences, or talking about academic culture, or just complaining about academia rather than just promoting their latest papers. Try [@ProfessorIsIn](https://twitter.com/professorisin) or [@jenheemstra](https://twitter.com/jenheemstra). There is a slack group for new (mostly biology) faculty (NewPI\_UK) that I have found invaluable starting out as tenure track academic in the UK - its just a bunch of us in the same position trying to work things out together. Perhaps you can find (or start) something similar.
There are also podcasts. Try "The effort report" (<https://effortreport.libsyn.com/>), which sees its mission as specifically talking about the hidden curriculum, although again, i think mostly aimed at new faculty in the sciences. .
Finally, and this is probably not quite appropriate for you yet, but there are paid courses in the non-academic side of being an academic, but these are mostly aimed at tenure track people. Examples include EMBO's Lab Leadership course and CSHL's Leadership in Biosciences. Some career coaches also specialise in academia.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: There are many, many barriers faced by first-generation college students in academia. The pushback to your question makes sense, as the vast majority of academics don't learn the answers to your questions through their relatives in academia; in fact, I would disagree, and say that most academics don't have relatives in academia at all (personally, none readily come to mind). Most academics learn the answers to these questions through their advisors and mentors, either during their undergraduate and graduate educations. Of course, access to such advisors and mentors is the part that's blocked off from many low-income students. The most dedicated and well-known advisors are mainly at prestigious universities, where students from underprivileged backgrounds are grossly underrepresented; further, even at a prestigious university, a low-income student may have a more difficult time doing the networking necessary to get access to a good advisor, and may arrive with less preparation to be able to stand out from the first year.
I sympathize with your plight, though I completely disagree with the premise that academics learn this "secret curriculum" from family members in academia, as I doubt this is rarely, if ever, the case. It's simply a fact that academics from wealthier backgrounds have access to better educational opportunities which teach them these lessons.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/05
| 778
| 3,200
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a relatively new researcher, and I'm confused as to what exactly sites like arXiv and cryptology ePrint are and what people use them for. Are they simply archives where you can upload any research paper related to the field? Does your paper have to be in a journal/conference in order to upload them? Will you have to submit your paper to a journal or conference after uploading to arXiv? What are the incentives for someone upload to these archives? Are papers on these sites considered to be "published"?
Any help is appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: Indeed, arXiv is a place where people store their preprints. No these papers are not published because these are not peer-reviewed. This is used to announce new results mostly because it may take a lot of time for publication to appear. Some preprints are never published. So people should be careful when referring to them. But if one is sure the results are correct, one can refer to a preprint. For example, it usually is the case when one refers to his/her own preprint.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is certainly true that there are wildly varying opinions about "putting things online" without being vetted by "authorities".
Yes, due to tradition, "published" in many peoples' minds means "peer-reviewed" (no matter whether it is available except behind a paywall or not, etc.) I have come to think that people should say "peer-reviewed" if that's what they mean.
The word "published", in academic circles, has come to mean "peer-reviewed". Ok, but, well, how about just saying "peer-reviewed", rather than corrupting the "publicly-available" sense of "published"?
There is also the implied sense that without peer-review, things are suspect. Ok, sure, some people with dubious judgement do make things public. On the other hand, passing the gate-keeping aspect of "peer-review" is a bit corrupted, and involves things apart from the intellectual/scientific merits of the thing at hand. As in the explicit question from editors to referees about whether the manuscript at hand is sufficiently ... something ... for the journal. :)
(Also, btw, several journals have told me, as referee, that it's not my responsibility to check for correctness, though I tend to! So, "peer-reviewed" does not promise correctness! More often, the result is completely unsurprising, or completely expected, anyway, ... and, as I've said before, false proofs of true theorems are seldom debunked/corrected, and there's seldom much enthusiasm about it. :)
So, if a person wants to make their ideas public, in math, yes, arXiv is excellent. I look at it every day, as do many. No, the thresh-hold for getting things on there is low, so the mere appearance there has no status points nor certification of anything. But lots of people will see it.
EDIT: and you will establish priority, I think, if that matters!
Similarly, if you've been around for a long time, putting things on your own web-page will reach many people, too. Again, no status-points scored. :)
I gather that high-energy physics has shifted in their way of thinking about "publication" far more than math has...
:)
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/06
| 477
| 2,014
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am not currently affiliated with a university.
Can I submit a paper to PhilPapers?
When I started to create an account with a personal email address, I got this message:
>
> The email address that you entered is not from a recognized university or college domain. If you continue, your submissions to Phil\* services will be subject to review and limitations. For this reason, we strongly recommend using an academic email when possible.
>
>
>
What does it mean that submissions "will be subject to review and limitations"?<issue_comment>username_1: This is mostly a guess, but it accords with a few other sites. The requirement is most likely a "sanity" check to try to weed out cranks before they get into the system. I'd guess that philosophy, being a broad field, draws more than the normal share of cranks.
Try to find someone, such as an editor, that you can ask about the limitations. They may want some assurance that you aren't a crank, such as a recommendation from an academic.
But the limitation could also be on how often or how much you submit. And a review is natural for most publishers, though less so for preprint publishers.
Most journals are happy to post things from non-academics, so I assume the you won't be closed out entirely. But you may have to work your way in to the community slowly.
It is important that they do allow you to continue and don't immediately slam the door.
It does, however, seem that PhilPapers is primarily an index and bibliography of material published elsewhere, rather than directly submitted work. They describe themselves as a service to academics. While it also does preprints, you might think about submitting to one of the journals they index.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Can you try reaching out to them over email, and then social media like Facebook/Linkedin (if they don't reply within reasonable time).
The thing is, they would know more about their policies and how to explain it to users.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/06
| 2,375
| 10,301
|
<issue_start>username_0: Since I am a fairly new researcher in the process of building a track record for myself I'd like feedback on whether I behaved correctly in the following situation.
I was part of a small, short-term research project (~6 months). My main contributions to this project were as project lead, i.e. project acquisition, developing the research question, planning the research, and selecting the appropriate methods. Throughout the project I was involved in substantive discussion with my two colleagues who did the leg work of performing the experiments and analyzing the results.
After all the data was collected and partly analyzed, I went on a 3 month hiatus to focus on finishing a university course. During this time, my colleagues wrote and submitted a paper about the results of said research project without my knowledge. When I came back, I found that the paper was already close to acceptance without any chance of me contributing to it.
Since I believed that I contributed significantly to the knowledge generated in the paper (beyond "just" project management), I asked the lead author to put me on the author list, and he agreed. The second author did not however, with the argument that it would be ethically wrong to include an author that has not contributed to the text itself. While I generally agree with this sentiment, I had no chance to contribute to the text because no one told me that the paper was being written.
After a heated discussion we agreed to disagree. Now my coworker would, although begrudgingly, agree to put me on the author list. However, now I am on the fence since part of the journal's author inclusion criteria says "[involved in] drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content [...]", which I objectively didn't do. Should I stand by my co-author claim, or would letting it go be the more ethical thing to do?
Update: Based on a discription of my contribution, the journal editor decided *against* my inclusion. We have discussed this issue in my research group and are now looking for ways to avoid these situations in the future.<issue_comment>username_1: Authorship norms vary by field. But if you made a substantial intellectual contribution to the paper, you should be an author in my mind.
What has gone wrong here is that the paper was written without giving you the **opportunity** to critically revise it. After all, if your name is on the author list, it's your reputation on the line if there is something wrong with it, so you shouldn't be there with at least checking the content.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Has anyone just asked the editor handling the paper what should be done? If they say you satisfy the journal's conditions for authorship, then you either get authorship or you explicitly waive it; if they say you don't, then you don't (but you should still be able to get at least an acknowledgment entry for your contributions and conversations). Since you say "verge of being accepted", the editor may also be willing to give you a bit of time to review the submission to see if there is anything you think should be changed (concluding "no" is still a valid contribution to the production process). This may delay the acceptance and publication time tables, but probably not significantly if you deal with it in short order.
Beyond that, there are a few professional decorum/procedure issues that led to this situation.
For something that's on your side (though also theirs), there is the issue that apparently you went into working on this project without discussing authorship matters in advance. As you have probably learned from this, and hopefully the other two have as well, that's a bad idea. Always try to work out in advance what the expectations and conditions for authorship on (potential) resulting papers will be. As this may vary by journal even within the same field, this may require some advanced consideration on what journal(s) you might try to publish in. It's hard to set that in stone, but it gives a working framework and a forum to make clear your expectations for your role and participation. It's entirely possible that your collaborators originally envisioned you as a non-author, and they never critically reevaluated that position until you brought it up late in the process. Maybe they've grown so accustomed to other collaborators waiving authorship when they go on long breaks they mistakenly failed to check with you. Those are failures on their part, but either way discussing authorship in advance likely would have prevented any such problems.
How a hiatus/vacation/etc. impacts that is also something that should be discussed in advance, at least once you know one is on the horizon. Sometimes a contributor may simply waive their inclusion and let the others go ahead and publish without them, others won't; better to know/communicate which one is which in advance.
Some papers effectively get held hostage indefinitely as one co-author refuses to relinquish authorship but never finishes the tasks they need to for one reason or another. Which brings me back to something I said in the start: if the editor says you qualify as an author, then the only way the paper can be (ethically) published is if you are listed as an author, or you expressly waive your inclusion in the authors list. They can't ethically just remove you because it was inconvenient to clue you in on the process.
So, yes, ask the editor and go from there. It takes the issue out of the contentious grip of you and your collaborators and puts it in the hands of an objective and neutral (hopefully) third party with the authority to make such decisions. The editor will be glad this issue was brought up before publication rather than after, at least.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Your objecting co-author has the causality backwards here.
It is incorrect and unethical to say that only writers can be co-authors.
Instead, my understanding of the ethical position is that every contributor to the paper *must* be given an opportunity to contribute to the writing and revision, since the manuscript is presenting their work. That contribution might well be as small as: "I read your draft and don't see anything that needs changing."
By your account, you have contributed significantly to the scientific content that is being presented, and therefore your co-authors *must* offer you co-authorship and an opportunity to contribute to the revision.
In submitting the revision, the lead author will need to explain to the journal that you were omitted by mistake in the original contribution. Any other position would be an ethical breach of authorship.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_4: I am not qualified to offer a full answer on the merits of how *authorship* is defined for academic publications.
But I do enjoy tracing word etymologies, however, and in the case of a seemingly obvious word such as *author*, I found this origin.
>
> author (n.) mid-14c., *auctor*, *autour*, *autor* "father, creator,
> one who brings about, one who makes or creates" someone or something,
> from Old French *auctor*, *acteor* "author, originator, creator,
> instigator" (12c., Modern French *auteur*) and directly from Latin
> *auctor* "promoter, producer, father, progenitor; builder, founder; trustworthy writer, authority; historian; performer, doer; responsible
> person, teacher," literally "one who causes to grow," agent noun from
> *auctus*, past participle of *augere* "to increase," from PIE root \*aug- (1) "to increase."
>
>
> From late 14c. as "a writer, one who sets forth written statements,
> original composer of a writing" (as distinguished from a *compiler*,
> *translator*, *copyist*, etc.) ....
>
>
>
<https://www.etymonline.com/word/author>
In other words, you definitely helped author the paper in the original sense of being one of the team who brought about, made, or created the paper -- even if you did not contribute specific text for the first draft of the "written statements" of the paper itself.
Nevertheless, going back to my lack of qualifications, I do know enough about publishing in general to have learned that specific journals or fields can have many specific authorship requirements (independent of general dictionary word meanings), including what is needed to be included as an *author* of a paper. For example, does this journal have a separate *contributor* list for papers, etc.
To that extent, I most agree with username_2 on technical grounds (discussing with the editor) and because those grounds are most likely to remove contention and emotion from the equation.
But on purely ethical grounds, I see it this way, and here I do think some emotion is justified in the sense that something was not handled correctly regarding your authorship and should be corrected. Surely your contribution to this paper ought to be explicitly recognized in some form.
Yes, it would have behooved you to lay out your hiatus plans and actively ask the others to let you know if they were going to plan a paper submission while you were gone; but even if you did not do that, your hiatus did not relieve them of the obligation to either (1) let you know they were planning the paper and discuss how to include you (author or acknowledgements/contributors) or (2) wait for you to return if they had no way to reach you during your hiatus.
Just my two cents.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: I just don't get how the two people doing the experiments and yourself did not communicate for 3 months while you were finishing a university course.
Didn't you even *phone* them once during this time ?
If it was physical sciences and the other two had a say in the project work as well as all the experiments plus analysis and - somehow - there was no contact between you all, I can see the point of view of person #2.
You may well have a legalistic right to authorship of the paper.
But ethically your contribution would be more in the Acknowledgements than as a co-author.
I am surprised that you insist on this authorship right given your lack of contact with the others - something they no doubt feel relegates them to a secondary status despite their hard graft.
Upvotes: -1
|
2022/04/06
| 1,351
| 5,361
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a very strong graduate candidate in art history with a 3.97 undergrade GPA and excellent research and writing skills. My recommdations are very strong with three professors attesting that I my work is "brilliant" and "exceptional." Three months were spent intensively researching MA programs in art history, after which I applied to two schools, one very elite, and one excellent but not an elite. The elite school took ten candidates and I was not accepted. The less elite school courted me and hosted me for a day to meet the department, writing afterwards that they were "thrilled" to have someone of my caliber. I love the program there, and there are two scholars there I want to study with. Great right? No, because the funding the promised for the MA did not come through, and they have no funds except for PhD students. They were only able to offer me a $1,700 cash scholarship.
This is my new dilemma, I have three options:(1) I can turn down this acceptance, and go to a school whose program and faculty I like less, but a school where I can get full tuition plus stipend at the MA level -- there are six or eight and I will get into at least one; (2) I can accept and sell everything I own and go 70K into debt for two years, plus work part-time off campus, which is not a great option; (3) I can change from a MA candidate to a PhD candidate and they will accept me with full funding -- full ride on tuition plus stipend. I do not really want to commit to 5 years, but I am already well into dissertation research on a great topic. I am confused, does anyone have advice ?
I should add as an addendum, that if I am going to apply directly to a PhD program -- which my undergrad advisors feel I am ready to do -- should I then expand my search for the following year, or stick with the school to which I am now accepted? I am a good "fit" for this excellent, highly competitive program, but I do not have the money to do their masters with almost no funding.<issue_comment>username_1: **Heavily consider getting a PhD.
Only consider #1 and #3.**
If you feel you'd be a great fit for a program, then getting funded as a PhD is probably in your best interest. **Most people with Masters degrees go on to get PhDs.** What is your plan for the MA, your career?
**Option #1** has one big downside - "Clicking" with your department is much more important in grad school than undergrad. It can be the difference between a great experience that can launch your academic career and dropping out.
**Option #2** - You'll end up in debt with a very expensive degree that doesn't qualify you for a high paying job. **Don't pay out of pocket**.
**Option #3**, switching to a PhD this year. It sounds like it's a top program choice for you. You say you did months of research on these programs. If the program you were accepted to would still be top 3 choice for a PhD, it's probably not worth waiting a year and reapplying, there is a high probability you'd end up there anyway. **Especially since most people with Masters go on to get a PhD, I feel this is your best option.**
If you decide 5 years is too long, you can usually graduate with just a masters, but don't plan on doing this. This is university specific.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I **vote for option 3** (fully funded PhD). Sufficient funding for academic studentships matters not just logistically, but also has huge benefits for mental health (it did for me). Academic work is challenging, and if you can step back every now and then and treat it like a job (that is paying you) then it is more mentally manageable (in my opinion).
I highly recommend that you **don't go for option 2** - that debt will follow you around for years and you may resent what got you into it.
Ask yourself why you are considering **option 1** (other masters programs), when the next sequential step from option 1 is the PhD in option 3 (if you want to stay in academia).
I understand that you don't want to necessarily commit to ~5 years, but find out what happens if a PhD is dropped halfway through. In some countries, if you've passed an evaluation exam part-way through your studies, and then drop out, then you could still achieve a 'Masters' degree.
Finally, regarding your last question, only you will be able to answer this, and only after you've spent some time in the program.
Good luck! --From a professional (in a different field) that had a fully funded PhD
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Speaking as a kinda-sorta Art Historian (or at least someone who was 25% in Art History on a joint appointment for a few years), 1 vs 3 depends on what your goals are from graduate level study (for the reasons others have stated, don't do 2).
You say that you are not ready to commit to 4 years of PhD, which is totally fine, but then what are your career aspirations? Do you want to become an academic? If so, PhD is your only option and there isn't a lot of point in doing a Master's. If your goal is to work in museums or generally on the art market (or the likes), a PhD is likely totally unneeded and isn't something that will allow you to get a foot in any door, it would just be several years away from the type of experience you need to land the job you want. A Master's may be needed however as a minimum requirement for some jobs.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/05
| 1,368
| 5,573
|
<issue_start>username_0: One of the professors in my class seems to be attracted to me. I am back at university after a long stint in software, so my age group is similar to the professors. He is married and probably has a habit of giving too much attention to girls. I feel uncomfortable with his constant gaze and kind of forcing me to ask questions and interact, and looks like he is very happy when I come to sit near him on the first bench, and he appears jealous when I sit beside other classmates who are guys.
When I ask any question, he replies with a voice as if he is talking to his sweetheart. Due to this, I felt very uncomfortable and stopped interacting with him, then he became very angry and scolded the whole class. After that, my classmates try to force me to sit at the first bench.
My problem is, that I'm feeling pressured. He is actually a very good teacher and I want to learn from him. But I want to keep some distance. At the first bench, I am too close to him, and feel uncomfortable and unable to concentrate on the subject he is teaching. I would rather sit at the 3rd bench or so and be surrounded by my classmates (so he can't come too close to me). That way, I'm better able to concentrate on studies and able to interact with him. But looks like he is too eager to come closer to me. All these are disturbing me, and affecting my studies.
I want some suggestions as to how to stop this behavior without offending him. He has helped me a lot whenever I asked any questions, I am just being uncomfortable with too much interest from a married man. I just want to learn the subject happily without feeling pressured, and I don't want him to get angry either.
Any suggestion is welcome. (I can't opt-out of this subject as there is no time for me to take this later, this is my final semester).
I don't want to complain about him. He has been very helpful whenever I asked any question on the subject. I just want to know if I could modify my behavior in some way so it becomes normal.
Is it going to help, if I just tell him straight (and calmly) in the class that "I am not liking that you are treating me differently from other students. I want equal treatment."? Or is it going to bring more trouble by saying this?<issue_comment>username_1: There are two possibilities: Your professor is aware of what he is doing, or he isn't (and he's aware of how you feel about it, or he isn't). In addition, there is the behaviour of your classmates which is less than helpful.
If he isn't aware, then moving to the third bench should help a lot. If your classmates don't like it, tell them without any regards for politeness that there is no f\*\*\*ing way you will go to the first row, and if they don't like it, *they* can talk to the professor about it. If the professor himself asks why you moved to the third row, then you tell him that you don't feel comfortable in the first row. If he doesn't figure it out by then and asks why you are uncomfortable, you tell him it is because of his behaviour which you feel is inappropriate.
If he still doesn't get it and doesn't change his behaviour at this point, then you'll have to go to someone higher up unfortunately.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I was always of the opinion that when people make you knowingly uncomfortable or put you knowingly in bad spots that you needn't be a polite victim.
If his default is to get mad at the class when you decide not to interact with him then the issue is something that should be taken care of by the higher ups within your university. You may want to reach out to student counselling about all this, especially if this prof teaches multiple subjects that you plan on passing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: What the professor is doing is harassment. There can't be a justification for a professor behaving like that to any student.
"the professor looked very depressed, as if he will cry any time. The weather of the class was very sad. " I must say that the situation this professor has created is very immature.
If there is not much transparency in Indian academia, then you telling him, "I am not liking that you are treating me differently from other students. I want equal treatment."? Or is it going to bring more trouble by telling this?" could backfire as he might get angry/ vindictive and can give you bad grades in this course and in other courses (if he is part of seminar or master thesis evaluation committee.). He could also try to humiliate you in class or outside if you ask questions.
**I would strongly suggest you to discuss the matter in detail with ombudsmen and /or committee for sexual harassment (or any other specific committee depending upon your country) as soon as you can. Only they can solve this problem.** It might happen that course is given by the ombudsman to other professor which will be a sigh of relief for you. If not, then this professor will behave more reasonably as he know that there are high-ups who are aware of his behavior.
I can understand the mental pain such a situation causes. There is no reason for you to suffer mentally. He is creating problems and he should rectify his behavior.
"After that my class mates try to force me to sit in the first bench." Those classmates are not your well-wishers. Ignore them. They are putting you in a very bad situation just because they want that things go as usual for them. But you can land in a situation, which will bring immense mental pain to you. I must say they are very selfish and insensitive.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/06
| 462
| 1,989
|
<issue_start>username_0: Besides the anonymized manuscript of the paper, a conference in my field (HCI) "highly encourages" to also submit
1. the venue and ID where the paper was previously submitted (and rejected)
2. a description of the revisions made
3. (optional) the prior rejected version of the paper (anonymized pdf)
4. (optional) the full set of reviews on this previously rejected paper (including reviewer numbers, expertise, score, and review)
It is unclear to me what good all this information would do in the review process. (It is also not mentioned who will see the info - chairs only, ACs, or all reviewers?)
I don't see what good it would bring to demonstrate that my paper has been strengthened since the last rejection. That's a given, and only the submitted manuscript should be evaluated.
Should I disclose all this optional information, or submit only the bare minimum?
What is the best strategy here?<issue_comment>username_1: An odd request. That said, thinking strategically, since it's "highly encouraged" honoring it might increase the chances for acceptance.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I would say that providing this information will usually not be in your best interest as an author. The only time I would be tempted to do so is if the reviewers explicitly praised the value of the previous submission, but rejected it based on a concern you have now very clearly and completely fixed.
This seems like a rare situation. In most cases you are probably better served with reviewers evaluating the pros and cons of your work with fresh eyes and without being biased by the (presumably negative) comments a previous version of your work has received.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I'm with Buffy that I suspect the main reason for asking for this is to give the reviewers a quick out to say "clearly the concerns of the previous reviewers have not been addressed, reject". As author I would not be inclined to play along with this game.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/06
| 968
| 3,927
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am soon to be finishing a PhD in computer science and have started to receive job offers, one of which is a post-doc at a UK-based global top-10 University. Long-term I do not intend to stay in Academia, and would instead prefer to work in industry. In the short-term (12-18 months) however the project looks fun, the pay is good, and I would assume having the name of the University on my CV would add some clout to my future career.
Complicating the matter, I have also received a job offer from an organization I would like to work for long-term, but at a significant cut in pay compared to the post-doc (about 25%). This job would be set to start in about 8-9 months. There is the possibility that I could defer my acceptance of this job by a year, however this isn't a certainty and may be at the same rate in pay as I'm currently being offered.
Complicating things even further, I am older (36) than I believe is typical of a post-doc, and would like to kick-start my career ASAP after years spent on my PhD - I am therefore wary of spending time in academia if it is unlikely to carry much weight in my long-term aspirations.
I'm looking for any general advice on the merits of a post-doc if you do not intend on remaining in academia. Does the reputation of the University really matter that much in this case? As much as I can tell, the pros of going ahead with the post-doc are the increase in pay, the reputation of the University, and the chance to further develop my skills and publications in this area. However, it may be the case that its a year that would be better spent bedding into an organization I intend to remain with long-term.
It's a very good choice to have, don't get me wrong, but I'm struggling work out what the best option is. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: Only do a post doc if it helps your career.
Ask yourself, *does this post doc get me to where I want to go?*
If not, take a different path.
In your case, the answer is probably not.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Go for the postdoc.
You are interested in the work, get good pay, you get a nice university on your CV, you make new colleagues, you experience a new work environment/team, and you get to explore methods/tools/etc you may not have the opportunity to do in industry. Having extra experience will always be beneficial for entering industry. It's also short term (12-18 months), and so you will not be 'set back' by much.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: From a career development point of view, a postdoc has zero benefits for a career in industry. The pay is much less than what you can get in the private sector, and you will be more attractive to employers, have more marketable skills and be able to command a higher salary after X years of working in industry than after X years of postdoc.
From a point of view of personal satisfaction, it’s certainly possible that you will find the postdoc more fun or personally rewarding. So if that’s the more compelling consideration, or if you still want to give a career in academia a chance, then go for it. I am sure things will turn out great no matter which choice you make.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Another factor to consider is if the postdoc brings you closer to your dream job in terms of geography or topic and related opportunities to network.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: The post doc stands out to me, though granted I'm still in the midst of my PhD. You'll spend a year doing something you're interested in, which will make you more qualified to do the things you're interested in. You could end up working industry (on less pay bizarrely) getting better at things you don't care about, and digging yourself into a niche you don't want to be in. Not say it will happen, just expressing my own concerns about these kind of situations.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/06
| 3,101
| 13,386
|
<issue_start>username_0: One of the people in my group does very good work and is very productive. This person generates publishable results but, instead of writing them up, jumps to the next problem. I have been encouraging them for over half a year to start writing one particular paper, and we have had during this time a shared manuscript draft where I sketched the contents of the paper using bullet points, to help them get started. But nothing happens. At every meeting I tell this person how good the results are and why we need to publish them for practical (career/grants) and fundamental reasons - if we don't share the work with the community it's like it didn't get done at all. They agree with me in principle about writing up, but then nothing happens (not even small additions to the text). I got tired of waiting and started writing it up myself (keeping them as first author, I'm last). They seem ok with this, but I'm not, I would rather share the task of writing up. However, at this point I need to capitalize on all the work we've done and it looks like the easiest way to achieve that is if I write the whole thing.
I have heard about this issue (people complete the work but don't write it up, instead jumping to the next project) but this is the first time I have to deal with a situation like this directly. I would like to know if there are strategies how to incentivise this person to write, or if I should just give up and we're both better off splitting the work like that.
P.S.: The relationship with this person is perfectly fine, I insist on writing up every now and then, but don't get too pushy. I'm otherwise very happy with their performance.<issue_comment>username_1: Leave a hard, written trace that you are asking to take over the publication and "this person" will be co-author of the work. Check their reaction.
If they will be cool with this, well, you have some writing tasks in front of you, but also some publication coming.
If they are not cool, ask them what are their plans with their future careers. Tell them there are for sure no internal additional fundings available if they do not publish these results... and also external fundings may be difficult to obtain.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You appear to have tried to work with them to publish their work.
That's great!
Using gentle approaches, I see two options going forward.
* First, I would set smaller goals for each regular meeting (e.g., weekly, every other week).
For example, outline the introduction this week.
Hopefully this works.
If it doesn't, you might try to figure out why and mentor the person through their challenges.
Do they have language problems (e.g., writing in a 2nd or 3rd language)?
Do they have writing anxiety?
Is there an external factor limiting their writing?
Either help them directly or connect them to outside resources.
* Second, if option 1 does not work, you may be forced to write the paper yourself.
Authorship depends upon your field's conventions (I'm in the biological sciences) and your generosity.
If this was a student, I would keep them as first author and be senior author myself because I am suppose to be mentoring them.
If this person was a technician, I would probably be first author because I am paying them for their time.
Using harsh approaches, you could fire or remove them from your group for not writing.
Document your efforts to mentor them through writing and show you made a good faith effort to train and help them.
Personally, give your comment:
>
> The relationship with this person is perfectly fine, I insist on writing up every now and then, but don't get too pushy. I'm otherwise very happy with their performance.
>
>
>
I would try to work with them and be willing to accept that I might need to do all of the writing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: This person may just like to do one thing rather than the other and might not feel competent in writing. You've apparently given them space to do this. But, it also seems like you don't have a *team*, per se, but a bunch of individuals doing individual work.
I have two suggestions.
First, if the lack of writing isn't holding anyone else, or the team in general, back in any way then there is really nothing to resolve. They may be hurting their own career, of course, and you can advise them of that, but if the overall work gets done and communication of results to other team members is adequate, I'd suggest you can let it go. If their strong point is the research and they are very good at it, then you may be able to let that happen naturally and solve the publication problem otherwise.
Second, you can opt for a more cooperative team work environment. In programming we use a technique called "pair programming" which puts two people together on every task. They don't form a mini-team and partners switch for different tasks, but it brings two minds together on every task. Note that the two members of a pair have different *roles* at any given moment and those roles switch frequently.
We have found that this technique translates to many other situations and you might think about employing it. If two people are responsible for some overall team task then each can take a different role in completing it, though they work together at all times. It isn't just a different way of dividing up work. So, your non-writer will often be paired with a person more comfortable in the writing and both can benefit if the person you are concerned with is a "deep diver" into the actual tasks. The learning and skills transfer can go both ways and each can become more comfortable with the various requirements.
In general, though, teamwork doesn't mean dividing up tasks into individual assignments. If you do that then you (a) have a work integration problem and (b) require all members to have equivalent skills in all aspects. Both are sub-optimal.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I had myself trouble writing up, and I still do. As a graduate student, and later, as a postdoc, I only wrote a few papers by myself, and the people I have been working with didn't like my writing.
What I wish those people did for me was to force me to read/write/present my results for all the conceivable audiences.
"Force" is the key word here. If all the other great advise people gave you here doesn't work, you need to make it clear that 1. you are not writing papers for him anymore, 2. He has to present something written up every week, or you'll just disregard his research results, 3. You're doing this so he can finally learn to write his results and be an independent scientist.
You should make it clear there is no way around it. You need to write not only to publish results, but also to apply for grants, in case you need to keep a research group alive. There is no way for him to skip writing if he ever wants to be a PI.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: It is important to realise that some extremely able people who perform outstandingly in some areas are nevertheless unable to write synthetically in the way I think you need. This is not laziness, incompetence or unwillingness: it is a diagnosable condition that I believe to be a form of dyspraxia (I am not a specialist).
I have at least one acquaintance of high standing and performance in the medical profession who is extremely well regarded by their peers but has never published an academic paper because of their difficulty of mentally assembling the material in the time available. They and their intimate working colleagues did not recognise the condition until well into their 40s, because their other abilties had masked it with a multitude of coping mechanisms.
This being the case, your attention should be on finding out if this is the case with your colleague. It is a condition that they may not even realise they have, so a sensitive approach is needed.
The comments and parts of answers that assume you to have merely a motivational or management issue should be disregarded for several reasons: they ignore the possibility of a real and diagnosable condition; they overlook how useful such a productive person is when complemented by others who **can** write; they are a little inhumane; and they overlook the possibility of legal action for unfair dismissal and similar institutional wrongs.
Think very seriously before proceeding, and ask for specialist health advice first.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: I'm assuming that this is at a university? At one point, my professor made it clear that producing knowledge in the form of published papers is literally what university researchers get paid for, just like other people get paid for producing food or electronic devices. He gave a rough number - something like 50,000 EUR per paper IIRC. Maybe you should make that clear to the person in your group - make them aware that not writing up a worthwhile paper is the equivalent of growing tens of thousands of dollars worth of produce and then letting it rot because you're too lazy to sell it. That might be enough motivation.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: that would be me for many years throughout my career!
There are several potential obstacles they might face. First and foremost, they may be struggling with writing altogether. This is the most unfortunate scenario for you; ideally, this should have been resolved during their undergrad. Making them write reviews seems to be the approach then: it helps both with reading/exposure to how papers are written and sets the scope narrowly. Speaking of which, the second potential issue is something I struggle with a lot personally. That is purely a writer's block; when setting a figurative pen to a figurative paper, my mind inevitably wanders off and starts considering future work. Bullet point outlines DO NOT help.
At least for me, rapidly sketching the outline is the only way to get started. It involves phrasing like "Unorthodox twig arrangement for underwater basket weaving is still facing issues of alignment despite decades of research effort (refs). We propose to (fix this issue) by (making the arrangement even more unorthodox), which will then (lead to peace and prosperity for all of humanity)". Bracketed parts will get replaced later, but it seems important to get the flow of ideas fleshed out at least a bit, as it is hard to remain grounded otherwise. One thing you can and should do to test if this is a problem is to **write the main parts yourself, but make them write the materials and methods section entirely**. Documenting the experiment is one hell of a lot easier than surveying the implications while still getting the paper written reasonably soon.
Finally, there is a question of motivation. I would strongly advise not to threaten to remove funding unless you mean it (which you seemingly do not). Instead, try to figure out what their goals are and nudge them towards writing by offering some interesting projects **on a condition** they do the writing. State you would not be able to handle all the workload otherwise. If they agree to that, it would be a lot stronger motivator than "uh I guess I should indeed" kind of reluctant acceptance you have now.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Writing up a paper is putting the final effort towards the work and properly finishing it. for academics this is how we are sharing our work and also how we are being evaluated.
Not finishing can be a sign of perfectionism or another issue of fearing judgment or failing or very simple not like writing up, which the team member doesn't really need to like writing up. But if the not writing up is happening because of a negative emotions, i.e. fear, avoidance and if the team-member wants to change this then you can assist with identifying the problem and solving it.
In academia they expect from us to do everything, being good at coming up with experiments and research questions, having time management and organizational skills, being good at explaining our research, being good at writing, being good at finding money etc. But in reality, one person doesn't have to be all these in order to be a good scientist.
Also, team leaders not necessary are good at everything or knowing all the ways that each member needs to be managed, guided and inspired.
I would try to understand first what is the reason that the team member doesn't write up. Identifying the reason why something is happening or not happening is the first step to changing something. But for whatever reason this might be happening if the team member wants to make a change and start writing then needs to create a new habit which is the writing up.
A couple of things that have helped me are the following:
1. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcs2PFz5q6g> A neuroscience podcast, this episode is about making new habits, stop others. by Huberman Lab.
2. <https://drchatterjee.com/how-to-build-good-habits-and-break-bad-ones-with-james-clear/> another podcast on how to make good habits and stop bad habits by Dr R<NAME>.
3. breaking the activity into very very very small steps that can be achieved and like that can create a positive emotional connection with the new activity and slowly can become a habit. And I guess you might be able to help your team member with that step.
hope at least the podcasts are useful! :)
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/06
| 1,499
| 6,105
|
<issue_start>username_0: There are several posts on this site about potentially leaving a PhD program due to mental health issues (e.g. [1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/176936/if-i-quit-my-phd-due-to-mental-health-concerns-what-are-the-chances-i-can-do-a), [2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/100135/my-mental-health-has-been-damaged-i-dont-want-to-quit-my-phd-but-i-dont-know), [3](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/176108/low-productivity-and-diminished-mental-health)), and these issues can impede productivity. Seeking help from a mental health professional can help immensely, though progress on the mental health front may take time. Depending on when they seek help and how long it takes to get better (and if they choose to remain in the program), they might experience years of low productivity. I imagine this can affect job prospects in industry and academia upon graduation.
One option is to leave the program and reapply when one's mental health improves. [This post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9773/prolonging-a-phd-to-improve-research-cv-is-this-good) talks about prolonging a PhD to improve to improve one's CV. **Assuming one's mental health improves, does it make sense to prolong a PhD to make up for periods of low-productivity caused by poor mental health?**
Another possibility is to graduate, land a research job, and improve your research CV there. By asking the above question, **I'm implicitly assuming that one's research output during their PhD affects their career trajectory more than one's research output in their first job. Is this accurate?**
**Edit:** Here's a more concise phrasing of my question. Suppose one hopes to get an industry research job X upon graduation and needs a more competitive research CV to get job X. Is it preferable to (1) extend the PhD to build one's CV, or should one (2) take a different research job Y, build their research CV there, and then try to jump to job X?<issue_comment>username_1: I can only answer the second question reliably.
Having hired you on the basis of your qualifications, an employer will judge your worth on how you perform in the job you are given, not on the status of your past PhD work or previous jobs.
