date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2023/01/01
| 583
| 2,408
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am heading to the AMS/MAA Joint Meetings in Boston soon. My mathematics department in Xiamen University (Malaysia) has a couple of open permanent positions this cycle, and I would like to meet job seekers at the Joint Meetings and ask them to consider applying. We have had some success recruiting American postdocs in the past through online advertising on the AMS's Mathjobs website.
This conference attracts a lot of job seekers because many American universities hold interviews during the conference. So what is the best way for me to meet and get the word out to job seekers at the conference?<issue_comment>username_1: 1. Announce it at the end of your talk. Most potential candidates would listen to your talk because it is similar to what they are doing and that is what, I think, you need. (*As <NAME> pointed out in the comment, this might not be suitable for AMS-MAA meetings but it is common in other events/disciplines*)
2. Distribute flyers.
3. Use coffee breaks to communicate with people you think would be an asset to your department.
4. Send (semi) personal messages/emails to potential candidates after, for example, listening to their talks. You can easily find people by googling their names.
5. Use the recruiting centre.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is almost certainly too late to implement the following for this year, but for future reference...
Many such large conferences have an exhibits area where various organizations (book sellers, etc) set up booths. There is a fee for this, of course. You could in future set up a booth advertising your university and its faculty needs. Staff it with people who can be helpful to a prospective hire. That could include students, actually.
Then, you could rent a hotel room at the venue and contract with the hotel to set up a buffet in that room on one of the nights during the conference. Use the exhibits area to hand out invitations to the buffet to anyone who seems promising and use the buffet room itself to have conversations with people. The invitation should indicate that the buffet is for recruiting, so people come prepared.
This might be costly and requires advanced planning. Some companies do this at some conferences in CS, for example, as part of recruiting.
---
This page shows some options: <https://www.jointmathematicsmeetings.org//jmm>
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/02
| 684
| 2,735
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am doing a Master's programme that is a sort of mixture of linguistics and literature. The university is in Europe and is in the world's TOP 200 according to QS rankings.
I feel that most of the academic staff in the department is incompetent. They:
* make lots of factual errors in lectures and when grading tests;
* don't seem to understand the material they're presenting - the discussion in the seminars is superficial;
* give feedback and advice that is unhelpful and unsound;
* shut down my ideas in ways that makes me angry.
To make matters worse, it seems to me that none of my co-students is interested in academic work (at least in the topics we're covering). They hardly ever offer interesting input in seminars.
What should I do? I feel like I can't protest and criticise too loudly, because I am interested in pursuing academic career in that same university and don't want to hurt my reputation and relations.<issue_comment>username_1: 1. Announce it at the end of your talk. Most potential candidates would listen to your talk because it is similar to what they are doing and that is what, I think, you need. (*As <NAME> pointed out in the comment, this might not be suitable for AMS-MAA meetings but it is common in other events/disciplines*)
2. Distribute flyers.
3. Use coffee breaks to communicate with people you think would be an asset to your department.
4. Send (semi) personal messages/emails to potential candidates after, for example, listening to their talks. You can easily find people by googling their names.
5. Use the recruiting centre.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is almost certainly too late to implement the following for this year, but for future reference...
Many such large conferences have an exhibits area where various organizations (book sellers, etc) set up booths. There is a fee for this, of course. You could in future set up a booth advertising your university and its faculty needs. Staff it with people who can be helpful to a prospective hire. That could include students, actually.
Then, you could rent a hotel room at the venue and contract with the hotel to set up a buffet in that room on one of the nights during the conference. Use the exhibits area to hand out invitations to the buffet to anyone who seems promising and use the buffet room itself to have conversations with people. The invitation should indicate that the buffet is for recruiting, so people come prepared.
This might be costly and requires advanced planning. Some companies do this at some conferences in CS, for example, as part of recruiting.
---
This page shows some options: <https://www.jointmathematicsmeetings.org//jmm>
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/02
| 3,051
| 13,280
|
<issue_start>username_0: During my fourth year as a postdoctoral researcher in computer science at my university, a position for an assistant professor opened up and was available to be filled by one of the local postdocs. We were only two candidates for the position and both completed our PhDs in the same year. However, during the interview process, the selection committee mentioned that my citation count (around 200) and h-index (8) were significantly lower compared to the other candidate.
In the past, I had worked with an exceptional professor for my PhD who emphasized the importance of producing high-quality, original research papers that could only be published in top-tier venues, even if it took a long time to get them published. I have continued to follow this approach in my research, focusing on developing novel ideas and publishing them in prestigious journals and highly selective conferences.
In contrast, my colleague has co-authored a large number of papers with numerous people, but a majority of these papers are surveys or discuss the challenges and issues surrounding certain topics. As a result, my colleague has garnered around 3000 citations and an h-index above 20.
I did not anticipate that the selection committee would necessarily favour me over my colleague, but I did expect to be seen as a viable candidate and for the selection process to be based on small, distinguishing factors. However, based on their criteria, it seems that I have already been eliminated from consideration before the committee has even reviewed my resume.
I am wondering if the strategy that I (and my PhD supervisor) have employed for research and publishing is flawed. Should I start writing survey papers, which have a higher likelihood of being published and cited, in order to improve my citation count and h-index? Alternatively, should I prioritize getting my name listed on as many papers as possible, even if it means compromising my contribution and the quality or originality of my research?
I want to clarify that I did not mean to imply that I am better than my colleague or that I believe myself to be superior. I was simply comparing a specific aspect of our research, the h-index, which played a role in the selection process. I explained the reason for the difference in our h-indices, which was mainly due to the types of publications we have each produced. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague and consider him to be highly competent. I would have been just as pleased if he had been selected, but not because of the h-index criterion. We are colleagues and I will continue to support him. However, my research philosophy differs from his, and I was wondering if this would hinder my progress.<issue_comment>username_1: There are two separate points here.
First:
>
> However, based on their criteria, it seems that I have already been eliminated from consideration before the committee has even reviewed my resume.
>
>
>
It may well be that, irrespective of h-index etc, the committee *had* made their mind and the h-index is just a convenient excuse. Choosing a candidate depends on multiple factors, many of which are extremely subjective or self-serving.
Next, ask yourself: do you *really* want to spend the next 35-40 years working in a place where
“developing novel ideas and publishing them in prestigious journals and highly selective conferences” is not a priority?
By your own admission it seems you would be a bit of a misfit at that place.
You should think thrice about taking a job at a place where you are unlikely to thrive: this could lead to 35-40 years of misery, and could stunt your research development. Of course it is possible with a good network of collaborators to still prosper in such an environment by delicately balancing sheer productivity and visibility, but it seems your current unit has revealed their cards and what they want is not really what you want.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: First of, realize that you are currently drawing a lot of conclusions from a single data point. In this *one specific* job search the committee valued the number of publications and h-index higher than the quality of publications. This is not enough data to determine that your (or your supervisor's) strategy is flawed. Moreover, there is no "strategy" that guarantees success at any specific hiring - different hirings are done by different people, who value different things, and nobody (not your advisor nor anybody else) can tell you with certainty what exactly a specific committee will look for.
That said, in practice what candidates usually need to be successful is a healthy mix of number of publications, strong publications (as proxied by "competitive venues"), and a reasonable citation count for your field and career age (what is "reasonable" depends a lot on the field, but I have to say in applied CS an h-index of 8 would indeed be seen as rather low after 4 years of postdoc). Nobody gets hired onto a good position by publishing 50 borderline-spam papers, but today you will also find it difficult to get hired if you publish substantially less than your colleagues (even if those papers that you do publish are all very strong). How precisely the different dimensions will be weighted will be up to the committee.
---
One word of warning, not really specifically for OP since I don't know your CV, but generally for those that rely on "quality" to demonstrate research excellence. Doing less but "excellent" research is not a good strategy if that excellence is not easily visible or objectifiable. If you plan on banking on excellence, these excellent papers (a) need to objectively be very strong (it's not sufficient if *you* find your work much better than the work of competitors, the wider field needs to see it in the same way!), and (b) they need to appear at absolute top venues and garner visible interest (citations may be one way to achieve this, but public discourse etc. could be another). I have met candidates who told me that they don't understand why their really strong papers don't count for more, but upon reviewing their CV I found that all of this work was either unpublished or published at mediocre venues and was effectively uncited. At this point you are banking on a hiring committee detailedly reviewing your papers to determine that they are actually very good, and with dozens (or, in some cases, hundreds) of applications this is a very, very long stretch.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I believe you need to reevaluate both your and colleague's papers/research output.
Starting with the most obvious, his top 20 papers got 20 citations each. Dividing your 200 citations among at least 8 papers means your average paper got about the same number of citations as his minimum, yet you have half of his good papers. If your papers are really that good, why does nobody bother to cite?
Perhaps, what you are missing is marketing of your papers. How to do it is another matter where I unfortunately cannot help much. Maybe all you are missing are better (more attractive) titles. Or perhaps what you need to do is rethink your strategy - one possibility is having more decent-but-not-great papers. This approach has two benefits over your current approach of "only the best" (with the obvious cost of spending time on that). One benefit is that people can cite any (or even more than one) of your papers, boosting your total citations and other bibliometric scores. Instant improvement to meaningful score. Second and perhaps more important benefit is that someone will read your ok-ish paper - and see that you cite your own great paper, making them read it - again, leading people to read and cite your best papers.
Second problem I have with your characterization of being singled out - you are effectively saying colleague's papers are meh as they are just surveys or only show issues/challenges - but some of the most important papers in many fields are those that show currently mainstream strategy is fundamentally flawed and can't work. Yes, review papers get more citations often for less work and that stings and stinks. I would hope that committee does read few best papers of top candidates to account for that. If they did, perhaps they weren't as impressed by your top papers as you are.
Here, the best way forward would be to find his top few publications, and select your top few publications, and ask someone for his informal opinion. Perhaps your supervisor, though it would be better if you could find someone impartial. It is always the best to judge papers with fresh and unbiased set of eyes. Almost everyone thinks his own research is better and more important than it really is (as judged by the whole society).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: One major realization for me was that high-quality work is good at *communication*, not just obtaining great results. You may do Nobel prize-worthy work only for it to be ignored and forgotten for decades, if not eternity, if you fail to communicate it well.
We do not have a particularly good way of predicting a candidate's performance. Evaluating a body of work is also hard, especially when it comes to recent papers. But if a candidate has one citation on a paper published 5 years ago in a fast-moving field, this was not an impactful publication, most likely. If they were way "ahead of their time", the communication part of the job was done poorly.
Management boils down to running on a treadmill nonstop: you produce results to acquire more resources to produce better results and acquire even more resources and... Well, if you put too little effort in resource acquisition, it is hard to get very far. Pragmatically, a big part of professorship is enabling others to do great work and attracting funding. Producing lots of low-quality papers is unnecessary; but it is pretty unrealistic to survive without chest thumping altogether - and you won't get higher up the ladder. Like username_2 says - if your h-index is 8, but all these papers have 100+ citations, you still have a strong case. If they all have about 10, why are you convincing the committee they are absolutely outstanding while you should have been impressing your peers in a broader scientific world instead?
Similarly, a part of the perception here is an inability to turn results into something tangible. You may perceive it as salami publishing, but the powers that be are already planning the resource allocation for the upcoming year. If you want a slice of the pie, you better keep reporting in.
It is what it is. Do not think of promoting your work as something inherently at odds with producing good research - it is another part of the job, it takes time and energy, a lot of both, in fact, but you just fail to get through otherwise. While your progress is apparent to you, it is not the case for other people: to appreciate it fully, they would have to do a lot of work that you do, and that is just infeasible most of the time. This outreach does not necessarily have to be achieved by the means of publishing lots of survey papers, but you still have to convince people your research is useful *to them*. And by the time you are in front of a committee, it is a bit too late for that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: You suggest that you did 4 years of postdoc already at that university. This should mean that you already have a good idea of what that Department's priorities are, educationally and research-wise. It should also mean that you have a good idea of the character of the senior staff.
I think that you should reflect on the first point made by username_1, i.e that **your research's formal metrics are simply a plausible pretext for excluding you.**
Beyond research, we can't speculate as you say nothing about other aspects of the job as discussed at interview. Academic purists will find it hard to argue with the advice of your PhD supervisor. But if you hold with this ethos then you have to seek out your own kind in academia. Now jobs are hard to come by anyway, so searching only in known ethos-congenial institutions is unwise.
I was a bit intrigued at your rival's willingness to submit review/summary papers: on the face of it neither of you are senior enough to be doing this. (I also thought that this type of paper had to be requested by senior conference organizers and was not something one could just voluntarily offer to them: we learn something new every day.) No doubt it was done in part for boosting the authors' profiles and giving them a high-visibility platform on which to cite their own papers: these are the margins involved in the growing one's formal metrics of publications.
You need to sharpen your academic elbows a bit or you will continue to be nudged away from the feed-trough by fatter beasts. Maybe take a cold look at your research work to date and see if you can find something like an industrially interesting application from this that might attract funding directly to you. This may involve collaboration of course. But if you can attract funding, the formal metrics may no longer matter much when you are being interviewed: your attraction to a hiring department will be more direct.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/03
| 759
| 3,244
|
<issue_start>username_0: At the early stage of an academic career, it can be that the researcher's h-index is largely driven by self-citations. It is the case for me at the 1st year postdoc stage. I've got a few peer-reviewed publications that are only beginning to gain momentum in citations coming outside of me. But I've also had a chance to work with advisors that created many opportunities for me to publish review papers or book chapters in which I self-cite whenever appropriate.
When applying for TT faculty positions, do the hiring committees typically look at the h-index that includes self-citations, such as the one reported on a researcher's Google scholar page? Should I worry if at the point of my TT application my h-index is mostly driven by self-citations? In the end, it also means that I keep publishing and keep developing a research line, which might be looked at favorably (?).
My field is STEM and I will be applying for TT positions in Europe (within EU).<issue_comment>username_1: Hiring committees typically do what they want. Actually, it is the individuals on any hiring committee that do what they want. Some will do this, some will do that. Some will ignore such numbers altogether.
Note that if you avoid self citation you may be open to charges of self plagiarism, so it is often necessary to self-cite. Someone hiring will understand that.
People aren't algorithms and don't typically use a completely algorithmic process to hire. Especially a process driven by a few numbers. They want to know how you fit into an organization and want to know about the significance of your research.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Self-citations are a very situational thing. Sure, they are generally frowned upon because often there is a piece of research covering the topic better, and both ignorance or deliberate deceit of the reader reflects poorly on authors... But what if you are a part of one or two labs in the entire world having bespoke equipment to work on a specific problem? Or, less drastically, you might well be discussing a branch of science narrow enough and with enough specifics it warrants referring your own old results. It depends.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Self-citations themselves are not a problem. To me that would be a bit of a red flag if someone's h-index with self-citations is a lot higher than their h-index without self-citations.
It's subject dependent, but as I understand it, in pure mathematics h-indices are rarely considered, whereas in physics, applied mathematics and engineering there is a bit more emphasis on it. So, for example, when making a ''rough assessment'' of how good a researcher is in applied mathematics or engineering, it is indeed quite common to look them up on Google Scholar or similar website and see what their h-index is, whereas in pure mathematics, this practice is much less common.
But even in the applied mathematics setting, this is really a very rough heuristic and I do not think it would sway a decision by a committee, since that committee probably has its own rules and ideas about who they want to hire and how they will fit into the work being done by other members of the research group.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/03
| 913
| 3,853
|
<issue_start>username_0: A student applied to a 5-year PhD program after graduating from an undergraduate program. The student was accepted to the graduate program and was promised a research assistantship and tuition waiver for the first three years.
The student accepted the offer, and enrolled in the university. It turns out that the department does not have enough teaching assistants, so the student and other students who are in analogous circumstances are being told they are now a TA as well.
This is being framed as a "must do," not as "please TA this course, we need help." Can they do this? The main attraction of a research assistantship is being able to focus on research and being saddled with a teaching job largely cancels this out. Seems underhanded.<issue_comment>username_1: Of course, one is not *literally* sold to slavery upon starting their PhD.
But in your case, it is a question of recourse. You just have virtually no leverage at that stage. May you antagonize an entire department and still survive and defend successfully? Maybe. Is it wise to do? Probably not.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Unless they have something like a contract or the legal equivalent of a contract, they can probably do it. And, it might actually be a career advantage to do a TA for a while, even with an RA, assuming the person wants an academic career.
I doubt, however, that the "time and effort" equivalent would increase, and would assume that the RA commitment would be reduced accordingly.
Note that faculty actually also get such "surprises" occasionally in their career and it is good to act in a "collegial" manner to help the institution function properly. Being seen as a "team player" can lead to other opportunities as time goes on.
But, everyone's needs and preferences differ. If the person feels strongly enough about it, they can decline the offer, though it still has advantages in terms of tuition waiver and the rest. And, in the following year, the "full" RA might be restored when they have a chance to rebalance their "offers".
---
Personal note: It was long (long) ago, but I once held a four year full-ride fellowship for doctoral study in the US. But even that required a year (IIRC) as a TA, since it was considered a good career move.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The department needs to fulfill its promise to the student. If the student was promised an RA-ship, they are owed an RA-ship. And if the student didn’t agree to be a TA, they cannot be “told they are now a TA” without their explicit consent. Moreover, if the student refuses to be a TA, which they 100% have a right to do, that does not release the department from its earlier commitment to give the student an RA-ship.
That being said, organizations — even university departments — will sometimes behave in an unethical and even illegal manner. “Can” they do it, and get away with it? That depends on the situation, the level of resistance offered by the students subjected to this behavior, and the norms of the institution and country where this is taking place.
To be clear, the behavior is more than just “underhanded”. It is a clear attempt to renege on a formal promise made (in writing, I assume) to the student, about something material that would clearly heavily factor in to the student’s decision to attend this graduate program, and which could significantly affect their chances to do well in the program once there.
My suggestion to the student is to seek help from their local graduate student union, the university ombuds office, or other available resources. The department’s behavior is not acceptable. Hopefully with a modest intervention by responsible adults, the department’s administrators will be made to see the error of their ways and find more acceptable ways to solve their TA shortage.
Upvotes: 5
|
2023/01/04
| 848
| 3,887
|
<issue_start>username_0: How do research funders audit where their money is going? Say they give some amount to a professor, after one year the professor didn't produce a thing in his research. How does it work?
It seems very unlikely to me that these funds are run by people who doesn't care if they throw their money like that.
The problem is that some professors are not active at all, they offer really low quality courses, they use the same material, same assignments, etc. You would suspect they are good at their research, but you hear similar things from their students. Still, they continue to receive grants and money from the government !<issue_comment>username_1: First, researchers have to request funds for specific purchases, budgets are usually provided as part of the grant proposal. Rarely can a researcher request substantive funds without a clear purpose. The most open-ended type of funds are "summer salary." This is literally pay for the summer, since most professors aren't paid over those months. If someone wants an academic to work during that period (typically research but could be otherwise), it's common for them to request payment. This is summer salary.
Most researchers don't get research funds deposited into their personal accounts. The funds typically go to the university they work at, and then are disbursed after receipts are shown or through the normal purchasing process at the university.
These processes tend to be extremely bureaucratic with great oversight. For example, timesheets might need to be shown for summer salary to be collected - even if the research has been created and published.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If the researcher has not produced anything after a year, they will find it difficult to obtain any grants after that, because recent publications are a factor in grant decisions. It would be a great way to stall your career. So researchers tend to try pretty hard to produce something once they receive a grant. Also, there's not that many sources of funding out there, so if you totally waste an agency's grant they might remember it when you apply to them again.
Some grants restrict what they may be used for. You cannot, for example, apply for a grant saying you will research X and then instead research a completely different topic Y. Everything you purchase or pay for with the grant money has to be tabulated and reported to the funding agency. If there's stuff that is obviously not related to the research, there may be various repercussions. It depends on the agency how closely they look at your expenses and how strict they are about judging them.
There are also some grants that are structured in installments. You don't get the whole money right away. You have to meet with the agency's officials periodically (for example yearly or every 6 months) and give them an update on your progress. If they don't like the update, you might not get the rest of the money.
Lastly, there is not necessarily an expectation that results must be produced. Science deals with the unknown, so it's inevitable that sometimes the hypothesis just turns out to be wrong. So many funders take broader view. They accept that there will always be some studies that fail, and it's not necessarily the researcher's fault. At the proposal stage, they try to pick applications that would still produce some useful results even if they failed.
>
> The problem is that some professors are not active at all, they offer really low quality courses, they use the same material, same assignments, etc.
>
>
>
Research grants don't really care about the quality of your courses. They are primarily concerned with research. There are sometimes specialized grants that do also take teaching/outreach into account, and these will of course expect you to provide evidence that your courses are high quality.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/04
| 1,447
| 6,037
|
<issue_start>username_0: My friend is very frustrated, he realized recently that his supervisor never read the code he was working on for the last year for his PhD.
As he described the situation, his supervisor doesn't seem to see a problem in that fact, and says that it was always hard for him to read any of his students' codes. However, he continues asking him 'stupid' questions about how the code is implemented and asks him to include those answers in his thesis. When my friend mentioned that the thesis already has these answers in such section or paragraph, the supervisor quickly pretends that he means to describe it in more detail, and my friend is afraid that he never read the thesis at all, except for some major sections.
So my question: Is this a common practice in academia? Are supervisors required to read their students' work or not; and if not, how do they ensure that the work is correct?<issue_comment>username_1: It is common for supervisors to not read their students' code. That is because code is *hard* to read if it's not written by you. You can note this effect yourself if you try reading the code of open source projects (e.g. [Stockfish](https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish)). The last time I tried to read someone else's code from scratch, it took several days to get a sense of what the code was doing, and I still didn't understand every line.
How do the supervisors know the code is correct then? Well, how does anyone know the code is correct? You test the code on simpler cases and make sure it works. For example, take a program that takes five points and calculates
the area of the resulting polygon. In that case, if you give the program the same point five times, it should return 0. Similarly, if you give it only three points (if the program requires five inputs, give one input three times), it should return the area of the corresponding triangle. You can verify this case easily with pen & paper, since the formula for a triangle's area is known.
And then there are other checks. For the pentagon-area program above, if you give very large numbers, you should also get a very large area. Does that happen? If you give five points in the 1st quadrant (i.e., positive x-value, positive y-value), you should get the same area with the five mirrored points in the 3rd quadrant (negative x-value, negative y-value). Does that happen? For each test that the program passes, the more confident you can be that it is working correctly.
The last line doesn't mean that it *is* working correctly. [Example](https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.314.5807.1856) of papers getting retracted because of a bug in the code. But that's typical of science - just because Relativity has passed every experimental test it has faced doesn't mean it is correct.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The question:
>
> Are supervisors required to read their students' work or not; and if not, how do they ensure that the work is correct?
>
>
>
Certainly not the entirety of it, especially for PhD students. By the end of a PhD, the student should be a better expert in their narrow topic than their supervisor. Moreover, in science, we do not repeat every single bit of others' work to be able to judge whether the result is correct or not.
And that is *especially* true for coding-heavy PhDs of late. My own advisor does not write or read code at all, that does not mean I should not have written any or that I should have forced them to pick up coding just to supervise me. This is just absurd.
Instead, they would have questions (usually) representative of those people in the field would generally have. In some aspects, the **roles easily get reversed**: advisor-student relationship is not strictly hierarchical, the advisor is not supposed to be better, faster, stronger than the student in every aspect. They are also not supposed to follow the student at every single small step. A PhD student by their graduation should be able to be independent, and they should be able to clearly demonstrate to the thesis committee why their results are correct. The less the advisor's seal of approval matters at that point, the better.
The problem:
>
> My friend is very frustrated
>
>
>
I would advise approaching it similarly to reviewers' comments. If they did not understand everything you said and are asking "stupid" questions, they are usually in the right. Do not look up to the advisor as some kind of an Übermensch: if they did not understand something, what odds are there that the thesis committee will understand it? It is one's job to communicate their work clearly, not readers' job to thoroughly reexamine every nook and cranny. If I read your paper and you did not convince me that your results are sound, presenting arguments understandable by *me*, I would likely not even get to open your code. And all the hard work that went into it would not matter at all if you did not bother to answer "stupid" questions or thought it is my responsibility to ascend to your level of understanding to be able to bask in your infinite wisdom. Sorry.
This is not the only approach to advising possible. And there are truly stupid questions. But from your post, I got a different impression: very likely, there is value in what your friend's advisor does. If your friend leans towards offering their work only to a select few who will put enough effort in understanding it, they have gotten it backwards. If they overemphasize the role of their advisor in a PhD (as in, results are only valid iff an advisor says so, they then say so to the committee and the work gets a greenlight), that is also problematic.
So there you have it. There is a big gap between "does not even read the code" and "completely clueless about the experiments, methodology, and results". The former is definitely normal, the latter is not. Some in-betweens are also common (e.g. an advisor might not understand some specific parts of the methodology, and that is also fine).
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/04
| 2,175
| 9,164
|
<issue_start>username_0: My understanding is that publishing model of academic research (i.e. publishing in journals) is a bit broken mostly in the sense that non-significant results are not published.
Key factors are:
* Journals have a monetary incentive to publish 'exciting' results
* Researchers can be unwilling to share non-significant results early for fear of having credit for their idea stolen.
This seems to be a bit at odds with the scientific method where by results of a experiment should be reproducible, but if non-significant results are being ignored then, then many published results may just be a p-value hack ([obligatory xkcd](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/882:_Significant)). This does seem to be a real problem - ie. [The Replication Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis).
On the other hand, I'm very impressed with the state of open source software - particularly within web development, (it seems that) the vast majority of modern web dev tooling is created openly and transparently via the open source model.
The question is - are there attempts to develop an alternative publishing model for scientific experimentation?
Key features I'm particularly interested in, is the ability to express an experiment in a machine readable format, and have similar experiments be discoverable.<issue_comment>username_1: The biology journal eLife, which is regarded as a very good journal, is experimenting with a model where papers are published alongside the peer reviews, irrespective of what the reviews say. This should allow the publication of results which the reviewers don't view as novel or significant.
<https://elifesciences.org/about>
Once upon a time they talked about publishing executable articles, but I don't see anything about that after a quick glance at the website, so perhaps that experiment wasn't a success.
UPDATE:
This was just announced <https://elifesciences.org/labs/dc5acbde/welcome-to-a-new-era-of-reproducible-publishing>
The idea is to make the paper a sort of notebook, comparable to Jupiter or RMarkdown, allowing the reader direct access to the code and data, allowing the change and reexecute the code etc. I assume is runs on some sort of firewalled, managed VM system, like mybinder.org
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: With some clarifications obtained from the comments, I would now attempt to answer. Brace yourself for a long and, perhaps, a bit controversial post.
Some efforts are made to make science more reproducible and transparent. But I believe that what you are hoping to achieve here is fundamentally incompatible with science as we know it. And the key reason for that is that (applied) science is not the most rigorous activity on the face of the planet. Perhaps it is a bit ironic given that it is used as a standard of rigor and thoroughness, but the industry might actually have an edge over it.
Scientists' job is to find new things that *might* be useful. It is unrealistic to expect them to be able to make things ISO-compliant and provide installation instructions for half a dozen of distros and fix every bug arising from an update in an external dependency. Some fields do better in this regard, some worse, but without serious industry backing, the resources required for this level of coverage and continuous support are just not there. The same argument can be made for open source software. The way the whole system is currently set up is that scientists do curation and heuristics, and only then some serious engineering effort is poured in. I would expect the bottom line to rise over time, but still be consistently behind that in the industry. It is, and will be for foreseeable future, a tooling problem: most scientific software can produce, say, r^2 values, but that would be far behind what is actually required. As soon as you know the requirements and specification in enough detail, it is not science, it is engineering, and not the most creative part of the latter, either. We will not have nearly enough people and money to do bleeding edge research with full reproducibility - instead, the best studies will eventually stand out and grow, while the worse ones will be buried under the sands of time. Like in many things in life, it is often more efficient to invest $1000 in one idea than $1 in a 1000 ideas each. And the balance is generally somewhere in between, some ideas will get $500, some $100, some $1. Scientists generate lots of ideas, so naturally, most of them would not be getting $1 in this example just to keep going. What that $1 gets you changes over time, but it is never much.
As an anecdote, I once sat down with people from a big IT company who were giving us a product presentation for a joint project and describing roles for a team of 7-10 people who were supposedly doing the technical part of this project. That felt utterly out of touch, I could feel schizophrenia kicking in, as I was literally the only person covering all these roles on our side. And every time I configure iptables or Docker containers or figure out JWT authorization, I am hurting my research career (and, arguably, wasting taxpayers' money). There are better examples of academia and industry working together: if you look at some of the foundational works in machine learning or some branches of computer science, the code is very poorly written. There are no automatic tests - this is another huge problem, by the way: to write tests, you need to know the answer already. Early internet name resolution system in a form of a plain text file [was maintained](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc627.txt) by [just one amazing gal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_J._Feinler) before someone finally decided to invest resources for a proper overhaul. All these things were solved, just not by the academia alone.
Another problem to consider is a socioeconomic one. You have citizens paying taxes, and they are ultimately interested in consumer goods and well-being of the industry. Being an average Joe who can't do much of rocket science but, you know, comes to the factory five days a week and produces parts for Quantum Superiority™ 3000. Prestige is fine and well, but the reason many people care about it is not having to pay triple for Quantum Leap™ 2 produces in some other country because they do not have a comparable technology. Scientists are generally more liberal and cooperative people than average, but for a government, 100% reproducibility with minimal effort in all but the most fundamental sciences means securing international cooperation and playing the [centipede game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centipede_game) on a global scale. Scientists may strive to benefit all of the humanity, but funding agencies operate differently, and there are lots of politics involved in these decisions (say, NSF would strive to reduce the friction and waste domestically while benefitting scientists from Russia and China as little as possible).
You list web dev tooling as an example, but it only became open and any good at all when companies started competing on something else. At first, the concept of the wheel is a closely guarded secret, but then it is out, you are building cars, and finally may agree to come together and standardize wheels and roads.
All that is to say that we are not getting zero-effort full reproducibility anytime soon, if ever. One could define some arbitrary standards and develop tooling to easily achieve them, but that would just move the goalposts. Science keeps self-correcting to stay one hit ahead of the flock, and paradoxically that means striving for making our lives just hard enough to stay busy. As soon as something "just works", we would move on to the next thing that still does not. This is just our human condition.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: [People absolutely try](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review#Different_styles). I can't name the journals that try these off the top of my head, but as you can see from that Wikipedia section, there are journals that:
* Do double-blind peer review (authors don't know who the reviewers are, and vice versa)
* Do triple-blind peer review (authors & editors & reviewers don't know who each other are)
* Do open peer review (everyone knows who everyone else is)
* Do open peer reports (reviews are published together with the paper)
* Do open participation (reviewers self-select to review the paper)
* Do post-publication peer review (every paper is published, reviews are done after publication)
* Do results-blind peer review (reviewers receive a manuscript where the results & conclusions are omitted)
* Do two-stage results-blind peer review (review done in two stages; in the first stage reviewers don't know the results/conclusions, in the second stage they do)
* Do novelty-blind peer review (reviewers are specifically instructed not to comment on whether the paper is novel, only if it is correct)
The fact that the traditional model has endured is a sign of how robust it is. Everyone knows it is flawed, but nobody has been able to come up with a better model.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/04
| 802
| 3,472
|
<issue_start>username_0: Assume a North American STEM-based tenure-track position to which a search committee, including a couple of faculty members and the chair of their department, corresponds.
>
> Regarding decisions to be made at various stages such as "initial
> shortlisting", "campus visit applicant selection", and "final
> selection", are all the cited decision making processes for such a
> tenure-track position totally transparent to all members of that
> search committee? In other words, which scenario described below (or
> otherwise) is the typical case?
>
>
>
**Scenario 1:**
Each member of the committee communicates their opinion about each applicant directly to the chair, and the other members do not know about the specific content of the assessment of other peers. Then, the chair, considering all the recommendations, solely selects the applicant who is the best in their estimation without expressing any justification to the remainder of committee members.
**Scenario 2:**
All members of the search committee can see each other's votes, and the chair shares their final justification to pick the lucky applicant(s) at every stage.<issue_comment>username_1: A selection or hiring committee is not an ISO-specified machine, certified by an external evaluator. It is a collection of *people* with their own motivations and preconceptions, and as a consequence if you take 100 hiring committees, you will likely find 100 different approaches of which 60 are functional, 20 are dysfunctional, 10 employ unethical practices, and 10 involve nepotism and coercion. (Of course, the numbers are made up and you are free to choose your own numbers.)
The point to make is that you can't assume that there is a "typical" approach they all follow. I don't think the question as asked is even useful in assessing how these committees actually work.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Generally speaking I expect that decisions are transparent. If an organization operated otherwise it would lead to disfunction and poor internal working conditions. That happens, of course, but the pressure of faculty would tend to work against lack of transparency in most cases.
But heads of department may not be able to make the final decision in any case. A dean might also need to be in the loop, especially if there are financial considerations, for example.
And, you haven't covered the case where a hiring committee comes to some sense of consensus on a candidate (my experience) and makes a joint recommendation to the administration, rather than just individual (especially secret) votes. I have seen the situation where the hiring committee met as a group to discuss candidates and the senior members defer to a junior member to hire a person that would be helpful in extending her research. The hiring decision was then obvious to all.
Often there can be some compromise. A candidate might be viewed as fitting into some particular research group leading to some lobbying. A candidate might seem to bring something fresh to the department.
Heads of department and deans also, generally, want to keep peace in the faculty, especially when there are factions of various kinds. This might lead to some negotiations.
And if the person making the final decision, assuming it is so centralized, can't justify it to the faculty, then there is likely to be disruption. So, transparency is selected for if not always present.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/04
| 816
| 3,722
|
<issue_start>username_0: A journal is issuing a new issue which is related to my research area. I was planning on submitting my paper to this issue, but my advisor told me instead to submit the paper in a regular issue, due to the fact that special issue papers are usually accepted by reviewers without the reviewers giving them the required peer-review attention, and that it is known that publishing in a special issue is not as good as publishing in a regular issue.
Can someone please confirm or deny this information?<issue_comment>username_1: This might be field dependent, and it is good to follow your advisor's advice as they know the field better than you (or I) do. But I find it a bit strange.
The one thing that would seem to support the statement is that, having a firm date for publication, there are probably fewer review-rewrite cycles for special issues so that weak or marginal papers don't get improved much. But, they are also much more likely to get summary rejection early.
If a paper is good, then the venue in which it is published doesn't change the quality of the paper. It is what it is.