When I employed research staff, I employed them to do the job in hand, not for their real or imagined status in a previous role. Once I had used the PhD work as one of the important criteria for appointment, the PhD itself matters little thereafter in judging performance. What does it matter how well you did in your intergalactic turbulence when I want you to deal with the problems of oceanic turbulence affecting the dispersion of pollutants? I employed people for their applicable skills, not for their medals.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: New to the community so I can't comment, however my answer is similar to username_1's. I'm not sure if my experience within my field/industry will translate for yours, however I am currently facing similar circumstances.
For academia, I find many roles have many explicit and unspoken criteria related to publishing, which in turn means they will scrutinise your PhD timeline to some extent. Alternatively, in industry I have found that companies are less concerned with the PhD status and publications, and more the quality/output of work (published or not) in addition to the capability to integrate into a team environment. Whether to prolong should depend on whether you prefer academia or industry and what your goals are. Getting the PhD done (and getting "PhD level" roles) is a requirement for academia but not for industry in my experience.
To my knowledge, industry based PhD's are also becoming somewhat more common, in that you publish based on work developed for a company. You publish your thesis via a university that has collaboration with your employer, or you have previously done a degree with, should they accept it. I recently found a role which offered that I complete my PhD with them.
Regarding the second question, to somewhat reiterate, I think it is accurate to assume so, given we are discussing academic roles. The dichotomy between academia and industry is one contrasted most by the quality versus quantity debate. In academia, quantity is a kind of quality and is desirable, thus PhD graduates with a high publication rate will be looked on favourably. In industry, I have found that they care a lot more about the quality of the publications and its inherent quality rather than the content itself. They care that you are competent to do the job and will look for parallels in your work that indicates such. Discussions with one CTO highlighted to me that they would hire someone competent for the role even if they didn't have a degree, let alone a PhD. If you can do the job and have the skills necessary, that is all they care for.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: If you can graduate with your current research, the near-universal advice is to do so. I personally did not, but that is mostly because my status did not perceivably affect the employability in the foreseeable future. For most people, however, PhD gives opportunities.
There are times in our lives when we are not in our best shape for whatever reason, and may not want it to be representative of us as a whole. But this is something one needs to reconcile with eventually. You can almost always make up for these lows in the future, and your most recent achievements is what people would be the most concerned with. Good things stay with you, "I did not produce anything of note for three years straight" - less so, given you have achieved something since. By some industry employers, getting a poor PhD is still "getting things done despite the odds", while prolonging it indefinitely is a negative trait.
One way or another, move on. Try to get in contact with potential employers prior to graduation, you are likely to be able to improve your CV on the job but you do not want to start knocking on all the doors and cold-calling people the moment you get your diploma.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/06
| 844
| 3,603
|
<issue_start>username_0: My research supervisor has asked me if he can submit a paper on my work to a journal.
I just want to know how that works. Do I get authorship if he is the sole writer of the paper, even though it is my research?
As my supervisor, I would include him as a co-author on any paper I published as I have relied a lot on his guidance and used his intellectual property to form my paper, but does it work the other way around? We have worked together throughout my degree to come up with the idea and brainstorm directions to take the research. We also co-wrote one paper together, based on my research. But I have done the literature review and primary research (interviews) myself and I have completed some analyses and still working on the rest, so my thesis is a work-in-progress.
So how does it work if he submits the paper to the journal based on the research for my thesis? When I have tried to read about this online, it mostly says authorship depends on who has contributed the most. But if he writes the whole paper himself based on my work, but I don't actually contribute any writing to the paper he submits, should I expect to get credited as an author? And if so, should I be first author as it is my research?
Also is this normal practice?
Edit\* when we discuss this, should I request to be first author? I don't want to ask to be first-named author if that isn't normal practice or if it is unreasonable of me to expect to be. Is it normal to be second author if someone else writes the whole thing, even if it is based on my work? Or should I expect to be first author still?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, if it is your work, you *are* an author and should be acknowledged as such. But you probably want to stay in the loop in the writing, or at least in the editing. Whether you are first author or not depends on some things, including your field and on the content of the paper.
It would be an ethical lapse to exclude you if your intellectual contributions are the subject of the paper.
Offer to contribute to the production of the actual paper. Ideas, outlines, editing, writing sections, ...
Authors are not, primarily, the people who have their hands on the keyboard. It is the people whose ideas are discussed. So, a proper answer to his question is "Sure, with my assistance."
---
You didn't mention the possibility, but I'm wondering if he wants to write a summary paper of the work of several people, including yourself. If that is the case then it might work a bit differently than if it is only your work. But in that case the bunch of you should get together with the supervisor and work out authorship issues.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Probably we are missing an important piece of information in the question. In general, supervisors write papers together with their students. The students are the experts on their field, why exclude them? Then they are naturally authors.
This might be different, if the supervisor writes a chapter for a book or some broader article, where your work is only a tiny fraction of what he is writing. Then he should cite your published work (or cite you with personal communication or add you to the acknowledge section).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I just want to know how that works. Do I get authorship [...]
>
>
>
**Discuss it explicitly with your supervisor.**
If you browse this SE for authorship disputes (and phrases like "should I be the author..."), you will find how many people got burnt by trying to sidestep this. There is no good reason not to ask.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/04/07
| 389
| 1,654
|
<issue_start>username_0: When writing mathematically oriented thesis, e.g., math, cs, engineering, I am wondering where would be the most appropriate place to put your proofs.
There are several ideas:
1. put them right after the theorems/propositions
2. put them separately in each chapter's appendix (i.e., a new section at the end of chapter)
3. put them all in an appendix
Can someone chime in which practice is superior than the others?<issue_comment>username_1: This typically depends on whether the technique of proof assists in elucidating the topic under discussion or not. If the details of the proof contributes substantially to ellucidating the topic under discussion then you would keep it in the body; otherwise it is useful to relegate them to an Appendix.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The ultimate goal is for the paper to flow smoothly. Therefore, my favorite style is to place some proofs right after the propostion, while some others in an appendix, depending on how much insight the reader gets from reading the proof.
If only the result of the proposition is important and the reader is better off reading the next paragrah and skipping the proof on the first read, then place the proof in the appendix. The reader can jump to the appendix now, but you're giving a hint that it's better done later.
But if the proof elicidates the material and you do want the reader to read it before going on to the next paragraph, then place it right after the proposition. A good practice I wish I saw more of is to have an outline of the proof after the proposition and the detailed version of the proof in the appendix.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/07
| 1,267
| 5,461
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am receiving a significant number of applications for a master programme in computer science from Islamic countries. When looking at their BSc curriculum and marks it turns out that a significant proportion (20 to 30%) of the successfully completed courses are subjects like “Correct Islamic thinking”, “Islamic order of the society” and similar which have nothing to do with computer science.
On the one hand one could argue that the applicants do not have sufficient credits to start a master in computer science because they are missing a third of the necessary credits in computer science but on the other hand it was possibly not the students’ choice to take the courses listed above and it would be unfair to score their applications down for reasons that are not their fault. Either way it doesn’t feel quite fair to me. How should one react in such a situation?<issue_comment>username_1: The solution we have at our (German) university for this is that we require each student to have a certain amount of credits in specific topics (for example at least 10 credits in courses about theoretical computer science, these are topics that are mandatory courses at all German computer science Bachelor programs). If they are missing credits, they are allowed to take Bachelor courses to make up for it, but only to a maximum of 3 courses in total. The university also keeps lists for universities we get a lot of applications from about which courses were accepted etc.
This makes sure that all students have at least a comparable basic knowledge. The more advanced topics in different programs can differ so much (even when they are CS related) that comparing them makes no sense anyway.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You cannot hold the requirements of their universities against applications. For example, in the United States, some 25% of the credits every undergraduate has to take are from the "General University Curriculum", which includes courses on history, civic society, writing, a general science requirement, etc.
Universities in Germany are, in the international norm, outliers in that to get an undergraduate degree, you basically have to *only* take courses in that field. I studied physics in Germany, and had to take zero courses that weren't either physics, mathematics, or general chemistry. That is not the norm internationally, however.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think you are focusing on the wrong aspect. In a purely theoretical world, I expect that a Bachelor degree would provide 100% of the knowledge needed to be introduced to a (certain) Master degree.
However, to cover that 100% of knowledge the Bachelor degree needs something like 40% of its courses. Why? Because the Bachelor should be introductory to many Master degrees, plus should be enough for someone not willing to pursue a Master degree.
Let's say Bachelor in CS (BCS) is required for 3 different Master in CS, in topic A (MaA), B (MaB) and C (MaC). It can be that the Master in CS is only one, and the three topics are sub-tracks.
If the BCS is composed of 180 ECTS, I expect that in reality only about 100-120 ECTS are effectively required by each one of the Ma\*.
There will be obviously some overlap in the requirements of the three Masters, so a student completing the 180 ECTS in your system can pursue *any* of the three Master topic, while the unlucky Kaveh and the unlucky Niloufar may be bound to pursue MaA and MaC, while to pursue MaB they would be required to make up for the missing credits.
In short: ignore the non-core courses, focus on what matters to you. Those students would not have completed their university degree without taking those compulsory or semi-compulsory courses at the persian university. Even if not compulsory, it may be that if you take religious courses you are discharged from the army ... if living in a country that has sustained military involvement, it is a very rational to do (a couple of exams on God instead of being enlisted to shoot someone? yes please) [1]
[1] would you have the same doubts about US students that honourably served in the mighty US Army to get US citizenship and then discounted tuition fees?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In order to properly participate in a masters programme, one requires a certain level of knowledge, ability and/or experience. Of course it is difficult to judge these qualities in another person, especially if you are tasked with judging a large number of people, spread across the globe, in a short period of time.
Credits have been introduced to give some indication of the time a person has spent studying certain subjects. They are by no means standardized, and by no means indicate any level of knowledge or ability. Only when you are familiar with the specific institute that issued these credits, can you infer more details about their qualifications from these credits.
So instead of focusing on their credits from institutes that you are not familiar with, and focusing on their mandatory 'extracurricular' activities, focus on their qualifications. Yes, the list of course names will give you some indication of the topics they are familiar with. But it will tell you very little about their actual level of knowledge, ability or experience. I would advise instead to schedule brief interviews with the most promising candidates to judge their actual qualifications.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/07
| 1,713
| 7,382
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm in my first year of PhD, but sometimes I forget basic concepts that I have learned in my undergraduate years. I have a masters but my masters was general not specific, and now I'm working in a specific topic in the PhD. My PhD is in the field of piezoelectricity and I have forgotten information that I studied before in Electromagnetism. I am now finding myself watching lectures for undergraduate students, but its not that bad, it doesn't take me much time to understand. But then, I get more questions in my head as I explore more and more information, and then more time passes before finishing what my supervisor told me to study.
Is this normal, or does it mean that I'm not ready for PhD? So when PhD students start their PhD, and start doing literature review, do they also review material studied before?
By the way, I also think that I have maladaptive daydreaming, so this makes things worse. :(<issue_comment>username_1: Disclaimer: I only speak from personal experience below.
I also had similar problems during my PhD. It helps to remember that a PhD is a specialisation in a very very specific direction of research. You do not start with Classical Mechanics when you do a literature review. Even if you do not recall the analytical solution to the whatever order differential equation. But yes, you do review material studied before, in a reasonable amount of time.
Try to focus on what is relevant for your PhD and the immediate topic at hand. If you do not understand it, discuss it with a peer. Come back to the topic a few days later, work on something else meanwhile.
Remember PhD is just as much time management as research.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not normal. That's because as PhD students, one would already have been an undergraduate before and therefore know what it's like. As long as you have not completely forgotten what you learned during undergraduate studies, it should be clear even to yourself that you know more than you did and therefore are not at undergraduate level.
>
> it doesn't take me much time to understand
>
>
>
This is the key line. Think about how long it took to master the material when you first encountered it, and compare it with now. You might review old material (who doesn't do that?) but when you do you know what you're looking for and can skip to the relevant part, and also learn it a lot faster.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I actually wonder if you have a different issue than the one you think :). I suspect that you *do* have the knowledge and background to complete your task, but perhaps as a side effect of imposter syndrome, are avoiding the steps you need to take to learn the material you need for your research problem.
It is completely normal to need to review information that you don't have at your fingertips. Even if you have taken and done well on courses in electromagnetism, doing a PhD in a subfield of electromagnetism means that you are now going to hyperfocus on a specific area, and you are very unlikely to remember all the details you learned about that area in your course. A good researcher is not someone who knows all the details they need and never needs to look something up; a good researcher is someone who knows how they can find what they need, learn it, and put this knowledge to use. There are some advantages to reviewing undergraduate lectures: (a) they tend to be at a higher level, which is useful at the beginning of a project when you are getting your feet wet with the subject and don't want to get lost in the weeds, and (b) more undergraduate lectures tend to be available online than graduate ones.
Having said that, what stands out to me in your question is this:
>
> But then, I get more questions in my head as I explore more and more information, and then more time passes before finishing what my supervisor told me to study.
>
>
>
It sounds like you might have an issue with focusing on the parts of the material that are relevant for your research problem. This can be a big issue, especially if you end up spending a lot of time re-watching lecture videos and don't make progress on your topic. A lot of a PhD is self-driven, and requires focus in a narrow area. So it is important to develop the skill and discipline to be able to identify what you need to know, and learn those things, without going too far down rabbit holes that take you away from your goal. Of course, there's some balance, because defining what you think you need too narrowly can lead to your pre-conceived notions of how you think something works blinding you to important concepts you need to learn, so there is always some "exploration" part of learning and you cannot be 100% efficient. But, it seems to me you know that you are spending too much time thinking about questions about the lectures that are not relevant to your research.
Additionally, while undergraduate lectures have the advantages stated above, at some point you will likely find that they do not cover the material in sufficient depth for what you need to do. Therefore, it is also important to look at other sources. Probably, you will find that you need to read advanced books and research papers to learn the techniques you need. This can absolutely feel scary and intimidating if you have never used these kinds of resources before. And if you are experiencing feelings of imposter syndrome, then it's normal to feel like "you aren't smart enough" to tackle these more advanced resources. However, you don't need to believe or act on these feelings. You want to make sure that you are not using the undergraduate lectures as a crutch because they feel comfortable, but instead are making rational decisions about using the source(s) that contain the information you need at the right level to do your work. Your advisor can help you determine what the relevant sources are.
I'm not saying this is what is happening in your case, but here a common example of the kind of thing I am saying. Many students who did very well as undergraduates have a difficult time transitioning to a PhD. They find research challenging given the difficult, open-ended problems and long timescales of a research project, and miss coursework where they did well and got rapid, positive feedback. So, they try to recreate the experience of taking courses, and do not advance in their research. These students eventually have to learn that research progress is measured using different metrics than coursework, and change the way they work to be successful in research.
Here is a relevant and perhaps inspirational quote from <NAME> <NAME> (from here: <https://www.nature.com/articles/426389a>)
>
> I managed to get a quick PhD — though when I got it I knew almost nothing about physics. But I did learn one big thing: that no one knows everything, and you don't have to.
>
>
>
Given that you were admitted to a PhD program, I absolutely believe you have the background needed to make the jump to using the research literature successfully. What you are feeling is very common, and not easy. It may feel like you are stepping outside your comfort zone at first, but the rewards for "learning how to learn" are enormous and will pay dividends throughout your career.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2022/04/07
| 1,323
| 5,069
|
<issue_start>username_0: Late last year, I had accepted a research fellowship/startup position tied to a PhD position. The advisers were extremely supportive and I got my visa and was ready to move abroad. However, after working just a couple of weeks of joining, disaster struck and I had to leave abruptly due to a personal family emergency. My advisors were naturally upset but understanding of the situation. After a while, my personal situation got better and so I tried to reapply but by that time, the PhD position had already been filled. The advisers were kind enough to offer to possibly create a PhD position but wanted me to work at the startup in the meantime.
I had anticipated that the position would be unavailable and applied to other schools just in case; also, I was nervous about moving across the world to join a very small startup with a vague possibility of a PhD so I had to decline, especially since I wanted to prioritize securing a sure PhD position. Regrettably, I made the unfortunate mistake of telling my potential supervisors about exploring alternative options (I tend to be too transparent to a fault) and they became extremely upset. They sent a short but angry email telling me to stop absolutely wasting ("abusing") their time.
Honestly, the whole situation has caused me severe anxiety and depression, and I feel terrible. I'm seeing a mental health professional, but I'm plagued by a constant sinking feeling and dread. I'm sure I irrevocably burnt bridges here, but I was wondering if there's anyway to recover from the situation? Has anyone else gone through a similar experience of burning bridges in the academia? How badly will this affect my future career or has my academic career been destroyed completely?<issue_comment>username_1: Exploring multiple options before committing to any of them does not itself burn bridges. Of course, you cannot control how other people react, but if someone else sees this as an affront to them, that's their fault, not yours. I would see this as a red flag/indication you've dodged a bullet in ordinary circumstances.
However,
>
> The advisers were kind enough to offer to **possibly create** a PhD position but wanted me to **work at the startup in the meantime**
>
>
>
sounds like a [bait-and-switch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch). I would run away, and look for PhD positions tied to *reputable institutions of higher education*, not startup companies. Universities offer PhD training, not startup companies. If a company wants to work with a university to fund a student position, that should be done through the university to protect the student.
Continue with your other prospects; your future career will depend on the success/failure of those prospects, not this one. It seems like perhaps this one never really existed in the first place, so absolutely nothing is lost except the risk of wasted time.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> I had anticipated that the position would be unavailable
>
>
>
You were right, hope for the best prepare for the worse.
>
> and applied to other schools just in case
>
>
>
You were very right.
>
> also, I was nervous about moving across the world to join a very small
> startup with a vague possibility of a PhD so I had to decline,
> especially since I wanted to prioritize securing a sure PhD position
>
>
>
It is strange how an obvious thing such as this is misunderstood by the *clever* people in academia as "he/she is not that hardworking and confident" while exactly the opposite is true, saying no to such uncertain terms is exactly confidence.
>
> Regrettably, I made the unfortunate mistake of telling my potential
> supervisors about exploring alternative options
>
>
>
Ok, that is the only error, what you did is the only reasonable things to do, because no one is applying to one PhD and then waiting for the response from the sacred guard of that Phd position. Such a simple concept unfortunately cannot be expressed, because who knows that, knows that, there is no need to express it, but who does not know that got all upset when you try to not waste your time. Unfortunately many idiots in the academia thinks that only their time is worthwhile, while the others have plenty of free time and can afford to wait weeks or months for them.
You burned bridges with them? yes, you were lucky that this happened before starting working with them :) . Academia is a connected world, but there is way too much to do, there is no time to cultivate revenge and to proactively act against a minion like you.
Repeating what [@username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/184019/accidentally-burned-bridges-with-phd-advisors/184027#comment494859_184021https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/184019/accidentally-burned-bridges-with-phd-advisors/184027#comment494859_184021) said in a comment " These people couldn't even unilaterally create a PhD position for you, they have no power over anyone else. No one cares what they think. "
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/07
| 1,277
| 5,573
|
<issue_start>username_0: Based on a recent question that seems closed or deleted, where the OP couldn't keep pace with his/her colleagues, I found it important to raise the questions of how researchers are evaluated to get promoted or appointed, etc.
* I observed two categories of junior researchers: 1) a lot of publications but mainly as co-author. 2) few publications but as the first author. If a junior researcher is assumed to demonstrate their capabilities in conducting research work and not only partially contributing to several papers, would the first category be considered more successful than the second one?
* The h-index and citation counts are basically out of the researcher's control and there are many ways to increase -falsify- them such as self-citation, etc. Are these metrics really accurate and why most of the decision-makers are still relying on them? Alternatively, what would be a good metric?
* If a researcher has *N* hours or days, what would be more beneficial for them, spending this time on publishing first-author papers or it is better to contribute to many papers and be a co-author? Here, my assumption is that the first authors spend significantly more time on the paper compared to the co-authors.<issue_comment>username_1: The thing about evaluating people (for promotions, for raises, for annual feedback) is that *every case is different*. I've done that at two universities, for dozens of cases and the issue is consistently to figure out where the *whole package* someone presents falls. It isn't about the specifics of individual papers, and as a consequence, it's really not possible to give general feedback. It also wouldn't be practical in many cases: If you're a particle physicist, for example, you will simply not have the opportunity to write single-author papers.
My advice is generally to do what you enjoy and what you're good at, and you'll be ok. For some, like me, this means working in larger collaborations and figure out things *together* with others because I like the interaction across disciplines. Others are good at focusing on one specific topic for a long time, and they write single-author papers. Both categories of people would likely not enjoy -- and be less productive -- if forced to adopt the other strategy.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Where I work, everyone is evaluated according to some metrics. There are tons of metrics, from the number of articles, impact factors of the articles, citations, patents, grant money obtained, number of people trained, products (I'm not kidding - we are a research institution) and so on.
The evaluation itself is done by a secretary who just files away what we give her. There is a committee who is supposed to verify these. Those guys are simply out of their depth when it comes to what they are supposed to do, and it's not their fault.
This is not the norm in the western world, but I've seen similarly painful things done there, too.
The bottom line is that evaluating researchers is not straightforward for anyone. Surely, all kinds of metrics can be invented and they are relevant, until people start gaming them. And it is easy to game the metrics, as long as the people using them are the people financing the research and various managers. Even if one has decent advisers by their side, they can still make huge errors by looking at metrics.
**The only people who can evaluate researchers are coworkers, collaborators and competitors.** Everyone else might get dazzled by a recent Science paper, some other paper with 500 citations, or an extremely well prepared interview. Or they might dismiss someone because they don't have first author papers, or because they publish in less impactful journals or whatever.
This is one reason why, when hiring, many professors ask their prospective postdocs for recommendations. If someone they trust vouches for you, you get hired. It's even likelier to hire you if they collaborated with you on a project before and you had some success together.
Trying to read into what someone had done on his career path may give you some insight into how good they are at the job. But you need to look at hard facts. For instance, if someone has a few topology papers, you would expect them to be good at topology.
But, if you look at things like not having enough articles as first author, you can draw multiple conclusions: i) they don't like writing, ii) they just piggyback, iii) they lack motivation, initiative iv) they are lazy, but have some skill that is essential for their research group. In my case, it is because I second guess myself so much that I never reach the stage in which I'm happy with the paper. Any of those conclusions can be true, or none of them.
My point is you won't evaluate correctly a researcher until you understand their research and its context. Reading tea leaves (bibliometrics and other metrics) gives some information, but tends to obscure the truth. To give an example. I had more papers and an order of magnitude more citations than one of my office mates. We are in the same field. Yet, he got a postdoc fellowship at MIT, because the stuff he did was so advanced, my work looked like a science fair project in comparison. The place I work at now, would have dismissed my colleague without a second thought because "he's not a team player", "he publishes in low impact factor journals", "his work is not applied enough", "doesn't have enough citations", "he has a low potential to attract funding", and my favorite "his work is too technical".
Upvotes: 4
|
2022/04/08
| 801
| 3,514
|
<issue_start>username_0: I published a paper and measured the environmental impact of some chemicals based on parameters published elsewhere by other authors. They are reputed and reliable but I suspect of some inconsistencies in their calculations and I based the mine on the values measured by them .I cited them and said that the calculations was "performed using the original values calculated by Author et al." If their calculations were actually wrong, can I face future problems even the mistake is not mine? Thank you in advance.
EDIT: For the last time, there is not misconduct, fraud, bad faith or carelessness involved. Please ignore my question if you plan to advice me to not be dishonest when the scope of the discussion is not this.<issue_comment>username_1: Ultimately, it is your responsibility to check the information that you use in your paper. If the data that went into your paper was wrong (even if you or your co-authors didn't take that data), then you have some obligation to correct that error. It's may not be your fault, since obviously there are finite resources to check things and you may not even have had all the details necessary to reproduce the data you used, but it is now your responsibility as a scientist to set the record straight about the consequences for your work. (It is also counterproductive to worry too much about whose fault an unintentional error is.)
Deciding what action to take about your paper is similar to deciding what to do about any other kind of error. For a minor error that does not affect the main conclusions, but changes some details, you might add a comment to a future paper updating and correcting the result. For a major error that changes a key result significantly, you might submit some kind of erratum. For a truly egregious problem that invalidates the premise of what you did or your main conclusions, you might need to retract the paper.
In addition to correcting your paper, you should also try to fix the underlying problem with the source of the data. It is a good idea to contact the authors of the original paper so they are aware. If this is a minor issue, you might want to add a comment in one of your upcoming papers where you point out the issue with the data in the Supplemental Material. If this is a major problem, you could imagine publishing a paper refuting the data in the original paper (although I doubt this would be reasonable to do in this case, based on your description).
These things happen. There are certainly many cases of an error in one paper being carried on and used in future papers. The main thing is to try to clean things up, so there is a record correcting the problem in the literature.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You are asking the wrong question.
>
> If I [do something in bad faith], is it possible to face repercussions?
>
>
>
Maybe, but why would you want to do that in the first place? That is, why would you try to pass off these results as legitimate when you believe they are wrong?
You should not be *afraid* of publishing a corrigendum - it is not "future problems" by any stretch of imagination. Contact the authors of the original paper, try to resolve the issue with data. Sweeping it under the rug is no good.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: If you know something is wrong, you should not use it. You could present your own calculation as a "reevaluation of the data in XXX". It might also be good to discuss things with the original authors.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/08
| 900
| 3,622
|
<issue_start>username_0: Short version: Will putting a second PhD (by prior published work) on my CV cause more confusion than it is worth?
For the past decade I have built a strong academic career in a discipline that, objectively, is not what is listed on my PhD (think something along the lines of PhD in Classics but having an international research reputation in Contemporary Security Studies). I'm gainfully employed in a department associated with my chosen discipline, hold grants, supervise PhDs, etc etc. However unless you go deep into the gory details of my research focus, where everything becomes clear and logical, my PhD honestly doesn't make sense. Technically, I don't have the minimum qualification needed to be admitted to the master's programmes that I teach on.
I have the option of getting a "PhD by prior publication" in my real discipline from a top research university that I am not currently working at, but have a formal relationship with. It would cost nothing, and they have agreed I have prima face case for it and we are just finalising the details. I like the idea of resolving this confusion in my past, and (because the only step up for me is full Prof) I think that having it on hand will calm any promotion fears in the future.
Assuming the admin goes through, my CV would essentially be:
1. PhD1 201x
2. Progressive research career, grants, etc 201x–present
3. PhD2 2022
I'm going to take the qualification...I mean, free PhD, no extra work needed! Who could say no? But I have the option just to quietly tuck it away until I need it for something specific such as proving I'm a real X-ologist for promotion.
So my question is, will this cause more confusion than it is worth on my CV, in the context of say, grant applications?
My sub questions are: Will it make it seem unclear what I was doing with my time? Does it have a negative connotation? Does anyone have any experience with how something like this would be evaluated in such a context? How do you feel about academics omitting qualifications from their CV?<issue_comment>username_1: From a US perspective I don't see how not listing a second degree is any advantage at all. Even if you aren't working in an interdisciplinary, field, having studied widely and deeply (both) is a good thing.
Unless there is some local issue, I'd list both, but I might divide up the CV so that it isn't so chronological. Degrees separated from work experience, perhaps.
I think the reaction of most would/should be "Wow!", not "Huh?"
In a mid career situation there shouldn't be any ethical issue either way, though, and omissions of accomplishments are unlikely to have ethical issues in any case.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Sure, it would cause some confusion, but it sounds like your current situation already causes confusion, so arguably the inclusion of the second PhD, if done in a sensible way (e.g. putting an asterisk next to it and adding a short explanatory footnote) has the potential to *lessen* the confusion.
In addition to that, what do you care if it causes confusion? I assume listing a Nobel Prize on one’s CV also has a bit of a shocking effect when encountered by an unsuspecting reader. As @username_1 said, there’s definitely a “wow” effect associated with seeing a second PhD (even if it might be accompanied by a bit of a “huh?”).
In short, I don’t like giving people advice of the form “do this”. But in general a path that consists of stating the full truth about yourself, especially one that is quite flattering, seems preferable to one involving obfuscation.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2022/04/08
| 1,161
| 4,445
|
<issue_start>username_0: I co-wrote a proposal with two faculty members who mentored me during my PhD. Since I am now a non-tenure track Assistant Professor at a different institution than the other two, I was to be given a sub-award as a co-PI. I had spent several months (along with the others) on writing the proposal. Recently, the PI told me that the program manager contacted him and apparently mentioned that the sub-award needs to be dropped, and my name would not be there in the proposal. I am disheartened that I will not be recognized for my contributions, especially since I will be joining a tenure-track position next Fall. I understand that these faculties are senior, and the program manager trusts their abilities more than mine. However, I put in that much effort because I thought I would be a co-PI. What should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: If you believe that the others are taking your original work and ideas and passing them off as their own, the first thing to do is to communicate to them clearly about it. You need to prepare to tell them what you want (eg what must be excised), with the understanding that if they are being told by the funder to cut your part, it can't go back in, so that's an unreasonable expectation.
However, if this sub project that is being eliminated is the only place that you made a substantial intellectual contribution, and the only place that contained your original ideas, well, this happens sometimes. It happens when the project stops making logical sense with an extra appendage, and it happens when, I suppose, the grant admin says they should not apply with it there. They really may mean no offence in this case.
One way to move forward would be to ask your collaborators if they would be willing to help seek alternative funding for your subproject. This works better in some fields and not others
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> "I put in that much effort because I thought I would be a co-PI"
>
>
>
If the proposal was submitted to an internal opening/funding opportunity, it makes sense to expect that, as long as you were at the local institution (please read the **caveats** here below), but since you moved to a different one that would not be any more valid.
On the other hand, you are not a co-PI simply because you helped writing the proposal, it is a dangerous way of thinking. PIs (and co-PI as well as co-co-PIs) will be the persons active during the projects, but it is not guaranteed that there will be a one-to-one match between the ones carrying the main burden of writing the proposal and the ones carrying out the project, unless the persons are specifically and explicitly defined in the proposals itself (yeah, oral agreements with senior faculty are valid ... until the time you get burned).
Additionally, writing proposals (let's call it in the corporate terms "acquisition", as acquisition of new *clien*... ehm fundings :D ) is something that is more and more expected as regular duties from researchers (PostDocs and above) (of course, the time spent is not explicitly accounted in the working contracts), so although in your *ethics* your work should have been recognized, in the current state of affairs no one cares about how much time is spent (helping) writing proposals. It is simply expected, but not quantified.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Here is a link to the NSF faq
[https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07056/nsf07056.jsp#:~:text=Postdoctoral%20researchers%20are%20not%20allowed,may%20serve%20as%20other%20personnel](https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07056/nsf07056.jsp#:%7E:text=Postdoctoral%20researchers%20are%20not%20allowed,may%20serve%20as%20other%20personnel).
>
> [Faculty Level or Equivalent] Section IV, “Eligibility Information,”
> states under “PI Limit” that “Principal Investigators (PI) must be at
> the faculty level or equivalent.” How is “faculty level or equivalent”
> for the Principal Investigators defined? Principal Investigators (PI
> and co-PIs) must have a tenured, tenure-track, or non-tenure track
> faculty position and their institution allows them to serve as PI or
> co-PI. Postdoctoral researchers are not allowed to serve as PI or
> co-PI but they may serve as other personnel.
>
>
>
You can be affiliated personnel and that is what makes sense. It's disappointing but you should discuss with the PI how they will address this in a letter of reference for you.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/04/09
| 390
| 1,707
|
<issue_start>username_0: Do reference managers require that the user inputs the info for each PDF that they have and assign an ID to it, or is some (or all) of that process done automatically? I know I should've started using a reference manager long ago and hope that I don't have to go through all of the articles on my computer!<issue_comment>username_1: Most reference managers extract metadata from the PDF and match it with online sources. But you will have to double-check the information manually, and not every PDF file includes the relevant metadata (e.g. scanned copies don't).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Using a reference manager can save a lot of time and reduce errors - I highly recommend it. Yes, most reference managers will automatically extract the relevant information from a PDF, but it is always worth looking it over as it won't be correct 100% of the time.
For example, I am familiar with Mendeley, which is free to [download](https://mendeley.com/download-reference-manager/linux) and has desktop apps for Mac, Windows, and Linux. Mendeley will automatically populate fields such as title, author names, journal name, volume, page numbers, keywords, url, and DOI, directly from a PDF. These fields can be edited, removed, or added to as needed.
I think it is also worth mentioning that Mendeley has an extension for Google Chrome and Firefox browsers called [Mendeley Web Importer](https://www.mendeley.com/guides/web-importer/), which allows the user to easily add full text PDFs with the associated metadata (and does not require a previously downloaded copy of the PDF stored on a computer). This feature has also saved me a lot of time.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/04/09
| 555
| 2,311
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a postdoc in the natural sciences planning to start applying to faculty positions. What are the main considerations to take into account when comparing Europe with the US? Are there any notable differences to take into account?
I am currently based in Europe (currently Germany) and received all my education and training here, so I'm not very familiar with the US system. The only notable difference I can think of is that the US typically has a regular schedule of openings in the fall, whereas in many European countries jobs are posted as they come.
One another note, I'm trying to get an idea of my chances in the US vs Europe, considering that I've only worked in Europe so far. As I'm not aware of any statistics on e.g. % of successful applications, I'm just looking for general impressions or thoughts on this.
The backstory to all of this is that when I told my advisor I was less keen on going to the US, they got upset and told me I had nothing to lose by applying. This was all rather puzzling and I'm trying to understand what my advisor is getting at by better understanding the differences between the US and Europe.<issue_comment>username_1: My two cents, you have time to lose when applying.
Unless your file is truly exceptional the chances of getting a job at a good place where you don't have any connections are very slim. But maybe your advisor does have good connections in the US?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In Germany you have the tortuous path towards a permanent job. It is a lottery, in essence. There are postdocs to be had, but very few professorships. But while you have a job here, you are paying into a good retirement option and have excellent health care for very little premium. You can travel freely in the EU and can apply for EU funding. It's a bit of a jungle to get the applications right, but once you have that worked out, you can pretty much keep going on projects. If you have family, the family is insured for free.
In the US you will not have tenure right away, but will have to fight for it. Normal salaries are only paid for 9 months a year, so you need yearly grants to tide you over, or you are willing to live on 3/4 of a salary (9/12) each month.
Only you can make the decision what is right for you.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/09
| 748
| 3,153
|
<issue_start>username_0: I’m a master's student with soon to be 32 credit hours of the 36 needed to graduate.
My university is suddenly not offering one of the last two courses I need to graduate. It was supposed to offered in Fall 2022 but it’s instead going to be offered in Fall 2023.
At least five of us are set to graduate in Fall 2022 but can't without this class. In my bioinformatics program, the required courses can be few and far between in terms of finding similar courses at different universities, thanks to the extra subjects included in my university’s version of most courses.
I talked to the dean, who spoke with the head of the department, and they’re telling me to speak with my advisor, but they know less than other people I’ve spoken with.
Are universities allowed to delay our graduation for a full year like this? It’s very frustrating. **What options do I have for a timely graduation?**<issue_comment>username_1: Since you've already talked to the dean and head of department, keep following up with them. The dean, at least, probably has the power to make exceptions, but wants your advisor involved. Maybe a four way conversation is needed. But substituting another course is a common solution.
Another option that is open in some places is to do an independent study with some professor on a "relevant" topic, perhaps not the one that isn't being offered. A small research project with a professor might be especially valuable. But the dean, most likely, needs to sign off on it.
If there are five or so of you, then you might get together and propose a substitute that will advance your careers. Again, talk to the people with authority, including your advisor(s).
I doubt they will make you wait a year. They want happy graduates.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: To expand somewhat on @username_1's very good answer, I will say that every year there are things like this that happen. Unless you somehow got out of sync with a cohort-based program (which it doesn't sound like you did) you should continue to work with your advisor, chair and Dean to come up with a way to get the credits. Some suggestions are:
* Tutorial for the 5 of you. (I'm in the US and my institution has a
way of calculating faculty hours for this.)