Moreover, in some fields, special issues have special editors that are top-level academics in the theme of the issue. They are in a good position to know what is important/interesting/novel in that field.
Frankly, I'd prefer a special issue for my own work since it is more likely to be seen by those who care the most, since a special issue is normally theme restricted.
But, your advisor is probably referring to a "perception" problem that they (and maybe others) have with special issues. If we "think" the papers are lesser quality then we won't consider them important, independent of the actual quality.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My perception is that for "ordinary" journal special issues in high quality journals, they are a bridge past editorial desk rejection. In that sense, it's less difficult to get a paper into a special issue in the same journal as a regular submission. I disagree with username_1's suggestion that these papers have strict editorial review and more lenient peer review; I get the opposite impression (as username_1 mentioned, this may be field dependent). My colleagues have used and recommended using special issues for some of those papers where people we know in our subfield have seen and like our work, but we just can't seem to find an editor that finds it interesting enough. The options then are to send it to a journal that doesn't make editorial decisions about paper impact or to try a special issue where the editor is likely to be closely interested in the same field.
That doesn't really say anything about *quality*, though, it's just that a journal that publishes general basket weaving papers all of the time may not find your specific underwater basket weaving paper to be of interest to the broad journal readership, but when they're preparing a strictly underwater basket weaving issue, their expected target audience shifts a bit.
There is another category of special issue, though, which are those in lower quality journals where they've somehow snagged an editor to be a special issue paper wrangler or just have one special issue after another to try to convince authors to commit to that journal by making it seem like this is their special chance. These are just money grabs and the editors have other motivations than quality. Stay far away from those journals, but further away from their aggressive special issue editors.
As for papers I read, I can't recall ever paying a cent of attention to whether they were published in a special or regular issue to decide whether it was worth reading.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/05
| 2,856
| 12,283
|
<issue_start>username_0: So simple question for those that already reviewed for MDPI: how did you feel about the quality of the other reviewers (in general)?
I have reviewed a handful of papers now as I feel it is necessary (in the end others review my papers too), but I am starting to have serious doubts about the "level" at MDPI.
Maybe it depends on the journal/paper etc, but for most of the papers I reviewed it ended in me feeling rather idiotic to even bother.
(on a side note: I avoid MDPI to publish in, it is really my last resort to publish something in, if I have no other option, but this does not really happen).
To summarize:
One paper was a copy paste of another paper, they just changed the molecule they used. Now I can get this, but there is a difference between bluntly copy pasting (even certain mistakes from this previously published paper in MDPI) were kept(!!). I was the only reviewer to actually review this paper. The other 3 pretty much just gave it a go to be published. Which made no sense, the language was awful, there were critical errors in the paper. On top of that, after review round 1, all of a sudden there were extra authors on the paper (and the editor never said anything about this even though I mentioned this in my review report).
Another paper: 2 reviewers, I had some minor remarks, but still some issues and the paper also had several issues language wise. The second reviewer just accepted the paper as it was and congratulated the authors on the splendid work. The paper was mediocre. Nothing special and it contained some errors.
A third paper: I wrote a long list of errors, small things, some bigger ones. In general the paper was again mediocre but ok. It could be published if they removed these issues. The 2 other reviewers barely mentioned anything. They just had a few points (like 3-5) that were really minor things. It seemed they never really bothered to read the paper.
Now I know this happens in other journals as well. I even reveiced "reviews" from reviewers while it was obvious they hardly bothered to read my paper, but MDPI seems to top the cake to be honest.
The duality I am facing now is: should I bother to review for MDPI again (and at least try to improve the manuscripts) or not bother anymore and only review for other, more reputable, journals?
I might be a bit naive as I know other (reputable) journals might also have shitty reviewers.
I specifically ask about the experience of reviewing for MDPI, not about their reputation MPDI in general.<issue_comment>username_1: Just a personal remark (that to some extent answers the question, for me personally). I usually have many things to do and am asked to review regularly, by several journals. I will strictly do reviews on a first come first serve basis. I will not be hassled by tight deadlines, and for sure a tighter deadline will not make me prioritise a review. Furthermore I decline as a matter of principle all requests that give me three weeks or less time, as this will not normally work according to the first come first serve rule.
More radically, as people know how busy everyone is, I think that if somebody sets a review deadline at less than three weeks, they implicitly communicate that they don't want a thorough high quality review, and consequently I won't review for them. This rules out reviewing for MDPI as far as I know them, but note that this is not exclusive to MDPI, and their reputation is not the issue here. However I'm not surprised in the least that they get crappy reviews given the time frame in which they're working.
I do know that high publication and reviewing speed is seen as desirable by many, and if somebody else is able to produce a good quality review in 10 days, fine by me. Still I value quality over speed, and quality takes time in my world.
Later addition: Once more not exclusive to MDPI, but... the problem with commercial publishers who use the model that the author and not the reader pays is that they have an economical incentive to accept papers. This will often play out as accepting papers more easily, and being generally more positive than critical reviewers, including potentially ignoring reject recommendations, although this will depend on the individual editor and journal. Some may be concerned enough about the scientific reputation of their journal to not accept all too bad stuff, others may accept far more than a competent and critical reviewer thinks they should.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I both reviewed for and published with MDPI multiple times.
My experience is in line with what is often written here: MDPI will simply look for other reviewers if they dislike your peer review report. A few months ago, I reviewed a seriously flawed paper in my field (nutrition). The authors completely misinterpreted their data. Reviewer #1 asked for minor revisions while I could not recommend the paper for publication (based on the flawed methodology). They asked for a third reviewer who finally approved the paper. It is now published - review reports did no not appear because the authors did not select open peer review.
In 2022, I submitted 3 papers to MDPI. One to Nutrients, which is one of their flagship journals. Two (well-known reviewers) asked for minor revisions which made me skeptical... In this case, peer review was open. In another instance, the same happened. A paper that has been rejected by other Q1 journals underwent minor revisions and was published in 21 days with MDPI. Finally, I had a paper with 3 reviewers that asked for major revisions. After 3 rounds, all reviewers were satisfied and indicated that the paper is suitable for publication. MDPI rejected it and invited me to re-submit it to another MDPI journal.
For me, MDPI is gambling. It is not transparent and I would only submit papers to MDPI that you may not publish elsewhere. I am honest about that.
As for peer reviewing, I only review articles for MDPI from people I know. The constant pressuring for deadlines makes me uncomfortable. 5 days for a major revision is simply not enough in my opinion.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Disclaimer, I work at MDPI and have been here for a little less than a month as of time of writing. I also have had extensive experience in academic publishing, albeit for other publishers.
The question of whether reviews at MDPI are worse than at other publishers is difficult to answer, because to write a full answer one needs access to every journal's & every article's reviews. I don't have that kind of birds-eye view of the operations. Individual editors see only a subset of their journal's articles. More senior editors can see all the journal's articles, but there are a lot of them, so they are not likely to check every article's reviews. I'll still write an answer based on the reviews I've seen firsthand. The following numbers are for the journals *Universe* and *Galaxies*. Because different editors do things differently, what I see might not apply to the journals you see.
For the reviews I have seen firsthand (most of these papers are still under review, hence the relatively low number of reviews per paper):
1. Number of papers: 11
2. Number of reviews: 15 (all written by different reviewers)
3. Number of reviews that include detailed comments: 10
4. Number of reviews that do not include detailed comments: 5
Definition of "detailed" I'm using is if the review is >2 paragraphs in length, after excluding requests to cite X paper or simple English fixes. This definition is not ideal, but it's simple, and does not require subjective judgment.
Several of the reviews with detailed comments are extremely detailed reviews, spanning several pages, with two reviewers running their own calculations and including those calculations in the review (!). Among the reviews that do not include detailed comments, there was one review that basically asked for some citations without saying much else. The other reviewers still clearly read the paper, but didn't have much to say.
Compared to the reviews I saw at other publishers, broadly speaking, these reviews are excellent.
**However**, I have several comments about these numbers:
* Peer review is a [rather stochastic process](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/115231/why-is-peer-review-so-random), and some reviewers will just write poor reviews. We can see this in the [Who's Afraid of Peer Review?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Afraid_of_Peer_Review%3F) sting from 2013. Briefly, a *Science* correspondent submitted a fake paper to several open access journals, and:
>
> Of the 255 papers that underwent the entire peer review process to acceptance or rejection, about 60% of the final decisions occurred with no sign of actual peer review. ... Only 36 submissions generated review comments recognizing any of the paper's scientific problems.
>
>
>
So about 40% of 255 papers (=102) were peer reviewed, of those 36 of 102 (~35%) noticed the paper's scientific problems. In other words, about 65% of peer reviews did not notice the issues. Even if some of these reviews are themselves faked, the numbers are large enough that it seems likely that some reviewers simply didn't notice or care enough about the problems. This would mesh closely with my own experience. I clearly remember one Distinguished Professor at a major R1 university in the US writing a review that said nothing except "I recommend revision, and you should cite the following papers all written by me", so seniority & publishing record doesn't preclude a reviewer from writing poor reviews.
* It should be obvious that if the editor reaches a reviewer who is very familiar with the topic of the paper, then it's more probable that the review will be good. Conversely, if the reviewer is not really familiar with the topic, they more likely to either write a poor review, unless they "get familiar" with the topic (which is a time-consuming process).
Since the MDPI standard operating procedure is to have MDPI staff identifying and inviting reviewers, and since the processes at MDPI are so accelerated (we request reviews in <2 weeks), I think it is relatively likely that MDPI reaches reviewers who aren't the best-qualified to review. In theory, these reviewers should decline to review the article, but some number surely accept anyway and then write a poor review. That could explain what you're seeing. If this is indeed the explanation, it'd indicate the editor(s) you interacted with aren't very good (whose name is on the emails inviting you to review?).
* As I wrote above, compared to the reviews I saw at other publishers, these reviews are excellent. However, this could also be explained by me becoming a better editor (which definitely happened - *Universe* and *Galaxies* are closer to my expertise, and I have been putting in a lot more effort than I used to when selecting reviewers).
For the record of the 15 reviews above, 3 of them were by reviewers not invited by me. Of those three reviews, one is very detailed (this review is one of the two where the reviewers did their own calculations); the other two are not.
* [MDPI allows reviewers to volunteer](https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers#_bookmark5). One of these papers had three volunteer reviewers, but all three were plainly unsuited to reviewing it (no astronomy expertise), so they would likely have written poor reviews too. I don't know why they volunteered. I declined all of them, but another editor might not have, which would probably lead to what you saw.
Finally: for the question "should you bother?" I think [this linked question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8959/should-i-accept-review-requests-from-dubious-journals) is highly relevant. Ultimately it's up to you, and you should not feel pressured to review. There is one thing that I do wonder about though: if you are the only reviewer for a manuscript, would you feel troubled? If yes, then that seems problematic for a lot of journals (I've written some papers that received had only one reviewer myself). If not, then what the other reviewers do doesn't seem like a major concern, and certainly a less important one than whether the authors take your comments seriously.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/05
| 615
| 2,570
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just learned about a professor whose group published [300 papers in 1 year](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ni4ai.jpg). I found that the professor is an author or co-author on every single one of them.
I understand the argument that in some fields, PIs deserve to be the last author on all papers from their group. I am not soliciting opinions about the reasonableness of this practice in general. I imagine that in most cases, the professor can reasonably track all the papers, and there is no issue.
But certainly there is no way a PI can make an intellectual contribution to 300 papers per year, right? Does an ethical issue arise when the supervisor's group is so large that the supervisor is getting authorship on papers they are barely aware of?<issue_comment>username_1: It probably wouldn't be possible in some fields like mathematics, but in other fields it might be entirely appropriate as the criteria for authorship varies.
In particular a PI of a large and well-funded research group who has hands in a lot of pies simultaneously might show up as (usually) "last" author on all of the work done by the group. They make the research possible by drawing in funds and approving research areas of students and postdocs.
Note also that in some areas like high energy physics a given paper might have hundreds of authors all of whom were essential to carrying out the research. All those people likely work on several things simultaneously.
And, in almost every system there will be numeric outliers. Special conditions might apply that wouldn't in almost every case. Someone with a huge circle of collaboration, for example, who is able to spark a-ha moments in their colleagues, breaking logjams. I think Erdős must have been like that in math, but not at the 300/year level.
To answer the headline question, if it were "gift authorship" then it wouldn't be appropriate, but the individual circumstances matter. One can't expect that the number of papers per year is normally distributed.
---
Note, of course, that the linked image says "*we published*", not giving context as to who *we* are. If that was the head of a department, writing for the entire faculty and students, it would be entirely possible, not even especially remarkable in a large department.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is impossible to make a "significant" contribution to 300 papers a year. In my opinion this is scientific misconduct. See for example the "The White Bull effect" <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1734216/>
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/06
| 2,660
| 11,003
|
<issue_start>username_0: I currently have about 14 months left of a PhD programme at a top-rated UK university. My project is in STEM and is partly sponsored by an industrial company. I recently went to a conference in Japan and presented my work. It was very well-received and I really enjoyed my experience in Japan, so much so that I didn't want to leave!
It turns out that my college offers a fully-funded "year in Japan" scheme for its students, which includes a combination of Japanese language classes and teaching English in elementary schools. Provided I am eligible, to me this sounds like it could appeal quite a lot - I am a mature PhD student in his thirties, so schemes like this aren't easily accessible to most people my age, and I've always had a slight itch to learn Japanese (but never had a strong enough reason to commit to it). I also get the impression that learning Japanese could be a handy skill to have, particularly as my scientific area involves collaboration with people all over the world.
However, as I am considering applying for postdocs once my degree finishes, I am slightly worried that having taken a year out of my formal scientific studies after my PhD might not look good. If I make a case for why I did the gap year (in this case, to learn the language and facilitate communication with other world experts), would it be seen as acceptable? Judging from other posts I have seen on the internet, certain postdoc programmes see any form of gap as a bit of a red flag. Having said that, I had a gap of several years working as an educator before I started my PhD, and this turned out not to be an issue when being selected.
What are your thoughts?
**UPDATE:** Based partly on the feedback I have since received, I have decided not to do this scheme. The scheme is only open to those who will have completed their PhD by the time the year abroad starts. Even with my originally planned end date, I would only have a month or so after submitting my PhD in which to complete my viva examination and make any revisions, before being eligible for the year abroad. Perhaps I could stick to visiting Japan every now and again for holidays.<issue_comment>username_1: If the scheme is for learning Japanese and teaching English, then are you really going to be able to facilitate communication with other world experts? Presumably you can communicate with them in English using the internet wherever you are.
Learning Japanese starting in your 30s will be difficult and I would guess that it is very unlikely you will be able to read academic papers or talk about academic research in Japanese after just one year of studying part-time. As you have 14 months left in your PhD maybe you could start studying the language now on your own and see how it goes.
I suppose you could apply to the one-year scheme and then if there is an interview you could ask whether these things are likely to be possible.
Your gap of several years before your PhD, and your age, actually make me think it would be less advisable to have another gap. If you want to do a postdoc afterwards then you would definitely need to keep in touch with research, at the very least, and maybe publish or submit some papers.
Could you find a shorter scheme of three months or so? It doesn't have to be through your current university. Could you find an internship in a Japanese company that works in the area of your PhD research? Did you meet anyone in Japan who could advise you? Or could the person at your university who runs the scheme give you advice?
Good luck, and don't make your decision just based on what I say.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It is common to view the achievements of an academic relative to the time passed since they got their PhD. Many postdoc fellowship schemes have rules of the kind "at most X years after the PhD was earned", and this will also often factor in how people informally evaluate your profile for job applications. Thus, spending a year after your PhD doing something[1] else will be detrimental to your career prospects (not a red flag though).
For STEM subjects, learning Japanese will only really be useful for your career if you plan to work in Japan (and there seem to be a few academic job opportunities there for foreigners fluent in Japanese). Becoming fluent in Japanese in a year seems very ambitious to me.
The usual way for someone in your (future) situation, meaning having a PhD from a UK university, wanting an academic career and interested in spending some time in Japan would be to apply for a JSPS postdoctoral fellowship via the Royal Society:
<https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/grants/jsps-postdoctoral/>
(JSPS postdoctoral fellowships are available for non-UK PhD holders, but the application routes are different).
[1] For the formal aspect at least, exceptions for child caring duties are common though.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It seems your worry is:
>
> having taken a year out of my formal scientific studies after my PhD
> might not look good.
>
>
>
But you also state that
>
> my college offers a fully-funded "year in Japan" scheme for its
> students, which includes a combination of Japanese language classes
> and teaching English in elementary schools.
>
>
>
Which means you would be the succesful winner of a scholarship. Earning funds is a skill that is sought after for postdocs. Of course it will be difficult to frame correctly this scholarship with your scientific profile, but if nothing it shows you are proactive in looking for your own fundings.
The big question is if you would be able to use this program to fit your scientific profile. Maybe you can do the bare minimum of English teaching and save some time to look for collaborations/write proposals/finish projects? or even just providing private english tutoring?
Some final remarks:
* Japanese is not useful in terms of your potential scientific career in Japan. It is very hard to learn, sometimes there are some special programs to make Japan more interesting to foreign researchers and those programs are not requiring Japanese knowledge.
* you say:
>
> at a top-rated UK university. My project is in STEM and is partly
> sponsored by an industrial company. I recently went to a conference in
> Japan and presented my work. It was very well-received and I really
> enjoyed my experience in Japan, so much so that I didn't want to
> leave!
>
>
>
so I would consider that maybe it is not Japan, it is you and the sum of running away from UK weather and from the stressful top-rated uni ... in short: maybe it is the attitude you had for your trip to the other side of the world, rather than the country itself, that promoted this strong interest in Japan.
* Are you sure you can live in Japan? try to live there on your own money for a couple of months, then you will be able to decide if it makes sense to live there one year ...
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: As a former academic who split their time between Japan and the USA, I would consider a postdoc in Japan if your major field is amicable to it. I often recommend Ph.D. students who want to learn Japanese for postdoc position in Japan through my academic network there if I think they'll 1) actually be able to complete the project, and 2) want to actually learn the language.
Now that I'm out of academia, I tend to hire people who have had some experience abroad because my field (semiconductors) involves shared time between the USA and Asia. I'm unsure of your field, but gap years that are not frowned upon as you generally learned something.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Standpoint: I've spoken Japanese 30 years and lived in Japan half of that, working as a software engineer.
The best course of action depends on what your motivations are.
*Is your only strong motivation to spend time in Japan?* If so, perhaps working as an English teacher instead of in your field isn't going to be an optimal use of your time. Why not finish your degree and try to do a post-doc in Japan? You'll get the time in Japan you seek, but without harm to your career. Alternatively, if you really find the prospect of teaching English to be as rewarding as being a post-doc, it might be a sign to reflect on your career choices.
*Are you seeing a potential career benefit in learning Japanese?* I studied Japanese in the 80s as an undergrad on the assumption that Japan's then-apparent leadership in technology would see more work being done in Japanese, and thus it be a useful career booster. But no research turns out to be published in my field, and I suppose that's pretty common in STEM. If you are thinking any Japanese skill would be useful to you to read Japanese research papers, do a quick search to gauge how common they are and see if any such really exist.
*Do you feel learning Japanese would be a personal benefit?* If so, it pays to be realistic about how much progress in Japanese can be expected in a year. Here's some bullet points from my experience to try to give you some sense. Other people may learn faster or slower than me, of course.
* after two years of university Japanese (10 credit hours per year; each semester having 5 hours/week of class plus 2 hours/week of directed conversation practice) I couldn't conduct even the lightest conversation with a real Japanese.
* after a third year, however, I could get through not only basic conversation but bootstrap enough to work as an engineer in Japan. (I'm not sure how much is due to finishing the course of study, and how much is due to having done so in an intensive environment.)
* Even with lots of self-study (in a time when the internet wasn't a distraction!) it took me about 28 months in Japan, working as an engineer, to learn what is taught in one college year of classes. (After working 2 years 4 months, I went back to Indiana U. for 5th year Japanese and was about at the right level, having skipped 4th year.)
If you're thinking that the learning of Japanese is a big motivation to take this decision, you might also take a good look at summer school programs where you can learn one year worth of Japanese in nine weeks (Indiana U. and Middlebury had such programs 30 years ago). I found that nine week 24/7 program approximately equivalent to 28 months of living in Japan and working 100% in Japanese. People who haven't been through such a program simply cannot believe you could learn 10x faster in the US than Japan, but those people haven't tried it! We shared the same floors of the dorm with the teaching staff and all pledged to use the language 24/7, even at 2AM taking a leak, you name it. 4 hours class, 2 hours directed conversation, and at least 6 hours homework and study a day. There are some fellowships available for this in the US at least. I got a fellowship covering tuition, room and board, transport, and a small cash stipend. I'm sure similar programs are available in other countries.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/06
| 655
| 2,857
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am applying to math REUs in the United States, which require letters of recommendation. I wanted to ask my faculty advisor for the letter - I get along well with them, they have seen my progress over my entire college career so far, I ask them fairly many questions about graduate school, and they were able to get me a grant to attend a math conference. They are also professor emeritus at my college.
However, I haven't dealt in real math with them, in the sense that I haven't been taught by them or done research with them.
Thus, while my advisor would write me a good letter, I think it would not be from the standpoint from someone who has directly witnessed my mathematical skill?
I am planning on sending one letter from a professor who has taught me in an intensive course. Is it a good idea to ask my advisor for the second letter, or should I ask a professor who has taught me instead?<issue_comment>username_1: You should always ask for a LOR from a faculty member who knows you well.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I'll guess that such a letter would be fine. After all, they are in a position to gather information from their colleagues who have taught you and can write a nice "summary" letter if they so choose.
They certainly seem to be supportive. I don't see a downside, given the other things you say.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Having been in the writer's position, I would say the most important thing is whether I know anything concrete that I can cite in support of any statements I make about your character and abilities.
Although having taught someone definitely helps furnish such concrete examples, it's neither necessary nor even sufficient. It depends more on whether the person has distinguished themselves at all and done so in a way I can be aware of. If it's just about grades I don't need to have taught you to consult those. But if it's about whether you show leadership and initiative, I might have seen that in class or I might have seen or heard about that outside of class.
Once a student asked me for a recommendation for an engineering program after I had taught her English. We had a good relationship, but of course my perspective was limited. So I spoke personally to the qualities I had seen that would serve her in any program, and then I asked others who had taught her whether she had distinguished herself in their courses or outside them. Another student provided a resume and answered my questions about things on there that I thought I might want to reference.
Your advisor, if they have watched your progress throughout your career, probably has a lot of concrete things to say about you. But in any case, they'll be able to judge, and there's no harm in asking (and even acknowledging that you understand that they might not be able to).
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/06
| 729
| 3,199
|
<issue_start>username_0: A senior of mine and I worked on a research topic. He contributed to most of the baseline works(say experiments A and B), and I continued with some more baseline work along with many additional experiments(say experiments A1, A2, B1, C[baseline work by me], C1, C2; experiment C has setup similar to A and B).
My senior completed his thesis some time ago, and now I'm writing my thesis. I have a chapter for my experiments, but the additional experiments will only make sense by describing the baseline experiment, i.e., A1 and A2 can't be described without telling about A first. But as most of the baseline experiments A and B are conducted by my senior rather than by me, I think I should leave them out of my experiment chapter.
1. So I was thinking of adding those baseline experiments to the literature survey. Is this the right approach? If I add this to the literature survey, what should I name the subsection?
2. Setup-wise, experiment C is similar to A and B. If I'm discussing A and B in the literature survey, how should I describe C in my experiment chapter without repeating myself?
The thesis is a master's thesis. I have consulted with my supervisor; adding baseline experiments to the literature survey was his suggestion.<issue_comment>username_1: You should always ask for a LOR from a faculty member who knows you well.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I'll guess that such a letter would be fine. After all, they are in a position to gather information from their colleagues who have taught you and can write a nice "summary" letter if they so choose.
They certainly seem to be supportive. I don't see a downside, given the other things you say.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Having been in the writer's position, I would say the most important thing is whether I know anything concrete that I can cite in support of any statements I make about your character and abilities.
Although having taught someone definitely helps furnish such concrete examples, it's neither necessary nor even sufficient. It depends more on whether the person has distinguished themselves at all and done so in a way I can be aware of. If it's just about grades I don't need to have taught you to consult those. But if it's about whether you show leadership and initiative, I might have seen that in class or I might have seen or heard about that outside of class.
Once a student asked me for a recommendation for an engineering program after I had taught her English. We had a good relationship, but of course my perspective was limited. So I spoke personally to the qualities I had seen that would serve her in any program, and then I asked others who had taught her whether she had distinguished herself in their courses or outside them. Another student provided a resume and answered my questions about things on there that I thought I might want to reference.
Your advisor, if they have watched your progress throughout your career, probably has a lot of concrete things to say about you. But in any case, they'll be able to judge, and there's no harm in asking (and even acknowledging that you understand that they might not be able to).
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/06
| 503
| 2,071
|
<issue_start>username_0: In an article I am writing, I need to know the number of deaths in a certain war, in a period of time I am not very familiar with.
The information is in Britannica, so I wanted to cite it, but a friend of mine told me that I should never cite an encyclopedia and that it is not a source.
I have the impression that a research article only gives one author's point of view on the question, the result of their own work, and similarly for a review article, I have no idea of its quality, if the methodology is correct, etc.
What should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: If you use something from the literature, then cite it. To fail to do so is plagiarism. But even if you "know the era" well, you should find a definitive source and cite it.
You can cite multiple sources if needed, when they disagree, for example. But this doesn't seem like a "point of view" issue in this case. You might choose the one that provides the most background on the topic, possibly the encyclopedia.
The problem with encyclopedias is that they can go out of date, so make sure that your citation included a date of publication or, for online resources, the date you accessed it. A specific reference to an item in the wayback machine is also possible for online references in many cases.
Note, however, that encyclopedias (even wikipedia) often have their own references to the source material from which the article was drawn. You may be able to find and cite those directly.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Citing an encyclopedia would be OK. As you say, it might give more authoritative information or the general view of things compared to a journal paper.
However, Britannica on the web now seems to have articles written in a more casual way, and does not seem as authoritative as when all articles were written by world experts. I could be wrong, but this is how it seems to me.
So I think you need to find a few more proper sources and compare the numbers. If they disagree, you can say that estimates of the number range from x to y.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/06
| 504
| 2,214
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am part of a postdoc research with a grant that requires publishing in open-access. An article of mine was just accepted for publication within a journal after some major revision. Given that the required revision is outside my expertise, I asked a colleague from an other university to join the article as a second author. However, I don't know whether there is a standard practice about paying open-access fees when authors from multiple universities are involved.<issue_comment>username_1: Frequently, when a funding agency requires open-access (OA) publications, project participants allot a certain amount of funds to pay the OA fees. And in case of joint paper, it is common, in my experience, for the main author to pay the OA fees with the allotted funds.
In case of joint papers where there aren’t already allotted funds for the OA fees, who usually pays, again in my experience, is either the main author or the author who has more funds available.
So, overall, there’s probably no standard, but just gentlemen agreements. In your case, since you’re the one who has the grant requiring OA publications, I’d pay the fees.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There's no hard-and-fast rule on this. If the authors all have roughly the same degree of involvement in the paper (and all of them have similar levels of grant funding available), then splitting the cost seems the fairest way. I've done this before, splitting the bill three ways and the publishers seemed perfectly happy to send out several invoices.
However, in the situation you describe – where the paper was originally yours alone, and you asked a colleague to join as a co-author to help with revisions – the situation is less symmetric. It sounds as if your colleague joined the project partly or wholly as a personal favour to you, and in that case, it doesn't seem entirely fair to expect them to contribute to the cost. So (from what you've written) I'd say that *in this particular case* you should be the one paying the fees. (If your research grant explicitly requires OA publishing, then there should presumably be some funding set aside in the grant budget to pay this.)
Upvotes: 4
|
2023/01/07
| 859
| 3,686
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had an accepted paper at a production stage, when I became aware of a technical error, which I was able to fix (in case it matters: the field is mathematics, and even though the claims I made in my paper were correct, they did not have adequate proofs in the earlier version). When I sent the correct version to the journal, they told the production team to halt the publication of my paper, and sent the new manuscript to the editorial team and the original reviewer as the change was deemed significant.
A few months in, while presumably the new edition was under review, the production team published my old manuscript with the gap anyway even though they were not supposed to.
When I let the production team of this incident, they maintained that only thing they could do now was to publish an addendum.
While this response seems reasonable (while it's regrettable that they made this mistake), the details of their response seem odd.
First of all, on the addendum, they said:
>
> What we can do is issue an addendum notice (NOT an error notice such
> as an erratum and corrigendum) and note any additional information
> that was present in that revision to the addendum. I.e.,
> “Post-publication, \_\_\_\_\_ was brought to our attention. In this
> addendum, we lay out additional research/information/etc….” and then
> proceed to include any of the additional revision work that was
> intended to be included in the original article.
>
>
>
The language the production team suggested is not precise (as the gap was spotted *before* the publication) and puts me under a slightly worse light, unless by "i.e." they meant "e.g.," in which case I can say what I see fit.
Also, the production team erroneously believe that I have several papers in production with their journal, which is not true. This shows that I may have confused the production team; I certainly do not want, e.g., to have both versions of my paper published.
Unfortunately, when I asked them for clarification regarding these details, they stopped communicating with me. How should I proceed with the conundrum?<issue_comment>username_1: You can keep talking to the editor or you can just accept it. They may be firm in their decision, however.
It seems like the journal is trying to cover up for a mistake, which is something not unusual, I suppose.
While their "solution" is a bit messy, the important thing to remember is that your "fix" will be published.
For a print journal it is difficult to publish a corrected version, even for an online publication, changes can invalidate subsequent work of others. This is likely part of the decision they made, in addition to covering up their error.
Long term, it probably makes little difference. Figure out how to best spend your time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: They screwed up, all that's left is to pick up the pieces.
First, they can't retract your paper and republish it with the missing information, because once a paper is published it goes out to all subscribers & other venues besides. It will have metadata, a DOI, etc., and those can't be retracted. So the only thing they can do is publish an addendum.
The question is what to put in the addendum. You could suggest an accurate version - "this paper was erroneously published without the following ...". The production team should agree to this version. If they don't, message the journal's editors and see if you can convince them - their words carry a lot of weight.
By the way it seems rather unlikely to me that they are ignoring you. Maybe they have already approached and are discussing with the journal editors?
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/07
| 880
| 2,625
|
<issue_start>username_0: MDPI lists "academic editors" for some of their papers, e.g.:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/K5ENq.png)
Is this name to be reproduced in the bibliography when using common citation styles?<issue_comment>username_1: As far as I'm concerned, the answer is no. I should however add that every journal can have their own policy for references and you should read it whenever you submit something.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Academic editors don't contribute to the paper's contents (not directly anyway), so no - you do not reproduce their name when citing the article. For comparison, you never give the name of the editor-in-chief of the cited paper's journal when citing the article, either.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The answer is given by MDPI themselves on the corresponding [article website](https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/730) (see section "Share and Cite", scroll to bottom):
>
> **MDPI and ACS Style**
>
> <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>. Examining Predictors and Outcomes of Decent Work among Chinese Female Pre-Service Primary School Teachers. *Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, 730. <https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010730>
>
>
>
>
> **AMA Style**
>
> <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>. Examining Predictors and Outcomes of Decent Work among Chinese Female Pre-Service Primary School Teachers. *Sustainability*. 2023; 15(1):730. <https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010730>
>
>
>
>
> **Chicago/Turabian Style**
>
> <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, and <NAME>. 2023. "Examining Predictors and Outcomes of Decent Work among Chinese Female Pre-Service Primary School Teachers" *Sustainability* 15, no. 1: 730. <https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010730>
>
>
>
So no, the academic editor name of a journal article is not to be reproduced in the bibliography when using common citation styles. A citation style requiring that would be rather unusual.
I do not know from where exactly you got your example, but, although the formatting does not reflect this, it seems to me that what is listed after "**Citation**" ends with the doi. The "Academic Editor" would be a separate piece of information, then.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/07
| 1,371
| 5,777
|
<issue_start>username_0: A person accused of any wrongdoing should have the right to see the proofs of such a wrongdoing. Then, a student accused of cheating because having presented the same answer, work or file as any other student, should be allowed to see the answer, work or file of that other student.
On the other hand, students have the right to privacy, so their answer, work or files shouldn't be shown to other students, and this right conflicts with the former.
Then the question is: When two students are accused of cheating and the only proof is that they gave works or answers that we can be sure that are copied, how does the school balance the right of each student to see the proof (the other student's exam or work) and their right of privacy?
I'm not asking for advice for a particular instance of that problem, because until now all I've only had close calls - the students already knew what they had done or found out by themselves and no student actually requested to see the proof of cheating - but I'm interested on how such a request should be dealt with.
Additionally, in a specific case, I would escalate the issue to the Dean to be given specific instructions, but I'm still interested in the general answer.
If location matters, I'm under Spanish legislation.
And just to keep the question focused, we can assume that we can be sure that the answer is actually the same because of cheating - like when two students or teams turn on very similar Access files with each table created at the same exact time (to the second) that the equivalent table in other team's file.<issue_comment>username_1: It’s not that hard. If A is accused of cheating by copying from B, it’s usually pretty easy to anonymize the copy or specific answer produced by B. This can be done for instance by rewriting B’s answers (so B's handwriting is not apparent) or typing/typesetting B’s answers. In other words, there is no need for A to see the actual physical copy or writing done by B.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> When two students are accused of cheating and the only proof is that they gave works or answers that we can be sure that are copied, how does the school balance the right of each student to see the proof (the other student's exam or work) and their right of privacy?
>
>
>
I am in the US. So, I will provide you with the answer based on some events happening in some colleges in the US.
The first event is a true story at a US college as follow: a professor called a group of 4 students in her office, and told them that other students accused these 4 students of cheating during an exam. The 4 accused student protested immediately, and after 1 hour of meeting and discussion, the professor dropped the accusation as if it never happened. **The point is that, in that case, at that US college, all the accused students were allowed to meet at the same time with the professor and with themselves to defend themselves**.