* Substitute another course in your program.
* Substitute a course in another department that has some overlapping content. For example, maybe if it is a project management class that could be done in the business program.
* Potentially do a course
at another institution. You don't say where you are located, but you
could look at relatively near by institutions. In the US often there are relationships between institutions that simplify this. Also with the
expansion of online programs you might be able to do an online course
in a different program.
The main thing is that, without being a pain, keep working on it and coming up with ideas. Ask other faculty for ideas too, including whoever normally teaches that course. Time to graduation is actually an important outcome measure for all programs and delaying a year also has an impact on your short term earnings.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/04/10
| 1,616
| 6,803
|
<issue_start>username_0: The paper we are working on was accepted and we got a comment saying "Quality of Figures could be improved".
All the figures that are given have been exported from matplotlib and have all the standard labels with different color schemes and have attached the sample as well.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kXUFj.png)
So what do I do? make it more pretty? or use a different package?
Note - This is just a sample, and the real one has a set of 6 plots big enough to fit in almost half a page<issue_comment>username_1: The illustration you provide seems like a standard plot that can be seen in most journals. That said, it can certainly be improved; many journals do not seem to care what they publish. What is acceptable also varies from person to person. There are however some standards that should be followed and your figure fall short on a few points. Many of the comments made to your post outline some of the improvements and I will also reiterate them here.
1. A figure should be understandable when shown without its figure caption. Your figure falls short of this. By understandable I do not mean the deep scientific significance of what is shown but to understand what is shown. This is a point made by Tufte (2001) and is a good guideline for finishing any figure.
2. Axis labels should include units. You have latitude and longitude which would be in degrees. The color scale is more problematic because I do not understand what it should be showing, units would obviously help.
3. Axis labels should start with capital letters so Lat/Lon or Latitude/Longitude.
4. The heading of the subplots containg a time stamp should be consistent. The ISO standard for date/time is yyyy-mm-dd HH:MM:SS. So I would suggest using this consistently or (which might be better for a more general audience) use an unambiguous date and time format such as "dd month, yyyy, HHMM hrs" (e.g. 29 April, 2022, 1200 hrs). The problem with date and time is that almost every country has their own standard.
5. The third diagram in the top row has no x-axis label and tick labels
6. The number of tick labels could be reduced so that the axes are not overloaded with information. Every second label can be removed while keeping the tick marks
7. The resolution of the coloured fields should reflect the resolution of the data shown in the fields. If the data is as coarse as it looks in the figure, then that is how it should be shown.
8. Figures must be made to work in their final size in the publication. Submitting vector based formats avoids many problems. When exporting to a bitmap one should consider the necessary resolution (in dpi) to make the illustration sharp in its final size. A figure such as yours that include bitmap fields should follow the same guidelines but obviously the fields in your subfigures will not change in apparent resolution as was stated in the previous point.
9. The data is latitude/longitude based running from c. 10 degrees N(?) to c. 80 degrees N(?). The width of the space between longitude lines will obviously decrease from S to N so that a square representation is not strictly correct. The plots are better representing reality if they are shown in some cartographic projection. This is clearly something many will ignore and maybe not even consider but it is one aspect to consider.
10. Any graphing package or software is not perfect. It is always useful to learn to use for example the open source [Inkscape](https://inkscape.org/) to edit standard output from plotting packages or software to optimse your graphics before publication.
Considering the colour scale I cannot see anything wrong. Aspects to consider regarding choice of colour scale include what is standard (if any), what may make sense depending on what is shown and what can be read by someone with colour blindness.
So there are several aspects that can be improved or at least considered. At the same time providing a comment such as the one you appear to have received without any exemplification of what to do is quite useless on behalf of the reviewer/editor.
Reference
<NAME>. 2001. The visual display of quantitative information. Second Edition. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The figures now are just a blob of colors with poor titles and bloated aspect. If you are an expert on the exact topic of your publication, you would be able to find the secret message hidden inside. So there is almost no advantage between having that figure and having a table showing the raw data: a figure serves exactly the opposite scope, make evident the messagge hidden behind data.
First) the colors. Why on Earth you have this mild but oversaturated range of colors if your scale is going symmetrically from +value to -value? these figures are figures that are hard to read, while figures should be popping out. There is simmetry, please have a strong contrast without saturation, no one sane of mind will look at your data in black and white, so you can use something like the RdBu scale (Red for positive, Blue for negative, white for zero)
Second) the colors. Why the colorscale is continuous, while the data seems not (yes, spatial discretization may play a role ... but what about resoultion of the measurments?)? and the scale truncated but not limited going from +32 to -32 ... please, use values readable from humans, like +30 to -30. Base 8 is nice, but leave it to your DAC sensors.
Third) the colors. They carry an overload of information, but what you want to show is "something". Please add some isolines in your plot (it is easy to do if the colorscale is a slightly desaturated RdBu instead of this very saturated colormap). And if the isolines have a label, plus dashed if negative and continuos if positive, you are good to go for the 1% of the world still printing papers and accessing papers only in black&white.
Fourth: the title must be in a standard format, whatever standard your peers are using, then please avoid writing "time": either it is obvious that it is a timestamp, or you have to find another format of timestamp. Do not strive making your best to be as concise as possible. Just be concise.
Fifth (bonus) if you use a lighter colormap, you can plot the grid with some dashed lines, to improve readability.
Example of colormap:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HYzAD.png) (taken from [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/69998120/rmgcv-add-colorbar-to-2d-heatmap-of-gam), please note that all the text in this figure is bad, that the grid is not plotted but at least colormap and isolines are what would make much better your figures)
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/10
| 1,472
| 6,245
|
<issue_start>username_0: Two advisors of my coauthor for a paper I'm first-authoring were listed few days before final submission. As far as I see, they did not contribute to this paper, nor have even read it.
Sparing my rationale, I'm against this. How do I object? I intend to make the first contact calm and simple - problem is, I don't know what to expect.
I was invited as an author by a prospective researcher for single-handedly developing the paper's underlying algorithm, so I didn't orchestrate the research effort. The paper's submitted to the International Conference on Digital Audio Effects (DAFx), and all authors but myself are affiliated with research institutions, and are in France or UK. I am fully independent.
What are the rules and expectations? Is this legalized bribery?
### Clarification
It appears most efforts are directed in doubting my position. I have reasons for not disclosing all relevant information, as I'm not the sole affected party. We *know* such things happen, so for sake of this question, the productive thing to do is assume I'm right and advisors contributed absolutely nothing. They've not read the paper, never heard of the algorithm, they might as well be the result of `mail_to(names_list[random_integer()])`.
Yes there's political reasons. But I am in a position where I don't have to contribute to this rot.<issue_comment>username_1: This could be "gift authorship", but you don't really know how much your coauthor was supported by their advisors. Even if you worked only with the junior person, they may have received guidance all along unbeknownst to you.
If you want, you could nominally ask that your coauthor verify that all listed authors should be listed as authors according to the journal guidelines; this is typically part of submission anyways.
However, in general, it's up to the primary author to ensure the author list is correct. I wouldn't make this a hill to die on, just try to avoid gift authorship on your own papers. From your question, it's not even clear to me that you would actually qualify for a strict authorship guideline yourself, if you've already published the algorithm you're being included for somewhere else.
If your own authorship is valid, then another issue you might worry about is that including these other authors dilutes your contribution somehow - it doesn't. Whether or not your coauthor got research supervision doesn't change the value of your contribution, and their inclusion on the author list doesn't, either.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In my own experience while I was working on my doctorate, my two advisors were listed as coauthors on several papers that they did not make meaningful contributions. I accepted this as normal practice until I read more thoroughly guidelines from ACM and IEEE that stated that each author should have a meaningful contribution. As an example, below is from ACM:
>
> Anyone listed as Author on an ACM paper must meet certain criteria, including making substantial intellectual contributions to some components of the original work and drafting and/or revising the paper
>
>
>
<https://www.acm.org/publications/authors/information-for-authors>
Given this, a coauthor needs to make a substantial contribution and one of the two: draft or revise the paper.
I did ask my advisors about this and one did acknowledge this and the other indicated that advisors being listed as coauthors were the norm, even though it seemed to contradict the guidelines. As a graduate student, this is the tough situation they are in as advisors are also the ones that allow you to graduate. However, a good advisor would be ethical and say yes, you are correct. But, I believe the pressures of publication counts and grants have had an effect on this.
So what should you do? It may be too late, but you could ask your coauthor if their two advisors meet that criteria. If not, with you not being their graduate student, are in a better position to say that they should not be listed as coauthors and explain why.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Given the comment stream on the question, I think that the request for gift authorship is probably improper. Some people in power abuse those who lack it, punching down in the current vernacular.
The way you stop it, though, is to just refuse to have your own contribution included in the paper at all and inform the journal that you don't agree to publishing your work. That can have consequences however, and you may not want to go there.
But if they try to include your work with you *not* as an author then it becomes plagiarism. Journal editors don't like to be put in such a situation and will want the issue worked out before publication.
Note that journals need the positive agreement of all authors to publish (reputable journals, anyway).
Since you are not "under the thumb) of those advisors, you could also complain to the administration of their employer/university that coercion is going on as well as academic misconduct. More consequences, maybe to your co-author, so you need to think about it.
Another possibility is to confront those people directly, giving them your opinion about this and pointing to some appropriate codes of conduct that are relevant to your field(s).
Not everyone will want to press it that far, actually. And no single paper is likely to have a big effect on one's career, so letting it go may be the best short-term option, though it won't change the culture.
The statement of [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/184101/75368) about not making this the hill to die on is good advice as is the rest of their answer.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I agree with @username_3 that it is partially misconduct and I agree also with @Brian that you should remind your co-authors about good academic conduct. However, this will have consequences whether we like it or not. In the end, you want to stay in a good relationship with your co-authors.
If you want to make this right, I would give my co-authors tasks (e.g. revise the introduction, analyse this table, etc.) so that including them as co-authors would be meaningful and more importantly "legitime".
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/10
| 1,175
| 4,847
|
<issue_start>username_0: I will graduate this semester with a bachelor's degree in physics (in the US). I applied for PhD programs in physics, but have come to realize (rather late in the process) that I want to pursue a PhD in mathematics. However, I was accepted into two physics PhD programs and received the NSF GRFP. These two schools have respectable math departments.
As for my background in math, I have taken much of the undergraduate curriculum (linear algebra, algebra, complex variables, Lie groups, two differential geometry courses, algebraic topology); I have also taken around 10 graduate courses in physics, including quantum field theory. But I am missing core coursework in analysis. I am interested in studying low-dimensional topology, gauge theory, mathematical physics, and related topics in math grad school.
Technical details about the NSF fellowship (more [here](https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grfp)):
* It can be transferred between institutions (e.g., from master's at one school to PhD at another).
* Changes in the field of study can be proposed after the first year, and require approval by the NSF. My awarded field of study is condensed matter physics.
* It cannot be deferred; once accepted, I must enroll in a graduate program this fall. Or I can decline it and re-apply in the future.
* Once accepted, I can choose to use the funding for any 3 of the next 5 years.
Given these constraints, I am considering the following options:
1. Accept an offer at a physics PhD program. Re-apply to mathematics PhD programs after 1-2 years, leaving the physics program with a master's degree. Defer the NSF funding for two years, until beginning a math PhD program.
2. Apply to math master's programs still taking applicants. Use part of the NSF fellowship for the master's. Apply after 1-2 years of the master's program to math PhD programs.
3. Decline the NSF fellowship and take a gap year before applying to math master's or PhD programs.
Given my circumstances, do you think it is wise to pursue one of the options above for graduate study? Any other suggestions are welcome. (I am also not completely savvy with the NSF guidelines sketched above, so please correct any misconceptions.)<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, the first thing I'd try is to talk to the math department at the places you were offered a physics slot, preferably in person. Ask them if there is any chance of giving you a math slot instead. I'd guess that the chances of this aren't very high, but it would be a shame not to ask.
Maybe cag51 will expand his comment into an answer, which would be the second thing I'd try.
It is likely that math and physics are in different departments, but there might be some coordination, especially among individual researchers.
Otherwise my own preference would be for your option 1, which seems far better (to me) than the other two. But that is my value system and yours may differ.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I do not think you should turn down the money unless you have a much higher-paying job lined up for your gap year. Looking at the rules, that implies you should enroll in a physics program in the fall. Switch to a math program as soon as the GRFP rules allow; that is after one year.
If you bring GRFP funding with you, most universities will let you do whatever you want so long as they get their share of the money. They won't mind that you do not know analysis. Clearly you are able to learn it.
You cannot enroll in a math masters the first year and keep the GRFP funding.
A master's in physics is virtually useless to a math PhD. I suppose you could use it to teach both physics and math at a college that is too small to support a physics professor.
Thanks to inflation, the GRFP has lost a *large* portion of its value.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In addition to talking to math and physics professors at the University that admitted you, you really need to read the entire set of rules. Twenty-five pages is not long by NSF standards. In particular, you are considering a deferral for a reason other than a medical or military reason. You might qualify for reserve status, if you can fund the first year another way.
These awards are somewhat prestigious. For example, universities put out press releases sometimes when a current student gets awarded one. It is something worth listing on your CV for the first few years after graduation.
There may be a mathematically oriented program in the physics department. Something that is not a waste of time if you switch to math after one year. Something you might find interesting if you stay in physics.
Theoretical condensed matter physics today is dripping with modern math. Operator theory, C\*-algebras and homotopy theory with a side-order of machine learning.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/11
| 2,842
| 11,693
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been agonizing over a decision regarding where I should pursue my PhD in theoretical chemistry. My choices are as follows: university A (US) has the best department in the world for my area of research, and my potential PI would be the perfect fit for my interests and career goals. University B (my undergraduate alma mater in the UK) also has a very good department (ranked 5th in the world), although the advisor fit would be less than ideal, since their group is mostly experimental, with only a few people working in theory. The group at university B is very large (~70 people), so the advisor is able to spend very little time with each PhD student. Both potential PIs are very renowned in their respective fields (h indexes above 60).
Here comes the kicker: I am in a very committed 4-year relationship with my significant other, who is going to start a PhD at university B. He is supportive of me pursuing a PhD with my dream advisor at university A, which would involve starting a 5-year (very) long distance relationship. However, I can't help but feel selfish for putting us both through this ordeal.
What would you do in this situation? Since both of us want to stay in academia long-term, I know that at some point in our relationship we will likely have to face similar choices again, so how does an academic couple balance the two-body problem for every new position they apply for?<issue_comment>username_1: If you are academically outstanding you will shine pretty much wherever you go. The harder task is to find someone special who will make you shine as a person, and this you cannot do everywhere you go.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: If your partner is the only reason that you would consider studying in the UK, then I would only recommend it if you are ready to spend the rest of your life with this person, and they feel the same about you. If you aren't sure about that after 4 years, then the relationship isn't one to make big life decisions around.
Making sacrifices of this nature for your spouse/life partner is part of a long term partnership. Sometimes it's you sacrificing, sometimes it's them, and it pretty much works out in the *long run* provided the relationship is built on a sense of equity and common life goals.
This kind of sacrifice, however, is not for "let's see where this goes" relationships. If that's where you're at, go to your top choice.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Please consider that the difference between the 5th and the 1st best department in the world is negligible, most likely it exists only in your mind.
To be more specific, for what it matters to a PhD student, as long as fundings are granted, they are equivalent with respect to:
* opportunity of building your own network;
* quality of the work you are exposed to and potentially that you can perform.
The difference between the 1st and the 5th would be very relevant at a later stage, when you want to have money to build up that additional research group your tenure depends on ...
Ask yourself: do you want to spend 5 years away from what you have now because of present curiosity/eagerness of discover new things (reg. private life, not in the sense of academic research) or because of some future potential advantages?
If it is because of possible future advantages: they will be negligible, since you are already in a good institution, your future, post-PhD chances will strongly depend on what you do during your PhD, not on where you do your PhD.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I always thought of it like this: we all publish to the same journals, so ultimately location is immaterial. However, a good mentor is invaluable. Leaving your home university and country for that matter can be just as expansive an experience for your mind as the phd itself. Take the best opportunity while you have the advantage of youth...often it will seem scary but likely this is also potential for most fruitful experience.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: God, this is upsetting. Some of these answers are terribly naive about process. How many people answering actually are professors or run a lab?
If the relationship is meant to be, it will survive distance. If you want to stay in academia, that is much harder these days especially for theoretical chemistry. I am a professor, because I made a good Ph.D. match that led me to the right projects and the right postdoc and most importantly ****the right environment to get ideas****.
You already know the answer here. Losing the relationship (if it is indeed great, which it sounds like you have support) is less likely than being miserable, uninspired and drowning in a sea of indifference in your PhD.
Furthermore, why do you have to chose? Why not the S/O? Go to America. Get set up for academic life. You can always move to switch to a PhD in the UK. Furthermore, if the relationship is meant to be, no amount of distance will conquer it. Best of luck.
PS. Two-body problems are solved during the later stages of a career/job searches by being so well wanted you basically get your S/O a job. You can't do that if you haven't set yourself up properly.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: From experience, USA Ph.D. doesn't help you to publish as many papers as you possibly publish in the UK. However, you would have no problem with funding and go to conferences. You would work alone and get a self-esteem boost. When I decided to move to the USA, I had a gf for 7 months. We broke up a week after I moved and she said exactly these words "I cannot do this. I went to a grocery store alone today and had a hard time deciding what to pick. I want my bf around me, I want to do things together even the small ones." so we broke up. Did I try to work out? Yes! Am I still single? Yes! Did I have fun and got good education? also yes! Am I regretting even the 5th decimal place? Hell no! Moving to the USA was the best decision I made. It is hard, it is tiring and it has ups and downs. However, people can make sacrifices and tried to work out. It wasn't for us. I hope the best for you. PS I wasn't moving from the UK so that might make a difference as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Other answers focused on the academic aspects; I'd add, I don't know anyone who managed to pull off a long-term long-distance relationship, and I know a fair few people who failed at it (often in similar circumstances). <NAME> is one counter-example, it seems.
So, in your decision process, I think it would be prudent and fair to both yourself and your S/O to accept, at the very least, that there is a very real and significant chance your relationship wouldn't make it if you are pursuing your career far away. Depending on the personalities of the people involved, asking someone to be in a long-distance relationship is also a big ask, which can either, well, topple the relationship, or create a long-term emotional debt, which, again, you'd need to feel comfortable handling.
Good luck with your decision!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I, who have done my undergraduate, masters, and doctorate in three different countries, think making a choice based only on university and research group is a poor choice. We should think about our social life and the quality of our time spent. Don't think of it as another degree, but rather a 5-year period of your adult life that you should obviously spend with your S/O (supposing a serious relationship), especially on upcoming problems, i.e., anxiety and depression. In short, choice A seems adventurous, and choice B is close to common sense. The purpose of a Ph.D. should not be just research and publications, but a great research experience and quality time spent. Otherwise, life becomes painful.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: Stay in the UK if you value your relationship at all
----------------------------------------------------
While career-wise, the US is better (not from the #1 vs #5 discrepancy, but because finishing a US PHD will make it way easier to get a US work visa upon finishing and the opportunity pool will be much bigger upon completion), a 5-year, long distance relationship has miniscule chances of lasting the duration.
Consider how many marriages don't survive even a couple years of incarceration and a busy cross-Atlantic PHD schedule leaves less opportunity for personal contact and "conjugal visits" than a non-maximum security prison sentence. Or how many military marriages break up due to multi-month deployments. And those are actual legal contracts that are expensive and tedious to break, made by people who've often been together much longer than 4 years.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: I registered so that I could disagree with most answers here, because I really think there's a perspective that's lacking.
Let me preface this by saying that I am 4th-year postdoc who moved away from her home country (Germany) and committed partner in 2013 to pursue a Master's degree (followed by a PhD) in the UK.
I am still together with that same person and we've been happily married since 2017, even though we have not lived in the same country since 2013 (apart from 10 months during the Covid pandemic).
My current postdoc is in the US and I was previously a visiting PhD student in Canada, so I am well-versed in transatlantic long-distance relationships.
Do I sometimes miss my partner and wish we got to spend more time together? Yes, sure. Do I regret any of my time abroad? Absolutely not.
In fact, I love being able to switch between my life in a new country (the US is the 5th country I have lived in since first moving abroad) and returning to our apartment in Germany, where my partner still lives in the city where we both started studying. I love showing off my new home to him when he visits, and I love returning to the old one.
Now, I am aware that this is not for everyone, but I really want to put out this perspective. It is by no means impossible -- and not even all that improbable. My social circle is full of people who were apart during their PhD or a postdoc and are still happily together.
About the academic choice: People above have correctly written that whether your department is 1st or 5th in the world is completely immaterial, **what counts is your advisor and the working environment**. (Let me say this as someone who had a very famous on-paper advisor who was not a good fit subject-wise and who she never ended up working with.)
What you have written in your OP sounds like the advisor at A is the much better fit, so that is what anyone making the academic argument should focus on in my view. Yes, it is important that you also have a good social live during your PhD, but you can have that if you move abroad. Making friends during a PhD is very easy. Do not do a PhD with someone whose research topic does not fit your interests and who won't supervise you properly (which is what option B sounds like from what you've written). That way misery lies.
Quite apart from the long-distance issue, I think that moving university for your PhD is generally a good thing to get a broader perspective of your field. Sure, you don't have to, but I have found experiencing different academic environments very enriching.
Edit: Let me add that if you give up what you describe as your "dream advisor" for your current partner, there's a danger that whenever something doesn't go well during your PhD at choice B (and things will go badly at times), you end up resenting your partner for it. That's toxic to any relationship and can just as easily doom it as being long-distance might.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/11
| 796
| 3,267
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a first year and our professor was taking students for a research paper; we had to call the professor so he could ask us some questions. I was kind of nervous, and when he asked me if I'd done any hackathons or had any experience with the subject at hand, (related to comp sci), I said I'd "studied computer science at school for three years."
What I meant to say was I took comp sci in school and I just kind of panicked and it came out that way. And then he said "okay." And the topic shifted so I couldn't elaborate after that about experience.
He's really nice but he doesn't know me at all, and I feel like I came off as arrogant. He also said they might not be able to take students and I just feel like he may not like me that much because of that.
I want to write a message explaining how I didn't mean to say it like that and also telling more about my CS experience. Also that sounds like I have a lot of experience but really I don't have that much (just processing.js, python data structures, arduino, atmega, thats it).
How should I frame this message? I'd really appreciate any help.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think any apology is necessary, but a note to the professor can be useful unless the class is huge. Say that you misunderstood the question about hackathons and might have given the impression that you know more than you really do. Thank the prof for providing the opportunity and express your interest. If you don't have explicit knowledge of the subject, do a bit of exploration of it first so that you have an idea whether any of your current knowledge might apply.
If you find relevant background in your own knowledge you could mention that briefly. But keep the mail short and fairly formal. Don't write to a prof as if they were one of your friends. Your writing here has the appropriate formality (i.e. no tweet-speak, etc)
For a class of hundreds, however, any mail might just be noise.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> How should I frame this message?
>
>
>
**Concisely.** Sending a follow-up e-mail seems like a good idea; it shows interest and allows you to clarify your answer. But do not do engage in a post-mortem of what went wrong during the call; just write a short, professional e-mail in which you clarify one of your answers and reiterate your interest in the position. Your e-mail should be one paragraph, 2-4 sentences long. (In particular, I recommend a fairly abrupt sign-off; no need for the typical undergraduate "thank you for your time and please do not hesitate to reach out if there's anything...")
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: You don’t need to send an email. Your reply was totally innocuous and a follow-up email would probably seem more inappropriate than what you said. The entirety of the feedback you got from the professor is “okay” - you are catastrophising (imagining the worst even against all reasonableness).
It sounds like you may be a bit anxious. This is really common among first year university students and, in my experience, more so if you have been a “good” student so far. See if your uni has pastoral support or mental health resources that could use. This particular incident is really nothing to worry about.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/11
| 791
| 3,044
|
<issue_start>username_0: I found that
1. some Ph.D. programs pay monthly salaries like real jobs ([EUR2300/month for a period of 36 months](https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/personnel-costs)): [Medical University of Vienna, AT](https://www.meduniwien.ac.at/web/en/studies-further-education/phd-doctoral-programmes/phd-programme-un094/phd-opportunities/)
2. many pay minuscule monthly stipends like pocket money (PLN2600/month for the first two years, and PLN3600/month for the next two years): [Jagellonian University, PL](https://science.phd.uj.edu.pl/en_GB/programme/biomedical)
Why is this difference? And, how can I distinguish between these Ph.D. programs?
In the second university, why should someone spend four years of his life surviving only on pocket money when they can earn more by enrolling in the first program? I.e., if the above programs want to attract students, why would someone apply for the second one? I mean, what would be their motivation?<issue_comment>username_1: The EU is a diverse place. It is a monetary/economic, not a political, union. So, policies differ. You can't judge a program based on a single number in any case ("salary" in this case).
To distinguish between the programs you have to look at the bigger picture and do some research. Jagellonian, for example, is an excellent place, but the Polish economy in general is different from the Austrian one. There may be other financial issues distinguishing between places as well as between programs. There may be social programs outside the university that account for the difference.
A country (or an individual university) will try to set its policies in part to be attractive the the people it desires to hire and to teach. The policies will differ in many ways.
And, if you find, after some research, that the policies don't suit you, then you probably want to apply elsewhere.
I can't speak to the specifics between these two institutions, but if you do some research then you will probably get an idea of why they differ as they do.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: While it is true that the two universities you cite are only 400 km apart, they are in different countries with different economic abilities and histories. As a consequence, things cost different amounts, education works differently, and there are many cultural differences as well -- in other words, one *should surprised* if salaries were the same, and indeed they are not in nearly every job one would consider, graduate student stipends included.
This is, in a sense, not so different from what you would expect the salary differences to be between, say, the University of California in San Diego (in the United States) and a university in Tijuana (in Mexico), or between Tel Aviv University (in Israel) and the University of Amman (in Jordan), or maybe between universities in Bangkok (Thailand) and Yangon (Burma). Rich and less rich countries quite often neighbor each other, and they will not be able to pay the same salaries.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2022/04/11
| 3,388
| 13,891
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in a research group in a French university in physics (I am a 1st year PhD student) and in a seminar in my university I used a slur against an Israeli professor, Professor X.
I am from an Arab country which has conflicts with Israel. Professor X was trying to mock me or act over-smart, but in an innocent and non-malicious manner, and I must say I escalated the situation. After saying the slur, I left the room. As this seminar was in my university, a lot of professors of my department, including my advisor were present and a lot of professors from other institutes in France.
**How bad will this incident affect my career?** Is anti-Semitism tolerated in academia in the West?<issue_comment>username_1: That is very bad. Not because of how anti-Semitism is viewed in the west, or because this person is a professor, but because that is a disrespectful thing to say to *anyone*.
From the career side (which, I don't think is the most important aspect of this), this incident could very well be considered workplace harassment. @Leherenn comments that "This could legally be considered a racist slur in a public setting, which in France is an offense punishable by up to one year of imprisonment and up to a €45k fine." I am not a lawyer and am from the US, so I cannot advise about this aspect, but this is something you should be aware of. Additionally, even if you didn't use a slur, having an emotional outburst in public during a seminar is very inappropriate and will likely make other people question your professionalism. So there could be consequences. Having said that, if you apologize, reflect on what went wrong, and learn the lesson to not use words like this, hopefully you can move forward without permanent damage. But I would not worry about your career for now. You hurt someone, and your first step is to try to make things right.
I would immediately contact the professor and CC the department head and apologize. Be contrite but keep the email brief, something like
>
> Dear Professor X,
>
>
> I would like to sincerely apologize for my completely inappropriate outburst earlier. The discussion was heated and my emotions got the better of me, and I said a word that was very disrespectful to you and your community that I should not have said, and that I should never say. I will not let it happen again.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> QINDL
>
>
>
You should reflect, and (if you agree) write an apology in your own words. It will mean much more if it is sincerely written and comes from you.
It's better if you get ahead of it (meaning: it is better if you send an apology as soon as possible, before you are asked to send an apology). They may want to take some disciplinary action; be contrite and sincere, and be willing to take the steps they suggest to rectify the situation.
---
Additional thoughts
-------------------
There have been a few comments about also apologizing to the seminar audience and the seminar organizer, so I wanted to add slightly more about this (edit: turned out to be more than "slightly"!)
I think there are several layers to this situation, that need to be unravelled.
* The first layer is that you have hurt a specific person, and you should apologize to that person directly.
+ I actually hope that what happens here is that you have a one-on-one in person conversation where the two of you can process what happened together, and that you are able to repair your relationship. But, I think I would start by sending an email. Email gives the person a chance to think before responding, and can hopefully lead to an in-person meeting when they are ready.
+ We don't know much about the original incident that prompted you to respond, but I hope this also would be something you discuss one-on-one with the professor.
+ I suggested CC-ing the department chair here because this seems like it could be serious enough where you could face disciplinary action, and keeping the chair informed that you are taking steps to rectify the situation could be important later. It was also suggested in the comments to include the organizer of the seminar; that's a good idea too.
* Additionally, I think it is appropriate to apologize the group. I feel that it's probably better to do this after you have apologized to the professor (others may disagree). But... this all should ideally be happening very rapidly so not too much time is passing between steps.
+ The main reasons for apologizing to the professor first are (a) the hurt to the professor is larger and more personal and should be dealt with separately, not as part of a group apology, (b) I think it's better to allow them the space to respond to you how they want first in private, because in a group setting they might feel pressure to act a certain way (c) (related to b but more selfish) you don't know how the professor will react, so it's better for you not to be surprised by their reaction to a public setting.
+ Part of the group apology should include a statement like "I have apologized in private to the professor" and perhaps "I am taking X concrete steps to atone for my error."
+ It's also a good idea to loop in the seminar organizer here. You don't want to catch them off guard by sending a surprise email to the seminar mailing list. They may also be willing to give you a few minutes to say something at the next seminar, if you would want to do that.
* I suspect you will probably be asked to undergo some kind of cultural sensitivity and/or anger management training, and/or have some kind of disciplinary sanction. You should follow these steps and not try to fight them.
* As has been discussed in other answers here, one of the major underlying issues is that you have violated a foundational value in academic culture. It is important to collaborate across cultural lines, because ultimately we value ideas and knowledge, and not tribal differences. In particular, being able to work with people who are not part of your "tribe" is crucial for academic success.
* I also just want to make it crystal clear that I suggested a draft email as a starting off point, but it was not meant to be copied/pasted into an email. The apology needs to be sincere and come from you to be meaningful.
* While bad, I don't think this is fundamentally a hopeless situation. If you are contrite and put in the work to make this right, I am hopeful you will be able to find redemption and move on from this.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: We can’t say how it will affect your career, but it does sound pretty bad, and not the sort of behavior that will be allowed to pass without any consequences in an academic workplace in France or another western country. One might hope that the consequences will not be ones that permanently harm your career.
As @username_1 said, you really need to apologize immediately. The severity of the consequences could greatly depend on whether you apologize, and whether your apology comes across as sincere rather than being mainly motivated by fear or defensiveness.
The thing to keep in mind is, it is almost impossible to fake a sincere apology (and I don’t feel it’s appropriate to try to coach you on how to phrase one, even assuming I had that ability), since coming up with the right words to undo some of the harm your words caused to other people requires a level of introspection and maturity that enables you to reflect on why you behaved the way you did, and understand at a deep level why that behavior was wrong. It is much more than a matter of just “I said X, and X is a word that is taboo to use.” You might want to ask yourself, how do you even know such a nasty word? Why did it occur to you in that moment? Were those really your own thoughts you were giving voice to, or some kind of dogma that you absorbed through your education or culture? And other questions.
Also, you should know that many Israeli academics, and Israeli citizens in general, have strong disagreements with some of the policies of their government. If you had kept the debate civil you might have potentially discovered that you and the Israeli professor agree on many things (both scientifically and politically). You might have also come to realize that not all your assumptions about Israel are as correct or obvious as you imagined. But by using a slur, you abolish from the start any chance for holding a rational discourse and promoting mutual understanding between cultures and nations that are in political conflict.
Good luck, I hope you learn from this experience and find a way forward.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: I live in Israel, am probably older than you are and maybe older than the professor.
We are used to those exchanges and conflicts, online and face to face.
From your description of the way the professor handled your comment, I think he is not angry with you. He probably knows that you are young, agitated and don't have a long time experience in those kinds of situations.
Approach the professor, apologize and add this incident to the list of things you have learned from.
Regarding your question about the possible harm to your career, probably not.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: At that moment that you realized that you need to leave the seminar, I believe your instinct told you that it is very bad and it is going to affect you and your career.
The most important thing, which is pretty worrisome in my opinion, is your next question:
>
> Is anti-semitism tolerated in academia in the West?
>
>
>
It seems even now you have doubt that if these kind of behaviors are OK or not, which tells me that still you are not aware of using prejudice to judge people is pretty harmful. In fact, the main point is that: just because someone holds nationality of a country, it doesn't mean that he/she approves all the actions taken by his/her country.
I repeat my point in my comment here: being anti-X (fill X with any ethnicity) is not OK anywhere on this planet. Just FYI, because some people throw anti-something rants in social media or somewhere else and in your eyes they could get away with it, it doesn't mean it's OK to repeat their action.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: Most of the other answers have focussed specifically on the anti-semitism. I want to highlight a wider point.
A key skill for an academic is to be able to handle criticism in a calm and professional manner. Even when the criticism is unwelcome, misguided, rudely-delivered or downright unfair: you need to be able to keep your cool, and respond appropriately. What you certainly *cannot* do is respond with an *ad hominem* attack.
If your immediate response to criticism is to attempt to undermine the criticiser by focussing on their personal characteristics - whether that's race, religion, nationality, sex, hair colour, or anything else - your temperament is poorly-suited to success in academia. Expressing specifically anti-semitic sentiments certainly compounds the issue - but the problem is wider than that. The people who witnessed your outburst will no doubt wonder if something similar will happen when you get an awkward question at a conference, or a difficult review on a paper. Unfortunately, but understandably, they are likely to be unwilling to risk having their name tarnished by association.
The manner in which you respond to a (perceived) attack is deep-rooted, and I suspect changing this is something where you would really benefit from professional help.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_6: Was Professor X visiting, i.e. giving a seminar? Or is he local, part of your own faculty? If the latter, make it clear to the dean or HoD that you wish to deliver your apology in person and humbly ask that they arrange this for you.
If the former, you still need to apologise. However, I have a bit more sympathy for your position (not your antisemitism) since academics can sometimes get a bit funny (provocative, belligerent) when they are visiting a different uni.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: You should **ask your supervisor for advice**. S/he will be able to tell you what the consequence are likely to be. S/he will be able to tell you whether the person you insulted is likely to be open to a dialogue and whether the university has already started disciplinary action (depending on the rules that might include exclusion from the PhD programme, but it could also be a formal warning of some kind). Because the event was public, some of the attendees might expect some kind of disciplinary action for acts of hatred.
---
Besides the above advice which is really my answer, here are some random thoughts.
I think a lot will depend on how other people perceive you on a day to day basis. Have you had other outbursts? Are you on average fairly condescending towards other? Are you respectful to the opinions of other researchers? In simple terms, what type of human being are you. If there is doubt about whether you fit the implicit attitudes expected of people in the community, you should really try to learn from that feedback.
No career is ever done. It's sad and painful, but many people will not find anti-semiticism a problem. I think it is. The fact that you are now mostly worried about your career makes me wonder whether you understand that hatred of another people group based on religion or politics is unwarranted. What I find encouraging in your post is that you are very well aware of your behaviour, that could be a great starting point for reflection on your behaviour.