---
So, I would think that when a school accuses 2 students of copying each other's answer, and proceed to bring both students to the discipline committee, the school **must announce to both students the name of the other student**, and show both students the 2 answers and how similar or identical the answers are. **This way, both students will know exactly all the details, and can plan the appeal process sufficiently if they want to.**
---
Furthermore, you can read a recent story in the US about 2 identical twins who were medical students. They were accused of cheating by the medical school. These students sued the school for **defamation** and won $1.5 million USD. Here is the link:
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/identical-twin-sisters-accused-of-cheating-win-1-5-million-test-scores/>
So, accusing students of academic dishonesty is a serious matter. If a school accuses students of cheating, they must show all the evidences and the people involved so that the students can defend themselves. (I think that, in this case, the school did provide the students with all the names of the accused and other evidences during the discipline process, which is a fine).
If that medical school had hidden the identity of 1 twin from the other, how can both students successfully file a lawsuit on behalf of both students and present a clear and logical case to the jury in the civil court ? (They can't just tell that civil court "I was accused of cheating with the **UKNOWN** student. So here is my case...")
For more info about this case, here is the link to PLAINTIFFS’ PRE-TRIAL BRIEF: <https://docviewer.charlestoncounty.org/Home/Index>
**Note**: The students did not sue the school because the of unfair discipline process as the students appealed the case to the school and the school already overturned the initial judgement where they accused the students of academic dishonesty. Instead, the students sued as they alleged that someone from the school leaked the info about the case to the press, which is the ground for their defamation lawsuit.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: In my experience, it would be unusual to allow privacy issues to inhibit communication of relevant evidence in these cases. When dealing with alleged academic infractions, **due process is extremely important** and so the usual thing would just be to make all relevant evidence available to all the students accused of cheating. Since it is an allegation of collusion between these students, typically the students would all be called in together and their answers would not even be anonymised --- you would just allow all students in the group to see all the answers of the other students in the group so that they have the same information on the matter as the academic admininstering it.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/08
| 1,331
| 5,495
|
<issue_start>username_0: Short version: For tenured professor in small and less prestigious universities.
What are the factors to be considered and balanced when
making the decision on whether or not to try hard to move to
bigger and more prestigious universities?
Long version:
I am a (recently tenured) professor
in a small regional public university
in the northeastern part of United States.
I am fairly happy with my current situation:
* I have an active research program;
* I kept up with newest research trend
and established myself as a leader in a subfield;
* I have an NSF grant (for now) and, thanks to the PUI status,
have good record of getting grants;
* I don't mind teaching,
and sometime even find it fun;
* Service expectation is low;
As long as my research is going well,
I can usually pick some light service responsibilities
that I enjoy;
* I am well respected in the department and college,
and (when I have a grant) even the provost seem to like me;
* The politics in the department is quite simple;
There are occasional problems, but the department is so small
that, at the end, everyone needs everyone else;
* My salary is not high,
but with the low cost of living,
living condition is pretty good;
* The student body is such that I feel I'm actually making a difference in their lives;
* And I have tenure.
However, one in a while,
I also feel the urge to move "upward".
To list some cons for staying in a small lower-tier undergraduate-focused university...
* I have no chance to academically reproduce;
* It hurts my ego (occasionally);
* I won't get to work with the best students;
* My salary is low and will probably remain low forever;
These are the cons I can see.
My questions is: Are there other factors I should consider in such cost benefit analysis?<issue_comment>username_1: The main difficulty of such a move is that you are in a "tenure trap": Most hires are at the tenure-track level and most places will be reluctant to hire a tenured person for a tenure-track position. There are ways to overcome this, but these require some serious work on your part since, chances are, when looking for a better position you will not be going through the "standard" process (checking job ads in your area of research and then applying to a bunch of places), even though, there are, less frequent "open rank" or, say, "associate level" job openings.
Here is my suggestion: If you have contacts in better universities, inquire discretely if they would be interested in hiring you. If you are well-known and liked in your research area, chances are that some of your contacts can convince their departmental colleagues to have and open rank hire (in your area) or a more targeted hire at the associate/full professor level. I have done this when I was already a full professor and, after having job interviews in several places, got a job elsewhere. (But I also applied for positions in places where I did not have contacts and which were advertised in my professional publication, Notice of AMS.) The main drawback to be aware of is that people in your department will likely find out. How it will affect your relations with departmental colleagues I cannot tell.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are more 'sharks'. Yes, students are better prepared, but they also have more options, meaning they are harder to retain. Further, there is no guarantee that you will get to work with the 'best students'. They may be more politics, though that's the same for any institution.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Just one: are you happy at the place you are currently at or not. "Happiness" is a very composite notion though and different people place different weights on different factors when computing their overall "happiness score", so nobody can help you with that computation.
Some disadvantages you mentioned can be remedied by collaborating with people outside your university and taking active part in the supervision of their students (not necessarily formalized in any way).
As to "ego", you are what you do, not what stamp you have on your forehead (or your CV, or...). So, if you feel that you are involved in some interesting and meaningful activity and derive some decent income and fun from it as well, it doesn't matter whether you are known as "a distinguished senior professor of Harvard" or just as "some Springfield guy/girl". Actually it doesn't matter whether you are known at all.
My own idea of evaluating things is just setting a clear threshold and reject everything that is below it as "unsatisfactory" and accept everything that is above it as "good enough" without trying to engage into the wild goose chase for "the best" option. Yes, the grass is always obviously greener on the other side, but why should you care if you side is green enough for you?
If you just want to feel the general "hustle and bustle" of academic life, go to conferences and research workshops more often and make new acquaintances. The secret is very simple: people (with rare exceptions) are always eager to speak of what interests them at the moment and are not so much interested in talking about what interests you. So just let them talk and think of their questions in honest, and you'll acquire collaborators in no time. You'll also learn many new things as a bonus this way.
In other words, my advice is to move only if you feel forced to move. But if you do feel forced to move, indeed, you shouldn't hesitate to do so.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/08
| 1,685
| 4,999
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the details of an ACM conference, the following is mentioned:
>
> The best paper in each track will receive an award citation.
>
>
>
I want to know, what they mean by "award citation" here and what winning the "best paper" award would entail in this case.<issue_comment>username_1: This is a different meaning of the word 'citation' to the one we're used to. Merriam-Webster (e.g.) gives [an alternative definition](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citation):
>
> 3: **MENTION:** such as
>
> ***a***
> : a formal statement of the achievements of a person receiving an academic honor
>
>
> ***b***
> : specific reference in a military dispatch to meritorious performance of duty
> *a citation for bravery*
>
>
>
So an "award citation" simply means that they publicly announce/advertise the name of the winner. Probably it implies that there will be no significant physical or monetary prize, other than (perhaps) a certificate.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: From: [ACM Website](https://www.acm.org/conferences/best-paper-awards)
>
> ##### Conferences Best Paper Awards
>
>
> Best Paper Awards are presented at many ACM conferences to authors whose work represents groundbreaking research in their respective areas. By recognizing these select papers for their ingenuity and importance, ACM highlights some of the theoretical and practical innovations that are likely to shape the future of computing.
>
>
>
Being accepted for a "best paper" at an ACM conference is in layman's terms "really good." (Caveat, this somewhat depends on the specific ACM conference)
From: [Peer-Selected “Best Papers”—Are They Really That “Good”?](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118446)
>
> ##### Results
>
>
> The probability that a best paper will receive more citations than a non best paper is 0.72 (95% CI = 0.66, 0.77) for the Scopus data, and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.74, 0.81) for the Scholar data. There are no significant changes in the probabilities for different years. Also, 51% of the best papers are among the top 10% most cited papers in each conference/year, and 64% of them are among the top 20% most cited.
>
>
> ##### Discussion
>
>
> There is strong evidence that the selection of best papers in Computer Science conferences is better than a random selection, and that a significant number of the best papers are among the top cited papers in the conference.
>
>
>
Per the first link, ACM also publishes lists of top papers. Top papers are an "award" that can be put on resumes with varying levels of prestige based on the reviewer. And, depending on the field of computation, ACM and its related publications / conferences are in the top 20, so good name / brand recognition. All as of the time of this answer 1/8/2023:
* Theoretical CS: [Number 1, 2, 4, 8, 18](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_theoreticalcomputerscience)
* Data Mining: [Number 1, 4, 12, 15](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_datamininganalysis)
* Software Systems: [Number 1(with IEEE), 5, 7, 9(with IEEE), 10](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_softwaresystems)
* Computer Graphics: [Number 1, 7, 15](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_computergraphics)
* Security and Crypto: [Number 1, 16](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_computersecuritycryptography)
* Game Theory: [Number 2](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_gametheorydecisionscience)
* Human Computer Interaction: [Number 3, 4, 6(with IEEE), 7, 10, 16](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_humancomputerinteraction)
* Databases: [Number 3, 6, 7, 8, 14, 20](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_databasesinformationsystems)
* Multimedia: [Number 4, 9, 13, 16, 20](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_multimedia)
* Hardware: [Number 5, 12 (with IEEE)](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_computerhardwaredesign)
* Bioinformatics: [Number 7(with IEEE), 18](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_bioinformatics)
* Engineering and CS: [Number 10](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_enggeneral)
* Signal Processing: [Number 11(with IEEE)](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_signalprocessing)
* Systems: [Number 12(with IEEE), 16](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_computingsystems)
* Robotics: [Number 12(with IEEE)](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_robotics)
* Networks and Wireless: [Number 19(with IEEE)](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_computernetworkswirelesscommunication)
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/08
| 3,212
| 13,424
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a final year PhD student and recently my advisor started collaborating with some people engaged in what I would call semi-pseudoscience. For the sake of anonymity, I won't give the details but his new collaborators are into various types of alternative medicine.
It's the kind of research that sometimes makes it into reputable venues - often as "letters to the editor" and other barely scholarly things but is mostly found in predatory and other low-quality journals.
And it's clearly connected to selling something - some alternative therapy of whatever.
My advisor has a track record of good research, I've really enjoyed working with him and he's a nice person. On the projects we've worked on together, he has always maintained a very high standard of scientific rigor. So this pseudoscience stuff is unexpected.
I feel like I should say something, but of course I don't want to sour my relationship with him, especially before I complete my PhD. However I'm worried that he might "go down the wrong path."
What should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: Experienced academics with good track records of research do not require career advice from upstart PhD candidates, notwithstanding the pretentions of the latter to adjudicate for them what is and isn't real science. Your supervisor sounds experienced enough to make this judgment himself.
Another thing to bear in mind here is that *science is a method, not a topic*. The mere fact that a person investigates alleged phenomena in a particular field does not make their work scientific or anti-scientific. What matters is the approach and methodology they bring to the work, which again, experienced academics are in a much better position to judge than you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It may be worth mentioning that <NAME> spent a lot of time practicing alchemy (I'm not sure to what extent the Wikipedia article <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies> is accurate, but there are plenty of writings of him on the subject that survived nonetheless). As long as your supervisor maintains good scientific standards in your joint projects and doesn't force you into the activity you find questionable, I would just let it go. Only if he insists on your participation in something that you find unscientific, unethical, or illegal, would it make sense to confront him and firmly but politely refuse.
Besides, *some* alternative medicine does work, so as long as it is not at the level of ghost busting and exorcism of evil spirits, I would certainly wait a bit before passing the final judgement. Also, remember that, in general, the main objective of interacting with people smarter or more knowledgeable than oneself is to learn from them, not to judge them (though, of course, one is always free to choose what to take and what not to take) ;-)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: **My research program is based around a technique that I blew off as pseudoscience as a grad student!**
In my case, I thought the technique, transcranial electrical stimulation, was unlikely to meaningfully affect brain activity, but a funding agency really wanted to know for sure. I figured that I could do some really careful experiments, drive a stake through the heart of a silly idea, and then move on. In fact, I was most interested in the control conditions, which would test out some other (safer, more conventional) ideas I wanted to work on. However, once the data started coming it, it became clear that it did do something! My initial skepticism wasn't totally unwarranted: the effects were different than some groups had claimed and I certainly wouldn't want to co-sign *everything* the field has done, some of which still seems dubious to me. Still, digging into how it acts has been a lot of fun. Beyond the science itself, helping nudge (in my own, small way) clinical work onto the "right" path has also been rewarding.
Your advisor may have something similar in mind. It could be an "adversarial collaboration": he and his new collaborators genuinely want to know whether the putative treatment works, and the best way to determine that (especially for skeptics like yourself), is to tackle it with the high standards of scientific rigor that you say your advisor is known for. It may be an indirect route towards something more aligned to his usual research. He may doubt that their green tea extract (or whatever) has any special properties, but the control data collected during these experiments might support his long-standing interest in placebo effects or adenosine receptors[1]. Of course, he could also suspect that there's something to it. "Natural products" have inspired—and indeed, are the actual physical source—of many conventional treatments. Treating pain with flowers sounds preposterous, but opioids like codeine and morphine are still among our best options (and biggest problems). Moreover, the natural source is often the best or only way of producing it. Total synthesis of morphine is possible but so inefficient that most of it is still derived from poppy plants [2].
Thus, consider having a friendly, low-key conversation with your advisor about it. What piqued his interest in this field? What is he hoping to do? How does this fit in with the rest of his research interests? It may be useful and edifying to see how a senior person develops a new line of research. Perhaps he will even persuade you that it's not as crazy as it seems!
**Still not convinced?** The good news is that it doesn't really matter much to you, personally. You're wrapping up your PhD and are presumably more comfortable with your own thesis topic. You can politely decline new projects in the interests of finishing up and submitting. In fact, you should probably do this anyway! If you are worried about future letters, you hopefully have a thesis committee who can also vouch for you. You should certainly firm up your relationship with them and this is also a good idea anyway too: many fellowships need multiple letters!
Good luck with the rest of your work!
[1] A target of caffeine.
[2] I think. I am neither a licit nor illicit pharmacologist.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: As others have said, there are good reasons to investigate alternative claims.
The only worry is if the prof has become ensnared in something. The signs of this would include such things as being unduly euphoric about results seeming in favor of the alternative thing. Or if the prof were investing money in some scheme to sell the alternative thing as treatment. Or if there was some charismatic "Worm Tongue" whispering in his ear and pushing him into rash actions.
Another possible worrisome thing would be if the "usual" research were pushed aside or curtailed in favor of this alternative stuff. Derailing an established program of research in favor of something deeply speculative would be alarming. Adding a minor interest that does not stop the established work is not necessarily troubling.
So keep your eyes open for warning signs. Try *very* hard to stay objective. Try to be motivated by the search for the best understanding of the world that you can achieve. Try *not* to be an advocate for *any* position. Rather, try to interrogate the data to achieve better understanding.
So keep an open mind. Not so open your brain falls out, but still.
The usual way to do this is to set up an hypothesis and try to test it. Set up objective tests that can explore the hypothesis. Examine the tests carefully before they are performed to assure there is minimal chance of being confused or misled. Things like objective tests, careful stats, double-blind when appropriate, predictions before measurement, and so forth.
If the research is following proper principles of science, then go for it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I think it's a bit much to go telling your supervisor what research they can and can't do. Even if they were really going off the rails, did a load of fradulent work that totally trashed their reputation and then murdered a few people, I presume there would be other people in the department who could write letters and vouch for you in terms of future applications?
Also, there are plenty of important areas of research that were once widely considered pseudoscience. Cranial oscillations have been considered total crap for at least 100 years and now the MRI guys have developed the techniques to image them they're one of the hottest new discoveries in neuroanatomy.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. That kind of mindset is how we ended up pretending that COVID wasn't airborne, masks woudln't help, and killing people all because of scientific arrogance.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: What makes a field pseudo-scientific are the methods, not the subject. If you can openly discuss results with your advisor and both have high ethics standards, all questions are valid!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: [Cargo-cult science](https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm) used to be Feymann's way to speak about his contemporary psychologists who did rat psychology. In Feynman's view, they were doing pseudoscience because they were following methods that are unlikely to
Whether or not something is pseudoscience depends on the methods of how it's investigated and not on the subject that's investigated.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: I'll try to just directly answer the question of "What should I do?" ('about my advisor getting involved in something I consider pseudo-science')
* If its important enough, talk to them.
+ Polite conversation about the motivations and interest in the subject while trying not to start the conversation with "I'm obviously bias and view this as bad"
+ Segue into personal concerns (whatever they happen to be).
- If you're going to dive into "I'm concerned about you, and what this might do to your career" then treat the topic with some care. Like some answers have noted, many folks will often take that approach as rather pretentious.
- If its "I'm concerned about your new research will do to me" then make sure you have a pretty good idea about what the supposed risk is. Research has to be pretty bad to completely torpedo the value of recommendation letters from someone with a long track history in a field.
- Reason I start with "have a polite conversation that's mostly curiosity and attempting to understand the situation" before diving into recommendations or concerns.
* Read about the subject critically.
+ Is it all pseudo-science?
+ Are there possible research avenues that might be valid or might simply not have been explored?
+ Is there some issue with "accepted" approaches that's causing people to look for alternatives?
- Ex: "We Hate chemotherapy and how it makes us feel, is there any other choice?"
- "Why yes there is" [says the Mayo Clinic](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/cancer-treatment/in-depth/cancer-treatment/art-20047246) and [Medical News Today](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/alternatives-to-chemotherapy#photodynamic-therapy).
* You can try acupuncture, aromatherapy, hypnosis, meditation, music therapy, ect... to try to deal with the symptoms.
* You can try photodynamic therapy, laser therapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, or hormone therapy to try to deal with the tumors.
* If its still bad after these, finish your PhD, without souring your relationship.