One factor that might help you in this case is the fact that many senior staff in France are aware of the fact that students from certain countries are exposed to a lot of hatred towards certain groups and that it needs a fair amount of introspection to unlearn some of these things.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/11
| 1,024
| 4,231
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was absent when the midterms were handed back for a course and now the semester is almost over but I need the midterm to study for the exam (as neither a copy of the test nor the solutions are available on the course website). I emailed the professor but he asked me to check with the TA and the TA says they are not going to be on campus. The exam is in a week from now.
What options do I have? Would it be helpful to for example contact the department chair or someone in authority even though there may be no obligation to return the exam or send a scanned copy?<issue_comment>username_1: I would email the professor and CC the TA, say that you checked with the TA but unfortunately they won't be on campus, is there another solution? At that point, the professor will decide between different options, such as (a) finding someone else who can help, (b) asking the TA to go to campus, (c) telling you that you're out of luck. At least by having both of them on the same email, you put all the information and relevant people in one email thread, which increases the chance you will get a definitive response (even if it is not the one you want).
I wouldn't try to go "above" the professor. This is an administrative issue that the professor can handle. Trying to involve the department head is very unlikely to change the outcome, other than making your professor annoyed. (Unless there's some written department policy about you being entitled to get your midterm back before the final exam -- but even then, try to resolve it with the professor teaching the course first.)
Of course this doesn't help in this situation, but for next time you should be proactive about getting the exam back earlier if you were absent the day the exams were handed back in class.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> I was absent when the midterms were handed back for a course
>
>
>
This is not the fault of your instructor.
>
> I need the midterm to study for the exam
>
>
>
You would *like* a copy of the midterm to study; you do not need it.
>
> The exam is in a week from now
>
>
>
Presumably, you knew there would be a final exam when the course started, so this is not new information to you. Therefore the timing and the inability of your professor or TA to obtain your exam in that short time is not their fault.
>
> Would it be helpful to for example contact the department chair or someone in authority even though there may be no obligation to return the exam or send a scanned copy?
>
>
>
No, I do not think that would be helpful, I think that would be incredibly rude. You are in a situation of your own making. You have a *want*, not a *need*, for access to your previous exam, which you are expressing far later than you should have if you thought this was necessary. There is a oft-repeated phrase that addresses this situation: "Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine."
I don't think your professor or TA are doing anything intentionally to prevent you from accessing the exam. It seems that the copy of your exam, likely the only copy, is simply not in a location that either of them can access before your final exam, which is not surprising given the compressed time frame until your final, and the long time elapsed since the midterm.
I think it would be reasonable to let your professor know that the TA was unable to access your exam in time to help you study, and to ask instead for a fresh copy of the midterm, and perhaps note that you'd appreciate an answer key, too, if available. I think it's fine to CC your TA, too. It's more likely one of them has an easily-accessible copy of a drafted exam than your specific copy. I would recommend an attitude of appreciation for whatever they are able to obtain for you, and appreciation for their efforts to try to help even if they are unable.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: Another option is to contact some of your classmates, preferably ones who know the material well and did well on the midterm, and ask if they would be willing to share *their* exam with you. That should be about as useful to you as having your own exam back.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 4
|
2022/04/12
| 500
| 2,079
|
<issue_start>username_0: I contacted a professor to see if he would be interested to be my supervisor. He very quickly replied and indicated he was interested. He was very sincere in a way he even included a guideline to help me put together a research proposal so he could consider further. He also suggested where to find funding and mentioned I could let him know if I needed support.
Some time later I sent him my research proposal. It’s been around two weeks he hasn’t responded to me. So I very politely reached out again to see if he would still be interested with an amended proposal enclosed.
I know that now I will only wait. And I will not write further because I don’t want to harass him. If he doesn’t reply does that mean a rejection? It seems quite strange - his initial response was sincere and positive, so I thought if he eventually finds the project unfit he would also notify me.<issue_comment>username_1: Since you have waited two weeks it is fine to send a short email now, saying something like "I just wanted to check that you received my proposal". After that, if you don't hear from them, you must assume it is a rejection. It wouldn't be a polite rejection on their part, but not everyone is polite.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> "He was very sincere in a way he even included a guideline to help me
> put together a research proposal so he could consider further.
>
>
>
did you consider the fact he had a pre-ready email with these guidelines and he minimally adapted to you?
Whit this I mean it was still a constructive and positive answer from him, it would even fit with the rather presumptuous "I have no time to answer, so no explicit answer means no".
There would be no harm in trying to reach him by phone to ask him a feedback, since he asked to share with him **your ideas**, it would be the minimum of decency from him to give you a feedback.
The worse it can happen is that he considers you annoying him ... and you do not want to work with such kind of person, so even the worse is a good outcome for you.
Upvotes: -1
|
2022/04/12
| 1,831
| 7,478
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a 4th year PhD Student in engineering in the US. I'm in school #19 (ranking). My advisor is moving to #4, and wants me to go with him (promises no delay on time to graduation.) There are no other suitable advisors in #19, but I love the University and the city, and my partner is tied here for 4 more years (another PhD student). Any advice? I might want to consider academic positions in the future.<issue_comment>username_1: Talk to your PhD advisor about this. There might be options were you complete your PhD mostly remotely at the new university or your advisor advising you remotely at the old university.
Your advisor is most likely aware that his move negatively impacts his students. If he is a decent human being, he will work with his students to find the optimal solution for them.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: If you have a good relation with the advisor, I suggest you to follow him.
You are so far in the program that this does not mean necessarily to follow the advisor 100% "physically" (i.e. as long as you do not do lab research and you have no other courses). You have some bartering power, you may propose to be affiliated with the new institution and doing a 6-months visit to your current institution.
As long as the supervisor can fund your position there, you can get the affiliation ... and probably get the work done remotely (actually if you have lab work to be done, it is even an advantage, your advisor must find an agreement for you to finish your lab work at the current institution, while being affiliated with the new institution).
Despite your advisor reassurances, you have to expect some delay (3/6 months) because of all the bureaucracy/hiccups/pandemic stuff potentially involved in the transition: stand your ground, make it clear there will be some minimal delay in the transition and that you need support when (not if) there will be such issues.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: My advisor left the #1 ranked school to go to a lesser school where he would be the big fish. My advisor was kind enough to tell me honestly (and bluntly) that I'd have to re-do my qualifying exams and re-take some classes if I followed him, though I was 3+ years along. I stayed, and started my research over, with a new, well-regarded advisor. No hard feelings on either side. We both did what we thought was best.
I'm skeptical that your advisor is in a position to promise you there will be no delays, though he may indeed believe that to be true. As crass as it may seem, I suggest you get some things in writing, because vague claims can cost you years of your life. And if you are apart from the one you love for several years, they will be long and difficult years.
Edit for emphasis: The point of mentioning school rankings is this: if a lower-ranked school is unwilling to accept transfer of classes/research from a more prestigious university, then the transition from a lower to a higher-ranked school is not likely to be easier. A big fish going to a small pond has more leverage than the advisor in the OP's situation. It does depend on how much capital the advisor is willing to spend on behalf of his student's interest.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I have seen these "moving alongs" pan out very badly, especially when the supervisor makes the move in order to become a bigger fish in a smaller pond.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: A few points:
### Rated #4'th, #19'th - whatever, who cares.
Many people seem to have a bit of a fetish for these numeric rankings. Forget about them.
* If your advisor was moving from a decent university to a poor one, or the other way around;
* If he were moving to a department where the facilities you would enjoy are inferior or superior to what you have now;
* If he were moving to a department with more people working on subjects relevant to your own work, or less such people;
... that would be worth mentioning. Otherwise, it's not relevant.
### "Graduation"
It's not "graduation", mostly. It's the conclusion of your research work and your recognition as a Doctor of Philosophy. You're not a pupil going to school; you're a junior researcher, and don't you forget it! :-)
Anyway, Your advisor can probably not really promise you will complete your Ph.D. at the original planned time. Unless you've already done enough bankable research to just write-and-graduate (and even then it might not be so trivial - requirements may involve different coursework, for example; I wonder if he really checked.)
But the more important question is whether you expect to be able to conclude your research work successfully. If this is your fourth year, you probably have a subject and some directions you're pursuing. Would you be able to go on with him physically not there? How much do you actually collaborate?
### Lots of possible arrangements
You could, quite possibly:
* Get a second advisor, with your original one remaining as the co-advisor, or vise versa.
* Stay registered at your university, but physically spend some of your time with him, as a visitor. I'm guessing this can be arranged in terms of your stipend/employment conditions (but do check).
* Be registered at the new university, but still spend most of your time at your current city and perhaps even your university as a visiting scholar.
So think flexibly.
Of course, if you don't care for your current advisor much, then - the spouse excuse works very well, and he is not very likely (I think) to hold it against you if you use it to part ways with him somewhat.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: The right path for you depends on a variety of factors.
For example, will you remain a student at your current university and get your degree from there, or would you transfer? Both pathways may be an option. It might well be possible to remain a student where you are, especially if the school is willing to give your advisor an adjunct position while all their students finish up. If you're planning to transfer, then you need to find out what the requirements are at your destination, what requirements are waivable, how long will it take to graduate, ....
Also, if you need access to a functioning lab, that isn't something that magically appears at the destination. It can take months to set up a lab, especially if it involves major purchases. You should make sure things are set up for you to hit the ground running when you get to your new place.
If you have no more lab work to do, my inclination is that you might be better of staying where you are and finishing up ASAP -- but this is really your choice to make. Your advisor may need to arrange an adjunct position in this scenario, as well as for the scenario described earlier.
Lastly, your advisor likely wants you around because they feel they'll be more productive with you around. If you can hang where you are and graduate in short order, but you're still interested in moving, see if your deal can be sweetened. Maybe you can bump your stipend, or arrange a job, or some such.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: Moving to another university is a lot of work. Although a good advisor is very important in your academic life, don't risk your future by following one person. Things might change between you two and turn your last year of PhD to a hell. Happened to me, might happen to you as well. Stay where you are and get a new advisor/co-advisor.
Upvotes: -1
|
2022/04/12
| 255
| 1,111
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have received a minor revision after a major revision for a paper.
I discovered that I made a mistake in the calculations. Fixing it will result in changing a lot of the results, but the final result will not change much.
So should I mention these changes to the reviewers (they are noticable) or should I just correct the mistake without mentioning it to the reviewers in the response?<issue_comment>username_1: You should **always** mention this! If you don't, then the entire manuscript becomes suspect. The reviewer has no way of telling what else you changed, and would be forced to recheck the entire manuscript. It's very time-consuming (and cruel of the authors).
Tell the reviewers *exactly* where your revisions are and why you're making them. You're already using their time, try to make their work as simple as possible.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Been there, done that. You need to redo the calculations and rewrite the paper. Make sure you communicate your needs to the handling editor. They will decide if it needs to go back to the reviewers.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/04/13
| 667
| 2,925
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a just graduated PhD, I would like to work with other people. But I am a nobody in my field. I am thinking that people will be interested in working with me if I do a postdoc with them or become a visiting scholar. I think that is because that the PI and postdoc both have interest in some topic. I take that as a Win-win. The postdoc can get paid and more important get some direction and advice, and the PI can get his idea be implemented. Both of them have the same goal, they want to do successful research and have some good publication.
However, due to personal reasons, I will not be able to do a postdoc for a long time. I was wondering if I still can work with some people, like a remote postdoc, but the difference is that they do not theoretically hire me. I can have some direction, advice froom them, and they can have their idea be implemented, and both of us want to have sccessful research and discovery or contribution and have some good publication.
Am I too naive about this idea? Or is it possible? How do you get to know the people to collaborate with? What will you say to them when you first meet? Like tell them that I can work together and have some scheduled meeting, and ask them for advice and direction, if every going well they can be last author for the publication?<issue_comment>username_1: From my perspective, you suggestion to work for somebody and trade their support for an authorship is very wrong. Authorship is something that should not be traded, it has to be earned. And how would you say anything definite about an author list or the author order without any work done, any results, let alone an idea or a concept of what is to be published? So no, I would expect your offer not to be taken into consideration by respectable researchers.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you seem naive about this. People will want to collaborate if they are interested in, and have some skills/background in, you topic. There are, of course, people only interested in citation counts, but those are not the people you want to collaborate with.
Collaboration is a sharing of skills and ideas. Focus on that. If you have some skills and ideas then search for others who seem to be similarly inclined (reading their papers, meeting them at conferences) and start to share ideas. Perhaps something will come from it.
In some specialized fields there are conference where people come together and one can meet presenters, but also just chat up other attendees and see if there is common interest.
But, if people want to "collaborate" just to get authorship, then they are probably the people you don't actually want to work with as the chances of producing something meaningful seems pretty small. Focus on the research, on the ideas. Let the rest follow naturally.
---
I'm guessing that "last authorship" means primary authorship in your field.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/13
| 2,261
| 9,298
|
<issue_start>username_0: About a month ago I had a phone call with a research funder (RF) and an academic in my field (A), initiated by RF. I've been working publicly on research question X for some time, A has not. A is from a more prestigious institution than me.
During the call RF said "Richard [me] has been researching systematic approaches to X, using methods Y and Z". (This research is under way, and I have a funding bid in with RF for it, although we didn't mention that on the call. Methods Y and Z are original and I'm quite excited about them.)
A said they thought X was interesting, and they'd been thinking about another method to approach it - I think this won't work as well, though I didn't say that.
After the call, I said to RF I wished they hadn't been so explicit about Y and Z, since I was concerned that A would use them, and I would have preferred to keep them confidential. RF apologised, and said that they'd had bad experiences with A using other people's work.
I have since had a short email from A saying they've successfully begun working on systemic approaches to X, and asking if I'd like to collaborate.
Obviously, there's no patent on the idea of systematic approaches to X, and I don't even know if A wants to use methods Y and Z. However, I'm concerned that there's no acknowledgement that I'm already doing research on X, or of the call.
I also don't want to collaborate, since I already have a bid in, and even if that fails I feel dubious about A.
My goals are now:
* Have A reflect on why they didn't acknowledge my work
* Make it clear that any use of Y and Z will be unwelcome, and ideally dissuade them from using them (if they are)
* Sound clear, professional and positive
* Not antagonise A unnecessarily.
Questions:
1. Is there a way to achieve this?
2. It would be useful to understand: is this normal behaviour from A? If the situations were reversed, I would acknowledge A's work and wouldn't use methods they were using. But perhaps I'm just naive?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> However, I'm concerned that there's no acknowledgement that I'm already doing research on X, or of the call.
>
>
>
I think this is an uncharitable reading of A's emails. I agree with Bryan that it is odd for the funder to discuss methodologies in such a way, and I believe you if you say A has been known for stealing methodologies, but this sounds like an offer to work together *because* you have been working on the same problem, even if it wasn't as explicit as maybe you'd have liked.
>
> Ideally I'd like A not to use Y and Z (if they are).
>
>
>
You can't really ask for this - I would consider accepting the collaboration so you can continue using Y and Z and they use Y' and Z' or method E.
Personally, I find your email a bit confusing, how can a work be "fairly advanced" if you've not heard back about the funding? Maybe this is field differences. The hints toward "I think you were using [their method]!" also come off a bit patronizing.
You two seem to beating around the bush with each other. You are either going to have to accept the collaboration, which you can establish ownership over Y and Z, or ask them not to work on your approach, which may not be successful depending on A's personality.
I would lean toward accepting the collaboration, and then you can ask them to leave you Y and Z as colleagues, rather than enemies.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: This reads very much like a thinly coded version of “No thank you. By this email I am hereby recording the fact that this phone call with RF occurred and that methods Y, Z were discussed.” Now, you might think you have good reasons to want to have a record of those things. But it still comes across as a bit aggressive and mistrustful IMO, and also shows that your actual goals are a bit more than just being “clear, professional and positive”.
If you want to decline the collaboration politely and professionally and that’s it, I would send a much shorter reply saying something like “Thanks, I’m really flattered by your offer but feel like I have a bit too much on my plate right now to consider starting a new collaboration”, and leave it at that.
If you have other goals, like “marking your territory” in connection with methods Y and Z to discourage A from working on them, it would be best if you make that explicit in the question so that we can think what course of action is most appropriate. But I have to say, from my limited understanding of the situation, it sounds like now that A is aware of Y and Z, you have no way of stopping them from using those methods or submitting a bid for funding with RF that competes with yours, and you have no way of claiming any special ownership of the idea of using those methods. Maybe it sucks that that’s how it is, but I don’t see how having an email record that some phone conversation took place where some topic was vaguely discussed is really going to help you in any meaningful sense.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Here is an almost-useless general evaluation of your situation: either methods Y and Z are *difficult* to apply to X, or they are *easy*.
Y and Z are difficult
=====================
If Y and Z are *difficult* to apply to X, then you are in little danger of being scooped by *anyone*. Even if someone has had the idea, they will have dismissed it by now, either completely out-of-hand or after initial experimentation. By persisting in Y and Z you have developed comparative expertise which has left you with unique insights into X.
In that case, *a rising tide raises all boats*. Collaborating with someone who has complementary expertise will increase your own skillset, and the freedom to specialize will let your team outcompete other groups working on X.
*As an example:* while working on my own research, I found that another group (which wasn't even on my radar!) had published about their software development which very closely paralleled mine. Thankfully I was spared the agony of decision because they reached out to me, after learning of my work from a professional contact.
Our subsequent collaboration has resulted in both myself and them each saving months of work -- I have learned a great deal about good software development practices, while they have benefited from my theoretical and practical insights, and we've both made new friends that have opened much wider potential networks to us both.
They've benefited, and so have I; it feels very silly to even try to think about which of us has benefited more.
Y and Z are easy
================
On the other hand, if Y and Z are *easy* to apply to X, then you're in mortal danger of being scooped at any moment. It's only a matter of time before someone else has the idea and publishes.
In that case, *a race to the finish is what you must win*. You simply *have* to publish first. If Y and Z are really that easy to apply to X, you should be able to publish quickly! Even if it's just a preprint to mark your priority.
*As an example*: There was a bit of theory in my field that I worked out *months* ago, in a few days. I still haven't published it, and every time I check my Google Scholar alerts I fully anticipate that someone else will have gotten there first.
But while I wait, I am furiously putting together my manuscript. I've already finished writing everything but the results, and I anticipate only two or three weeks' more work to finish those. Once I'm done I'll run it past my supervisor, and then we'll get it out.
Interestingly, I've examined my feelings about what will happen if I'm scooped, and they aren't actually too bad! One does get used to the sting (or leaves academia, which frankly is a rational and wise choice these days). In part it's *precisely* because this idea was so quick and simple to write up that I'm confident I will have more ideas like this.
Indeed, I have two or three topics that I want to pivot to after I've finished this one -- or, if I'm scooped, after it's finished with me. Interestingly it's *precisely* the collaboration I mentioned earlier that's given me the time and headspace to plan my next steps and give me confidence. So if I'm scooped -- *au revoir!* It's on to my next gig.
But what about A and their email?
=================================
Interestingly, your best response to this situation *depends very little on A and their internal state*. Either you'll decide that collaborating is best (my first suggestion), and send a short and simple email stating your choice and asking for next steps -- or you'll decide that collaborating is a choice you "currently don't have room for due to the various priorities already present, despite what an honor it is to be offered the collaboration opportunity!"
In either case you don't need to spend time and energy worrying about what A is thinking and why. That's time and energy you're *not putting into research*. And indeed, telling A that "even though PR mentioned methods Y and Z to you, I'd really rather work on them myself" -- in *any* wording -- is simply drawing unnecessary attention. (After all, if A is a nice person, you run the risk of needlessly offending them; if A is a nasty person, you've just drawn more attention to an area ripe for exploitation!)
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/13
| 1,933
| 8,074
|
<issue_start>username_0: Several CS graduate programs in the US have a checkbox stating something along the lines of "Would you like to be considered for MS if not accepted for PhD?" in their applications. I'm curious as to how this process works in general. Some specific questions that I also have:
1. Do both committees (MS and PhD) review the application individually in parallel?
2. Is there a lower chance of being accepted to the MS through this way as opposed to applying directly to the MS program?
3. How can a single statement of purpose (and letters given by recommenders) state the purpose of attending MS, if the application is for PhD? To rephrase, how would an applicant state in the SoP that they would be willing to go for MS, without killing the application for PhD?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> However, I'm concerned that there's no acknowledgement that I'm already doing research on X, or of the call.
>
>
>
I think this is an uncharitable reading of A's emails. I agree with Bryan that it is odd for the funder to discuss methodologies in such a way, and I believe you if you say A has been known for stealing methodologies, but this sounds like an offer to work together *because* you have been working on the same problem, even if it wasn't as explicit as maybe you'd have liked.
>
> Ideally I'd like A not to use Y and Z (if they are).
>
>
>
You can't really ask for this - I would consider accepting the collaboration so you can continue using Y and Z and they use Y' and Z' or method E.
Personally, I find your email a bit confusing, how can a work be "fairly advanced" if you've not heard back about the funding? Maybe this is field differences. The hints toward "I think you were using [their method]!" also come off a bit patronizing.
You two seem to beating around the bush with each other. You are either going to have to accept the collaboration, which you can establish ownership over Y and Z, or ask them not to work on your approach, which may not be successful depending on A's personality.
I would lean toward accepting the collaboration, and then you can ask them to leave you Y and Z as colleagues, rather than enemies.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: This reads very much like a thinly coded version of “No thank you. By this email I am hereby recording the fact that this phone call with RF occurred and that methods Y, Z were discussed.” Now, you might think you have good reasons to want to have a record of those things. But it still comes across as a bit aggressive and mistrustful IMO, and also shows that your actual goals are a bit more than just being “clear, professional and positive”.
If you want to decline the collaboration politely and professionally and that’s it, I would send a much shorter reply saying something like “Thanks, I’m really flattered by your offer but feel like I have a bit too much on my plate right now to consider starting a new collaboration”, and leave it at that.
If you have other goals, like “marking your territory” in connection with methods Y and Z to discourage A from working on them, it would be best if you make that explicit in the question so that we can think what course of action is most appropriate. But I have to say, from my limited understanding of the situation, it sounds like now that A is aware of Y and Z, you have no way of stopping them from using those methods or submitting a bid for funding with RF that competes with yours, and you have no way of claiming any special ownership of the idea of using those methods. Maybe it sucks that that’s how it is, but I don’t see how having an email record that some phone conversation took place where some topic was vaguely discussed is really going to help you in any meaningful sense.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Here is an almost-useless general evaluation of your situation: either methods Y and Z are *difficult* to apply to X, or they are *easy*.
Y and Z are difficult
=====================
If Y and Z are *difficult* to apply to X, then you are in little danger of being scooped by *anyone*. Even if someone has had the idea, they will have dismissed it by now, either completely out-of-hand or after initial experimentation. By persisting in Y and Z you have developed comparative expertise which has left you with unique insights into X.
In that case, *a rising tide raises all boats*. Collaborating with someone who has complementary expertise will increase your own skillset, and the freedom to specialize will let your team outcompete other groups working on X.
*As an example:* while working on my own research, I found that another group (which wasn't even on my radar!) had published about their software development which very closely paralleled mine. Thankfully I was spared the agony of decision because they reached out to me, after learning of my work from a professional contact.
Our subsequent collaboration has resulted in both myself and them each saving months of work -- I have learned a great deal about good software development practices, while they have benefited from my theoretical and practical insights, and we've both made new friends that have opened much wider potential networks to us both.
They've benefited, and so have I; it feels very silly to even try to think about which of us has benefited more.
Y and Z are easy
================
On the other hand, if Y and Z are *easy* to apply to X, then you're in mortal danger of being scooped at any moment. It's only a matter of time before someone else has the idea and publishes.
In that case, *a race to the finish is what you must win*. You simply *have* to publish first. If Y and Z are really that easy to apply to X, you should be able to publish quickly! Even if it's just a preprint to mark your priority.
*As an example*: There was a bit of theory in my field that I worked out *months* ago, in a few days. I still haven't published it, and every time I check my Google Scholar alerts I fully anticipate that someone else will have gotten there first.
But while I wait, I am furiously putting together my manuscript. I've already finished writing everything but the results, and I anticipate only two or three weeks' more work to finish those. Once I'm done I'll run it past my supervisor, and then we'll get it out.
Interestingly, I've examined my feelings about what will happen if I'm scooped, and they aren't actually too bad! One does get used to the sting (or leaves academia, which frankly is a rational and wise choice these days). In part it's *precisely* because this idea was so quick and simple to write up that I'm confident I will have more ideas like this.
Indeed, I have two or three topics that I want to pivot to after I've finished this one -- or, if I'm scooped, after it's finished with me. Interestingly it's *precisely* the collaboration I mentioned earlier that's given me the time and headspace to plan my next steps and give me confidence. So if I'm scooped -- *au revoir!* It's on to my next gig.
But what about A and their email?
=================================
Interestingly, your best response to this situation *depends very little on A and their internal state*. Either you'll decide that collaborating is best (my first suggestion), and send a short and simple email stating your choice and asking for next steps -- or you'll decide that collaborating is a choice you "currently don't have room for due to the various priorities already present, despite what an honor it is to be offered the collaboration opportunity!"
In either case you don't need to spend time and energy worrying about what A is thinking and why. That's time and energy you're *not putting into research*. And indeed, telling A that "even though PR mentioned methods Y and Z to you, I'd really rather work on them myself" -- in *any* wording -- is simply drawing unnecessary attention. (After all, if A is a nice person, you run the risk of needlessly offending them; if A is a nasty person, you've just drawn more attention to an area ripe for exploitation!)
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/13
| 1,807
| 7,576
|
<issue_start>username_0: The title pretty much says it all. Does the US Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency fund academic research projects related to cyber security or infrastructure security? If not, which agency is primarily responsible for funding this kind of research?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> However, I'm concerned that there's no acknowledgement that I'm already doing research on X, or of the call.
>
>
>
I think this is an uncharitable reading of A's emails. I agree with Bryan that it is odd for the funder to discuss methodologies in such a way, and I believe you if you say A has been known for stealing methodologies, but this sounds like an offer to work together *because* you have been working on the same problem, even if it wasn't as explicit as maybe you'd have liked.
>
> Ideally I'd like A not to use Y and Z (if they are).
>
>
>
You can't really ask for this - I would consider accepting the collaboration so you can continue using Y and Z and they use Y' and Z' or method E.
Personally, I find your email a bit confusing, how can a work be "fairly advanced" if you've not heard back about the funding? Maybe this is field differences. The hints toward "I think you were using [their method]!" also come off a bit patronizing.
You two seem to beating around the bush with each other. You are either going to have to accept the collaboration, which you can establish ownership over Y and Z, or ask them not to work on your approach, which may not be successful depending on A's personality.
I would lean toward accepting the collaboration, and then you can ask them to leave you Y and Z as colleagues, rather than enemies.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: This reads very much like a thinly coded version of “No thank you. By this email I am hereby recording the fact that this phone call with RF occurred and that methods Y, Z were discussed.” Now, you might think you have good reasons to want to have a record of those things. But it still comes across as a bit aggressive and mistrustful IMO, and also shows that your actual goals are a bit more than just being “clear, professional and positive”.
If you want to decline the collaboration politely and professionally and that’s it, I would send a much shorter reply saying something like “Thanks, I’m really flattered by your offer but feel like I have a bit too much on my plate right now to consider starting a new collaboration”, and leave it at that.
If you have other goals, like “marking your territory” in connection with methods Y and Z to discourage A from working on them, it would be best if you make that explicit in the question so that we can think what course of action is most appropriate. But I have to say, from my limited understanding of the situation, it sounds like now that A is aware of Y and Z, you have no way of stopping them from using those methods or submitting a bid for funding with RF that competes with yours, and you have no way of claiming any special ownership of the idea of using those methods. Maybe it sucks that that’s how it is, but I don’t see how having an email record that some phone conversation took place where some topic was vaguely discussed is really going to help you in any meaningful sense.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Here is an almost-useless general evaluation of your situation: either methods Y and Z are *difficult* to apply to X, or they are *easy*.
Y and Z are difficult
=====================
If Y and Z are *difficult* to apply to X, then you are in little danger of being scooped by *anyone*. Even if someone has had the idea, they will have dismissed it by now, either completely out-of-hand or after initial experimentation. By persisting in Y and Z you have developed comparative expertise which has left you with unique insights into X.
In that case, *a rising tide raises all boats*. Collaborating with someone who has complementary expertise will increase your own skillset, and the freedom to specialize will let your team outcompete other groups working on X.
*As an example:* while working on my own research, I found that another group (which wasn't even on my radar!) had published about their software development which very closely paralleled mine. Thankfully I was spared the agony of decision because they reached out to me, after learning of my work from a professional contact.
Our subsequent collaboration has resulted in both myself and them each saving months of work -- I have learned a great deal about good software development practices, while they have benefited from my theoretical and practical insights, and we've both made new friends that have opened much wider potential networks to us both.
They've benefited, and so have I; it feels very silly to even try to think about which of us has benefited more.
Y and Z are easy
================
On the other hand, if Y and Z are *easy* to apply to X, then you're in mortal danger of being scooped at any moment. It's only a matter of time before someone else has the idea and publishes.
In that case, *a race to the finish is what you must win*. You simply *have* to publish first. If Y and Z are really that easy to apply to X, you should be able to publish quickly! Even if it's just a preprint to mark your priority.
*As an example*: There was a bit of theory in my field that I worked out *months* ago, in a few days. I still haven't published it, and every time I check my Google Scholar alerts I fully anticipate that someone else will have gotten there first.
But while I wait, I am furiously putting together my manuscript. I've already finished writing everything but the results, and I anticipate only two or three weeks' more work to finish those. Once I'm done I'll run it past my supervisor, and then we'll get it out.
Interestingly, I've examined my feelings about what will happen if I'm scooped, and they aren't actually too bad! One does get used to the sting (or leaves academia, which frankly is a rational and wise choice these days). In part it's *precisely* because this idea was so quick and simple to write up that I'm confident I will have more ideas like this.
Indeed, I have two or three topics that I want to pivot to after I've finished this one -- or, if I'm scooped, after it's finished with me. Interestingly it's *precisely* the collaboration I mentioned earlier that's given me the time and headspace to plan my next steps and give me confidence. So if I'm scooped -- *au revoir!* It's on to my next gig.
But what about A and their email?
=================================
Interestingly, your best response to this situation *depends very little on A and their internal state*. Either you'll decide that collaborating is best (my first suggestion), and send a short and simple email stating your choice and asking for next steps -- or you'll decide that collaborating is a choice you "currently don't have room for due to the various priorities already present, despite what an honor it is to be offered the collaboration opportunity!"
In either case you don't need to spend time and energy worrying about what A is thinking and why. That's time and energy you're *not putting into research*. And indeed, telling A that "even though PR mentioned methods Y and Z to you, I'd really rather work on them myself" -- in *any* wording -- is simply drawing unnecessary attention. (After all, if A is a nice person, you run the risk of needlessly offending them; if A is a nasty person, you've just drawn more attention to an area ripe for exploitation!)
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/13
| 672
| 2,722
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in the process of finishing my bachelors thesis and my formal requirements do not name any particular citation style, but instead describe the citation style as following.
Author(s) in the format <NAME>, B.Doe, C.Miller : Title ; Journal , Publication date, Volume (issue), Page from-to.
In-text citations as author-date.
They recommend the usage of reference manager, endnote, citavi or similar third party software. I have prepared all references in BibTex and I've spent several hours today scouring Mendeley, Citavi et cetera for a suitable format to export to, but seem to be unable to locate a good fit without an actual name of the style.
Is there a good resource (or search engine) to look up such details? I see that citavi offers a search functionality, but this did not yield any result, and I hadn't even input the details like the usage of semicolons.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Author(s) in the format <NAME>, B.Doe, C.Miller : Title ; Journal , Publication date, Volume (issue), Page from-to.
>
>
>
It does not look similar to any of the common citations styles (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc).
The best way is to list them as text entries in a .bbl file or go for a more sophisticated approach and create a custom style such that the Latex compiler generates references according to your style from the BibTeX file. See <https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/457310/custom-citation-style-for-custom-document>
I think <https://tex.stackexchange.com/> would be much more suitable for your question
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In light of digital systems for maintaining reference data bases such as Zotero, Endnote, Mendeley etc.and to apply a specific format to references, the request seems outdated. It is of course perfectly reasonable for a university or department to request a certain format but in a digital world it seems backwards to request something that would require a non-standard (name given) format.
It is of course open to the powers that be to decide on any required format of references but it is still quite backwards to require some format that is not a standard unless a format is provided for the digital platform in which you are required to work.
If the grade depends on this format then it is probably best to stick to the instructions, regardless how backwards they may seem. If your work with Word or LateX it is possible to generate a new reference style based along the guide line you are given. I am assuming your are using a refeence manager such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote.
So depemnding on your situation, there may be several ways to pursue to avoid too much problems with bureaucracy.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/13
| 7,611
| 32,251
|
<issue_start>username_0: It is common practice to have a homework strategy as follows: a professor might assign N homework problems but only have some random sub-set of those problems graded. This is motivated by a large class size, and a finite amount of grading time. The argument is that it motivates the students to do all the whole homework set, as they will not know which ones will be graded.
However, as someone who has been assigned to grade in this way, it feels immoral. I have had students who will do 9 out of 10 of the problems, but that one unanswered problem is 1 of the 3 I am grading, so they get a low grade.
I am curious to hear what folks here have to say about such a practice.<issue_comment>username_1: It is not only ethical, it is an excellent way of assigning homeworks especially if homeworks are necessarily long and the number of students is large.Say, if a homework assignment has 20 problems (normal number for a calculus course) and the class size is 30 students, then you would have to grade 600 solutions.
Another thing is that the homeworks for a class of calculus level consist mostly of practice problems, many similar problems designed to practice certain skill. Usually it is clear whether a student has acquired this skill if you grade one or two of these problems.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I see no ethical issue, particularly if the students are aware of this grading scheme in advance. The defect you observed averages out: the unlucky students this week might take no penalty for partially-completed homework during another week.
Still, if you are allowed to modify the grading scheme, you could consider mitigating the effect (or perceived effect) of luck by giving “completion points” for plausible-looking answers to the other questions.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: With the scheme of picking 3 problems to grade, if have an equal probability to grade any problem, then a student who regularly does 9/10 problems should expect you to grade the one they didn't do about 30% of the time. That is something a student should expect to happen fairly often, if they turn in, say, 10 homeworks over the course of a semester. Even for one homework, that is a fairly large risk, that they are taking by not doing the question.
There may be correlations that make this more likely, for example if students tend not to do the more difficult questions and there's a bias toward grading the more difficult ones.
Given that the policy is announced in advance and grading the one unfinished problem is not expected to be a particularly rare outcome, the policy seems fair to me.
Based on some discussion in the comments, let me add I don't think this policy is *ideal* or *good*. It clearly has problems in that there is some noise in the evaluation of the student. But, I can easily imagine situations where some instructors would choose this grading style as the least bad option. In particular, I think this scheme can make sense in a scenario where you have a lot of students, limited resources to grade, and a lot of (mostly straightforward) homework problems and assignments. Then, the noise should be fairly small (at least comparable to other sources of noise inherent in grading such as the variation in harshness/generosity of different graders and the choice of a finite number of problems to put on the homework), and it could be used by the instructor to encourage the students to do all the problems necessary to cover the full range of material, while not overspending resources on grading.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: An ethical issue would arise if such randomness were the primary cause of poor grades for a student who had no knowledge of the rules and no way to make up a poor individual grade. It is the overall course grade that matters, not the grade on a single assignment.
But, since this is homework, not the final exam, the student can probably absorb a single hit and still come roaring back. Grades are usually based on a collection of individual marks, even when only a final is graded.
But, a student who is otherwise qualified shouldn't be given a poor overall grade due to any random factors. A fair assessment, overall, needs to be made.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: While it may average out to be alright, it is very important to look at the other side and consider how a student perceives this grading practice.
Students don't tend to look at the average but on the outliers which are caused by this system of grading things. The attention is shifted to those that lucked out when giving a partially solved assignment and those that hand in a very well solved assignment and barely/poorly pass. Particular attention is shifted towards those that experience one extreme or the other multiple times.
From a student’s perspective, luck becomes a factor in something simple as having their assigned work to be looked at and this is simply frustrating regardless of whether or not it evens out or can be considered fair across a semesters worth of assignments turned in.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_6: The grading scheme may be fair under certain conditions.
* You need many homework assignments. If it is only biweekly or monthly, then averaging out is unlikely to occur for almost all students.
* The students should always finish approximately the same number of problems on each assignment. Imagine that you have 10 assignments with 10 problems each, for a total of 100 assignments. You grade one random problem of each assignment. Now, one student one student solved 9/10 problems on assignment 1, and all problems on all further assignments. The student thus solved 99 out of 100 problems. Unfortunately the missing one was the problem chosen to be graded on assignment 1, so the student has 9 correct assignments and one missed one, for a total of 9 out of 10. Sounds unfair to me.
Furthermore, you might run into trouble with perceived unfairness.
The larger the number of students, the more likely it is that one will hit a lucky/unlucky streak. This will quickly spread amongst the students and they will perceive the grading as unfair, even though it is fair for the vast majority.
And finally, you might be accused of not really choosing the questions randomly, but selecting only problems which your favorite student has solved. This could be prevented by publishing the selection to be graded beforehand in an encrypted manner and then handing out the encryption key/password after the grading has occurred.
Checking whether this grading system is fair/unfair under different conditions might be a fun exercise to some introductory statistics class.
Personally I would recommend to tell the students beforehand which exercises will be graded and which won't. After all they chose to be there to learn I assume. For me it worked pretty well with pretty much no graded exercises at all. Most of my friends and me did almost all exercises anyways. And the ones who didn't: Well, most of them stayed at university for longer, only to not graduate in the end.
**Edit** Forgot to mention that we got feedback on all exercises, graded or not. Sometimes individually, sometimes in the form of example solutions. I think that's important so that all solved exercises help the learning process, not just the graded ones where you get feedback in the form of the grade.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Another way to do this, which partly mitigates the 'luck' problem, is as follows: a student can hand in A of the N exercises. Three of them will be graded randomly. If the score on them is x%, the total score on the assignment will be x%\*A/N.
This way, a student that solved 7 of the 10 exercises cannot get a low score by having bad luck: if the 7 exercises were indeed correct, the score will simply be 70%. Conversely, a student that solved 3 of the 10 exercises can not get more than 30%. Luck only comes in is if a student tries to game the system by intentionally handing in wrong answers, or if a student thinks they solved an exercise, but they did not.
The disadvantage of this system, is that, while you only have to grade 3 exercises per student, it will not be the same 3 each time. So there is some extra work in devising grading schemes for all exercises etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: While I see no ethical issue here, you could suggest the following alternate scheme.
Once the homework is due, you take a quiz where students are allowed to use their homework notes. In the quiz you ask the students to provide solutions to the (randomly) chosen 3 problems in a limited time.
As a result, the graders only need to grade the 3 chosen problems.
If the students have done the problems before, they can write down the solutions from their own notes. If they can solve the randomly chosen 3 problems *without* having done *any* of them before, in the limited time available, then they probably deserve to get a good grade!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_9: The students are told in advance, so they know what gamble they are taking leaving one or more unanswered. (If they don't that is an academic skill in itself that needs some work!)
So in principle, this is a way to ensure that all students take the material covered by the set equally seriously.
So the practice as such is ethical. There is a problem, however, in that some academics wish for their subject to occupy more of the students' attention that is proportionally reasonable. (The "my subject is the only one worth doing" illness is too prevalent among academics.) They can achieve this via this trick. If I have three contact hours per week (normal for a typical module) and the students have 15 contact hours (excluding TA time, workshops, tutorials etc) then my homework should roughly occupy 1/5 of their homework time. If I inflate this doing the subset trick, then that is unethical.
Also, the prof should decide (perhaps using randomising methods) which questions are going to be marked *before* seeing the worked answers, and *not* taking any bribes from students.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: Consider that essentially the same thing happens each time a student writes an exam in that only a subset of all the possible exam questions are actually graded, while the remainder don't appear on the exam. The difference is simply the amount of information that everyone has: in the exam scenario the ungraded questions are unknown, while in the homework scenario the ungraded questions are known.
If time constraints are such that only three questions can be graded, then the other option would be to just ask three questions. In this case one could worry about the student who knew 70% of the material, but got 0% because the question selection didn't reflect their knowledge. Such a student would have (likely) done better in the randomized version. Finite time requires that we approximate student knowledge via the random selection of questions from an infinite pool. As such, we must accept that the randomization will be beneficial for some and a detriment to others (and hope that this evens out over the course of a semester).
To me, asking 10 and grading three is ethically equivalent to simply asking three.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: In lieu of writing more stuff in comments I decided to write up an answer that adresses both the original question and some of the discussion that has emerged following it. I'm writing from a perspective of math and in particular the lower level math courses 300 level ones and below in general (i.e. Calc 1-3 and below in the US). This is definitely not applicable to the European system where this wouldn't be an issue probably.
I will first describe the system I'm talking about in more detail. When I taught we would usually assign roughly 20 problems a week for ~10 weeks of the semester and grade 5 problems of each set. The total grade for a homework set was made up of 5 points for the five problems 2 for completeness and 2 for tidiness. Completeness is self explanatory, and tidiness involved not handing in the homework chewed up and illegible and using correct mathematical terminology (equals signs where there supposed to be equal signs, implication where there were supposed to be implications and similar). The total grade for homework was usually about 20% of the course grade. This meant any given problem was worth about 20/90 % of the total grade. (Much less actually because sadly almost all courses I graded were graded on a curve, don't get me started on that).
I want to answer two things. First, is this immoral (assign N choose K to grade)? Second, is this the best?
Let's start with number one: No, it's not immoral.
The reason we assign and grade homework is mostly because students even at the university level (in the US) can't be trusted to do what they should on their own. If the homework is not graded a significant portion of the students will not do it.So they will not learn and they won't figure out where they have shortcomings. Now the morally best choice would be to treat students as adults assume they do the work and when they find out they are struggling come to office hours or otherwise deal with it. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to work. Thus, trying to provide a service, the system attempts to incentivize doing homework by grading it.
Grading all of the homework is logistically and functionally impossible. It would either mean not assigning enough for it to be worth it, or paying way too much money for grading all of it. Math TA's are usually costly and in short supply since they often have better ways to earn money and the STEM fields are less full. Assigning more homework and announcing which problems will be graded in advance doesn't help since it goes back to many (most) students only doing the graded parts.
I admit you only ensure there's no luck involved if the student does all of the homework correctly. To me that's enough, you have a path to a perfect score that's not based on luck. Also assuming you do all the problems and most of them correctly the chances of getting a significantly bad grade are rather minimal.
In the end you have an optimization problem, to which the answer of randomized grading is a heuristically optimal solution. Thus it's not immoral.
Is it the best? No. I don't believe it is the best.
I do believe given the constraints of the US systems it is probably optimal though. We've already covered why it's not optimal to leave students to their own devices and why not all reasonable homework can be graded. There is another way to deal with the problem of providing feedback to students during the semester though and that's oral exams combined with quizess. Oral examination is (in my opinion) by FAR the most efficient and effective way of both providing feedback and finding out what the student knows. In 10-20 minutes of speaking to a student I get more of an idea of what he knows and doesn't, than I can gain from three exams and 20 homeworks. Unfortunately oral exams are strongly disfavored in the US. I'm guessing it's mostly due to size of class and the dislike of telling students they don't know stuff.
The trouble with oral exams is they are more prone to claims of unfairness or randomness and take more time away from the professor, since exams in the US are usually graded by the TA's, whereas oral exams would likely have to be done by the professor only.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_12: Ethical? Not fully sure about it, I do not see a problem with this. Fair or sensible? For sure not.
The function of grading is grading. The function of homework is training.
Bias: This scheme results in better grades for students who do all the homework, even if they would perform worse when presented with identical tasks as better students who - for some reason - don't have the time to do all the homework.
Adding spread: If the grade should be an assessment for how good the student is able to handle problems, then this is going to increase the statistical spread of the assessment.
If you have to use uncertainty about what is being graded as a whip to make students work, something is wrong with your lecture.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: If the assignment is to do 10 problems, out of which 3 will be graded at random, then what might perhaps be seen as unfair is that the student might have done a poor job on some of those 3 problems but an excellent job on the other 7. I can see why it would be frustrating to a student to spend a significant amount of time on one problem only to be graded on the basis of another. In particular, if the problem set consists of problems of widely varying difficulty, then this sounds like a sure recipe for inspiring legitimate frustration among students.
On the other hand, if the assignment is to do 10 problems and the student decides to only do 9 and hope for the best, that's entirely on them. They haven't done the assignment and instead intentionally opted to enter a universe where they had a probability of 2/3 of getting away with doing slightly less work than required for the same credit and a probability of 1/3 of being significantly penalized for this. (Significantly in the context of a single problem set. It probably isn't significant in the context of the entire course.) This is a trade-off that they chose of their own volition. Focusing on what happens in 1/3 of all universes where, some could say, they get a worse outcome than they deserve misses the point that there are also 2/3 of all universes where they get a better outcome than they deserve and that the decision to enter into this gamble was their own.
Of course, if this grading scheme is used as an excuse to burden students with assignments which place unreasonable demands on their time, then this would indeed be unethical. But the same is true if all 10 problems are graded.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_14: Let's just count. We have 10 problems out of which 3 random ones are graded, so the probability of any particular homework to be graded is 0.3 and the direct computation shows that the largest possible variance on a set of 10 problems for the grading score of an individual student is 7/12, attained if the student solved exactly 5 problems, which (50% performance) is the usual cutoff for the F grade. The typical semester course lasts 16 weeks with 2 homework sets per week, which gives 32 homeworks. Assuming the normal approximation, we conclude that one standard deviation is at most $\sqrt{\frac{7}{12}32}=\sqrt{56/3}<4.5$ problems even for the borderline students (everybody else is better off). Now, with the expected score of 48 on the borderline, the probability that a (barely) passing student will get <44 problems is 16%, which may be a bit too much. If you lower the threshold to 39 problems, being out of luck has probability 2.3% for each student, which seems acceptable for moderate size classes. If you have 100+ students, I would go for 3\sigma, i.e., the passing score of 35 problems with probability of being unlucky 0.1% for an individual student. In other words, if you add 14 points to everybody's score in this scenario, the bad luck (getting a lower grade than one deserves due to the random chance) will be essentially wiped out even in a large class. You, of course, may now raise some scores beyond what is deserved, creating another type of "moral problem".
In other words the message is that the idea of such grading is neither ethical, nor unethical by itself. It just has a certain chance of error that you should clearly understand and, if you find it unacceptably high, compensate for before implementing this scheme.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_15: It is statistically absolutely unethical in the parameters you described, **if you pass/fail students based on average assignment grade**. I assume a hypothetical best-case example where you:
1. Teach a motivated class filled with students *that do not skip *any* questions*. (The problem only becomes worse if they skip some questions.)
2. You teach a course with weekly assignments, maximizing the chance of "averaging out". I will assume a 12-week course, so 12 assignments.
3. Grade objectively and fairly, where each answer is either correct or wrong to give a % score on each assignment.
I assume that an average homework grade of 60% is needed to pass.
Let's model an adequate student as someone who answers ~70% of the total number of questions correctly, in three scenarios:
1. 12 assignments where 3 out of 10 answered questions get graded (as you mentioned in your post).
2. 12 assignments where 10 out of 10 answered questions get graded (extra workload).
3. 4 assignments where 9 out of 9 answered questions get graded (same workload as #1).
The **only** randomness I allowed in the model is that the correct/wrong answers are shuffled between tests (or within a test for grading subsampling). That is, there is *no randomness in the total number of correct answers given by a student* in this model. In scenarios 1 and 3 the total number of correct answers given is 25/36, in scenario 2 it is 84/120.
In both scenario 2 and 3 across 100,000 course simulations the student who answered ~70% of the questions correctly has a 100% chance to pass (that is because the average of averages still has a linear relationship with the total number of correct answers, if not subsampling). In scenario 1 this drops to ~94.4%. If all your students are perfectly adequate, **you would unfairly fail 2 students out of a class of 37.**
What about a more borderline student, one which answers ~61% (22/36, 73/120) of all questions correctly? What is their probability of passing? Without subsampling it is once again 100%. With the subsampling in scenario one **it drops to 56.5%!**
[My code for the above simulation.](https://gist.github.com/username_15/700da62d0e24ff8666d7f1fba6532463)
---
Subsampling is fair *if and only if* you subsample randomly (without bias) and you compute the average grade *only over the subsampled questions*. **It is unethical** in my opinion if you compute the average grade over *assignments* where it is random which questions are graded, as it unnecessarily introduces statistically significant variance in who pass/fail simply based on whether they got graded on the questions they got right, and which they got wrong.
To spell this out crystal clearly: when you use the average *assignment* grade rather than average *correctly answered questions* in combination with subsampling, you are throwing away information you already have and unnecessarily replace it with randomness. It's no more ethical than ignoring the existing pass/fail policy and instead flipping a coin to pass/fail students with a borderline grade, as that is essentially what you're doing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_16: **It is ethical so long as problem sets are not a substantial part of the final course grade. The pedagogical value can be increased, and concerns about unfairness mitigated, through some minor adjustments.**
I use a version of this in some of my courses. The major concern that you raise is one of unfairness due to the randomness of which problems are evaluated.
The ethics of the assignment should be evaluated with an understanding of the difference between **formative** and **summative** assessment. Formative assessments are supposed to provide feedback to the student and the instructor about the student's (and the class's) progress in the material. Summative assessments are supposed to provide an evaluation of student mastery at the end of a course module or entire course.
Summative assessments are high stakes (i.e., have a substantial impact on a course grade) and can include things like term papers and examinations. **Randomness itself in a graded assignment is not a concern, but would become a concern for a high stakes assessment.** An example where I think it is handled well is that, as an undergrad, I often encountered essay exams (usually in humanities or social science courses) where we were given 5 questions to prepare for, but only 3 appeared on a final exam (and sometimes the student would only have to answer a subset, like 2 out of 3). This offers a nice balance between having an overly long exam vs. a short exam where the students study to the test, i.e. ignore material that will not be on the exam. An extreme in which it is handled poorly would be assigning three papers and grading only one of them, where the final paper represented 30-50% of a final course grade. This would be indefensibly arbitrary, and I've never seen anything like it done.
Formative assessments should be low stakes, and some instructors seem to think should be no stakes (i.e., not graded at all). The question is how do we treat problem sets, which are common in STEM courses where practice of methods is necessary to learning.
Problem sets sit in an awkward place. They are often graded, and sometimes form a substantial part of a course grade, yet their place in a course sequence really means they should be treated as a formative assessment:
```
Reading/Lecture → Problem Sets → Examinations
```
In some sense, if the student does well on the summative assessments, the formative assessments *shouldn't* drag their grade down. That is, if a strong student is lackadaisical about homework but aces the exams, giving the student a poor grade due to missing or sloppy homeworks seems both punitive and just plain inaccurate as an assessment of their capabilities. So if their purpose is formative rather than summative, problem sets could be ungraded, and used entirely to provide practice for the student and feedback on how well they are learning the material. Unfortunately, I have found that if the problem sets are ungraded many students won't do them, and subsequently will perform poorly on exams.
>
> **Sidebar:** Doing the problem sets improves student performance, but inevitably there seems to be a high correlation between the students who don't do the problem sets and those who I suspect would struggle with the material no matter what. I think the causality is that students who are underprepared get discouraged by the problem sets, and then don't do the work they need to in order to master the material! Trying to encourage those students while still making it clear that they have to actually do the work is a constant struggle, and probably not unique to me.
>
>
>
The students *have to* do the problem sets in order to learn the material, but the grades are really utterly irrelevant to the assignment's pedagogical purpose. But getting the students to engage with the material is very difficult if they are no stakes assignments. Offering low stakes (maybe all the problem sets are no more than 10% of the final grade in total) is probably enough motivation to get them to do the work. Since the purpose is practice rather than summative assessment, assigning more work than will be graded is acceptable. It becomes less acceptable if the impact on the grade is higher. It also becomes less acceptable if *nothing* is done with the ungraded problems. That is, you shouldn't just grade some of them and completely ignore the ungraded ones. Ungraded problems can be gone over in class, in discussion section, or answers could just be provided for the students to self-check.
Finally, there are a number of ways that the assignment could be changed to increase the pedagogical value.
1. All problem sets can be graded for extra credit. I do this in some of my courses. I have found that it provides sufficient motivation for most of the students to attempt the problem sets, while mitigating student concerns regarding grading of random answers. (If they don't earn the points, it's "just" extra credit, and has no impact if they do well on other assignments.)
2. For your example, points can be awarded for 3 out of 4 possible answers. That way, if a student skips (or just messes up) one question out of the 4, that one will be ignored. Points will be awarded only for best 3.
3. Switch to the flipped classroom model. This is of course a major pedagogical shift. In this case, the problem sets would be done in class. They could be completely ungraded, as the professor and teaching assistants will be observing the student learning directly (both *that they are doing the work*, and how well they are doing). Or they could be graded, but students will have assistance with them. Or they could be marked "complete" if the student is present and works diligently, rather than for correctness, but the professor could require them to be submitted for a grade by students who are absent or clearly not doing the work while in class.
**Any of these things would improve the pedagogical value of the problem sets. But the randomness in and of itself is not an ethical concern so long as the problem sets are not a substantial part of the final course grade.**
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_17: I once went to a pedagogy talk and the faculty presenter (in a STEM discipline) said that, among things, which can improve student results are: assigning homework, collecting homework, grading homework.
You have to think about "what is the purpose of this specific homework?" and "what is the purpose of the grade?" Is it to ensure understanding, correct misunderstanding, deepen understanding, assess understanding, and then what is the level of the work (think Bloom's taxonomy).
There are many kinds of homework, and different strategies are okay for different types. For example, in teaching writing a "minimal grading" model for grading, e.g. essays, is often suggested for both pedagogical and time management reasons. It's good for students to write, and it actually is not necessarily helpful for them to get back a document filled with red ink. But if you were giving a multiple choice grammar test obviously it is minimal grading by definition.
One purpose of grading is "riding herd" which is to say to simple establish that the student has done the reading or made a valid attempt at the assignment. Then it's fine to just quickly give check/no check grades.
In your case, it sounds like the grading involves giving substantive feedback in order to help students do better in the future and highlight errors in their thinking. It sounds like you would be giving "partial credit." Thus all of the comments about "getting it right" are not exactly on point because it is not an all or nothing grade.
In that case, it makes sense to randomly pick a few problems to do that for. That work is time consuming and students are unlikely to read all of the feedback on all problems.
Of course if the homework is a high percentage of the grades and are the main summative *assessments* of student understanding that's a different story.
So, if the main benefit of homework is improved understanding then having students do homework is good. If they need a reward for doing homework, announcing that three problems will be randomly selected for grading on each assignment lets them know they need to at least try all the problems. You could also reward simply attempting all of the problems on a check/no check basis.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_18: One professor might work this way, and another professor might work another way. Each gives ten homework assignments and grades three. The first one doesn't tell which ones are graded, the second does.
The result is that students either put more effort into your course, which makes it entirely unfair to the other professor. And "putting more effort into your course" isn't a positive. Students will learn a lot from homework they do; they don't learn from the extra work they need to do for optimising the grading. In homework, it is reasonable to focus on the things that the student doesn't know; something that the student knows how to do doesn't help them learning and is therefore wasted effort. Any effort put into your course is effort not put into another course.
On the other hand, the students might vote with their feet and take two other courses instead of yours.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/14
| 237
| 1,057
|
<issue_start>username_0: Say in one of my projects, I am using someone elses code in a published paper. The method is novel and therefore I also have some general discussion on how to apply the developed code in GitHub. Am I expected to include the developer of the code as co-author? Or would a citation be sufficient?<issue_comment>username_1: If you're just using their code, citation suffices.
It would be polite and probably appreciated for you to let them know.
If they modify or augment or configure their code in response to your needs then coauthorship might be appropriate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It boils down to the question if the code and/or the implemented method was published before or not. If it was published, you can make use of the code like of any other published information (unless the license under which it is published does not allow it). Then, citing is sufficient. If you somehow got unpublished code, for example by private communication, you have to agree on the terms with whoever wrote the code.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/15
| 3,861
| 16,195
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been wondering a while why many universities in the US have graded homework in the STEM field.
I completely understand the grading for mid-term exames or final exams. In those exams you have to prove that you have actually learned something in class and that you can work on topics related to that.
However, this does not quite apply for exercises. In my imagination exercises are for revising and practicing content and methods of the lectures. They are also useful to find topics which you might think you have understood, but really you haven't. In my mind this learning environment should be free from pressure to "perform" and "produce results", but instead should be open and honest so that the learning process can be most effective. By grading exercises you create pressure that the students should not learn something (and sometimes fail), but that they should already know all that stuff.
So why is it that homework is often graded in US universities? Or is it not? I simply often get the impression that it is, but don't know for sure.
**EDIT**
Maybe I was too vague in my question, but I am interested why US universities often have **graded** feedback. I fully acknowledge the usefulness of regular feedback during studying. So I am interested in the reasons why this feedback counts towards the final grade.
Now there are some great answers, each giving different reasons. I feel it will be tough to select an answer, because if would look like I chose it to be the *correct* reason. Thus I will simply take the highest ranked answer in a couple of days, to mark this topic as solved and thank all contributors.<issue_comment>username_1: This is not specific to the US context and I am primarily an instructor in a different context where too homework is often graded.
The basic principle is that students get credit (=marks towards the final grade) for *all* the work that they do as part of the course.
One view is that the final grade is not *only* a measure of competence in the subject matter but also a measure of skill acquired through practice (via homework). In this sense, we can think of homework as a "laboratory component" for a "theory" course and thus it deserves some credit.
Another point of view is that students tend to *only* work on things that earn them credit. It is a separate and more philosophical question to be debated elsewhere whether this is something they should be conditioned to do!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think one reason why it is *not* graded in Europe (at least why it is not graded in Sweden, where I am based) is that it takes lots of time to do grading. Someone needs to get paid for it, and the universities simply do not think it is worth the money to hire TAs to do grading of this sort.
In the US, the education is not free, so one can simply require master's students to do TA work, in order to get a scholarship. This option, I believe, is not even possible in Sweden, as work requires you to be employed, pay taxes, get all benefits (possibility parental leave, sick leave, etc).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Exercises are graded **because if they were not graded, many students would not do them.**
You are quite correct however in perceiving that this is bad. It creates an unhealthy confusion between [formative and summative assessments](https://www.gre.ac.uk/learning-teaching/assessment/assessment/design/formative-vs-summative), and is generally bad for learning as compared to an ideal situation in which students have a stress-free period dedicated exclusively to learning and getting feedback, followed by exams meant to test their knowledge and assign them a grade.
However, such is the culture in the US. Students are generally stressed and chronically overworked, and the ideal conditions that I described above as being most conducive to learning simply do not exist. Moreover, in an environment in which all or most instructors grade homework, any instructor who decides to deviate from this social norm and not grade her students' homework will know that that would cause her students to focus their time and energy on the coursework for their other classes, which would mean they would end up not learning the material for her own class at the level that she wants them to learn it. So instructors are essentially forced to comply with this norm whether they think it's a good idea or not.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: In some cases multiple submissions are allowed with the final score for a specific problem being the last one submitted. This is a useful form of feedback and encourages the students to work on each homework problem until they fully understand how to get the correct answer.
It is especially easy to implement this when homework is submitted online and graded immediately by computer. I doubt America is the only place where this is the case.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> So why is it that homework is often graded in US universities? Or is it not? I simply often get the impression that it is, but don't know for sure.
>
>
>
username_3's [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/184285/33210) *Exercises are graded **because if they were not graded, many students would not do them**.* covers the largest reason.
One reason not covered in his answer is that not all material can be easily covered in traditional exams.
Examples include:
* Field or lab methods that might be graded by reports or homework assignments.
* Computer programming would be easier to grade as a homework project rather than an exam.
* Long worked problems such as some math problems that cannot be easily completed during an exam format.
* Fine arts projects such paintings.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Also, there are many, many students who just can't perform well in the environment of a test, no matter their level of familiarity of the material. And if class time is taken up with lectures instead of working through problems, then without homework that is required to be done, that familiarity will be poor for most. Combine that with the extreme consequences for failure in American education and anything that would increase the chances for student failure with no benefit is passively malicious.
A good professor in the US should be trying to help students succeed if they can and giving them other places to turn competence into grade points is part of that. It does mean that those with disabilities that cause them to forget assignments end up with poor grades though.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: username_3's answer that **if homework wasn't graded, many students wouldn't do it** is at least partly correct (although I can't help wondering whether overall comprehension would increase if homework wasn't graded in *any* class, allowing students more flexibility to focus their study where it could do the most good. One student's vital lesson is another student's busywork), it misses one very important distinction.
**Homework and tests measure two very different skillsets.** Timed tests are good at measuring how well a student understands the basic concepts but frankly terrible at judging how well a student can combine/use/apply those concepts in novel ways. Homework allows students to apply effectively unlimited time and resources to any given problem, which is terrible for testing comprehension of basic concepts (they could simply look up the answer) but can be an excellent way of testing whether, given appropriate time and resources, a student can apply their learning to more difficult problems.
If you think about it, graduate school embraces this dichotomy as well, no matter the country. One may consider the thesis somewhat equivalent to a very large, involved homework assignment and the thesis defense equivalent to the final exam. Now consider two students: one student writes an absolutely groundbreaking thesis but through stress, tiredness, or for some other reason completely flubs his defense, while the second student writes an extremely mediocre thesis but absolutely nails the defense. Which of these students would you consider more worthy of the degree?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: I was a math professor in the US most of my career. I didn't grade homework in lower-level courses like Calc 1, 2, 3, or Differential Equations or Linear Algebra. My syllabus listed selected problems from each section, and the students were encouraged to ask me or the TA for help if they got stuck. If they wanted to learn the material, they did the homework, and most students figured that out quickly.
For upper division courses, ones with proofs, then I collected and graded homework. This was because learning to write good proofs takes practice and lots of feedback. This had nothing to do with pressure and performance, but just that the student was attempting a proof and I was critiquing it. If I gave 8 out of 10 marks for the homework, then the student knew about how well he was doing.
So short answer to your question: Feedback.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: As discussed, the main reasons are: [if it wasn't graded, no one would do it](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/184285/79875) and [some valuable exercises work better logistically as a graded assignment than an exam](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/184295/79875).
One additional reason: if homework (and other such activities) are not graded, then it follows logically that the grade depends entirely on exams. Many other countries have a culture of high-stakes exams, so this is not a problem. In the US, however, high-stakes exams are increasingly viewed as stressful, discriminatory, and arbitrary, and so are becoming increasingly rare. Rather, students generally like being able to earn points through homework, participation, projects, or other "offline" activities. Instructors who fight this system and insist on high-stakes exams will not make themselves popular....and since "forcing" students to complete homework generally results in better outcomes anyway, this is a battle that few choose to fight.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: My take on this isn't universal, I know, and I can't speak for others, but can explain how and why I "grade" homework - and a lot of homework. Caveat: My scale was always modest. More than about 30 students in a section of a course was unusual. I've gone as high as about 50, but that is probably the limit without help. I'll also note that for some huge classes ([Harvard's CS50](https://cs50.harvard.edu/college/2022/spring/)) the actual student/staff ratio is about 20/1, so even that is reasonable.
But there are two issues here that might be confused. [username_3](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/184285/75368) alludes to this. There is the question of feedback on student work, which I consider absolutely essential to student learning. There is the separate issue of assigning points or such toward a final assessment (grade). So, even if I don't "grade" (assign points to) the homework, I still need to read it and comment when necessary - feedback.
There are a few reasons why I need to give feedback, especially, perhaps, in STEM courses. First, I'm not perfect. Second, the students aren't perfect. I may say something that gives the wrong impression and if it is missed by a student and not corrected, then they might get false "insights" that lead them to error. Learning requires practice and feedback. Practice without feedback can lead you to crankery. If the only assessment of a student's learning is at a final exam, then it is too late for them to make corrections in their learning.
It is also important to me that the students know where they are in terms of their final grade in a course. On any given day they should, ideally, know what their grade would be if the course ended that day. This has led me to adopt cumulative grading where each task has a number of points assigned (including tests) and students can know what percentage of the available points they have already "earned". If a course has 1000 points available for tasks, and 900 is the break for an A, then the student knows how far they are from that mark and how many opportunities there still are to achieve it.
For me, but maybe not for you, exams were a relatively small part of the overall grade, certainly less than 20%.
I also gave students the opportunity to re-do homework for which their earned point total didn't satisfy them. They couldn't get full marks for second tries, but could increase totals.
One advantage of this scheme is that I almost never got complaints about my grading. And my feedback on papers also gave some hints on how they can improve, even for a given assignment.
Oddly enough, I was perceived by students as being one of the "harder" or more strict professors. I had high expectations, but tried to enable all the students to achieve them. I was willing (and told students this) that they could all fail or they could all get full marks, depending on how they applied themselves. I had few failures. And luckily, I had a dean that would back me up.
---
Note that different students have different expectations for a course. If they are satisfied with a B grade then once they have achieved the required number of points for that, then additional points matter little. You can treat this as a feature or a bug, but being a few points short of the next grade can actually be a goad.
---
Also see: <https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/q/4513/1293> and <https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/112251/75368>
---
I once had a math professor (much hated) that used a different plan in math courses. Instead of grading homework he would have "pop quizzes" at the start of nearly every class. We would spend the first ten minutes or so solving some problem from a recent lecture. These were graded. This was pretty much all "stick" and no "carrot", but at least we couldn't slack and our grade was spread over a large number of small assessments.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: There are many good reasons discussed in the other answers already. That said, there is also a *bad* reason which nonetheless *is* a reason that sometimes enters into the decision-making.
Lecturers are partly judged by how well their students achieve, particularly failure rates, since if a student can't continue their course then the university doesn't get their tuition fees next year; and it's easier to award high marks on mediocre homework than it is to award high marks on mediocre exam answers. If you give students enough easy marks on the homework then they can scrape a pass despite doing very badly on the exam.
It may sound cynical, but it does happen in reality.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_12: I'm crafting a short answer based on a comment from the OP, which I feel might be at the root of the cultural disconnect they're experiencing. OP wrote:
>
> Bonus point: when teaching students who were not forced to attend or
> hand in homework, only the rather motivated ones show up :-)
>
>
>
In the U.S., to my understanding, a rather larger proportion of the university/department operating budget comes from direct tuition payments from the students themselves. Therefore there's increased institutional pressure at all levels to keep every student engaged, succeeding, and continue tuition payments in the next semester.
Generally this gets referred to as "retention", as in: "our top focus is retention", etc., and similar things I hear regularly from our administrators. A lot of ink gets spilled at my college about "forming communities" being a "high impact practice". I've even had it recommended to me that I make a personal phone call to any student who was absent on any particular day, to make a personal connection with them, communicate that they're valued, assist with any difficulties, etc.
So if regular graded homework motivates more students to show up regularly (with which the OP seems to agree), then at U.S. institutions that's considered to be a best practice, because it helps with the goal of retention.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/04/15
| 1,581
| 6,892
|
<issue_start>username_0: In 2020, I started to work on a grant proposal for the Austrian Academy Science Fund to fund a two-year postdoc. After two months, I was told by my prospective supervisor that the proposal was so good, that it could become a three-year project and give a grant to a PhD student.
I accepted, allowing my prospective supervisor to act as the principal investigator of the project. Three days before submitting, without my consent, my prospective supervisor put his name as first author of the proposal, in the version "Final 3," but I wrote at least 75% of it.
And there are four letters attached to the proposal by external advisors that report my name first.
**Is this a case of plagiarism or other misconduct?**
I already quit this job, because my supervisor/boss ridiculed a specific study of mine in line with the proposal saying it was non-sense. Honestly, in my next job I want to leave the academy anyway, I just wanted to understand more about the episode. I mean, he may have done it on a mistake, but given the range of acts during the job, I start to think that he actually has a tendency towards appropriation.<issue_comment>username_1: *As the title has changed to contain a specific question since I originally wrote this answer, I want to address the title question explicitly as well: no, I do not think it is appropriate to ever change authorship order without agreement among the authors. However, I think grant proposals are not the same as published work, and sometimes grants are governed by rules about who is allowed to be responsible. It's possible this was done as an administrative change, though the correct behavior would have been to discuss this change with the other authors before making it.*
Is there any *meaning at all* to the order of authors in a *grant proposal*? I really doubt it. Therefore, I can't see any value/benefit your supervisor would get from making this change, and therefore no malice.
I'm of course familiar with designating some individual as a "PI", which often requires them to be a professor or otherwise 'permanent' employee of an institution (or, alternatively, requires them to be a degree-seeking student or postdoctoral trainee), of course. The grants I contribute to have only the PI listed as though they are an "author"; everyone else is listed as some other type of contributor. The PI is responsible for administration of the project (boring admin stuff: budgets and assurances and regulatory compliance); they may not do all or most of the actual work, and very often have a smaller percentage of their salary covered for a project than students and post docs do who are working directly on a project.
My best guess is that, even though no instructions were given about author order, your supervisor assumed that the PI needed to be first, and made that change. I don't see, from the information I have here, a reason to consider *this aspect* to be any sort of willful violation.
If you were on better terms, I'd recommend simply asking for an explanation (in a non-accusative way), e.g., "I noticed you've changed the order of authors; is it necessary for the PI to be first author? or was there some other reason for the change?" That conversation might also be a good time to raise issues of authorship order for papers that come out of the project, where (field-dependent) that order *does* matter.
Since it seems like you have other conflicts with this person, well, I can't tell you how to judge them overall, but I would recommend basing that evaluation on everything else you know instead.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I am sorry it happened to you. Unfortunately, I am afraid your experience is shared by many PhD students at some point of their career. It is not uncommon in academia for established researchers to diminish contributions of their collaborators and exaggerate their own contribution. I called some professors out on this and the "justification" they gave me was that even though early career researchers do more work, the smaller part of work done by established professors is still more important, because their expertise and recognition is much higher. An extreme but real example everyone mentioned are "engineering labs" where PIs are always included in all publications because they "contributed the lab" for others to work at.
So basically, their argument is: "yes, I contributed only 25% of effort for this proposal, but because I am 10 times more famous than you, my name should go first". However, it does not feel like a satisfactory argument, neither as a fair practice. This is one of many dark pages of academic culture, which I believe should be turned and changed. To try to answer your specific question, many academics would probably agree that changing order of authors before submission is not completely the "right thing to do". However, depending on rules and regulations in your particular location, this is probably not counted as plagiarism neither as an academic misconduct.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: This depends on the grant guidelines, and your question doesn't mention the type of grant you are targeting now, but for some grants, authors other than the PI just *have to* be listed as co-authors.
The distinction between PI and co-author sounds a lot like this is an FWF (Austrian Science Fund) standalone grant, in which case your PI has to be the "author". To be more precise, the FWF guidelines for standalone projects don't even distinguish between first and subsequent authors (or "authors" and "co-authors"). They only distinguish between the applicant and the co-author(s), if any. So unless you are the applicant (which you and your PI seem to have ruled out), you have to be listed as co-author. This is a necessary formality.