+ Do quality work you can be proud of
+ Have publications, references, and other support for your future life so you're not totally dependent on a recommendation from your advisor
+ Let your advisor worry about their own career (unless there's some "serious" ethical / legal issues)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: I would imagine that personality structures are rather different in the life sciences than in physics, but my personal experience is that the distance in methodology, interpretation of results, and opinions on philosophy of science (not to mention the slippery things we call "facts") between academics can be *mind-boggling* without compromising their professional or personal relationships.
And that's a sure sign of a healthy scholastic process in my view---if anything but the most unequivocally crankish dissent is suppressed, de jure or de facto, it risks obstructing genuine improvements in methodology and philosophy. Even restricting to questions of "real science," induction must welcome *all* criticism, because arbitrarily dead hypotheses can (and do) resurrect: I recall hearing about some 5-sigma accelerator result that gradually evaporated into statistical noise. I can't imagine there have ever been enough people to conduct a medical study of that power, so I find the idea that mere investigation of alternative medicine would cast doubt on someone's academic credibility risible.
An excellent way to handle a situation like this is, individual dynamics permitting, making a meta-joke out of it. It can communicate the dissent in a way that strengthens the relationship, rather than compromises it. I recall stories from my advisor about mutual, good-natured ribbing between him and his advisor about their differences, contentual though they were. Sure enough, when I met the guy, he immediately cracked one about this old disagreement.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/08
| 1,630
| 6,879
|
<issue_start>username_0: My paper was accepted in an open access journal, I am the corresponding author, but soon after acceptance my co-authors refused to pay their part of the article processing charges (APC) and sent me the email requesting removal of their names citing inability to pay the APC.
I immediately contacted the academic editor, and informed her of the whole situation, in response the journal clearly stated that they won't waive the AP nor allow me to remove the names of the co-authors, they say that once accepted one cannot add / remove names in accordance with ICMEJ policy.
Now my paper is stuck. Is the journal's stance correct? What should I do in this case? Should I withdraw this paper or should I approach editor in chief to solve this matter?<issue_comment>username_1: ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) policy actually [has a provision](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html) for this specific situation:
>
> If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript
> submission or publication, journal editors should seek an explanation
> and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all
> listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.
>
>
>
It is technically possible to salvage the paper, but the journal is, IMHO, rightfully concerned about the ethics of the process here, as denying authorship on the basis of refusing to pay APC is highly problematic. I would say that the most ethical thing to do in this situation is for you to decide whether you are still okay with paying APC and if so, keep them as authors. That advice is given under an assumption you have already come to an unambiguous understanding of what happened here.
If not, you would first need to get that shared understanding. Can the paper, take a step back and review your work process. More specifically, your point of view can be described as following to the co-authors ("you" collectively refers to the rest of the co-authors here):
1. We have all agreed to submit our paper to this journal, AND
2. We all knew there would be an APC, AND
3. You have confirmed that you are willing to pay your share of APC, AND
4. You are now refusing to do so.
If any of these points are challenged, all six (?) of you need to agree on why that happened. Maybe they knew there were APCs, but did not expect them to be that high, in which case it is entirely on them. Maybe you did not tell them clearly enough there will be charges, in which case it is mostly on you. Maybe they have agreed to pay, but circumstances have changed (e.g. experiencing troubles dealing with their institution) - in which case it is on them again, but you might be willing to pay. This is what I meant by "decide whether you are still okay with paying APC" - first of all, figure out if you have enough information about the issue or not.
Either way, most of the scenarios converge at this being a monetary/workplace dispute, which is separate from authorship (see [Dirk's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/192330/145124)). Authorship is often reviewed under something collectively known as [moral rights](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/moral_rights):
>
> In continental Europe, moral rights are “inalienable and cannot be transferred or waived.”
>
>
>
In other words, you might have been scammed out of two grand - which you **need** to figure out and dispute accordingly with them and, possibly, institutions involved. But all that does not make it right to revoke the authorship UNLESS they are now **strongly** objecting to be associated with the paper at all, in which case you badly need a clarification as well.
The entire situation sounds like a huge breach of work ethics - from your description, they are at fault, but we do not see the other side of the story here (e.g. do you have a clear confirmation, in writing, that they have earlier agreed to paying these charges?).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: There seems to be confusion here:
Paying part of the APC is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a co-author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the other authors can't pay anything but you can cover the full APC, there is no need to remove them as authors. On the contrary: I assume that they are authors of the paper since they contributed significantly enough and then it would not be ok to remove them from the work.
Moreover:
The issue of APCs has to be discussed before submission.
--------------------------------------------------------
There are many possible arrangements (the APC is split, one of the authors pays all, some author has a grant to cover it,…) but the group of authors has to agree. In the case where I was part of some team usually one of the authors offered to pay all of it.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: If I'm understanding your comments right, this happened:
* You submitted the paper to an open access journal with your co-authors' agreement & with the understanding that the APC will be split between authors.
* Your paper is accepted. The journal sends you an invoice for the APC.
* Your co-authors refuse to pay the APC and want to withdraw their name from the article.
* The journal does not let you remove names from the paper, and your paper is in limbo as a result.
If this description is accurate, then this is a dispute between the authors and not the journal's concern. From the journal's perspective, they can't just waive the APC without reason, and they can't just let you remove an author's name either. This is because authorship rules generally say that everyone who contributed substantially to the paper should be an author ([example](https://provost.yale.edu/policies/academic-integrity/guidance-authorship-scholarly-or-scientific-publications)). The journal can no more publish your paper without your co-authors' names than you can submit it without your co-authors' names.
So: discuss with co-authors. First figure out exactly what the problem is - it's not clear what the co-authors' objections are. Then figure out what to do. If your description (co-authors didn't want co-authorship because they didn't want to pay the APC) is correct, then the obvious result is that they will no longer object since you are paying the entire APC, and the journal can publish it. Alternatively they could be refusing co-authorship even though you are paying the entire APC, because they have lost faith in the manuscript for some reason. If this is indeed the case, you could submit signed documents from the co-authors verifying this to the journal.
Either way, do not email the journal until you have resolved the problem. It really is not something for them to solve.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/08
| 3,432
| 14,113
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a PhD student in the US. During my PhD I gave many conference talks, seminars, and presentations at our group meetings. In my talks, I often mention a creative way to phrase a problem, sometimes in a form of a scientific joke, sometimes as an interesting metaphor. These are always inventions of my creative insights that I had while preparing the talk/slides.
A couple of times I later caught my supervisor using the same creative ways of phrasing the problem in his talks. He applies this in places where he talks about the same or a slightly different problem. This happened in at least two of his keynote talks (where I was present in the room) and one lecture from a course he was teaching that I happened to hear a recording of later on.
I can understand his motivation as it might be the same as my motivation. When I do that, my main goal is to help the audience remember an important message from my talk, but it's also to entertain the audience (there's many boring talks already!), or challenge the audience to think differently about a problem. It's likely that his motivation is the same.
Nevertheless, this really bothers me. I can't make up my mind though if I'm right to be bothered by this. Does my supervisor do something that isn't "right" here? I never heard him mention that this way of phrasing the problem or this joke or metaphor comes from me. If he at least said something like: "one of my students says here that \_\_\_\_\_\_", I would feel okay with this.
Should I be open and tell my supervisor that this bothers me? I realize that (unless there is some form of misconduct, like IP breach, here) he might think it's a foolish thing to be bothered about. And I'm open to the possibility that he might be right thinking so. If I'm exaggerating, what is a more healthy way for me to look at this issue?<issue_comment>username_1: Firstly, please remember that you are a PhD student, not a professional comedian.
Secondly, it might not be a good idea to use someone else's jokes while intentionally pretending as if they are your own. However, there are many exceptions\*, and even if he had intentionally done it for his own gain, it would have not been possible for you to know whether it was his intention.
You should also know that we do use jokes invented by other people all the time with or without acknowledgement. Often, we just don't know or remember who invented the jokes, or we just use the jokes naturally without even thinking about it. Sometimes, it is not necessary at all to acknowledge the ones who invented the jokes because it is a norm (\*).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, he is doing something that is not completely right. But it is not enough of a big deal to be worth complaining to him. If you complain, he is likely to think that you are being foolish or unreasonable.
You could say something in a friendly and light-hearted way, when there are just you and him present, like "I enjoyed your talk and I noticed that you used my joke about xxx again!" and then see what he says. But you have to say it in a nice way, like you don't mind him using your jokes at all.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: As the old saying goes, [imitation is the sincerest form of flattery](https://grammarist.com/proverb/imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery/). Ideally, we all want presenters in academia to get as good at presenting topics as they can, so it is reasonable for your supervisor (or any other academic) to make use of the useful metaphors, jokes, etc. you have developed. We sometimes expect that they will do this in a way that gives credit to the original source, but this is subject to the exigencies of conversation or presentation. Good presentations are usually much more loose about sources than papers, so in this context a person might use a metaphor, joke, etc., without crediting the source. If they are doing this repeatedly then you would expect at some stage that they would give some informal credit to the source (if it is not already well-known), but again, this is a fairly informal expectation.
As a general rule, academic supervisors are reasonable people and if there is something bothering you about the relationship then you should raise it with them for discussion. Let your supervisor know that you are glad he likes your metaphors, jokes, etc., enough to use them in such important speeches, but you are concerned that (absent some credit to you) his greater visibility in the profession might make it look like you are copying metaphors, jokes, etc., developed by him rather than the other way around. Ask him if he would be open to having you both brainstorm some ways that he could drop in credit to you so that audiences who see both of you present are aware that you are the developer of the relevant metaphors, ideas, etc. You might find out that he is already doing this in contexts where you are not present (e.g., he is already giving you credit for the metaphors, jokes, etc., in conversations with other academics). Alternatively, you will at least see if he is symapthetic to your problem and receptive to the idea of giving you more credit.
If you decide to have this conversation, I recommend you first rethink your idea that your supervisor is doing something inherently wrong in using your metaphors, jokes, etc., and instead focus on getting some credit (and certainly there is no IP issue here so don't raise that). If it were me in your shoes, I would stress to my supervisor that I'm happy to see my ideas were useful enough to use in a keynote speech and that I appreciate that academics will naturally draw ideas and methods from others where they find merit in these ideas and methods. Approach the conversation in a sympathetic way where you exhibit understanding of your supervisor's goal of giving high-quality presentations. See if your supervsor is receptive to reaching an accommodation that pleases you both.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Devil's advocate here.
You are living in a physical world very similar to your supervisor, in terms of life experiences (living in the same region, going to the same conferences, etcetc.). You also live in an intellectual world very close to your supervisor.
We are all unique individuals, but in terms of the outcome of our brain's processes we are way less unique than we think. Given that you are not a professional comedian (nor your advisor), a joke/funny rephrasing is something that is done by your brain as a "side product" of its skills.
It is quite likely that your advisor heard the sentence/joke from you, that their brain stored it somewhere (in the very short-term thinking "hey, user166549 really nailed it", in the short-term "hey, my student really nailed it" and afterwards "hey, that was a cool way to express that concept") and nowadays they do not recognize anymore as the product of someone else. If this is the case: congratulations, you are good at nicely exposing your ideas and you know how to make something stick in someone else brain, this skill will be of tremendous help when you have to do talks and especially when applying to a future position, you know how to leave a mark!
Let's play a mind experiment: let's assume that what you said is an *easy* creative phrasing that anybody with 5 years experience in your field and a bit of interest in outreach can produce. In this case: congratulations again, you are part of the expert on the topic and you speak the same language as the expert (and therefore if you think your ideas have been stolen: congratulations, do not worry a research project is 5% idea and 95% implementation)!
Final remark: exposing creatively an idea or a concept is a soft-skill. Do not worry about appropriation: the audience is capable of distinguishing when you say something creative but taken from someone else, and when you says something creative that you forged. In the first case the creative sentence stands out from the talk ("nice talk with almost out of context funny remarks..."), in the second case it blends into the talk setting the tone of the talk as a whole ("very interesting talk!").
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: I think there's a different issue underlying this to do with your desire to be seen as a peer not a student.
However there is also an old saying about knowing which battles are worth fighting over and which are not.
Fighting this battle might simply not be worth the cost.
>
> Should I be open and tell my supervisor that this bothers me ?
>
>
>
Consider first your own reaction if someone came to you and said "Hey man, you used my joke without giving me credit for it."
If you already have a bad relationship then raising this issue won't make it much worse but it's unlikely your supervisor in that case would do anything positive for you or stop using your jokes.
If you have a good relationship it might work out, but it risks turning a good relationship into a bad one.
All in all I'd say it's a pointless risk with little chance of an upside for you. And at this point you need to ask yourself exactly what an "upside" or "victory" would do for you ?
>
> I realize that (unless there is some form of misconduct, like IP breach, here) he might think it's a foolish thing to be bothered about.
>
>
>
Yes that's possible.
I think the real issue is something else. It may be about your desire to be recognized and acknowledged by the world or maybe just by your supervisor. As a PhD student you naturally want to be seen as becoming a peer with your supervisors and teacher. That is, after all, the goal. But that does not mean that you have to chase every opportunity to get that acknowledgement. It means you need to focus on the Big One : completing your PhD successfully. When you've got your PhD you can argue about who uses your jokes without acknowledgement as much as you like, but I suspect when you've completed your PhD this won't seem as important to you.
Give this some thought.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Assuming your witty remarks are not the core of your talks; i.e. you're not working in a marketing or writing related field, are not comedians, or anything like that, I would suggest to learn to live with this.
Things to ask yourself:
* Does it hurt you or your image in the field if your superior is doing that?
* Is your previous use of that joke diminished by your superior using it later?
* Is there any risk that these jokes end up in print and someone thinks that *you* are the impostor?
* Does your superior gain anything from them that he does not already gain from the core of *his* talks? I.e., is there a chance that he will get invited to future talks *instead* of you, so directly hurting your chances to talk?
If none of this is the case, and you can not think of any other (probably even more convoluted) ways this would harm you, then let it go. In this case, your superior is not hurting you. He may gain something for himself by being able to talk more enjoyable than without your contribution, but again - it does not hurt you. Guess what, you are gaining from his support as well; you are a team.
As he is using your jokes, he is obviously not able to come up with his own, at least not as easily; or he finds yours so hilarious that he can't help but use them. Or he takes inspiration from your more casual way of giving talks. All of that is an indirect praise. He can hardly put in a small reference for each joke he learned from you. Either he is not even aware that he heard the joke from you; or he is aware, and even though nobody else knows, *he* does, and his contact to you is thus slightly more valuable to him than if it weren't so - and this also makes it slightly more valuable to you, since you have an ever so slightly more tight bond to him in this way.
Is your superior doing something outright wrong? Speaking from a law point of view, words or sentences are very hard to protect against re-use. Copyright hardly applies here; it is only concerned about "works", i.e. literally making a copy of a physical thing. Ideas, concepts, facts and so on are not protectable by copyright. Repeating a joke will not pass as copyright infringement in any court, anywhere. Frankly, were I to witness you two using the same joke in two different talks, I would either not really notice or care; or I would feel your *superior* slightly diminished for having to re-use the joke from somewhere else.
I don't think you should be talking to your superior; but if you do feel that this issue is nagging at you, do contact someone about it. Maybe your uni has some kind of counsellor which you can book a 1:1 with to discuss the issue - not to clear up any misbehaviour of your superior, but to figure out how you can shift your own view to handle this well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: 1. Write him a joke about how his sense of humor would have run dry long ago if it weren't for his PhD students.
2. Ask that he deliver that joke along with the others.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Make sure you have a blog where you write down these jokes, analogies and whatnot, making it clear they are your own invention. If you prepare it for a lecture, make sure it's in the lecture notes. Include it in papers.
Someone reading your material who heard it used without attribution by someone close to you will instantly know.
It may even be the case that if the "perp" borrows exact wording from your version, then someone curious about the joke, wondering whether it's online somewhere, will be led to your page.
I think this is the best strategy. Don't reproach, don't pick any fights. Just passively assert your authorship through publication. The passage of time will do its thing.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: Revel in it. Noting somebody else's comment about your being a student rather than a comedian, but if you are known to be both a competent worker and somebody who can coin a memorable and relevant bon mot it will almost certainly be to your advantage.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/08
| 1,031
| 4,461
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it considered ok to proactively ask a professor from a different university that you never met in person about some potential research assistant internship? Or is something like that considered impolite or is it a complete waste of time due to zero probability of getting it?<issue_comment>username_1: All of us get such emails all the time -- I get about 1-2 per week. Anecdotally, most professors just delete these answers, whereas some (myself included) at least cursorily look at the usually attached CV to realize that there is little overlap in research area between the person asking and myself, upon which I then write back and advise the student to apply to the graduate program of my department rather than myself.
So, just going by empirical evidence, it is ok for you to write such an email. But it's unlikely that you will get many responses and even more unlikely that you will actually get an RA position this way.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: While [@WolfgangBangerth's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/192332/69206) rings true, you can frequently "stand out from the crowd" of emails by paying careful attention to the subject line of the email and your first sentence.
1. Research the professor's current work.
2. Isolate what it is you find particularly interesting about their current work that *genuinely captures* your interest.
3. Construct a subject line that honestly represents your question about potentially working for them, and simultaneously includes research terms you suspect will catch their eye. Perhaps of the form "Looking for research assistantship in the History of Molecular Psychology Tensors".
Then make sure your first sentence fits the same rules (honest and simultaneously academically catchy).
This demonstrates that you are not using a shotgun approach sending generic letters to dozens or hundreds of professor. You find them interesting, you find them special, and you'd really be interested in the possibility of working for them in particular.