This also means that your PI is not using the correct terminology in the project description, when using the term "author". The FWF only knows "applicants" and "co-authors". However, this is most likely of no practical concern. The application form (unlike the project description where you can write whatever you like) does not even contain a field for the "author", only for "applicants", and "co-authors", as mentioned above.
Quoting the [guidelines](https://www.fwf.ac.at/fileadmin/files/Dokumente/Antragstellung/Einzelprojekte/p_application-guidelines.pdf):
>
> Co-authors form: All persons who have made substantial research-related contributions to
> the conception and writing of the application should be named as co -authors. A brief
> description of the nature of each contribution should be included; where there are no co-
> authors, applicants should state this explicitly on the form.
>
>
>
In case you want to ensure that your contribution is recognizable on your CV, you could add a short explanation of your and your PI's respective roles.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/16
| 1,917
| 8,269
|
<issue_start>username_0: My daughter needs to extend maximum period of study, by reason of physical and mental MultiComorbidities. Her program manager emailed her the procedure [like Nottingham University's](https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/qualitymanual/registration-and-attendance/max-period-from-initial-registration.aspx).
>
> Students do not submit extension requests themselves. The student shall submit their written request and all evidence to ALL these 3 staff members — Director of Undergraduate or Postgraduate Studies (depending on the student's degree), Department Head, Deputy Head. Departments are NOT required to submit extension requests by students. If a Department decides to further the student's request, then the Department shall send the student's request internally to the university's Education Vice Chancellor, who shall be the final decision maker.
>
>
>
My daughter emailed the Education Vice Chancellor, who confirmed that daughter must commence the request with her department — not directly with the V.C.
We don't want 3 departmental staff members to know about her medical conditions, for 4 reasons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Why the heck does this simple request need 3 departmental staff? Why not just 1? The best outcome is that we liaise merely with the V.C. The second best outcome is merely 1 departmental staff and the V.C. — for a total of 2 university staff.
2. Whilst the procedure purports confidentiality, **the reality is that people gossip.** ***Law and reality differ.*** We cannot stop staff members from breaching confidentiality information accidentally, behind our backs or closed doors. **The fewer staff involved, the better for us**.
3. Breach of confidence can be impossible and burdensome to prove. The university can argue — we have not sufficiently proved that their staff breached confidentiality. Perhaps I accidentally breached my own privacy, whilst chatting with friends who spread the information.
4. Disclosing medical conditions to a staff member MAY discourage that staff from providing a reference. Obviously, instructors may not want to reference students who are out of the ordinary, and who has a chance of scoring poorly — whatever the reason, whether medical or not. **Whilst discrimination is illegal, indirect discrimination is burdensome to prove. After all, instructors are NOT required to state reasons for refusing a reference.** And *IF* they do state a reason, most instructors are clever enough not to inculpate themselves of discrimination. Rather than disclosing the real reason related to the student's medicine or disability, they can trump up anodyne reasons — e.g. they don't know the student well enough, or the student did not participate enough in class.<issue_comment>username_1: If the policy is what you have quoted, then **what you are asking for is for someone to grant you an exception.** Realize at the outset that this puts you in a **weak negotiating position.**
Also, **as your daughter is legally an adult, she should be the one handling this request.** I mean this not as a critique of your parenting style, but as a matter of strategy: If the staff have to refuse your daughter's request "to her face" (rather than leaving you to break the bad news), they may be more likely to accommodate her.
I see a few moves available to you in this situation.
1. Just ask
===========
You indicated that your daughter emailed the Education Vice Chancellor and was told that the policy admits no exceptions. You also mentioned that she is OK with *one* of the departmental staff knowing about it. I assume she knows who this person is, so start there: **Have your daughter email them and see if they offer her an exemption.** She could write,
>
> Dear \_\_,
>
>
> I would like to request to extend my maximum period of study to tend to my personal health needs. How do I file this request?
>
>
>
Then if this departmental staff member reiterates the policy, she can respond,
>
> My health issues are of a sensitive nature and I would prefer to minimize the number of departmental staff involved. Is it possible to route this request through your desk only?
>
>
>
She should avoid giving specifics about her health conditions unless absolutely necessary.
**There is no guarantee that this will work, but you will not know unless you ask.** In the (not unlikely) event that her request is denied, you are left with one of the following two options.
2. Comply with the policy
=========================
This is obviously not your ideal outcome, and your concerns about gossip and social stigma are not completely farfetched. However, as <NAME> commented, unless you have prior evidence that this departmental office is prone to gossiping about sensitive student information, you might consider giving them the benefit of the doubt:
>
> Since they have time-consuming administrative roles, the chances that they'd teach your daughter are greatly reduced. And, most faculty would "bend over backwards" to be fair and unbiased. I obviously cannot promise this in any particular situation, but, in general, I'd anticipate that students who have documented-and-not-publicized issues (especially if part of the story includes documentation of dealing with it and/or treating/moderating it), will not be treated prejudicially. But/and, yes, not only documenting the issue, but documenting the treatment of it... (rather than ignoring it...)
>
>
>
If you would like some additional reassurance, your daughter could email the trusted administrator from option 1 and ask for more specifics about what measures they take to protect student confidentiality. But **be polite and avoid sounding like you are accusing them of mishandling student information before the fact.**
3. Seek legal counsel
=====================
For the majority of people, this is probably a prohibitively expensive move with little risk of success.
Nonetheless, if you **and your daughter** are of the deep conviction that this policy is unfair, and **you can afford it,** a lawyer (which I am not) may be able to show that this policy imposes an unfair burden on your daughter, or find past precedent for students in similar situations receiving an exemption.
(Note that "seek legal counsel" does not mean "sue the school" or "threaten to sue them." It means simply "consult with a legal professional about what to do next." A good lawyer would explore many options before filing a lawsuit.)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I am in the UK. I am a postgrad student, but I have experience teaching and seeing 'behind the scenes' of Uni organisation.
You have no idea how many hundreds of forms these three people will be seeing. Almost every student has one filled in at some time in their degree. The new UK student is a demanding consumer who expects all extenuating circumstances to be taken into account, and rightly so with the current cost of fees. But this means these staff members will be entirely used to reading extenuating circumstances on forms and pretty uninterested in remembering what is in the form!!
As a postgraduate student I had to fill in something I did not wish my supervisor to know about on a suspension form. The university policy for 'confidential circumstances' was to go in person and speak to the Faculty's Postgraduate Director. Read her University policies/ regulations and find what it says about how to deal with confidential reasons.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I am not sure that detailing medical conditions is needed. Potentially it is ok for the university to get a written statement from a doctor about her not being able to participate or execute other obligations as a student in the same intensity as planned or expected.
And BTW, i don't find your general attitude helpful for the whole matter. In personal experience Universities/Faculties/Professors are typically very understanding and helpful in making accommodations for students. I would think it would be better if you did not get involved personally in a communication with the university - that is not going to end well from that starting point of yours.
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/04/17
| 3,454
| 15,027
|
<issue_start>username_0: In undergrad, I did a double major in pure mathematics and linguistics. I ended up loving both fields, and wanting to pursue an academic career. The only problem is that I couldn't decide between them. There is certainly some overlap between the two fields, but not especially much, and this makes interdisciplinary work somewhat rarer and the choice between the two fields feel much more discrete. After a few years of thought, I started to feel like the only option that would really make me feel satisfied is to at least *try* to seriously pursue research in both fields, even if this project turns out to be a total failure. I have gotten cautions from just about every source telling me this is not very plausible, but I am somewhat dedicated to attempting it anyway, in at least some capacity.
After graduating, I applied to grad programs in both fields. I got into a PhD in linguistics at a top university, and better yet, it offered the chance to pursue some math-heavy research topics. I ended up accepting this offer after much deliberation (I made a post about it here a few days ago!) and it looks like that's where I'll be headed in the fall. However, I've been second guessing my choice, because I feel like there is more room for someone with a math background to find their way into linguistics research than vice-versa, and I am really deeply loath to give up on the possibility of doing any pure math research.
With all that said, I'm asking everyone here a very open-ended question: what steps would I go about taking to make this pipe dream a reality? Or at least, to approximate it as closely as possible within the constraints of time and institutional pathways? Any thoughts are appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: Warning: this answer is primarily just my opinion, based on my own experiences.
In general, if you're interested in doing research that consists of "applying mathematics to X", I believe it is almost always better to focus on studying mathematics first and X second. I will give two (certainly debatable!) reasons for this:
1. The most difficult part of understanding "mathematics applied to X" is almost always mathematics, not X. So getting a formal education in mathematics and then studying X on your own is more helpful than the reverse.
2. A mathematics degree is often more versatile, so if you don't find a job in the narrow subfield you hoped for, it is likely to provide you with more alternatives.
I received this same advice when I was considering options for graduate school, and in my experience it turned out to be correct (though it is impossible to know where the alternatives would have led). Of course, I may be biased as I am an applied mathematician.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I would be very wary of trying to pursue an academic career in two fields unless you can find a way to leverage both in some interdisciplinary way. The amount of work required in the current academic market (especially at the PhD and postdoc stage) simply doesn't allow you to split your efforts between two subjects, even with "exceptional dedication" - there are only so many hours in a day, and everyone around you will be exceptionally dedicated *as well as* fully focussed on one field.
However this needs not mean that you abandon one field. Things you can do:
1. Cultivate "consultant collaborations" - contacts with people in the other field whose work has interdisciplinary leanings but lacks the contribution of an expert. This would allow you to maintain a network and some academic footprint in the other field while you concentrate your primary research programme in a single field. I've seen this work well for statisticians, programmers, physicists (my own field was too far from linguistics so I don't have any direct experience in that direction)
2. Remain active in a non-academic role. I knew several biologists whose academic work had turned entirely molecular, but who kept their interest in ecology/nature (often the thing that had drawn them to biology in the first place) through involvement with environmental and conservation efforts. I still do some science outreach, although I've not done anything to do with the research I talk about in years.
3. Park it for a while and go back in a few years. One of the functions of a PhD is to allow you to sharpen your focus into a topic to the point that you can add something genuinely new to existing knowledge. Some degree of single-mindedness is part of the package. Past the PhD stage and especially once you start establishing your own research trajectory, identifying where novelty may lie becomes more important. At this point, having a few years of focus on your primary field under your belt, you can turn to your other field for inspiration.
4. Interdisciplinary work. I've kept this last because, although it's the obvious choice, I would only recommend it if you find the *actual interdisciplinary questions* interesting, rather than a way to keep sitting on the fence indefinitely. Otherwise you risk committing to work that is neither fish nor fowl and not quite satisfactory in two directions.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Why not apply to a computer science department and do research in natural language processing. This is math + linguistics, and you'll have plenty of options afterwards in either research or industry.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There certainly are *some* people who have made outstanding contributions in one area after having done a PhD in some other. For example, [Harish-Chandra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harish-Chandra) did his PhD in Physics and then went on to do outstanding research in Mathematics which is of some interest to Physicists as well. So there are exceptions to username_1's answer and you need not "give up" on the possibility of learning/doing Mathematics after joining a PhD programme in linguistics!
The principal difficulty is "keeping up" with Mathematics while doing a PhD in linguistics. Others (like username_2) have pointed out various ways of achieving this.
A juggling analogy may help you plan your approach. The first task with a ball that one learns is to throw one ball up and catch it. Most people stop at that point. However, some people learn to throw and catch two balls by keeping one in the air at all times. A yet smaller number manage with three, and so on. You are trying to be in the smaller set. It requires practice, but is, for many people, not impossible to achieve. You need to juggle life, linguistics and mathematics which should be possible once you gain some confidence with the first two!
Most active Mathematicians are aware that there are areas of mathematics that they will never be able to study properly. So, do not worry too much about the fact that you will not do graduate courses in Mathematics. There is no harm in picking one topic in Mathematics that particularly interests you and then following up on it. One of the big advantages of the way mathematics texts are written is that self-study is *possible*. You will, in addition, be at a good university. Thus:
* You will have access to a good library and good internet services.
* You *may* be able to get some help when you get "stuck" (as *does* happen to all of us!) from people on campus.
Be aware that there will be naysayers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I don’t have the reputation to upvote the other response or can’t put a comment on here, but someone I went to undergrad with did undergrad and master’s in linguistics than built a company around semantic search. I have no idea if he was a Ph.D student that dropped out. Then the company got sold to Microsoft and he became a mid/upper manager in Microsoft over several other data science projects.
I am also reminded of some science fiction (Asimov?) that described creating a way of rating language automatically to detect bias, misleading content or something like that. I would really like to be able to tell Facebook or Google to stop giving me search results or posts that represent highly political, fraudulent or controversial information. I want to see kittens and babies, not conspiracy theories.
Any system that quantifies language could potentially leverage math on the back end.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: I'm writing this from the perspective of ecology, which is a *very* interdisciplinary field, and with complete and total ignorance about linguistics, let alone how math plays into it.
In ecology, we have a lot of people whose research primarily entails taking existing tools and theorems and applying them to answer questions about different systems. But we also have a lot of people that do less applied work and more theoretical research (in general with the hope that their work will hopefully lead to new tools for the applied folks). I enjoy mathematics as well and have been involved in at least one project that took a fairly old mathematical topic that was basically unknown in my field and developed a whole new set of tools for ecologists based on it. Presumably, there are tons of other mathematical theorems unknown to ecologists just waiting to be applied in some way.
As a soon-to-be Ph.D. student, you're in a good position to do the same type of thing for linguistics; expanding the applications of mathematics for linguists. Now, that's not quite what you seem to be hoping for, which appears to be researching new mathematical theorems, but here's the thing, eventually you could end up in a situation where you start to hit the limits of the mathematical topics you've been applying. This means you could be in a situation where you have to start developing new mathematical theorems to answer new questions about linguistics (or maybe just improving on existing answers). It wouldn't be the first time mathematical theorems have been inspired by real-world questions.
Now, you're getting to do what you want, and you have whatever funding opportunities linguistics offers to back you. The caveat is that it may take a long time to reach this point. But, as I mentioned before, I'm also completely ignorant about linguistic research, so maybe this isn't as realistic as it may be for other fields.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: As a linguist with computational interests, I think that the possibilities before you are endless. There are many directions you could go in applying mathematics to language, both in the applied and theoretical realms.
Pace username_1's answer, I tend to think that linguistic expertise would run out before mathematical expertise would. That's because computational linguistics is still in its relative infancy. The math doesn't have to be very advanced before you'll find that no one has applied it to linguistic problems yet—or at least not in a compelling way.
(Now, if by doing computational linguistics one means applying a bunch of machine learning algorithms to data that happen to come from speech corpora, then yes, in that case mathematical ability might become the limiting factor.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: I think the answer to what graduate degree to pursue is down to whether you ultimately want to be a mathematician or a linguist -- what is the focus of your interest, the mathematics or the linguistics?
Yes, I am suggesting that **you will have to have a primary focus, a subject "hat", if you will, that determines the lens, perspective and methodology of your research, even when looking at the same research questions.**
I am a pure mathematician now, but I studied both theoretical physics and mathematics and for the longest time could not decide what to ultimately focus on. Now, these fields are (from what I can tell) much more closely interwoven than maths and linguistics, but even then, there is a pretty clear distinction between the mathematicians and the physicists interested in the same things (even though the mathematicians will know a lot of physics, and the physicists will know a lot of maths). The two communities interact quite frequently, but have different ways of thinking about problems and are often interested in different aspects of the same questions.
I became a pure mathematician (geometry, with some string theory inspiration) after my first year of PhD, and I think that is about the latest feasible time to make this switch (without "losing" time). Realistically, it is very hard to do mathematics research that is recognised as such by other mathematicians if this is not what you do full-time (as always, there are exceptions.)
And if you want to do pure maths research specifically, I do not think you will be able to do that if you are not fully in that field. (This may be less true in applied maths; I cannot really judge.)
Modern maths research is extremely specialised, and at the start of your career, you'll have a hard time getting up to speed in one area, let alone multiple at once.
In your PhD, you will (by the nature of how research works as a beginner) focus on a pretty specific question in a pretty limited area. Yes, you'll learn a lot of general things, but your research will be specialised. And how this specialisation looks will, I think, be very different depending on whether the project is set and supervised by a mathematician or a linguist, even if they ostensibly deal with the same subject matter.
People who make fundamental contributions to different areas of research usually do so later, broadening their expertise after having first specialised.
What you do not want to happen is that mathematicians think you're a linguist and linguists think you're a mathematician and ultimately neither field really engages with your research (or neither department/neither mentor feels you belong to them, as a student).
(This is advice I was given when I was choosing PhDs, and even though I did not listen to it right away, it became clear that it's a valid warning.)
**This all is not to say that you should abandon linguistics -- mathematics is not the ultimate abstract uber-science that everyone has to do.** There is obviously huge value in specialising in a different science that merely *uses* maths as a tool, rather than building the toolbox.
So maybe the question is: Do you primarily want to
* build new tools for a broadly applicable toolbox and try them out
a little on specific applications, or
* take tools and use them to
really get into the weeds of a science question, with the focus on
the question rather than the tool?
Ultimately, there is no one right career path, and every decision you make comes with the cost of of something else you do not do; that's simply how it is.
Practical considerations Re: funding & degree: Why don't you give the linguistics PhD a shot, if you do not have offers for funded maths PhDs? That way, you can see how you like it, think things over, and if next year you decide that you actually want to be a mathematician, you apply to maths grad school again?
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/17
| 943
| 3,999
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just want to make sure that I understand this issue correctly. My situation is that I developed a chapter of my master's thesis as a chapter in my PhD dissertation. It is a substantial revision but they do have some overlaps.
I did some research online about self-plagiarism. Here is something I find that is confusing:
(1) Many people say that if my dissertation includes part(s) of my master's thesis, I need to cite them correctly otherwise it would be self-plagiarism.
(2) I also see many people publish chapters of their phd or master's thesis as single articles directly without being criticized as self-plagiarism.
To me, this obviously shows that the reason why most people take case (1) to be self-plagiarism is **not** about copyright of the master's thesis. If it were about it, then the case (2) should have been self-plagiarism too.
The most reasonable conclusion for me seems that case (1) is not self-plagiarism, but something to avoid nevertheless. Because one wants the PhD dissertation to be something new and something representing one's doctoral research. But if so, I see no reason not to include a substantially revised chapter in my master's thesis in the dissertation, because the substantial revision represents my doctoral research (and my committee agrees).
Am I right? Is there anything I missed here? Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: The best answer to your question in your specific case is to check the guidelines for PhD examinations. In these rules, it is established what will be considered relevant for passing the PhD exam, which includes submitting a thesis. Every respectable university has these rules.
If you cite parts of your Masters thesis, clearly state where you do so.
Some universities allow cumulative theses, so plagiarism is explicitly 'allowed' for them. Some only allow a monograph, where plagiarism is explicitly forbitten, i.e. direct copy pasting. In the latter case, you are still (often) allowed to use your published results, if you rewrite everything and present it in a flow in the monograph.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: In most systems, you can't submit the same work for two different degrees/exams. You should cite your MA thesis and develop new research that builds upon it and goes beyond it.
You'll have to check with your home institution for the exact rules that apply to you but you need to be doing NEW research for your PhD.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: As others have said, it really does depend on the policies at your institution and where you earned the master's vs where you are completing the PhD. My understanding is that we're typically allowed to include revised versions of our theses and relevant graduate course work from the PhD granting institution in the dissertation. You wouldn't need to cite it unless it has been published (see below). These can be thought of as early drafts of ideas that eventually made it into a dissertation chapter. If you earned the degree elsewhere, there's a pretty good chance it made it into a searchable database, so you can't copy and paste. If you are substantially revising the thesis and turning it into a single chapter, then I would add a foot note that says an earlier version of the chapter was submitted as a master's thesis and cite it. Same if the dissertation is a series of published articles. Just note where they were published, cite, and move on. You probably don't need to cite individual page numbers unless you want to do some commentary on where the content has changed substantially.
I should note that, if you are very early on in your PhD, there's a pretty good chance the submitted dissertation will have none of your master's work. I have 2 masters with 2 theses, and I originally intended to include substantial parts of include both in the dissertation. By the end, the writing style and the ideas were so under developed compared to my more recent work that they had to be dropped.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/17
| 1,682
| 7,416
|
<issue_start>username_0: During the 50s, 60s, 70s there was pretty intense cross disciplinary work between physics and engineering departments and industry with a focus on the US arms industry. This appears to almost have completely stopped among physic departments and a lot of them have shifted into increasingly esoteric and less applied areas.
What caused this pivot? As a whole it appears only engineering departments are really working on applied areas anymore.<issue_comment>username_1: The cold war started shortly after WW-II. The moon/space race then also began (Sputnik - 1957). Doctoral students in STEM fields were able to get full fellowships for doctoral study (as I did). Undergraduates could get very favorable student loans that were forgiven for those that went into teaching (also myself). That all ended in the very early 70's after we beat the "Ruskies" to the moon in 1969. I don't think Physics was special, but it *was* rocket science for quite a long time.
The academic marketplace also fell apart between 1970 and 1972.
But the arms industry has always lobbied heavily and successfully for government funding.
Additionally, in that same period, the US economy was very good so funds were readily available. Lots of factors.
Why it mostly went away is a different story, but there is a tendency to succumb to the fallacy of the last move. After a seeming win, people think that the "other side" has no more moves, so attention shifts elsewhere. That has been a blunder performed throughout history. After COVID seems to go away we lose focus and forget that another pandemic might easily occur at any time, so medical research starts to lose money...
Same old, same old.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The premise is incorrect. Applied research is widespread in physics departments.
Physics departments do not research radar, aerodynamics, nuclear weapons, and so forth because their involvement in that research is not necessary anymore. They work on new applied stuff that's more relevant to their capabilities.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think one can object to the question in many different ways, and here are several:
*1.* You say "a lot of [departments] have shifted into increasingly esoteric and less applied areas". In some sense, physics has never been about applied research -- the wikipedia definition of physics reads as follows:
>
> Physics is the natural science that studies matter, its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force. Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines, with its main goal being to understand how the universe behaves.
>
>
>
And that has always been true: Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg, and nearly every other titan of physics you could name from the time before the 1950s was interested in *fundamental* questions and not nearly as much in applications. You can call these esoteric, but they go back a very long time -- particle physics as we know it started in the late 1800s after all.
*2.* There was a time when physics departments shifted to *also* include research in astronomy, astrophysics, materials sciences, and a number of other disciplines. Then people realized that that is not a great fit given the philosophical origins of physics (as outlined in the quote above) and they split the department. So many universities today have physics departments that investigate, well, physics. And then they have astronomy or astrophysics departments, and they have (typically quite large) materials sciences departments. But nearly every physics department will have a sizable number of people who do fundamental work on the characterization and development of solid state matter, and it's really not very useful to say that that is not applied in some sense: for example, numerous physicists have gotten Nobel prizes for work on lasers, and numerous more for work on materials with specific electric, thermal, magnetic properties or their interaction. When they did this work, it was all about fundamental properties, but it turned out to be very applicable. Nearly every one of your electronic devices around you will have a dozen of these materials built into them somewhere. It would not have happened without solid state physics researchers in physics departments.
*3.* Many researchers, in many departments, work across disciplines. There continue to be connections between physics departments and engineering departments that turn on the idea that many fundamental properties discovered about matter happen to have practical applications (see above). It is simply not true that the connections between physics departments and engineering departments no longer exist. It may be true that these collaborations today revolve less around national defense topics, but that's because (i) national defense today knows most of what it needs to know about the materials it used (which wasn't the case with nuclear bombs for several decades), (ii) national security in the US today revolves a lot more around making sure that we continue to be technologically superior, and this is furthered by materials sciences more than knowing about the properties of Plutonium that we don't already know to 3 digits of accuracy.
*4.* It is simply false that departments are not involved in defense research. There continues to be a lot of research about materials that have weapons applications (think, for example, thermal shielding, radiation hardness, ...). A large number of physicists are also involved in experiments such as the National Ignition Facility, which is and has always been primarily a national defense facility built with the goal of investigating ways to build nuclear weapons without actually testing them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Another factor is that universities tend to be much bigger now than they were in the 1950s. With size comes more departments. It's impractical to have 100 departments each with 3 professors, but it's much more practical to have 100 departments each with 10 professors. This means that, in the 1950s, many universities did not have the array of engineering departments they have today. Even a large university in the 1950s would have had a civil engineering department and a mechanical engineering department and maybe an electrical engineering department, but they probably didn't have materials science or industrial engineering or any of the other more specialized engineering disciplines. Moreover, many of the older engineering departments still came from a 19th century way of doing engineering that ignored physics and calculation (even basic Newtonian mechanics) in favor of just testing models until they broke and adding 10% for a safety margin.
As a result, many of the people who would be found in, for example, a materials science department today had to choose between being in a civil engineering department or a physics department, and they found the physics department a better fit. This means you had people who were considered physicists back then but would be considered engineers now doing applied research.
What's changed is not that physicists stopped doing applied research, but rather that the people doing applied research stopped being called physicists as new names for what they were doing emerged.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/18
| 2,087
| 8,360
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've posted a few questions here in the past couple of days regarding grad school decisions; apologies for asking so many! It's a big decision and I want to do it right, but I don't want to bombard this forum with too many nitpicky questions. This should be the last one! The previous two are [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/184278/deciding-between-a-pure-math-grad-program-and-linguistics-grad-program-with-pot) and [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/184331/working-towards-an-academic-career-that-lets-me-do-research-in-two-largely-unc), if you want additional context for this.
The gist of it is: I did my undergrad major in math and linguistics, and I'm looking to pursue research at the intersection of the two fields. For various reasons, it seems the optimal path is to come at this largely from the math side rather than the linguistics side. So I applied to grad programs in both fields, hoping to get into a math PhD. Instead, I got in to a few math Masters programs (at respectable, though not top-ranked, schools) and a linguistics PhD program at a top school. The PhD program also seems like it will offer me the chance to take some math classes along the way, and to pursue some generally math-heavy research topics. This, along with the fact that the degree is fully funded, made it very attractive, and I ended up selecting this school on the April 15 deadline.
However, now I am having some regrets. I feel like choose a math program would have given me much greater flexibility, and perhaps afforded me the chance to research other math topics that I really like (e.g. knot theory) that don't have much to do with linguistics. I am fearful that, by choosing this linguistics degree, I may have locked myself out of ever touching certain areas of math, whereas choosing a math school would given me the option to work on applied problems in linguistics *and* pure math problems, eventually in my career. I also heard something to this effect directly from a former professor of mine, and with this in mind I am having some serious regrets.
However, I see one option (though I'm not sure I really want to take it, but I at least want to consider it): perhaps, since it is still the weekend, I can contact one of the math programs whose offer I declined and let them know I have changed my mind, and see if they still have a spot for me. I am not sure if this would be the right decision, and even if it was it feels like a long-shot, but perhaps it's the right gamble to take. Apparently, [others here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/67162/i-regret-declining-a-really-good-phd-offer-can-i-ask-if-i-can-accept-the-offer) have considered similar questions before, but their situation seems different enough from mine that I think posting my own question is probably warranted.
My main concern is that, because I've already accepted the offer to the linguistics program, contacting one of the math programs in this way would be against the rules (I am not totally sure?) and could get me rejected from *both* for some kind of ethics violation. I would really not want this to happen, so I want to double- and triple-check before I even consider this. It is worth noting that both of these programs are part of the same state university system (this is in the U.S.), and so I fear that contacting one would quickly get back to the other and possible hurt my reputation there.
Does anyone have any advice on what to do?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> [this] would be against the rules (I am not totally sure?) and could get me rejected from both for some kind of ethics violation.
>
>
>
The current version of [the "rules"](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/175466/79875) only require you to *inform* your linguistics department if you decide to renege on your promise to attend. You don't even need their permission.
>
> see if they still have a spot for me...I fear that contacting one would quickly get back to the other and possible hurt my reputation there.
>
>
>
You should only do this if you have definitely decided to change your mind. Telling the math department that you want your offer back, only to reject it again, would be sub-optimal. And telling them that you *may* want your offer back does not make much sense.
But if you have actually changed your mind and definitely would accept an offer from the math department, then all the advice from [the question you linked](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/67162/i-regret-declining-a-really-good-phd-offer-can-i-ask-if-i-can-accept-the-offer) applies -- namely, the decision could go either way, probably depending on how many students accepted their offers before the deadline, relative to their target number. If your math department knows about your commitment to the linguistics department, it does not seem impossible that they would seek an OK from your linguistics department before extending you another offer - all the more reason to be sure before you ask for your offer to be reinstated.
As for your reputation: it's true that wishy-washiness and reneging on commitments may hurt your reputation, but it's also very understandable this early in your career. I seriously doubt it will do any real damage.
>
> Does anyone have any advice on what to do?
>
>
>
I'm neither a mathematician nor a linguist, but for what it's worth...I think you made the right decision already. Accepting an unfunded offer is usually a mistake. The linguistics program will probably be happy to let you pursue as much math as you want (whereas the math program may limit your time devoted to linguistics). The thought that "once you know the math, the application domain is trivial" is not always true ([relevant XKCD](https://xkcd.com/1831/)). You may find that working with math, linguistics, and computers will give more career options post-PhD than pure math. And finally, the fact that you've already made this decision and chose the linguistics program is an important data point...it's a good rule of thumb to never reverse a done decision unless you have a really solid understanding why that decision was incorrect.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **I think your best option is to stay put**
Adding to username_1's excellent answer - I think your best bet is to stay put. It sounds like you're a good fit for your current program. I think what you're experience is somewhat common, and normal - just don't act on it. There is a good chance your fears will calm themselves.
You've just been through months of extra studying for the GRE, getting great letters of recommendations, and crafting great applications to the schools you choose. You spent hours or days researching the schools, weighing where you'd be happy to spend the next several years of your life there.
You've spent months with what-if scenarios and day-dreams about what life would be like at each school. Since you accepted the offer, all those vague what-ifs are being replaced by concrete things. Some of which are not as good as the fantasy that came before. **That's normal**.
**The reality is you will never have enough time to pursue every interest you have**. The good news - you found a program that lets you focus on 2 very different fields.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: (Disclaimer - I did not do my PhD in the US, so maybe there is something that makes my suggestion harder in the US, but here goes:)
I think that you cannot fully know if a PhD program is right for you before you have actually tried it -- in either direction. Since you have obtained and accepted this very good place with funding, why not give it a go and see how you like it? As a student, it first feels like a catastrophe if it turns out that you didn't make the right choice for your PhD (speaking from experience), but that can happen to anyone, regardless of how certain they are beforehand, *and it does not have to be a final choice.*
*If*, next year, you find that the linguistics degree is not what you want to do, why not re-apply for maths PhDs then and see if you can get a good funded place at that point?
It sounds like there's a good chance that you'll love this program and will never think about changing, but if you do want to change later, you can still do it at that point.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/18
| 1,404
| 5,968
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my third year of PhD but I started to lose focus. I now focus on other stuff such as learning to code and watching video tutorials on other stuff not related to my PhD. How can I focus on PhD and leave those?<issue_comment>username_1: You must understand that completing your PhD is the main priority.
1. One way to discipline yourself is to do some of your work in a library where you have no access to those distractions.
2. Set yourself daily targets and be consistent.
Have a daily routine and be consistent with it.
3. I found working amongst other PhDs was a real boost and helped me retain focus.
4. Sometimes, just taking a break and going away for a few days just helps you to regain your momentum.
It can be difficult if you're also trying to secure a job in industry especially in your final year-a balance needs to be struck. If you're really struggling, speak to your advisor.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There are a couple of possible reasons for your situation - maybe more. How you "fix" it depends on the nature of the problem, not the symptom. But all solutions probably involve other people.
If you are just bored, then you need to talk to your advisor to see how you can "juice" your research.
If you are dissatisfied with your topic then you need to give thought to whether you are in the right place with the right advisor.
If you are burned out (as is pretty common) then you need to find a way to clear your mind for some period(s) of time. I found cycling and other such physical activities to be an excellent way to "relax" so that I could focus better. Get a couple of people together for some joint activity that doesn't involve staring at screens but does get the blood flowing to your brain.
If you are actually depressed (I think that is hard to self diagnose) then you need to talk to a health professional to get yourself to a better place. Since it is hard to self diagnose it is probably worth scheduling an appointment to talk over your life situation. Being overly isolated in your life can have similar issues. Many universities provide a counseling department that can help or connect you with a health professional.
To "focus" on your degree doesn't mean 24/7. Attempting that can make you seriously crazy. Work toward a balanced life. And, IMO, aerobic exercise should be part of that.
Personal note: I went through burn-out and lost performance and focus. Changing universities and doing more aerobic things made a world of difference. Talking to a counsellor helped me see some things about myself that I didn't recognize. Any/all of these or other factors can hold you back.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Neither other answer very clearly mentions the *revealed preferences* angle: one possibility for why you find yourself spending your time learning to code is that you are just more interested in coding, lately, than in your research. In particular, since learning to code is reasonably intellectually difficult, if you're making serious progress in it it's likely that you're not severely burnt out. Anyway, one option worth at least considering is whether it's really your Ph.D. that you want to focus on, rather than simply learning to code and getting a job in software. As has already been said, your Ph.D. is for *you*; if you would now prefer to do something else, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you're not shying away from something you truly do want to do out of, say, fear of the challenge.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There is no easy way to answer this question. Every person has their own reasons and causes for procrastination and no one can recommend a universal answer that is applicable to every situation. But as someone who has been there\* here are some general advice:
* Go easy on yourself. You might not feel as ambitious and productive as you were at the beginning and... that is okay. Most people feel this way after spending some time on a certain topic and it doesn't mean they are loosing control over their lives. One of the main causes of procrastination is the stress itself. And the irony is, it also leads to more stress which ends up in a positive feedback loop. So the moral of the story is: *Avoid stress*! (yes, that's easier said than done)
* Take a break. Sometimes procrastination is due to exhaustion. When you are working fruitlessly on something for so long, your brain feels trapped and seeks some kind of escape by forcing you to focus on something else. Although procrastination is itself a kind of break(!) but by taking a break I mean doing something that you feel having total control over it, and absolutely enjoy doing.
* Avoid being alone. It is much easier to avoid procrastination when you are doing teamwork and sharing your results and ideas with others. Even if you are doing a solo project, having some friends around and talking to them about what you are doing is often a great help.
* Divide and conquer. Our brain needs dopamine for its functioning. The problem with big and lengthy jobs such as getting a PhD is, their award and the resulting dopamine release will be granted much later. So in the short term, the brain seeks tiny doses of the damn hormone by forcing the focus on short-term goals, i.e. distractions. One hack to avoid this is to cut the big job into smaller pieces and rewarding yourself after finishing each piece.
* If you tried all you could and still feel the stress and observe a decline in your productivity, trapped inside a downward spiral of procrastination, seek professional help as fast as possible. Talk to a professional therapist or maybe talk to your professor. Most of them will know how you feel and hopefully, help you along the way to recovery.
Good luck and Godspeed!
\* In fact, I would go as far to say that this is a universal phenomenon during the PhD years and it's really hard to find someone who hasn't experienced it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/08
| 1,458
| 6,217
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an early-career academic in economics/social science trying to keep on top of things. In my previous professional life, I have kept an RSS feed, but I have a hard time finding good ways of doing that. Many more articles are published than I have the time to read because of my interdisciplinary research interests, and I want to know more about some strategies to keeping up to date with what's talked about, what's popular, and such. Any tips appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: You must understand that completing your PhD is the main priority.
1. One way to discipline yourself is to do some of your work in a library where you have no access to those distractions.
2. Set yourself daily targets and be consistent.
Have a daily routine and be consistent with it.