Just make sure that you mean it and are being sincere.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Of course, you can email the professor. You can email anyone at any time for (almost) any reason. The worst that can reasonably happen if you send a single polite email is that you will be ignored.
I don't agree with username_1 in the assessment that it is necessarily a waste of time. Not every professor is flooded with such emails; someone relatively early in their career might not be. But you will need to have something to offer.
A junior professor needs papers. Either from research they do themselves, or from research they supervise. If they get a good assistant who writes a paper with relatively little supervision, that's great. If they get someone who needs a lot of supervision but won't succeed in producing research and writing a paper, then they might not find it worth their time. Sure, supervising is experience too, but they probably have enough people closer-by if that's all they need. Papers count. *Supervised n students resulting in 0 papers* not so much.
Are you someone who can produce research and a paper with relatively little supervision? Can you convince the professor that this is the case? This is the tricky bit. Not many very early career scientists can do this. Writing a well-crafted (short!) email is good (see [uhohs answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/192348/1033)), but not enough. You'll need something to show. Have you done any really successful student projects, preferably related to their field of interest? Can someone more senior, preferably someone they already know, introduce you, perhaps write the email for you? Either of these will strongly increase your chances. Your email might be ignored. An email from their collaborator, *I have this really great student who would love to work with you, would you have a moment to talk to them?*, might not be. Of course that works only if you are great, otherwise asking for such an introduction may be awkward.
I was a research assistant during both Bachelor and Master. The Bachelor work helped prepare a paper where I became co-author, and the Master work in a paper I authored myself. Although I was at the same university in both cases, I didn't really know the professor at that point. At least for the Master, I don't think he was flooded with emails from student projects.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/09
| 2,914
| 12,483
|
<issue_start>username_0: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, (Belonging), known as DEI(B), has become increasingly valued in higher education in the United States. UC Berkeley provides a [rubric](https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversity/rubric-assessing-candidate-contributions-diversity-equity?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email) for evaluating candidates' DEI(B) statements, and one category the applicant must address is to describe plans for advancing DEI. I want to inquire into the acceptable boundaries of such plans.
I have struggled with understanding how to implement DEI in the mathematics classroom. It occurred to me, perhaps the best way to promote DEI in the mathematics classroom is by assigning bonus points to students from underrepresented groups, say +10% on the final exam.
My question is, is this kind of thing good, recommended, acceptable, etc? If not, please explain from the DEI perspective what kinds of DEI plans are good and when these principles may be taken too far.<issue_comment>username_1: No, actually. That would be the *worst possible* "accommodation". It would probably get a person fired due to the numerous and vociferous and valid complaints of the other students.
The issue, making some "accommodation" necessary for some students, isn't their gender, or race, or ethnicity, or .... Rather it is that the education system in the US in years prior to university is terribly unbalanced, partly due to historical reasons and partly due to the way that we finance primary and secondary education. We use local property tax for the main funding mechanism. This means if you are poor and (because of discrimination and "redlining") you live in a poor neighborhood, there is much (much) less funding available for your schools. This leads to lower teacher salaries and fewer support staff in many places which leads to some quality issues in the teaching staff, though this is compensated for by the extreme dedication of some teachers. <NAME> was one such dedicated secondary school teacher (see *Stand and Deliver*).
What is required of a university professor (indeed all teachers) is that you *teach every student*. That is to say, you make it possible for every student to succeed regardless of their background. If they are "good enough" for admission, then they are "good enough" to excel in college. But you need to make that possible.
You also need to be aware that every student is different and so you need to do more for some than for others. You are not a "presenter of material - take it or leave it." "Equal treatment" is unlikely to lead to successful educational outcomes unless the level of instruction is so low/poor that anyone can grok it.
Those with a weaker background will need more help. It isn't their fault that the secondary school they went to didn't have a great math teaching staff. Nor is it their personal quality that let them go to one or the other of the finest high schools in the land.
But, giving unearned "points" to any student is just a way of replicating failure. "I will make it appear that you are successful even though I don't require that you learn at the needed level." This pretty much assures that the person will fail later in life without some extraordinary intervention that you should be providing.
If a student is willing to do the work, they should be able to learn if you are willing to do what is necessary to teach them. The accommodation they need, actually, is your time and effort.
But, free points for minorities???
Don't. Go. There.
---
A personal note: While I have a few former students who are now university faculty (with doctorates), one of my happiest educational experiences was two students, who previously had few successful experiences wind up at the top of the class in a difficult course (compiler construction).
They spent the semester camped out in my office asking question after question, some repeatedly. They worked very hard. At the end, they suggested explaining a complex topic to me for verification, rather than asking for a solution. The class over all was very talented and some of the students resented these two, calling them "ringers". But the two of them learned the value of hard work.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: Not only is this a bad idea, but it is likely illegal if you work for a public school. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down policies that provide a quantifiable advantage to underrepresented individuals, such as in [Regents of the University of California v. Bakke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke) and [Gratz v. Bollinger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger).
Also, <NAME> doesn't exactly have the most middle of the road views, so I'd take a less radical approach. Instead of giving free points to make up for disadvantages, re-evaluate what aspects of your course are the source of those disadvantages and fix them.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: As others have said, "no, don't do this". There are many problems with it.
To my mind, the factually correct content of concern for DEI is that not everyone has had the same privileges, both earlier, and ongoing... and/but lack of privilege does not imply incapacity, nor does *having* privilege imply increased capacity.
"Privilege" tends to make one's resume look better, by many conventional measures. Part of my own thinking about this, while looking at graduate math admissions and so on, is to try to distinguish the effects of privilege from actual potential/capacity.
And so on. A very complicated thing.
But, again, the proposed grading scheme is not helping anyone, as it stands.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: A good thing that might apply to a math class is presenting non-male, non-white, non-etc. role models. Take <NAME>, <NAME>, or <NAME>, facing obstacles for being female, gay, and black, they achieved a lot. It is not only Gauss or Newton who moved the frontier of mathematics.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: As others have noted, what you are proposing is illegal in the US.
Here are a few ideas of what you can do as a mathematics faculty member to promote DEI at your institution:
1. Serve on DEI committees and lend your mathematical/statistical expertise to the committee. Help to analyze the data at your institution to see in which ways you could be better serving minoritized students.
2. Do this data analytics work internally in your own department.
3. You can think about making your course materials and presentations accessible to people with disabilities. Are the documents you generate accessible using a screen reader for a blind student? Are you selecting color schemes which are accessible to colorblind students?
4. You can think about making your writing and speaking more accessible to people who speak English as a second language. Are you speaking in the plainest possible English to convey the mathematics?
5. Does your department offer remedial courses? Are minoritized students over-represented in these courses? What sort of intellectual experience are these courses offering? Are they offering interesting mathematical experiences or rote drill work? You might question the assumption that mindless drill will serve these students better than a rigorous mathematical experience. The "level" of the content should not be conflated with the "level" of rigor, creativity, and meaningful work which can be done in a given context.
6. You can take steps to eliminate the impact of your implicit bias in the classroom. Grade anonymously. Call on students using a random generator. Group students randomly during group work.
7. As you co-create mathematics with your students in class you can celebrate the contributions of each student. For instance, if a student contributes a key idea or perspective you can explicitly mention this. I often even develop local names for such ideas which explicitly give credit to the ideas originator ("we can use Arpit's strategy of adding and subtracting the same quantity here..."). You can keep a private record of which students you have celebrated in this way through the semester. If you notice that there are some students who you have not so celebrated, you can be more mindful to look for opportunities where they do make a significant contribution that you can celebrate.
I will not reproduce my whole DEI statement here, but I hope you get the point. One can pay serious attention to these issues and take concrete actionable steps.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: **School reputation is at stake**, therefore no. The school itself should be adamantly against this.
We like hiring graduates from the local university system because we know it produces quality students for the fields we are hiring. The school has a reputation with the people who are responsible for the hiring. They are familiar with the curriculum, and past experience has shown good results from those hires. This gives real practical value to the school, and its degrees, and attracts even more students as a result.
It's easy to imagine it going the other way. If a school inflates grades and ends up passing students who shouldn't pass, then it deflates the value of that degree, from that school. If a company has a few bad hires from a particular university, I would expect to see the hiring managers see that school on a resume and think twice before bothering with an interview.
"Disadvantaged students" (who can come in all colors -- being a minority student doesn't automatically imply "disadvantaged", either) may need extra help, but that should come in the form of something that produces a good end product -- a knowledgeable graduate with a legitimate degree that they earned. Inflating grades damages everyone: the school, the student, the companies that hire students, and future students of that school.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Answers here focus on legality and group rights, but I wanted to mention another reason why this is an ethically bad idea: every person belongs to many groups, but every person is also an individual. Everybody works for themselves while studying and they will live for themselves. What matters is not how hard they have had it in their life, but what they will be trained to do after school; they need those skills, not pity.
Putting obstacles before any group or making it easier for a specific group is always harmful to individuals, and in extreme cases can be called classism, sexism, or racism.
However, were you to offer help to struggling students — regardless of their background — that would be not only ethically much better, but in many ways an optimal solution (i.e. standards and outcome would not be compromised, while opportunity would be equalized). Naturally, that begs the question if it's more beneficial to focus on the struggling ones instead of helping the best ones become even better, and many others as well. That's just the only way of having a cookie and eating it out there.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: In my understanding, DEI (especially E and I) should seek to compensate for disadvantages a student might have, not provide advantages to certain groups. Some examples - all things I've seen implemented at a secondary school in Germany:
* If a student struggles writing longer texts by hand, give them the option to use a PC.
* A student whose mother tongue is not english (or whatever the language of instruction is) might profit from being allowed to use a dictionary.
* Visual impairment? The student would get an electronic copy of the formulary that allowed zooming in and out.
* A student with dyslexia gets less deductions due to spelling errors.
And so on. A student only gets compensation if they ask for it, and it should fit the limitations that student faces. There is no way a student will simply get bonus points.
Of course, those don't help with the "diversity" part of DEI, and I really don't know what to suggest. I studied engineering, we were four girls in our year of about 40. Whenever there was some event seeking to "encourage girls to study engineering", the boys let us know that they considered this unfair, some jokingly, some rather serious, and (as far as I can tell) with rather limited success. But bonus points on exams? There would have been quite an uproar, if not legal measures being taken...
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/09
| 1,208
| 4,011
|
<issue_start>username_0: Are there studies of "bad academic practices" in general, and documenting in particular whether or not the prevalence of such practices increases in institutions or communities with an increased pressure to academics to publish (either by adding money incentives to publish, or by creating job instability threats for those who "do not publish enough")?
Such a study would be considering (at least) the following list of unethical behaviors:
1. Student exploitation
* publishing student's results without mentioning their participation, or (milder)
* taking students and benefiting from their work (adding one's name to their publications) without having them benefit from your own work (i.e. without working on their publication).
2. Faking Results
* altering the results in order to make them publishable.
3. Plagiarism
* Copying results from other authors without properly acknowledging them (pretending to ignore such results)
4. Minimal Publishable Result
* Intentionally dividing a general result in as many as possible smaller results, in order to increase one's number of publications
* Refusing to merge two highly related/complementary results (each presented at a distinct conference) by the same authors into a single journal article
5. Complexifying of Results
* "The result is quite simple, but you need to make it look complicated in order to get it published"
6. Self-Plagiarism
* Duplicating one own's proofs or results without citing it.
7. Intimidation/Bullying
* Threatening a colleague into avoiding some research topic
8. Collusion
* "Add my name to n of your publications and I will add your name to n of my publications"
9. Publish in disreputable publication venues
For some of those (e.g. [collusion](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/192368/experimental-measure-of-collusion-in-academic-publications)), I have some ideas about how to approximate a measure of their prevalence in a given community. For some others, I am curious about what an online survey of academic's anonymous reporting would reveal. I could not find such work, when it seems something which could be useful to the academic community, and in particular to inform decisions such as to give monetary incentives to publish to faculty members.<issue_comment>username_1: Will be hard to find evidence for most of your points but for 4)
* More papers but fewer breakthroughs:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05543-x>
* Publishing low quality research right before deadlines:
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3083692>
* ERC fails to promote risky research:
<https://www.nber.org/papers/w30320#fromrss>
Might also help:
* Number of retractions per year (however not split by reason):
<https://towardsdatascience.com/on-retractions-in-biomedical-literature-1565e773559e> and <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.362.6413.390>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Regarding collusion: the paper [Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0221212) shows that academics in Italy started citing each other much more frequently after a change in the national regulations tied career advances to bibliometrics.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: [Dr <NAME>](https://www.youtube.com/@DrAndyStapleton) cites a few in his video
[6 Dirty Tactics Found In Academia & Universities | Watch out!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytax5-2cYSk):
1. [submitting to multiple journals](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytax5-2cYSk&t=94s)
2. [paper mafia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytax5-2cYSk&t=94s)
3. [citation pushing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytax5-2cYSk&t=298s)
4. [delaying peer review](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytax5-2cYSk&t=374s)
5. [author intimidation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytax5-2cYSk&t=454s)
6. [quantity over quality](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytax5-2cYSk&t=570s)
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/09
| 779
| 3,247
|
<issue_start>username_0: When you email professors to ask if you can see your final exam, they usually are reluctant to show you the exam. So, they tell you that as long as you pass the course, there is no need to worry.
But, I want to know what I did incorrectly, and also see if there is any grading error because I think I did better on the exam than my approximate exam grade I calculated based on the final grade (the final exam grade was not posted).
The professor did not post the solutions to the exam or the final exam grade.
How should I ask to see the final exam to maximize the chances that the professor will agree to send a copy of the exam?
Do professors have to show the exam or exam grade or is there no obligation?
It would also be fine for me to ask for the solutions to the exam if I realize that my exam grade should be lower than what I think after reading the solutions.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't set the rules universally, but ethically, you are entitled to full information about how you were graded. That doesn't, however, imply that you should be sent a copy of the exam.
But you should, in principle, be entitled to visit the professor and have any deficiencies explained to you. But changes in grade aren't very likely after such a meeting.
Again, rules vary, but they should favor transparency.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> How should I ask to see the final exam to maximize the chances that the professor will agree to send a copy of the exam?
>
>
>
At my former university, you can certainly request to meet with your professors to review your exam papers and grades. You can simply contact the professors via emails or phone calls.
They may be too busy right at the end of the semesters. But, eventually all professors will find some available time and place to show you your exam papers, and they may even discuss the solutions to the exams with you, and answer all your questions/concerns.
---
Usually, the professors want to finish the grading of the whole class first before they meet with any student to discuss the individual grade for that student. That is understandable.
The length of time to finish the grading of a whole class may depend on how many classes and how many students your professors have.
Maybe, you can wait for some time from a few days to a week after you finish the exam, and then start asking the professors about the grades ?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Where I work:
1. students have a right to see their copy of the final exam; this does not extend to accessing a copy of the solution to the exam (which are rarely posted) or the marking rubric, although most instructors have no issue with discussing the contents of the exam copy with the student.
2. the actual booklets used to write the final exam must remain with the instructor and “safely stored” for one year in case a student files an appeal and some exam copies must be recovered for comparison.
Various institutions have their own rule book but I would be surprised if an instructor agreed to mail you your copy: it is too dangerous if you challenge the final grade. You will likely have better luck asking for a meeting to discuss your exam.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/09
| 692
| 2,862
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently studying mathematics at College A (In the United States). Assume that College A is not a notoriously "prestigious" college, but that it's also not a "nobody" college. When applying to graduate schools for mathematics, is College A a safety school just because I went there for undergraduate?
I think it's important to assume that the college isn't some top 20 school because I think that would not be the case.
I was surprised to find no information on this topic online.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't set the rules universally, but ethically, you are entitled to full information about how you were graded. That doesn't, however, imply that you should be sent a copy of the exam.
But you should, in principle, be entitled to visit the professor and have any deficiencies explained to you. But changes in grade aren't very likely after such a meeting.
Again, rules vary, but they should favor transparency.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> How should I ask to see the final exam to maximize the chances that the professor will agree to send a copy of the exam?
>
>
>
At my former university, you can certainly request to meet with your professors to review your exam papers and grades. You can simply contact the professors via emails or phone calls.
They may be too busy right at the end of the semesters. But, eventually all professors will find some available time and place to show you your exam papers, and they may even discuss the solutions to the exams with you, and answer all your questions/concerns.
---
Usually, the professors want to finish the grading of the whole class first before they meet with any student to discuss the individual grade for that student. That is understandable.
The length of time to finish the grading of a whole class may depend on how many classes and how many students your professors have.
Maybe, you can wait for some time from a few days to a week after you finish the exam, and then start asking the professors about the grades ?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Where I work:
1. students have a right to see their copy of the final exam; this does not extend to accessing a copy of the solution to the exam (which are rarely posted) or the marking rubric, although most instructors have no issue with discussing the contents of the exam copy with the student.
2. the actual booklets used to write the final exam must remain with the instructor and “safely stored” for one year in case a student files an appeal and some exam copies must be recovered for comparison.
Various institutions have their own rule book but I would be surprised if an instructor agreed to mail you your copy: it is too dangerous if you challenge the final grade. You will likely have better luck asking for a meeting to discuss your exam.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/10
| 659
| 2,699
|
<issue_start>username_0: I received my contract for a tenure-track position at a state university in Texas. The contract contains the following: “It is understood that if due to financial necessity, the university implements furloughs for its employees, this position may be subject to the furlough”.