3. I found working amongst other PhDs was a real boost and helped me retain focus.
4. Sometimes, just taking a break and going away for a few days just helps you to regain your momentum.
It can be difficult if you're also trying to secure a job in industry especially in your final year-a balance needs to be struck. If you're really struggling, speak to your advisor.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There are a couple of possible reasons for your situation - maybe more. How you "fix" it depends on the nature of the problem, not the symptom. But all solutions probably involve other people.
If you are just bored, then you need to talk to your advisor to see how you can "juice" your research.
If you are dissatisfied with your topic then you need to give thought to whether you are in the right place with the right advisor.
If you are burned out (as is pretty common) then you need to find a way to clear your mind for some period(s) of time. I found cycling and other such physical activities to be an excellent way to "relax" so that I could focus better. Get a couple of people together for some joint activity that doesn't involve staring at screens but does get the blood flowing to your brain.
If you are actually depressed (I think that is hard to self diagnose) then you need to talk to a health professional to get yourself to a better place. Since it is hard to self diagnose it is probably worth scheduling an appointment to talk over your life situation. Being overly isolated in your life can have similar issues. Many universities provide a counseling department that can help or connect you with a health professional.
To "focus" on your degree doesn't mean 24/7. Attempting that can make you seriously crazy. Work toward a balanced life. And, IMO, aerobic exercise should be part of that.
Personal note: I went through burn-out and lost performance and focus. Changing universities and doing more aerobic things made a world of difference. Talking to a counsellor helped me see some things about myself that I didn't recognize. Any/all of these or other factors can hold you back.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Neither other answer very clearly mentions the *revealed preferences* angle: one possibility for why you find yourself spending your time learning to code is that you are just more interested in coding, lately, than in your research. In particular, since learning to code is reasonably intellectually difficult, if you're making serious progress in it it's likely that you're not severely burnt out. Anyway, one option worth at least considering is whether it's really your Ph.D. that you want to focus on, rather than simply learning to code and getting a job in software. As has already been said, your Ph.D. is for *you*; if you would now prefer to do something else, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you're not shying away from something you truly do want to do out of, say, fear of the challenge.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There is no easy way to answer this question. Every person has their own reasons and causes for procrastination and no one can recommend a universal answer that is applicable to every situation. But as someone who has been there\* here are some general advice:
* Go easy on yourself. You might not feel as ambitious and productive as you were at the beginning and... that is okay. Most people feel this way after spending some time on a certain topic and it doesn't mean they are loosing control over their lives. One of the main causes of procrastination is the stress itself. And the irony is, it also leads to more stress which ends up in a positive feedback loop. So the moral of the story is: *Avoid stress*! (yes, that's easier said than done)
* Take a break. Sometimes procrastination is due to exhaustion. When you are working fruitlessly on something for so long, your brain feels trapped and seeks some kind of escape by forcing you to focus on something else. Although procrastination is itself a kind of break(!) but by taking a break I mean doing something that you feel having total control over it, and absolutely enjoy doing.
* Avoid being alone. It is much easier to avoid procrastination when you are doing teamwork and sharing your results and ideas with others. Even if you are doing a solo project, having some friends around and talking to them about what you are doing is often a great help.
* Divide and conquer. Our brain needs dopamine for its functioning. The problem with big and lengthy jobs such as getting a PhD is, their award and the resulting dopamine release will be granted much later. So in the short term, the brain seeks tiny doses of the damn hormone by forcing the focus on short-term goals, i.e. distractions. One hack to avoid this is to cut the big job into smaller pieces and rewarding yourself after finishing each piece.
* If you tried all you could and still feel the stress and observe a decline in your productivity, trapped inside a downward spiral of procrastination, seek professional help as fast as possible. Talk to a professional therapist or maybe talk to your professor. Most of them will know how you feel and hopefully, help you along the way to recovery.
Good luck and Godspeed!
\* In fact, I would go as far to say that this is a universal phenomenon during the PhD years and it's really hard to find someone who hasn't experienced it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/19
| 1,148
| 4,658
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Background:** I am a junior undergrad math major in India, and I am taking a graduate-level math course this semester for which attendance is mandatory. This is the last week of instruction (i.e., Friday is the last working day of the semester), and it is immediately followed by endterm exams (starting Saturday itself). One of my professors wishes to take certain classes and meet for presentations (by students), after dinner time. This is quite unusual, keeping in mind that the official university timetable does not have any lecture slots after 20:00. Regardless, I do not mind it, as long as the classes/presentations do not run for too long. We plan to meet at 20:00/20:30, and it's no trouble if the classes end by 22:30, or even 23:00, in the worst case. I am an early sleeper, I have faced certain sleep issues in the past, and I strongly do not prefer late night classes, i.e., ones that may run beyond 22:30 for example.
**Question:** How can I communicate my concerns and politely request the professor to perhaps ensure (i) some upper bound on the classes/presentation time, (ii) that I do not have to stay too late, or (iii) find some other time, earlier in the day? It seems like a reasonable ask since the class timings are abnormal, and later than usual. I would prefer not to play around much with my sleep schedule, especially since finals are starting soon.
**Update:** Thank you everyone for your advice! I voiced my concerns firmly to the instructor and requested a different, possibly earlier time slot. With consent from other students in the course, we were able to figure out a time in the afternoon/early evening for the final presentations! It's a win.<issue_comment>username_1: You just have to ask, but you probably can't affect the schedule since the professor has other constraints. But you could ask to make your own presentation early in the time period or at some alternate time, giving the reasons.
They might make an accommodation or not. But your ask is probably reasonable as long as you don't make it a complaint or try to move the entire session.
If the presentations are by groups, not individuals, you might even be able to request an excused absence, offering to make it up, *somehow* at some other time.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Not sure about India, but in the US and other countries I have experience with, a professor cannot schedule mandatory class meetings at a time that contravenes the normal university policy about when classes can be scheduled. If this also applies in India, then you do not need to *request* anything, only to *inform*. For example, by writing an email like this:
>
> Dear Professor,
>
>
> I am looking forward to our presentation session this Friday at 20:00. I wanted to let you know however that I will have to leave at 22:00.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> connected-subgroup
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: With the cultural context & geography in mind, I suggest you determine how important this issue is to you. Is it the hill you choose to die upon (something you stand by, irrespective of the cost), a minor inconvenience, or something in between.
If it is minor, I agree with @Arriel that you should try to put up with it. The instructor is probably operating under some time constraints and this may be the only available slot.
If the inconvenience is severe, please speak to the instructor and try to work out a mutually accommodative solution. If others are in the same boat, you will have a stronger case. Conversely, if most of the class enjoys this time, then you may consider evaluating what makes your requirement different from theirs- this could also help articulate your case clearly.
I have been part of similarly scheduled activities, and found them to be more common in residential universities (the logistics of off-normal classes are simpler here). My impression is that these are the only ways long activities (longer than a lecture hour) can be accommodated. The presentation model you describe- where other students are required to attend and critique- is one such. Personally, I (and most others, if I remember right) found these rather enjoyable and relaxed (partly because the instructors were generous with coffee and snacks). This may also be because the focus of the activity was different than a usual lecture; paper discussions at times, seminars at others, applied tutorials occassionally.
You may have an entirely different experience; if you feel strongly against it, do communicate with the instructor amicably. Don't escalate unless you've done this.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/19
| 1,210
| 4,948
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD scholar in mathematics, in particular number theory. Recently one of my research papers was published in a journal. This was the 4th revised version. All the 4 versions can be found in arxiv. The previous 3 versions had some major mistakes. However I have made it accurate in the 4th revision making it vastly different than the previous 3 versions, and which finally passed through peer review process and is now published.
The one thing I am worried about: Suppose someone tracks that paper in arxiv and found that it had 4 versions before publication.
Would it make a negative impact on my research or it is normal in research ?<issue_comment>username_1: It would not make a negative impact on your research (how could be?) and it would not make a negative impact on your reputation.
From how you describe the work, however, it seems like you would need to find better collaborators, or to look for more internal reviews from peers, since 3 major mistakes in the same paper hints at the fact that the paper was not ready to go public in first place (in my opinion).
But then, arxiv may be used exactly for that, to have a blind peer review, so I do not see the issue with the history of your paper.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It is not uncommon for manuscripts to change significantly during the review process --- this is what peer review is for! In my experience, having 4 rounds of review is a bit excessive --- typically most major errors should've been spotted pre-submission by the authors, or, when the main author is an early career researcher, by their supervisor. If major errors make it into the submitted version, it often leads to rejection of the manuscript, to encourage the authors to check their work rather than to lean on reviewers. If this is ensured, minor inaccuracies can be caught during the 1st and 2nd review.
Having said that, ultimately what matters is that you have successfully published a paper. You have surely learnt a lot about research through this process, which is the goal of your PhD project. Hopefully, your subsequent papers will be accepted easier and with fewer revision cycles. Good luck!
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I am also a PhD student in a number-theory adjacent field.
I don't think most people look at old arxiv versions except by mistake. There are many other reasons for there to be multiple versions. For example, one might revise the paper before submitting it to a journal, and then post an updated version to the arxiv with those changes, and then do the same to the refereed text (most journals allow this). There is also no particular shame in a young person posting mistakes to the arxiv, especially if they turn out to be salvageable as yours seem to have been. If these mistakes were caught by people reading the arxiv preprint, then the arxiv is doing one of its jobs. If you caught them yourself, it's probably a hint that in future, you should wait a bit longer to post things.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Would it make a negative impact on my research...(?)
>
>
>
Most/all answers say no. However in a competitive situation (be it healthy competition or nasty) it could still be brought up at some point - and when you might least expect it or be prepared to respond.
You might be giving a colloquium or a talk as part of an application for a position or funding, there will be questions, and someone may ask in a very polite way
>
> Your results are fascinating! We can see from arXiv that your route getting there was equally fascinating, can you share some of that with us?
>
>
>
Have an answer in mind! Have a prepared response, so if the question ever arises, be it over tea or coffee or in a very exposed setting, you can respond without skipping a beat.
Make it an interesting story. Bring your listeners along for the ride. If it's necessary to mention a mistake, make the mistake sound *interesting and delightful!*
Everybody makes mistakes, but we often forget ours when thinking about others'. When you bring them along in your recounting it's more likely to remind them of their own (somewhat) similar experiences.
**Do not volunteer this on your own.** But have this ready if it ever does come up, no matter how likely.
>
> ...or it is normal in research?
>
>
>
It's not *typical* but what is/isn't "normal" isn't really a concern. I don't think it's a [six-sigma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma) event.
As other answers indicate, that part doesn't matter. There's no "normal" in research.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: It's completely normal. Almost all manuscripts go through multiple rounds of revision (even rejection) before getting published; it's pretty much unheard of for a paper to get published as-is with no revision whatsoever. No reasonable academic would judge you poorly for having gone through revisions.
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/19
| 963
| 3,817
|
<issue_start>username_0: Before I start, I should mention that the closest thing I found here was [this post](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29670/are-academics-more-tolerant-of-biological-and-philosophical-differences/115500#115500), but the comments say something I really want to avoid, which is to sound like a [political ideology here]-nut.
---
I am enrolled in a undergrad degree in Brazil called "*Comunicação e Marketing*, which I believe translates to *Communications and Marketing*. In any case, this degree focus mostly on the marketing side, but we still have to learn some theory first. I love it, but I feel like I'm having some issues at the moment.
* I have been told both by my professors but also by people in Humanities that we're basically being critical all the time about what happens in society. Right now we're talking about the impact of mass media on society in class, with positive and negative examples.
* Whenever I try to study something within this field but not mentioned in class, usually more "recent" things, I'm bombarded with terms like "decolonize this and that", "Global South", and something related to Chomsky's work.
My question is **how to approach certain topics from a certain POV that denies what the professor is saying?**
Whenever I want to give a counter-point to what is shown in class, I have a hard time finding academic sources that aren't totally wack or associated with the far-right. I rely mostly on what I have experienced or seen people talk, rather than quoting a theorist in this field (or adjacent fields like sociology). I'm not sure if this 100% frowned upon, not recommended, or I should be more careful when doing it.
Are there better ways to search for content in the Humanities? I pretty much just use Google or use some of the references on Wikipedia to see if I find anything useful.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I want to give a counter-point to what is shown in class, I have a
> hard time finding academic sources that aren't totally wack or
> associated with the far-right.
>
>
>
You are probably trying to confute some theory, simply by looking hard into "errors" of the theory.
It is not the way science works. New idea replaces old ideas because new ideas explain some phenomena better (or correctly) than the old ones, but no one is going to *fight* ideas. Galileo didn't start to burn Ptolemaic books.
Let's take your "topic": surely Chomsky or whomever is going against some Adam Smith theory. Well, either you look for the original citation of Smith, follow the citation chain until you get to some recent academic work expanding on Smith work, or you look hard into contradicting Chomsky and you end up with far-right crap (similarly, if you try hard to contradict Smith and following works, you end up finding a lot of far-left crap misquoting Chomsky).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Whenever I want to give a counter-point to what is shown in class, I have a hard time finding academic sources that aren't totally wack or associated with the far-right.
>
>
>
That's because you are committing a basic and fundamental error. You have a preconceived opinion, and you are looking for sources to corroborate it. This isn't being "contrarian." This is a textbook example of confirmation bias.
**Your method should be the reverse.** You should first read the literature, analyze and compare texts, and only then form your opinion based on what you have read. You will then naturally have a body of texts to support your opinion, because your opinion will have been formed based on these texts, not the reverse. Who knows, you might even learn a thing or two, instead of assuming you know better than all your teachers from the outset and trying to prove them wrong.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2022/04/19
| 896
| 4,153
|
<issue_start>username_0: I already have an MSc from outside the EU. But, I also have an incomplete CS degree from Poland which I dropped out of.
Polish Ph.D. schools ask for a CV, not "*all the transcript from all the attended programs*" as they ask in North America.
Therefore, can I skip the information regarding my incomplete degree program(s)?
What is the regulation on this in Poland?<issue_comment>username_1: If you are ever unsure about anything you need to share, I highly recommend reaching out to the admissions people or the professor you are applying to work with themselves, it is better to ask "too many" questions than get in trouble for accidental academic fraud!
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think there are many ways to approach this particular situation.
Firstly, I don't necessarily think that the fact that you dropped out of a degree program will be perceive negatively. Personally I always feel most confident about applications when I feel like I have been completely open about my experiences and skills. There is likely a very good reason why you dropped out of your degree program that will not reflect poorly upon you, especially considering you have already attained an MSc degree which demonstrates you are intelligent and capable of completing projects and meeting deadlines. I also think that including the fact that you withdrew from a degree program could be seen positively. First of all, you likely gained valuable experience during that year, both professionally and in an educational sense. Even though you many not have completed the program you still gained a years worth of knowledge. Additionally, the fact that you withdrew from the program indicates that you either: 1) recognized that program was not a good fit for your interests or skillset; or 2) recognized that you didn't have the time, resources, etc... to fully commit to the degree at that point. I think both of these situations reflect positively on you as someone who can make good decisions and adapt to changing circumstances. I would recommend including the information about the degree program in you CV. You could write something like:
Computer Science Program
University of ???
(1 year - 2019-2020)
In this way you clearly state the dates you were part of this program and do not state that you completed a full degree. This is an excellent way to showcase that you have some CS skills and be honest about your educational background. If the committee is interested in why you left the program you can always provide more information later but I doubt it will come up as a red flag during your CV review and will likely look better than you having a year missing from your CV history.
If you really don't want to include the information about the CS program on your CV I don't think it is unethical to exclude it from your CV as long as they do not specify anywhere on the application posting that you must include all educational institutions attended. If the CS degree is completely irrelevant to the work you are planning to do now it is acceptable to remove that information from your CV. Often times people will pursue unrelated education and career paths for a few years that are not relevant to include on a CV for their new chosen profession. For example, if you worked in tourism for several years but now work as a biologist is is likely not relevant to include work and education experiences from tourism related past experiences. It would be advisable to remove those unrelated experiences from your CV. If you feel the year in the CS degree program is completely irrelevant to your current application I believe it is perfectly acceptable to remove it from your CV. However, if this leaves a gap in your CV the admissions committee may ask about the year gap and you can simply explain that you pursued a unrelated CS degree during that time.
I hope this is helpful. Personally I wouldn't worry too much about excluding the CS degree, I think this is a useful skill even though you didn't complete the entire program but either way I doubt it will be a big issue for the admissions committee.
Upvotes: 0
|
2022/04/19
| 2,866
| 12,245
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a question about how to organize a paper, and completely disagree with the way my advisor wants it done. The field is operations research, and involves mostly a bunch of mathematical theorems. For the purpose of this discussion, say there are two sections: Preliminaries and Results -- the former establishes some basic theorems and properties of certain functions which are then used in the results section. The conclusion of the Results section is how to solve certain optimization problems.
There are also two natural cases of the problem, call them Easy and Hard, that we should look at (i.e., any reader would be confused if one case was covered and the other wasn't). Most of the content, but not all, in "preliminary Results" and "Results" is considerably simpler for the Easy problem, and a bit more complicated for the Hard problem. But, they admit a more-or-less unified treatment, with much (but not all) of the Easy problem being a special case of the Hard problem.
The way I have organized this paper is to discuss both cases together -- in Preliminaries I discuss the Easy and Hard problems and show how they are unified, as well as providing separate statements / proofs for the preliminary theorems. Then, in the Results section, I provide one statement that solves both the Easy and the Hard problem together. There is also a bunch of statements about how to interpret some results which say things like "in the Easy case, we have the result A, but in the Hard case, it is similar to A, but for this slight difference". The organization in this way makes sense to me because the reader can have in mind both examples in their mind, see how they are unified together, get the complete picture. It also leads to a shorter paper.
However, my advisor believes that I should ignore the Hard Problem in both the Preliminaries and Results section, giving only the Easy results. Then, add another section, The Hard Problem (say), and show how everything can be extended into this case. I see some merit in doing this, as (most) things are a bit easier for the Easy case. However, shouldn't like ideas be considered together? With this organization, you basically need to read the paper twice, once for each case. As well, I feel like my advisor is telling me to write the paper as if the reader is some fool that knows nothing of the field and can't manage to understand both examples at once.
Any general advice for what may constitute a preferable organization for such a case?<issue_comment>username_1: Summarizing the comments so far, with which I agree:
Your advisor is right. Be as kind as possible to your readers - you will get more of them that way. The experts will not think you are treating them as fools. Tell them all about the easy problem. If they're interested enough they will read on to the extension.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm under the impression that your perspective is influenced by a number of misconceptions which are very common for mathematicians writing their first papers.
So I'll try to clarify those misconceptions in what follows.
(My apologies in case I am sometimes a bit too blunt - but I think it is important that somebody makes you aware of these points.)
>
> I feel like my advisor is telling me to write the paper as if the reader is some fool that knows nothing of the field
>
>
>
I think you might be overestimating the abilities of your readers:
You have been dealing with the subject of your paper for probably quite some time and in a lot of detail. In this situation it is easy to get the impression that everybody else understands everything in your paper just as easily and clearly as you do. *But they don't.*
In addition, it is, generally speaking, an advantage rather than a disadvantage if your paper can also be understood be people who are not experts for specifically this topic.
Moreover, people who really know the topic very well just skim through the easy part of the paper and then quickly get to the hard part.
>
> and can't manage to understand both examples at once.
>
>
>
It is irrelevant that your readers might be capable of managing to understand both examples at once. Your goal should be to make your results and arguments as easily and clearly accessible as possible. Just because your readers could also cope with a more complicated presentation of the topic, this does not mean that you should force them to do that.
>
> It also leads to a shorter paper.
>
>
>
No, most likely it doesn't. The reason is that you're measuring "length" in the wrong unit. Numbers of pages are not a relevant quantity. Instead, you should try to minimize the time that your readers need to find and understand the information they are looking for.
Thus, clearer and easier presentation typically makes for a shorter paper (in terms of the time investment required from readers) rather than for a longer one.
[At this point someone will typically point out that numbers of pages are actually relevant in some cases since some journals have page limits.
However, I stand by what I said above. If a clear and easy-to-follow presentation leads to a paper that exceeds the page limit of journal X, the appropriate conclusion is that journal X is not the right journal for this specific paper.]
>
> The organization in this way makes sense to me because the reader can have in mind both examples in their mind
>
>
>
As I said above, please try not to overestimate the capabilities of your readers. Keeping several things in mind at the same time requires considerable cognitive load, even for people who are used to think about complicated things.
From personal experience I can tell you that the only situation in which I manage to keep more than one complex thing in my mind at once is when I develop things for myself in my head. Whenever I just follow a presentation (no matter whether it is a talk or a written paper), the requirement that I keep multiple things in mind quickly exceeds my mental capabilities.
The solution to this problem is, of course, that I do not simply read results and proofs when I read a paper, but that I try to actively "develop" parts of the theory when I read a paper - and whenever I get stuck, I will check in the paper how to proceed.
Now the point is: What will make it easier for me to try to "develop", myself, parts of the theory that I am reading? A very general exposition which contains a lot of information and special cases at once, or a more incremental exposition which starts off with an easy case and treats the hard case only afterwards?
>
> see how they are unified together, get the complete picture.
>
>
>
For the same reasons as explained in the previous paragraph, it is often much easier to get the complete picture if this picture is developed step by step, starting with the easiest case, rather then if it presented all at once.
>
> However, shouldn't like ideas be considered together?
>
>
>
Not necessarily. There are various ways to consider and compare similar ideas. One such way is to treat them together, as you suggest. But it can also be done by treating them consecutively.
>
> With this organization, you basically need to read the paper twice, once for each case.
>
>
>
Ok, the following point might sound a bit surprising at first, but it is important: Most mathematicians do not read papers. I'm serious, so once again in bold: **Most mathematicians do not read papers.**
They do something else instead, namely: they read *parts of* papers.
Most researchers are very busy (or at least they like to claim that they are busy - for instance, I often make this claim, but if it were really true, I probably wouldn't be writing this lengthy answer right now).
Thus, they try to use their time in an efficient way. Once you have a certain amount of experience in mathematical research, reading an entire paper cover-to-cover is, in many cases, no longer the most efficient way to access the information in the paper that you would like to retrieve.
Instead, many people will, for instance, briefly skim through a paper, find a result that they find interesting, and then try to understand the result. This can mean very different things, depending on the precise situation. For instance, they might try to understand the statement and to check whether it generalizes a result that they know. Or they might compare it to their favourite one-fits-all counterexample and check why it doesn't yield a contradiction. Or, in some cases, they might even read the proof. Or they might put the paper away, pull it out once again two months later and then read the proof.
This observation has two important corollaries:
* Papers should be written in a way which makes them easily readable for people who do not read the entire paper (or do not read it at once).
* They notion of a reader who sits there and "reads the paper" is not a good leitmotif for writing a paper. Thus, the idea that "you basically need to read the paper twice" approaches the task from the wrong perspective because it is not consistent with how most people read scientific literature.
[Just in case anybody feels offended because they *do* read entire papers cover-to-cover: I am not claiming that nobody does this. I am just saying that in my experience the majority of people do not do this, or at least do not do this often.]
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: >
> I feel like my advisor is telling me to write the paper as if the
> reader is some fool that knows nothing of the field
>
>
>
According to Polya (who cites somebody else), Zermelo mockingly preached to conference speakers:
>
> I. You cannot overestimate the stupidity of your audience.
>
>
> II. Insist on the obvious and glide nimbly over the essential.
>
>
>
Polya comments as follows on these "Zermelo's rules":
>
> Zermelo’s personal remarks were often witty; very unjust on the whole,
> but striking and revealing about some particular point. So was the
> criticism implied by the two rules; I had to laugh and I could not
> forget the rules. Years later I realized that these rules, suitably
> interpreted, give often applicable sound advice.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Without seeing your draft paper, I would have a general tendency to defer to your advisor simply on the basis that they are more familiar with the details than a reader of your post. In the present case that is augmented by the fact that your advisor's suggestion is consistent with what I would suggest doing --- start with the easy case and then abstract to the harder case after this.
The main advantage of doing things the way your advisor suggests is that it make things a lot easier for your reader to understand. The easy case acts as a segue for the harder case and allows the reader to ease into the problem and its solution. By first presenting the easier problem and its solution, you give the reader something simple to start with, and then when you present the harder case the reader is already partly familiar with the details and the general method of proof. This is much less taxing for the reader and it is likely to make your paper much more useful.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> Any general advice for what may constitute a preferable organization
> for such a case?
>
>
>
From the general writing perspective (without making any assumptions on how smart a potential reader may or may not be): if ideas are easily separable, then they should be separated. After all, this is the reason why we have sections, subsections, paragraphs, chapters, etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> I feel like my advisor is telling me to write the paper as if the reader is some fool that knows nothing of the field
>
>
>
Our fields are so narrow these days that even most Mathematicians are probably "some fools who know nothing of your field", and certainly Computer Scientists, Physicists and Engineers of various disciplines. For example, the fool writing this answer likes to (try and) read mathematicians' work occasionally, so please cater to him :-)
In other words: Treat the simple case first.
Upvotes: 1
|
2022/04/19
| 7,126
| 29,533
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to pursue my master's studies in mathematics in Russia. Yet, I was told that there's a possibility of foreign universities not recognizing Russian degrees due to the current political situation and sanctions. Eventually, I would like to begin a PhD in Europe.
**Is this a valid concern? Is it true that Russia is isolated academically due to their involvement in the war?**
Clarifications:
1. I have always appreciated Russian mathematics culture, and got admitted into the few universities I applied prior to the war. I'm in a situation where most of the scholarship windows for international students are closed. If I do not attend a university now, then I have to wait until fall 2023.
2. I'm from a third world country which is politically and economically unstable. There's no access to higher education in mathematics, either in my country or neighboring countries.<issue_comment>username_1: It seems risky to go to Russia at the moment for lots of reasons, but I think that recognition of a degree is probably lower on the scale than many others. Academics are generally more open to dealing with individuals as individuals than may be generally true. But, at the moment, Russian individuals are having a hard time in the "West", much of that unwarranted.
I haven't heard of Russian academics in the US having difficulties, for example, unless they vocally support the Russian government's war in Ukraine. Keeping my fingers crossed that it won't happen.
However, Russian institutions may have a hard time with funding over the next year (or perhaps much longer). Travel will be difficult to impossible. Acceptance by Russians of foreigners may not be optimal at the moment. Even communication in and out of Russia is becoming difficult.
I can't predict how the world will behave long term but think it would be very sad if individual academics suffer for the acts beyond their control. There is certainly the possibility of an overreaction. So, some caution is certainly reasonable.
I doubt that there is much mathematics done in Russia that isn't also done elsewhere. Unless you have made contact already with a top Russian mathematician who wants to work with you, I'd advise not doing a degree in Russia in the current environment.
And if there is some particular Russian mathematician you want to work with, perhaps you can do it remotely in the context of a degree from elsewhere, working remotely. Or manage an invitation for them to leave. Many might well be anxious to do so.
If you want to, for example, also explore Russian language and culture, you may have an opportunity to do that later in, hopefully, better times.
War is not healthy for children and other living things.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: **Do not study in Russia**
Currently travel and communicating between Russia and "the west" is difficult. I cannot predict the future, but the west has passed several sanctions against Russia, and Russia has blocked access to many non-Russian sites and news sources. **I would not count on the sanctions, or Russia's decision to isolate itself to change anytime soon.**
I would have several concerns about studying in Russia at the moment.
1. Current sanctions are likely to affect funding at Russian Universities in the short term. Even if you are not funded, this will impact class and professor availability. At the extreme level the University may have to make massive cuts or close due to lack of funding.
2. There is little to no pro-Russian sentiment in the west. Like you, I would be concerned the degree would either not be recognized, or worse, be seen as a negative in the rest of Europe, even after the war has ended. Sanctions may be imposed for years or decades. Negative feelings in the west will last for years to come. Your admission to non-Russian universities could become a political fight.
3. If the situation worsens, it may become untenable for you to stay in Russia. Russia may decide to expel foreigners. Even if they don't, further sanctions and actions by the U.S. and Western Europe could render your degree worthless or make life so miserable you don't finish. Russia could decide to close all Universities and focus on the war effort.
4. Travel and communication is difficult. You will almost certainly not be able to work with academics outside of Russia. If you have friends and family outside of Russia you may not be able to visit until the war is over.
5. Conferences scheduled in Russia like the International Congress of Mathematics have been moved. You'll likely have to travel internationally to present your work. Travel is difficult and expensive. You may not get a chance to present your work outside of Russia.
6. Russian universities will lose ground. For the reasons above, students with choices won't choose Russian universities. On top of sanctions, many businesses have cut ties with Russia. You may find yourself unable to (legally) use software you need. You may also find a dwindling supply of functional computers as the war continues and resources are reallocated.
7. The war could escalate, the Iron Curtain could go up again. Which side do you want to be on? You and your University could be forcibly co-oped to participate in the war effort.
There are plenty of other great universities not in Russia. Attend one of those.
**Do you support the invasion of Ukraine? By attending a Russian university many people and admissions departments will assume your answer is "Yes I do"**. You may not get a chance to explain your real sentiments.
**If you are a Russian citizen**
If you are a Russian citizen, people and admission departments may still assume you support the war by participating in Russian academia even though most polls show Russian academics are generally against the war.
If you are willing to leave Russia, I'd suggest moving up your plan to study abroad. Start studying abroad as soon as possible. Get out while the getting is good. Don't wait for more sanctions or for the Russian government to tightly control international travel or to be conscripted into the army.
**EDIT - OP explained they are from a 3rd world country, not Russia**
You did all the right things and got screwed anyway. Find another country you'd like to study in and apply for 2023. I would not advise you travel to a country in the middle of a war.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: #### Unfortunately yes, it is possible we might rise to that level of hysterical jingoism
Based on the historically high quality of Russian mathematicians, I would think that a Russian degree in mathematics would generally be of high quality (depending on which university it is). As other commentators have pointed out, there are various practical concerns to take into account presently, due to the war. In particular, you will need to consider issues of safety, the effect of economic sanctions, issues relating to university funding, and your own status in Russia depending on what country you are from.
As to your concern that the degree might be seen negatively in the West due to anti-Russian sentiment, unfortunately it does indeed appear that this level of psychotic jingoism could occur. Throughout Europe, the US, Canada and Australia, there has been a substantial increase in anti-Russian discrimination, the vast majority of which involves people of Russian descent who are entirely removed from any involvement with the war (see e.g., [Chapman (2022)](https://chargerbulletin.com/anti-russian-discrimination-in-the-u-s-on-the-rise-after-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/), [Adam *et al* (2022)](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/07/antirussian-hate-putin-europe/), [Lika (2022)](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/analysis-why-cultural-backlash-against-russians-is-wrong/2526384), [Law (2022)](https://time.com/6156582/ukraine-anti-russian-hate/), [Marcetic (2022)](https://jacobinmag.com/2022/03/russophobia-putin-russia-ukraine-war-discrimination-harassment)). In particular, this has included instances where professionals are being excluded from events due to Russian descent, banning Russian products (including cultural products), refusal to serve customers of Russian descent (or with Russian-sounding accents), refusal to provide medical treatment to people of Russian descent, proposals for loyalty oaths prior to service, etc. In such an environment, it is plausible that some of the same people who engage in these types of exclusionary activities might populate institutions that assess the quality of your degree. It would be unfortunate, but it is possible.
As an illustration of the level of hysteria, you may be interested to know that the Cardiff Philharmonic Orchestra banned performances of [Tchaikovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky), a Russian who died over 120 years before the present war ([Weaver (2022)](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/09/cardiff-philharmonic-orchestra-removes-tchaikovsky-over-ukraine-conflict)). This was one of the lesser cases, insofar as it did not involve a living person. In the comments below, user [gerrit](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1033/) reports that in Germany some people removed an exhibit about volcanoes in Kamchatka in response to the war, so apparantly the anti-Russian sentiment extends to ancient non-conscious geological entities that have the effrontery to now exist in the same country as the government prosecuting the war. There is no particular reason that a Russian degree would be immune from this type of reaction.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Russia has a mathematical culture that is among the best in the world, so the mathematics that you will be taught in a Master’s program at a good Russian university will be of a very high level, and will prepare you well for a PhD program. In that sense, any university in Europe that is evaluating you for admission should not have any concerns about your *mathematical preparation*. Your *degree* will surely be “recognized” for the academic value of the knowledge that it signifies that you acquired.
The issue of concern is purely a *political* one. There have been many times and places in history where citizens of country X, or even people from other countries who spent time in country X or were seen as affiliated with X in various ways, were not welcome in country Y, because of a political conflict between X and Y. And at this particular moment in time, clearly many countries around the world — meaning, both their governments and large segments of their populations — are extremely upset with the specific “X” that is Russia, which is widely seen as having illegally and immorally instigated one of the most serious global geopolitical crises of the last 75 years.
Can we predict whether this will be a problem for your academic career, because of such obstacles of a political nature ending up affecting you somehow, if you go to a Russian university for your Master’s? No, obviously we cannot. But if you ask whether it is *reasonable to have concerns* that something like this might happen, and if those concerns are *valid*, I’d say: YES. Quite clearly it’s very, very reasonable, and the concerns are very, very valid.
It’s a vague statement, but that’s all anyone can say right now. Good luck in any case with whatever decision you end up making.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: It seems unlikely that recognition will be refused
--------------------------------------------------
It goes against all historical precedent to refuse to recognise degrees from nations engaged in such acts. Degrees from Nazi Germany continued to be recognised during and after the war, for example, and where academics were able to cross from East to West (or *vice versa*) during the cold war their credentials were accepted. If there is an issue it is more likely to be around book-keeping details of getting proof that the course is suitable in the right language.
However, there are likely to be other issues resulting from your choice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will be choosing to enter a country that has started a war of aggression and is currently carrying out atrocities in Europe on a massive scale and spend your money there. It is quite likely that this choice will be viewed negatively by at least some of the people assessing your record in future. In a situation where there is a choice between you and another candidate of similar ability/record this may swing the decision against you.
Since you've updated with more details about your situation: I would think that in the circumstances you've described most people would consider that you behaved reasonably in going ahead with your plans made before the invasion began given your limited options. However, you may still encounter some negative reactions.
And sanctions may have an impact on you whilst studying
-------------------------------------------------------
Limits on money transfer, availability of goods, travel difficulties, even the economic stability of the university at which you study may be threatened. These factors make choosing to do your MSc in Russia vs. elsewhere a more risky choice.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: The answer is: it is quite possible.
1. You can see the current state of mind of Western academia in the comments.
2. If you consider the MS as a stepping stone to work in industry (oil, gas, etc.) then there are sanctions.
3. If it is pure math and you want to do grad school eventually, it is much better to do the MS in the same country as the PhD.
I did my PhD math in Russia during the Cold War when the USSR was the enemy conducting several wars and a state sponsoring terrorism. My PhD was recognized but it was not trivial.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Disclaimer: I did my BSc, MSc and PhD in Russia and I was Russian citizen from birth up until 2020.
You ask about the recognition of degrees, and thus your question sounds as if it was about the decisions that other people or organisations may make in relation to your MSc degree.
I think that this way of framing your question is slightly misplaced. The real question here is about **your decision** to study in Russia at this time. What do you feel about the fact that Russian army invaded Ukraine, destroying their cities and killing thousands of people? Do you think that this *situation*, as you nicely put it, is irrelevant to the education experience you will receive in Russia? How will you respond if the administration of your University publicly supports the "special operation" of Russian army forces in Ukraine? Will you take side in political discussions that might happen in your classroom or among your fellows?
You need to consider these questions before making a decision about studying in Russia right now, as the answers will significantly affect your experience while doing your PhD and your future career, particularly if you plan to do a PhD in EU/US/UK later. The quality of your MSc degree probably won't be compromised, but some people who will read your CV later might reasonably ask questions: Why did you decide to go to Russia? Did you condemn or did you support the war? Which other options did you have at this moment and why did you choose this one?
When conflict arises, we might not be able to make things go our way, but we can express our disagreement by speaking up or by walking out. Ordinary people in Russia might not have an option to make their Government to stop the war, but some of them have an option to express their disagreement either by protesting (under a risk of detention or imprisonment), or by leaving the country to live elsewhere. Depending on your nationality and personal circumstances, your decision to walk in and live in Russia when it attacks Ukraine might be interpreted as your (silent) support of the ongoing war. This might not compromise your degree, but it might cast a shade on **yourself** as a moral human being. Do you have answers which will displace people's doubts about your character in future? Or would you rather take this risk?
Please consider the questions above while making your decision. Good luck.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_8: I don't believe your degree would be ignored (that's nothing more than a personal opinion, by the way), but there are other matters you should be concerned about.
If you're seeking a Master's, I would imagine it's because you would like to use it in your career, and maybe even as a stepping stone to a PhD. If this is the case, it's important for you to establish robust communication with others in your field, worldwide. The immediate situation is such that you may well find substantial obstacles to this important aspect of your career development.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: **Yes, your degree will almost certainly be recognized, but you probably will not get what you want.**
I thought I would provide an answer that is really addenda.
If an American went to Russia, it would likely have a very strong and very adverse impact on their career. A candidate from an unstable, developing nation would not likely be impacted in the same way. However, there are some things to consider that are not mentioned above.
The sanctions regime has taken on its own life. The official list of goods that were sanctioned ended up being much less than voluntary sanctions. Firms have decided to sanction Russia even though the goods are permissible under the laws of trade. So the governments have prohibited trade in X and allowed Y and Z, but the firms that produce Y are refusing to sell to Russia. Even if formal sanctions are lifted, informal sanctions may persist for years.
The reason that such things matter is that key components of standard things in computing and energy are now unavailable. It would be unsurprising to find their computers started failing due to a combination of cyberattacks damaging hardware and an inability to access components. A recent massive attack erased the hard drives of computers throughout Russia and Belarus. It was not performed by a government.
One of the reasons governments are racing to get rid of their dependence on Russian fuel is that the parts to make wells work are becoming unavailable at any price to Russians. Even if natural gas is not sanctioned, it may not be possible to get it from the ground to a European market.
It is quite possible that a university in Russia may find itself without hardware, software, and fuel for heating. While some math does not depend at all on the ability to use a computer, it restricts what you can do. A university is a very high-end proposition, in terms of supporting equipment.
The next concern I would have is the ability to enter or exit. Russia's air fleet has gone beyond its safe maintenance period. It has a stolen fleet of planes. It will have to cannibalize stolen planes for parts but many things that are dependent on software from a headquarters computer will be gone. Their civilian fleet may completely come to a halt. There may be a train to China, however. Serbia also flies one flight a week into and out of Russia.
You should consider the possibility of civil war. When Russia invaded, it brought 120 battle groups, each with 800-1000 men, to the field. They have reconsolidated their forces and now have 70 battle groups in the field. Roughly 40-50,000 soldiers are dead, wounded or captured. Thirty percent of their general staff has died in battle and a greater percentage of their colonels. It is quite possible that a group of generals may decide one morning that enough is enough. A general with an army in the field can direct that army to march in any direction, including for it to march on Moscow.
Degrees are certainly granted during civil wars, but sometimes a regime decides to kill the intelligentsia. They will not bother distinguishing foreign students from professors from native students. War is very unpredictable.
Universities depend on both the quality of their professors and the quality of their students. Russia is suffering a massive brain drain. The last news story I saw said they lost 30,000 computer scientists and software engineers. I would assume mathematicians are going out the door too. Senior faculty probably cannot flee because it has become too late. Junior mathematicians are usually less rooted and may be gone already.
The university that you applied to may not be the one you graduate from in terms of quality. Universities may have difficulty with funding, equipment, basic necessities like fuel, water, electricity, and staffing. You may be going from an unstable, developing country into a very unstable developing country that *recently* had world-class mathematics programs, but no longer does. Your dorm room could have bullet holes in it and the train to China might be captured by a rebel army.
Russia is imploding. It is now a vassal state of China. The People's Liberation Army is not worried anymore about the ability of Russia's army or navy to fight. They were peers.
In username_10uary of 2022, Russia's math programs were world-class. They could deteriorate quickly because academia is an expensive, difficult, resource-intensive proposition. It is difficult to consider what their state of affairs may be in username_10uary 2024 or 2025.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: Some good answers already. Some additional practical considerations:
1. The main issue for those foreign students that I have met here in Germany was always money. How do you expect to make a living in Russia? Will everything be covered by a scholarship? If yes, will this scholarship still work in times of economical crisis and a near-bankrupt Russian state? Do you plan on working? If yes, will *this* work in times of economical crisis? Or do you plan to receive money from your family? If yes, would this work with the current sanctions in place? Would the exchange rates be realistic or would you have to convert good hard currency via some officially inflated rate?
2. Another answer has pointed out that there might be an increased risk of political instability. How would you leave Russia if the situation becomes unstable? Are there nearby countries where you can travel without visa? Do you trust your embassy to be able to evacuate you if the shit hits the fan? Some 3rd world countries are surprisingly good at this, but others not so much. You might use Wuhan in February 2020 or Ukraine in February/March 2022 as a reference. But keep in mind that Russia is much bigger.
3. How would you deal with emergencies that require large-ish sums of money quickly, e.g. medical emergencies or the need to quickly leave Russia/quickly return home? Would you be able to receive money from your family under currennt circumstances (see above)?
4. Autocratic regimes have a tendency to demand displays of loyalty and support. Displays of support from foreigners are expecially valuable. The fewer other foreigners there are in Russia, the more likely it becomes they might ask you in particular to show your support. They might also have their ways to trick you into situations where it is hard to say your actual opinion or to avoid commenting. Being perceived as having endorsed the Russian invasion of Ukraine will definitely be bad for any career in the west.
That said, I do not really see a grave moral problem here. If you think you can handle the points mentioned above, it's probably not a particularly bad idea to give it a try. Just be aware that there is a certain probability that you have to return early and without a degree, i.e. think hard about how much money and other stuff you are going to invest.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_11: If your goal is to get a PhD in the West, then consider enrolling in a Master's (MS) program in the West, but during your first year of the MS, work with your Russian contacts on arranging a study-abroad exchange visit during the summer between years one and two.
Assuming you can get around any visa/travel restrictions, your degree would be Western, and you'd also have an opportunity to learn from Russian mathematicians.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_12: Firstly, I see no danger of intellectual collapse in Russia - today or any day. Things were so much worse in 1991 when senior scientists were reduced to flogging things in their local market to provide what we in the west see as everyday decencies. Russia is a top country for intellectual and artistic endeavour. It has been for many centuries. The Putin interlude has been a disappointment for many in Russian society. But this phase will pass.
Your decision to do postgrad work in Russia would be valid even if you had a better choice of university countries than you have from where you are. This is especially so if you were accepted at one of the top rank colleges in Russia.
But while it's not unusual for people with an MS to do a PhD in another country, it is not the norm and would require a certain amount of time to adjust to the new college and local culture. So **if you have the choice of doing MS and PhD in Europe** then that would be easier.
But if you do not currently have offers from any European university on a par with the ones making you offers in Russia, then you must take the latter and do your best there.
When I did postgrad in UK, one of the research fellows from Africa had done his primary degree in Moscow, then a PhD in UK. So the path you consider has been trodden before.
I think that when your MS is complete all this situation will be sorted out. Most people even now, whether they are sportspeople or artists or academics, see that the Russian people cannot fairly be blamed for the cruelty of their political masters. To those who at future interviews may ask why Russia for your MS, you can honestly say that you applied to many good graduate schools in Europe or US but did not receive any offers from those countries equivalent to the Russian offer.
Finally, whatever you are offered in wherever it is, you **must give a lot more consideration** to your research topic, the values of your graduate school, your supervisor and the university as these will be crucial to what you achieve.
*Buona fortuna.*
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_13: Many good points have been raised already in other answers. I'd like to add something that I'm missing so far:
Isolated position as foreigner impacting studies
------------------------------------------------
As a foreign student going into a new country for your masters, you start from a point where you don't know anyone, don't have friends locally, and in addition there are cultural differences (including/plus language) that you need to navigate.
Both factors are present for anyone studying abroad, and they require a certain amount of your energy and time. However, if you move to Russia right now, you move into a society that I'd expect to be very tensed and in consequence not very open and trusting. Plus, everyone has their own, recently increased, troubles. This will make it very hard for you to find friends, team up with your colleagues etc. If people already don't know whether/to what extent they can trust their long-time neighbour, they're unlikely to be very open becoming friends with a foreigner.
(Others have mentioned already that communication with your family & friends at home may also be more difficult than usual)
You're thus quite likely to be in a very isolated position. Such isolation is challenging (read some of the Q&As here of PhD students that moved into a foreign country into Covid regulations), and I'd say there is a substantial risk that this strain has a negative impact on your ability to study (in the sense that due to these circumstances you may not be able to learn as much maths there as you would in friendlier times).
An excellent maths program which you cannot utilize fully may be worse than a good maths program somewhere else where you can concentrate on your studies.
(I have no real knowledge about the situation inside Russia right now. Maybe someone with actual insight could comment)
---
Potential choices elsewhere
---------------------------
Even though application deadlines are over for other programs, if you decide you don't want to go to Russia, it may be worth while to contact them saying that you got accepted into a Russian program that you applied for long before the Ukraine war started, but are urgently looking for an alternative now.
Here in Germany, many universities accept fresh students either winter or summer term. I.e., you'd lose only half a year instead of a full year.
---
Acceptance seen as active pro-Russian-govt statement
----------------------------------------------------
Similar to what others have said, I'd expect western academics to be rather understanding if you explain that your choice was basically no higher maths education at home vs. attending an excellent Russian programme which you applied for long before the war started.
That being said, if that programme offers you a scholarship paid by the Russian government, accepting this right now will be far more likely seen as a pro-Russian-govt statement.
(And I'd also be very wary of that since it gives the Russian govt even more hold over you. See also what @username_10 says about totalitarian govts requiring very clear expression of loyality.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/19
| 945
| 3,992
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently worked on a grant proposal for a project. As it sometimes happens to post-doc researchers, to move forwards in their career they have to ask a senior researcher to act as the principal investigator of the project. Often, grants do not provide a difference between PI and author, so it may happen that the PI would be considered as the main author.
My question is: if I had to apply to your university (or in any other context) for a junior position, being able to provide evidence that I was the main contributor of that grant application (meaning that I was able to write the literature review, concept of the research, methodology, contacting external advisors, resulting into a funding), would it contribute as a positive element when assessing my CV for an eventual junior position in your university?<issue_comment>username_1: There is no question that it is a positive aspect to your application to any university that values research in any way. It is a valuable skill. In some positions it is a job requirement, and so early experience is a valuable element. Even when it is "guided" by a senior PI it has value. After all most doctoral research is also guided by an advisor.
You can list such things on the CV, but don't overstate your role. Make sure that the PI is aware of your contributions and will mention them in any LoR.
Even those places that don't require real "field" research often need funds for student research or for such pedagogical things as research into learning, so even quite modest places will not discount such experience.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't know if it's possible for this funding call but sometimes (like with NSF proposals) the PI can include a co-PI and that person can be a postdoc. That's probably the best case scenario.
But here you seem to refer to something different. How would you be able to provide evidence that you were the one who wrote the application if you're not listed as a PI?
In any case, I think showing that you provided a major contribution to a funded application is always good for CV when aiming at an academic position!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes. Draft a short (one page or less) statement of contribution to the work of writing the grant, with room for your signature, the PI's signature and the signatures of anyone else who contributed to the grant. Send this to your PI and ask if they think it is a fair representation or whether they'd make changes, and if they'd be willing to sign it so you can use it when applying for jobs. It's probably a good idea to talk with them first to float the idea, explaining that you think it would be really helpful when applying for jobs.
You could use sites like these for inspiration:
* The [CReDiT system](https://www.elsevier.com/authors/policies-and-guidelines/credit-author-statement) for describing authorship in detail
* This [list of a variety of author statements](https://www.epj.org/images/stories/faq/examples-of-author-contributions.pdf).
* [another set of examples](https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-draft-the-authorship-contribution-statement)
You might also check out the APA Science Student Council's guide to co-authorship which has these rather useful checklists and worksheets:
* [Worksheet for determining authorship](https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-determination.pdf)
* [Research responsibilities checklist](https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/research-responsibilities.pdf)
These also don't quite fit grant-writing but will give you an idea of the sorts of work that goes into a research project so you can create your own list of what needed to be done for the grant, and who did what.
These are all for journal publications, and I've not seen anything similar for grant-writing but I think it's a great idea to make this! If you do end up doing this, it'd be great if you share how you went about it!
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/04/20
| 3,163
| 12,886
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently a Master’s and PhD student. I am in my last semester of my Master’s program. After a year of being in the PhD program, I have realized that academia is not for me. I received a job offer and notified my advisor of me leaving the PhD. This happened after I finished my thesis defense and after they signed off on the thesis defense paperwork. I also submitted my final thesis pdf to the graduate school portal. After I told him about me leaving, he got angry with the people that hired me (he knows them and works with them before). Not only that, he refuses to approve my final thesis pdf even though I already finished my defense and everything. Grad school has been emailing me and wondering when they will receive his approval on my final thesis pdf as it has already been pending for more than a week. He also sent an email including all committee members saying that if I am not continuing research to fix “flaws and limitations,” he had to withdraw his signature.
I am under extreme stress from my advisor because it looks like he is trying to force me into the PhD program. I talked to the people from my job, and they are very understanding and think he is unreasonable. I also went to a graduate school counselor to ask for help. She said that she would contact the dean and get back with me. Do you think that the dean can help me on this and that I will still be able to receive my Master’s degree? I am feeling hopeless and feel like I am being pressured into doing a PhD when I don’t want to.
UPDATE ON THE OUTCOME: After about a month of fighting my case and getting both the dean of my department and dean of graduate school involved, the dean of graduate school decided to let me graduate this semester. The department chair wasn’t of much help as they told me to do another semester with my advisor. The graduate school people took over my case and handled it so my advisor wouldn’t have any leverage or power over me. I am very grateful because the dean made the decision to let me graduate just 2 weeks before my graduation day. It’s great to know there’s still justice in our system.<issue_comment>username_1: Your advisor is being completely unreasonable. It was very good you talked to the graduate school counselor. I think your best hope for a clean solution is that the dean will help resolve the issue.
However, since the company who offered the job is understanding, if push comes to shove, I would seriously consider the option of just taking the job and letting the master's degree go. I hope it won't come to that, but (a) the time spent on your degree may unfortunately be an example of the [sunk cost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost), (b) you have this path open to you and no one can stop you doing this, (c) even if this worst case does not happen, knowing that you have a backup plan where you still get a nice job can be a calming fact to hold onto.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: The main issue here is the claim of the advisor that there are remaining flaws and limitations that require your attention before approval of the thesis. It is unclear from your post whether "signing off" on your thesis defence means that the thesis is accepted without further revisions, or whether it merely means that you have completed the defence portion (but may need to make further revisions to the thesis before it is acceptable). Usually a thesis defence would be followed by revisions relating to comments/critiques raised in the defence portion, so the latter is plausible. However, the fact that your advisor is threatening to "withdraw his signature" suggests that the signature is intended to mean the former.
In any case, you should clarify this before proceeding further.
Assuming that signing off on the thesis defence means that the thesis is accepted, it is dubious for your advisor to have signed off on the work if he truly believes that there are outstanding flaws, and also dubious for him to suggest that he will need to "withdraw his signature" if further work is not done. Both of these suggest ---at minimum--- that he has not followed the proper process for examining and signing off on the thesis after the defence.
At this point, I would recommend that you review the signed paperwork for your thesis defence to see exactly what this paperwork attests to (i.e., does it mean that the thesis is accepted, or does it just mean the defence portion is completed). Once you have done this you will know if you are on solid ground in relying on the signed defence paperwork. This is a matter where the administration of the Department should be able to give you some guidance on the process and the meaning of your paperwork. In my view it is premature to escalate this to the Dean of the Department, and you should make some further inquiries and give the matter some time to resolve before taking that step.
You certainly should not allow yourself to be coerced into a PhD program if you don't want to do that. If you think you are being unfairly treated then you can put that view to your advisor/Department and see if you can come to some accomodation. Nevertheless, even if you don't absolutely have to, you should at least *consider* hearing out your advisor in relation to the revisions he would like you to make on your thesis. Talk to him about the things he identifies as flaws and limitations and see if it is feasible for you to revise the thesis to deal with these within a reasonable time --- you might find that this improves the quality of your research.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I would suggest you examine the Academic Board Regulations or their equivalent for your institution. You may find as a last resort you have a formal appeals process. Unfortunately every institution is different.
As an example (Monash University, Section 45; [PDF](https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/2819126/Monash-University-Academic-Board-Regulations-31.1.22.pdf)), an appeal to the Graduate Research Committee may trigger Clauses 7(c), 8 and 9. End result could be completion of a Masters. Needless to say this document will not apply to your institution and your milage may vary.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: This situation is largely dependent upon your exact circumstances, and is thus difficult to address.
I think *you* need to be the person taking this to the Dean and the Chair of your department, and any faculty leadership of the graduate program (i.e., if you have a Director of graduate studies in your department, loop them in).
You should also ask the counselor working on your behalf to extend you the courtesy of cc-ing you on any communications on this issue.
Frankly, since you are trying to leave with a Masters, an expeditious way to handle this might simply be to have your advisor removed from your committee, and have someone, maybe the Chair, substitute. Your advisor won't like it, but if the situation is as you describe it, tough on your advisor!
I'm not a lawyer. If you end up leaving without a Masters and feel damaged by it, sound advice would be to talk to a lawyer with experience in education.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I was in a similar situation: I submitted my first thesis draft in November. Got feedback from my advisor at the end of username_9uary. Submitted by revised version in March. Finally got him to sign off on it in August, convocated in October.
Obviously I got a job in the meantime.
While frustrating that my thesis edits took almost a full year from submitting first draft to acceptance; it was ultimately fine to do the edits while working full time. I'm sure that is not uncommon and the university will have encountered this situation before.
My advice would be to start your job and complete any outstanding thesis requirements in your evenings and weekends. It may take a while, but if it's clear that you passed your defense, and that you've made the requested edits, then he won't be able to withhold his signature forever. Demanding additional research after you have passed your defense is clearly absurd.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: You have a job offer and a completed thesis. I'd say things are looking pretty good for you right now.
>
> he is trying to force me into the PhD program.
>
>
>
No he is not. Either this is petty revenge or it's a miscommunication. Professors cannot force anyone to complete a PhD.
Do not panic. This could sort itself out with time.
>
> Do you think that the dean can help me on this
>
>
>
Maybe. The dean will know who can.
>
> I will still be able to receive my Master’s degree?
>
>
>
Very likely, so long as you keep seeking it.
Do not give up.
>
> I am feeling hopeless
>
>
>
You should talk to a mental health professional.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: My suggestions …
1. Don’t turn down the job offer.
2. Make sure that your advisor understands that you will not continue in the Ph.D. Program, no matter how he tries to bully you, so his threats are futile.
3. See if the dean or other authorities will honor your advisor’s original approval, and get you the master’s degree. You’re already doing this. Good.
4. Ask your advisor to list in writing the “flaws and limitations” that he mentioned. Negotiate an agreement (in writing) about what’s required to fix them. Do the work, if it’s not too much.
5. Have a strong talk with your advisor. Remind him that he already admitted that blocking your masters degree is just childish spite and retaliation, and bears little relationship to the quality of your work. Tell him he is causing you great mental stress, and that this is grounds for legal action. Show him that you’re not going to let him push you around. Try to scare him. This may or may not work, depending on your personality and his.
6. If all else fails, there is an extreme approach: tell your advisor you’ll continue in the Ph.D. program with him. Presumably this will free up your masters degree. Once you have the masters degree, quit the Ph.D. program. This is dishonest, but since your advisor has treated you so badly, he doesn’t deserve honesty, in my opinion. Personally, I’m OK with this sort of subterfuge (as a last resort, when dealing with snakes), but maybe you have higher moral standards than I do. You’re the only one who can decide.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_8: You really have to find out what *exactly* happens - what the adviser may or may not do. What you can or cannot do - according to the written rules of your university. For example - at my university such a thing (revoking a degree after a defense) could not even happen. The actual rules and laws, which are location specific, matter.
That may involve a university ombudsperson (if one exists) or even a lawyer you would have to hire.
But for sure, the advisor is acting unreasonably in revoking their signature to the thesis just because you are leaving. This is abuse of power, and would be a clear reason for wanting to leave the advisor anyway, but the legality of what the advisor is doing at the specific university is impossible to tell from the generic situation. You will need to raise the issue at the responsible offices (Prodean for studies, Dean, Rector, ...) according to the rules and laws.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: I echo the first bit of username_1's answer: your advisor is being unreasonable. I believe, he is trying to bully you into joining the PhD programme, apparently he likes your work so much that he wants to capitalise more on it.
You also did the right thing, contacting the grad school and their counsellor directly; hopefully the escalation to the dean will work out in the very near future. The dean definitely has the behind-the-scenes power to help you get that degree signed off; I would also assume that deans usually are happy to use that power when the facts present themselves making as you describe, making the professor look unreasonable.
Of course, the best case would be a swift resolution and you getting your certificate before you begin working for the company. If that doesn't materialise, I hope the company is understanding and will let you begin working there even without the certificate.
However, unlike username_1 I would not suggest treating the certificate (or entire degree programme) as a sunken cost. The next recruiter might look at that bit of your CV, raise eyebrows and move you to the reject pile. Instead, after joining the company I would still follow up with the grad school and their counsellor every now and again, hoping that the professor has given in and you can receive your certificate. I suspect that once the professor has realised he cannot get you to come back, he might release your thesis after all (especially if pressure from the dean's side continues to build up).
Upvotes: 3
|
2022/04/20
| 1,046
| 4,608
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been working on a project for a year, doing all the lab work and gathering all the main data and then I wrote my master thesis on it.
There were some additional data necessary for the final analyses for the thesis which were supposed to be gathered by another worker. A short time before the deadline for submitting, my supervisor, who is the manager of this project, informed me that the person didn't do their job yet and that now they will be unable to do it. So I had to do also this part of the work and he helped me a bit. As a result, there was little time left for writing so I was hurrying, he contributed 2 short paragraphs, another person ran one of the statistical analysis, and the result was poorly written thesis (in my opinion), but I still got a relatively good grade on it.
Now the thesis is published on my university's site, but my supervisor is planning on writing a research paper. He is avoiding conversation with me about the research paper, which will be done from the same dataset and some of the same analyses as my thesis, and I'm getting a bad feeling that he wants to avoid including me on the paper as a co-author, because there are already many people who will be included, even thought they contributed zero hours of work until now.
I already asked him couple of times about when he plans on starting to write the paper, what else needs to be done etc, but he is avoiding saying anything for certain and last time he btw mentioned that technicians are usually not included as authors.
Basically, talking to him is like walking on eggshells, so I want to be prepared before doing it again... Can he publish a paper and completely exclude me from the paper as a co-author, even if I gathered the main dataset and written a thesis on it?<issue_comment>username_1: Whether you are due authorship on the other work depends on some unknowable things. If the external supervisor intends to "include" your work in theirs, then you probably are. If they represent it as their own work then it is probably plagiarism, though we can't know that without seeing the as yet unwritten paper.
But, if the other work is an extension of your own and you are properly cited in it then you probably don't get an authorship position. That is the normal way that research works. Euclid doesn't get authorship in any Geometry paper I might write.
You describe it as a research (rather than a review) paper. That likely means an extension rather than just a re-writing of your own work. To get an authorship position in *that* paper you need to make a direct contribution to that paper, including some new intellectual contribution to whatever it concludes.
If I had access to your masters thesis, then I could do the same thing. I could write an extension, citing you properly, but without your further assistance. You wouldn't be an author of that, either.
If you want to be an author of the new paper, just ask about it and offer to collaborate. In particular, don't make accusations of misconduct. A post-masters collaboration with a professor is a good thing.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Technicians are included in research papers if their contribution is more than just processing the samples. If you helped designing the experiments and analyzing the results, even a minor part, you deserve your name on the paper!
Approach your supervisor in a respectful but professional way, along the lines of: "Dear X, I would like to mention that I am available and motivated to contribute to the research paper we are planning to write about project Y. After a productive time completing my thesis, I really look forward to have these results published. As such, I think the bibliography part is a good starting point to explore the type of paper we want to write, and which journal might accept it. I would really appreciate if you'd come back to me concerning the steps that need to be completed. Regards,"
If the problem is not solved, your supervisor has a supervisor. It might be the dean of the faculty. They hate this type of conflict and should help flattening this type of bumps.
If you are left out of a paper, and can bring evidence (your thesis for example) to the editor that the authorship is incomplete, they will probably have to retract the paper (authorship modifications are usually not allowed in a correction). This is the nuclear option, though, and might mean you never work in this lab anymore. What will bring your next job? A good recommendation from your supervisor, or your name on that paper?
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2022/04/20
| 2,843
| 11,386
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate student, broadly interested in number theory and algebraic geometry. As group cohomology and related things are an integral part of modern number theory and algebraic geometry, I decided to take a course on graduate algebraic topology in my current semester. This course covered singular homology and cohomology theory. But I fared quite badly in the course and got a bad grade. I also feel like I have not learnt much from the course.
How much could this hurt my future endeavours in number theory or algebraic geometry? Secondly, how much could this hurt my chances of getting accepted for grad school?
P.S.: I am pretty comfortable with basic point-set topology, fundamental groups, covering spaces etc.<issue_comment>username_1: Ideally, as and undergrad taking grad courses it shouldn't be much of a factor, but every admissions system is different. In my day, even a good understanding of point-set topology would be really advanced, though times have changed.
If this is for grad school in the US no single grade is likely to make a substantial difference and letters of recommendation from your professors are very important.
But, what's done is done. Don't lose sleep over what you can't control. There are a lot of good grad schools at R1 universities that would ignore a single data point if other things point to success.
---
As to the relationship between Algebraic Topology and the other fields mentioned I can't be much help. Algebraic Topology and Algebraic Geometry seem to be asking rather different questions, however. Number Theory, on the other hand is so rich that it is "touched" by many other fields. My knowledge is long out of date, though.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I won't speak to your chances of getting into graduate school, because that does depend a lot on the school, and on how highly ranked a program you are considering.
The job market for academic jobs in theoretical mathematics is terrible, with far more highly qualified candidates than permanent positions, especially (but not only) for permanent positions with research responsibilities. If you are a Fields Medal candidate, then you can still find a job easily. If you are merely very good, you have reasonable chances, but you might not find a job. If you are merely good, your chances aren't so good. There are no reasons to expect the situation to improve, and it might get worse.
Now if you really want to do mathematics, then you really want to do mathematics, and it doesn't matter quite so much what the job prospects are, given that it's possible to go to grad school without incurring (more) debt.
Cohomology theory operates at an extra level of abstraction than all the courses you've likely seen before. Just as many students find their first course emphasizing proofs quite challenging, many students find their first course at this extra level of abstraction challenging. Many students have to see this material twice to actually understand it. At our low-ranked PhD program, where as far as I can tell none of our PhD graduates in theoretical mathematics have gone on to do research of any significance (and most dissertations are not publishable except in a write-only journal), we don't really expect any of our PhD students to ever understand cohomology except perhaps in a special case where we have digested it for them.
However, just as most of the most accomplished mathematicians breezed through their first course emphasizing proofs, most of the most accomplished mathematicians managed to learn algebraic topology the first time. This is only a correlation; there are accomplished mathematicians who needed two or more tries to understand cohomology. Nevertheless, failure to learn cohomology the first time is evidence against you.
Cohomology is central in current mainstream research in theoretical mathematics; in some sense its presence defines the mainstream. (It's not so important in many areas of combinatorics or analysis, but those are not mainstream these days. It's also almost completely absent in applied mathematics, even the more theoretical parts of applied mathematics.) You do need to learn it eventually to do any serious number theory or algebraic geometry research, and the algebraic topology setting is for most people the easiest entry point.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I had similar worries when I was an undergrad; I had to quit the graduate alg top course because it was too difficult, and so I sympathize with your question. While I have amounted to essentially nothing in math research despite great ambitions (I'm not even at Ph.D. granting institution) and perhaps you probably should dismiss my opinion, I'm writing this answer perhaps as much for me as for you: after 20 years of working my way up the academic ladder (mid0-career at the moment - associate prof with minimal publications at a primarily undergraduate teaching focused institution, which have come to love), I wish I go back and tell myself: You are worrying too much and focusing on the wrong things. Just enjoy learning/doing math, do your best, and live with the results, whatever they are. That being said, if you are challenging yourself by taking graduate courses as an undergrad, and most of your record in math courses is strong, you should be able to get into a middle-tier R1 at the very least (I'm only familiar with the U.S., though)...albeit that's my sense based on the last time at a Ph.D. granting place (low ranked R1) about 10 years ago, and I don't know if getting into Ph.D. pure math programs have gotten harder or easier.
I should be get back to some administrative/committee work I'm avoiding so I leave with a disorganized hodge-podge of links/comments:
See the following article for a Princeton professor <NAME> that who had a negative initial experience in math, was rejected initially by the grad school (top 5 in algebra/number theory according to this list <https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/number-theory-rankings>) where he eventually got his Ph.D. from, and used cohomology to solve a big open problem in combinatorics.
<https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-path-less-taken-to-the-peak-of-the-math-world-20170627/>
I agree with another answer that many mathematicians need multiple exposures to difficult topics like cohomology. "One doesn't understand math one just gets used to it" (von Neumann quote).
Regarding algebraic topology and algebraic geometry:
* "It was my lot to plant the harpoon of algebraic topology into the body of the whale of algebraic geometry." - <NAME>
* 2 min video of <NAME> on algebraic topology and algebraic geometry/number theory (mentioning Weil conjectures) <https://youtu.be/qHwjG5611V4>
* there are entire industries involving both e.g. motivic homotopy theory, derived algebraic geometry.
* The topic of cohomology is vast - there is singular, sheaf, etale, generalized cohomologies (K-theory, Morava E-theories), prismatic, De Rham, crystalline, Dolbeault, syntomic, rigid, and new ones will continue to be invented ... and it is impossible to learn it all, and you don't need to have done well in algebraic topology 1 (or arguably, even remember small details ... IMO the main ideas, conceptual breakthroughs, and big picture are more important) to dip ones toes into exploring these topics. Instead one has to learn and relearn (a phrase I borrowed from Terry Tao's blog) topics, and if your research problems leads you to need to learn algebraic topology more carefully, then there will be motivation and the perspective of your problem to learn it. (Ok, you may have to learn it to pass through quals ... but can usually get by those by looking at past problems identify the small number of concepts/patterns that are "tested")
As Churchill said, success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. For most mathematicians, there are some topics in math one enjoys/understands and others that just aren't their cup of tea.
Every now and then on twitter, there is a "what is cohomology" discussion or dare I say meme:
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting to understand what cohomology is. #inspirationaltopology" at
<https://twitter.com/evelynjlamb/status/639087415605526529>
and here is a tweet that express confusion with cohomology, and one of the responses is a nice thread giving an overview
<https://twitter.com/bathematician/status/1247556791870734336>
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: While it's true that it'd be better if you'd aced the course, one way or another, you're already "aiming high", so in that case a failure now and then is not surprising, and in the face of a good body of other advanced work will not seriously harm your grad school chances, even at very good places.
To respond to the other aspect of your question: "(co)homology" is indeed at a slightly fancier/more-abstract level than most other undergrad or basic grad math. The most basic form is basic algebraic topology, which should already start things up by simplicial homology, but after wrangling with technical difficulties for a while, introduce simplicial homology. Useful for many things, like (persuasively) proving the Jordan Curve Theorem, etc.
Meanwhile, c. 1930, <NAME> and her school organized prior work on algebraic structures and could describe obstructions to various maps, or descriptions of non-commuting, as elements of "cohomology classes", originally defined in a completely ad-hoc way, and not defining $H^i$ for $i$ other than $i=0,1,2$ or at most $3$. (There was no need.)
Somewhat later, DeRham (re)formulated ideas about Gauss-Green-Stokes in cohomological terms...
Cech (and others) had formulated "sheaf cohomology" in a fashion imitating variants of alg top constructions.
To my mind, Grothendieck's realization that *also* sheaf cohomology could be realized as a "derived functor", thus becoming "simply" an example of that basic (co) homological stuff was a major turning point. With hindsight, all the "classical" (co) homology theories are/were derived functors of natural things (like fixed-point or cofixed-point functors, or, for sheaves, the global sections functor).
$K$-theory is somewhat different, as it did not fit into that mold. The low-index $K$-groups arose in meaningful ad-hoc fashions, but/and <NAME> finally saw (late 1970's) a general pattern.
But/and "general" cohomological stuff is not made easily analogous to the alg top version. The *symbols* often behave similarly, yes, but... "why?" :)
My recommendation to people is to lightly read <NAME>'s "Homological Algebra", in which he goes through many of the standard examples. "Group (co)homology", "Lie algebra (co)homology", etc., are indeed just examples of derived functors of obvious basic functors.
(This in contrast to decades-ago, when trying to learn relevant group cohomology to understand the Artin-Tate classfield notes... the implicit choice of a resolution ("bar" or "homogeneous bar") seemed nutty to me. Oh, ahem, later, I learned that these are just convenient choices of projective or injective resolutions, etc. Whew. And the funkily-named things like "Shapiro's Lemma" are just examples of very general, and not-so-complicated, devices in general (co) homological algebra.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2022/04/21
| 680
| 2,991
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a recent master's graduate looking for a job. However, instead of working in the industry, I would prefer to work for a couple of years as a research assistant. My long-term goal is to apply for a Ph.D. program and research experience will help me get there.
My country is very limited in such opportunities which will act as leverage during my Ph.D. applications. Hence, I was wondering if there are universities that hire international candidates as research assistants? I will of course need visa sponsorship for that.
Working as a research assistant at a good university will let me network with known scientists in my field. Therefore, strengthening my LoRs.<issue_comment>username_1: It would help to know the field you're in as there could be exceptions that I'm not aware of.
From my experience in STEM, research assistant opportunities for Master's graduates are very rare (especially so for sponsoring an international candidate). If there was funding for a research assistantship position it would usually go a PhD graduate (ie. postdoc) - international candidates are very common in this case.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In the US, at least, and perhaps several other places, the term "Research Assistant" is used for a position connected to doctoral education only. In some lab sciences (chemistry,...) a grant-funded lab might also hire other more permanent people, but they might be called "Lab Assistants" or "Lab Technicians" rather than Research Assistants. An RA position lasts up to the time of graduation and most of the perks involve tuition forgiveness and such, not salary.
But a lab assistant follows the direction of others and is only peripherally involved with research in the lab and so it might not even be a good place to get a LoR for a doctoral application. Such folks may be essential, but they are employees not researchers.
I doubt that such opportunities exist in Statistics *per se* as most statisticians don't work in laboratories requiring maintenance of equipment and such. Biostatistics might be different in some cases.
But if you want to get a doctorate, then applying for one (yet again) may solve your problems altogether. Again, in the US, most doctoral students at good universities are funded, either through a Teaching Assistantship or an RA.
If you were rejected already then I suggest you broaden your search. If it was a narrow search, especially one centered at top level universities then a broader search might be successful. And you may need to talk to your letter writers to see why they affect your application. The letter writers should be people who know you and your work and are willing to use their own reputation to predict your success. I've gotten at least one student over the line in a good place by letting the dean there know things that weren't reflected in the normal application materials. The person I'm thinking of is now a full professor at a top school.
Upvotes: 3
|