I am quitting a permanent position in another country for this job. But I was thinking that I had safety at least during the tenure-track period. Now I got very concerned because of all the dismissals in big techs and news about an economic recession in the US.
For other people who got tenure-track positions, did you have the same in your contracts?
Any experiences with furloughs due to universities’ ‘financial necessity’?
Suggestions about what to do?<issue_comment>username_1: My institution, a US state university, has had at least two rounds of furlough while I was there (about 15 years).
One was due to state government austerity, the second was due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In both cases, the institution avoided reductions in staff numbers for a rather modest decrease in salary (in the realm of 2% if I remember right, more for some senior administrators with higher salaries), coupled with reduced working hours (so, effectively some unpaid vacation).
Really, in the US you can almost always be dismissed for financial reasons without tenure, and in many places even with tenure. Tenure only protects you from firing for what you study. The bigger protection is that academics expect their jobs to be secure, so an institution that regularly dismissed their tenure track faculty would find difficulty recruiting. I'd say you're fairly safe under those terms, safer than almost any other job, unless you fail to make tenure.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Well, in most universities in the U.S., public or private, whether or not they give explicit contracts, whether or not those contracts mention "financial exigency"... unless you are quasi-protected by a faculty union (unlikely in Texas, and not even accomplished in Minnesota, for possibly-different reasons), ... the university will declare suspension of rules when it chooses to, with exigency given as an excuse for possibly not keeping prior promises.
So, this phrase in your contract is not a "red flag", especially when it arises in Texas at a state school.
Yes, based on past experience of my own, there *will* be bad financial times every 10 or 15 years, and there'll be a lot of talk... But, in my experience, nothing came of it (either positive or negative). The only thing that *did* affect my pay was the Covid pandemic... The effect was not nearly as bad as it might have been, thankfully.
Upvotes: 4
|
2023/01/10
| 1,797
| 7,543
|
<issue_start>username_0: I graduated last year with a Master’s degree in history at a top institution in my field and received a very good grade for my dissertation.
Unfortunately, my relationship with my advisor was not very good. He is known to have a particular personality but in the beginning, he was very nice to me and willing to supervise me although he was not a specialist in my field (he chose a co-supervisor from a different university and told me he would have no issue to supervise such a topic). However, as time pass, he became less and less supportive and told me negative things. It culminated at the end of the year telling me I should not waste 5 to 6 years of my life doing a PhD. After that meeting, I started becoming really depressed despite my +3.9 GPA. I didn’t talk about this incident with someone else because I was afraid of the consequences. He also told me that since he was not a specialist of my topic, he couldn’t pursue with me in PhD (while he told me no problem for my MA) and that supposedly, my field of research would not interest my university for a scholarship.
However, in my university, it is hard to switch advisor between MA and PhD. So I sent him a few emails (4 in 3 months) at the beginning of the academic year to ask him if we could met in person to discuss different PhD topics ideas despite what he told me. He responded and told me to send him my ideas, but never agreed to meet me in person while he supervised me for two years. I changed my research ideas frequently because he told me the research I love the most would not be of interest for the department.
I thus though he was really not interested in supervising me anymore since he didn’t want to meet me in person. So I went to my co-supervisor to explain her what happened. She told me she agreed to continue supervising me with another person she knows at my home institution but I should first make sure my first advisor was not interested in me anymore. She told me to write an email saying I understood he was not interested anymore and that I wanted to let him know I would contact his colleague if I don’t get an answer before the holidays.
So I sent him an email, copy my co-supervisor. And then, he copy / pasted part of my emails with my different choices of topics to show how confuse I am. He was very annoyed and even sent the email with a delivery receipt. I responded to this email saying I was sorry if i hurt him, it was not meant to, I just wanted to get a quick answer to contact someone else (I gave the other professor’s name) if he was not interested. Then, he responded with my co-supervisor in copy telling me that I needed to take a few years off and come back with my own 10 pages research proposal that he could read.
I really don’t know what to do in this situation. I applied to a PhD abroad but my personal circumstances changed and it would be much better for me to stay in my home country. My co-supervisor wrote a recommendation letter for the PhD abroad but since I am not sure to accept the position if I get in, I am afraid she would not take it well (she doesn't know the colleague personally, but she is in the same field). I also gave my advisor the name of the Professor I wanted to contact so I am afraid he told him bad things about me.
Do you think that my former-advisor could destroy my will to do a PhD at my home institution? (He is on the committee to attribute the scholarship).
Do you think someone else would be afraid to take me as a PhD student now?
Do you think my co-supervisor will not be willing to take me as a PhD student again if I decline the offer abroad for which she recommended me or to recommend me for another program?
---
Update: I reached out to my former MA advisor to ask him if he had other colleagues to recommend me for PhD supervision (I got sick these last months) and he responded to me, copy my co-advisor and copy the head of my department saying he told me multiple times to do that by myself (which is not true) and wishing me "the best". I did not respond since I don't want to create new issues with him. Should I do something though? Why did he puts in copy the head of department?<issue_comment>username_1: There are two aspects here that you need to deal with. The first is your mental state and I suggest that you talk to a professional counsellor about it. You are being treated unfairly and might need help to recognize and deal with that.
Secondly is the larger(?) issue of your future. Your best option is probably at a different university, whether in your home country or elsewhere. Spend some effort on the external/abroad option to try to see what is possible to overcome the issue holding you back.
But if all else fails, work with the co-supervisor and others so that you can avoid the one treating you badly. Let other professors who support you speak for you to administration if necessary. A faculty member undermining a student in emails to others is unethical. I smell some jealousy, actually, from what you write.
---
Personal note: I had a somewhat similar experience at a younger age. Based on a standardized test in secondary school, I was told that I probably had the ability to succeed in a two year (junior) college, but would likely be frustrated (a failure) if I tried to reach higher. I was pretty angry about that, and later earned a PhD in mathematics. I hope they don't tell kids things like that anymore.
There is no reason for you to accept, or even consider, statements that you aren't able or worthy to succeed. Get mad. Prosper.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: From your description, it seems clear to me that your former supervisor is not interested in supervising you for a PhD candidature at this stage of your development and does not think you are ready for this. Indeed, he has explicitly told you that he thinks you should take a few years outside before pursuing this. He might be right or wrong about this advice, but you should give it due thought and decide whether you want to pursue a PhD candidature at this time or do some other work for a few years first. There are plenty of people who work outside the universities for a while and then come back to do a PhD candidature later, so there is nothing wrong with going down this route.
Assuming you decide to keep pursuing an offer of PhD candidature now, I recommend you take a broader approach and apply to other universities and other sets of supervisors within your own university. You say that your Masters degree came with a good grade and was from a top institution, so that should stand you in good stead for applications to other universities. Moreover, you can now proceed with discussing a candidature with this other co-supervisor, since your former supervisor is clearly not interested.
As to the interpersonal issues you raise, don't stress about these --- they are the types of peccadilloes and miscommunications that happen sporadically in professional work. You don't need read receipts for these kinds of matters and some people take these badly, so I'd avoid these in future unless you have good reason to use them. I see no reason that your supervisor would try to destroy your attempts at candidature, nor any reason that other academics would be afraid to supervise you. Your supervisor might not give you a strong recommendation if he thinks you are unready for a PhD candidature, but he should still be able to comment on your work in your Masters program, where you evidently did well.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/10
| 374
| 1,620
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is a standard penalty for an undergraduate student who is caught cheating at an exam (e.g. using a mobile phone to copy the material from the lecture notes)?
I am aware that this massively varies from one university to another, but I would still like to know if there are some general guidelines, for example "usually some form of suspension from the university for a period of time" or "if a repeated misconduct it's the permanent suspension".<issue_comment>username_1: There are a number of possibilities, including
* Zero for the exam but nothing further
* Failure of the course
* Expulsion from the university
The first would be something imposed by the professor. An appeal might be possible or not. The others would probably need to be imposed by a disciplinary board of faculty.
There might be some defenses possible in some cases, such as the rules not having been made clear or arguments about the severity of the offense.
Things have gotten a bit murky in the COVID era with online exams and poor communication about rules.
I've never actually heard of suspension for a period of time. I think the other three options are more likely. Expulsion would usually be final and might be reflected on any transcripts. Local privacy rules would apply, of course.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your university probably has a stated policy for dealing with various forms of academic misconduct ( cheating, plagiarism, ...). That should describe both processes and penalties.
It's best to follow the processes rather than making case by case decisions on your own.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/11
| 849
| 3,811
|
<issue_start>username_0: Most good journals don't charge a mandatory publication fee. Many open access only journals aren't that good and accept papers easily. For a junior faculty member who has much money for publication in the budget, it's a good chance to boost the number of publications by resorting to open access journals. Is it a good strategy, how should they organize/allocate the money? What should they think about before publishing on open access only journals that aren't among the top ones?<issue_comment>username_1: **If your T&P Committee is worth their salt, they'll see through tons of crappy publications**. As a new faculty member, it is difficult to live with the pressure of needing to publish as you are setting up your career. However, publications are *evaluated* by your peers, with the hope that they advance the field. Simply publishing to get numbers up is a bad idea. Instead, you should focus on publishing quality research. Ostensibly, as a PhD student you learned how to perform this research and became an expert in your field. As such, it is now your job to prove it, and set up and continue a career of research excellence.
If you publish great results in low-tier journals, you've wasted those good results on something that people will never read. If you publish bad results in low-tier journals, your T&P committee will see through it and realize that you're trying to pad your paper count. Either way, it doesn't seem like low-tier journals are the answer...
Note: low-tier and low-circulation are NOT the same thing. If your field is highly specialized the "the important journal" may be very small indeed. Low-tier is...well, what you said - easy to get into because the standards are not high.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Publishing in low quality journal is never a good strategy. Other researchers will read your grant applications and your PTR file and the first thing they will look for is journal name recognition, in particular if you publish in the journal they publish in. Even a few "good papers" drowned in a see of bad papers will not impress anyone.
Open access doesn't imply predatory and many universities or conglomerate of universities now have deals to reduced or 0 APC in gold open access journals. Universities are unlikely to strike such a deal with predatory publishers so one way to "vet" open-access journal is to see if indeed your institution has some deal with the publisher. It's not a hard-and-fast rule of course but the number of deals so negotiated between publishers and institutions is increasing.
Although superficially discouraging, there's actually a benefit in submitting to a top (or at least reasonably good) journal: the process will function as an initial quality assessment of your work. If your submission is systematically desk rejected in topical journals, you're in trouble and it's likely any referee for a grant or on some tenure committee would likely reach the same conclusion as to the quality of that particular piece of work. Even if the paper is rejected at the referee level, you are likely to get (not in all cases but at least a majority of the time) constructive comments on the contents, and you can take it from there. The disadvantage of this is that you need to do extra work to get it published but most communities are now increasingly aware of papermills so publishing multiple papers with only tiny variations in contents is not necessarily optimal either.
Certainly where I work papers in predatory journals are automatically struck off the CV and reflect very poorly on any candidate. Candidates for promotion or tenure are pretty systematically asked to explain their choice of journals, and candidates can have a very difficult time defending such publishing practices.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/11
| 934
| 3,851
|
<issue_start>username_0: I completed my PhD in 2020 and have been working in a science policy analyst position since 2021.
I enjoy the work that I am doing but it doesn't feel the same kind of challenging and intellectually stimulating as my research experience during my PhD and postdoc. I read papers broadly associated with my field (materials science) but they are often unrelated to my past research experience.
I often feel that I could have done the same thing without a PhD (even though it was a requirement), and my masters degree would have sufficed.
When compared to compensation, the salary is less ($80K) than what an assistant professor gets in my country ($110K). But the working hours are strictly 35 hours a week, so I have a healthy work life balance.
However, I feel that I am underutilizing my potential and have wasted my PhD degree.
Any advice for me? How to overcome this feeling of being useless when not contributing anything to research? Does this ever go away?
My PhD advisor has offered me a part-time research associate position, that can be worked on during the weekends. This will bring in $10k extra. Will it be a good idea to accept it?<issue_comment>username_1: Salary in the private work can only go up if you change to a more managerial position.
You are unsatisfied because of salary and because of intellectual stimulus (or at least, it looks like that, although if I were in your shoes I would carefully consider what an assistant professor does with the extra pre-tax 30k ... with no time to enjoy them, what's the point? investing them for retirement? they die early because of chronic fatigue :D ).
Your advisor is sending you a very good life raft: a temporary research position, so you can get your foot back in the academia (if you really want to) while at the same time you keep your position in the private world (terms&conditions may apply, check them) and you can go "full in" after a search of a pay raise (even by changing employer).
Good luck!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Somewhere there is advice to change jobs after three years. Unless you are entirely satisfied and want to do that same job until you are dragged off to the old-age home. You are coming up to the three years.
If the company you work for has a research division, get into it. If not, or if they won't let you move, polish up that CV. Start looking for other companies that do have research divisions. Or possibly even companies that have different focus to the company you work for right now.
Consider whether the kind of research you would be fulfilled doing is happening in your home town or even home country.
Materials science is a huge topic. Maybe if you moved "sideways" a little there is something you could enjoy doing. Was your thesis on new ways to produce such-and-such? What about new ways to test such-and-such to detect degradation in use? You see the idea I am trying to get at. There are many aspects of a topic that can be useful to your employer and also interesting to work on.
String out a fantasy. Imagine you worked for ten years on some new product line. And each time your research made the company some more money, they gave you a raise, promotion, and a larger lab. Pretty soon you could be a senior researcher with several lab assistants, an office with a window, and a parking spot near the front door.
Now remember what it took to get you your PhD. How often was your work week as short as 35 hours? Pretty sure the typical prof in a university works more than 35 hours also. Part of that is that the work interests them, so they don't feel the urge to escape the office the first minute they can. So finding a niche in a company that interests you is important. But so is commitment and effort. You must choose what you want to invest your time in, and how much.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/11
| 538
| 2,340
|
<issue_start>username_0: In various conversations with my mathematical colleagues, I noticed that the expression "your field might be related to my field" should not always be understood literally. Namely the other person does not always invite me to work on a joint project unifying the two fields. In some cases, I noticed the possible relation seems to be too vague to really work on it.
Am I missing something, and should this expression be interpreted more broadly?<issue_comment>username_1: It is somewhat baffling to me that you think the literal meaning of "your field might be related to my field" would be "let's work on a paper unifying the two fields". The literal meaning is simply that "there might be connections between the two fields". This might just be small talk, but often the person you're talking to is interested in learning more and exploring *if* there exist connections between the two fields. *If* such connections come up during conversation (or later, after thinking about it more) and seem promising, it might lead to some project, which *might* be a joint one. Often, as you've found, the possible relation is too vague to be worth pursuing at this time, and nothing happens except that you two had a chance to socialize and maybe learn something useful.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: The expression *your field might be related to my field* is an expression of interest.
How many interests do you have? I hope plenty. Do you have time to pursue all of them? I am sure not.
General rule: no one has free time or free money to give out.
>
> Namely the other person does not always invite me to work on a joint
> project unifying the two fields.
>
>
>
Well, the few cases that they invited you to work on a joint project are the best opening to future collaborations that you can achieve. Spend some time (ideally as much as you want, practically as much as you **have**) to investigate if something meaningful can come out from the collaboration.
It seems to me that you are expecting that everyone has infinite time to collaborate with "just met" random people working in a maybe related field.
Play down your expectations, keep the door open to collaborations, always interpret expression of interest as a "broad" expression of interest and not as a promise of collaborations.
Upvotes: 4
|
2023/01/11
| 1,202
| 5,022
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently got a postdoc offer from the mathematics department of University X. Many mathematics departments in the US agree not to require responses to postdoc offers before a certain date. University X appears in the list on the American Mathematical Society (AMS) website as one of the universities that has agreed the the common deadline.
Quoting from the [website of the AMS](http://www.ams.org/profession/employment-services/deadline-coordination/deadline-coordination),
>
> The following departments in the U.S. have formally adopted an agreement to coordinate their earliest deadline for responding to postdoctoral job offers for those jobs that begin in the fall of 2023. This agreement specifically excludes tenure-track offers, and it applies only to candidates who are less than or equal to two years past the receipt of the Ph.D. The departments listed below have agreed not to require responses to postdoctoral job offers before Monday, February 6, 2023.
>
>
>
My application and the associated offer fit the description in this paragraph, and yet University X has required a response significantly earlier than February 6th in their offer letter.
The offer from University X is good, but I am interested in other schools whose offers may come later (between University X's deadline and Feb. 6). I also applied for the National Science Foundation postdoc which will be announced after University X's deadline (and which is a reason for the common deadline).
Given that University X agreed the the Feb. 6 deadline, but now gives an earlier deadline, what should I do? I don't want to make waves at University X, but I also don't want to pass up other opportunities.
Edit: I did reach out to some other schools to which I have applied. Not all will be able to make a decision early enough for the University X deadline.<issue_comment>username_1: Anything you do or don't do carries risk here. One simple possibility is that they just made a mistake. Here is an option (though not without risk)...
Reply to them that you are (very) interested but won't be able to make a firm decision until the common deadline that they seem to have agreed to adhere to.
To assure yourself of some position, you could accept it, of course, which only risks the possibility of a better offer.
You could also accept it (fingers crossed behind your back) and then back out if you get a better offer, though you have to weigh the consequences (legal, ethical, practical, ...) of that. That wouldn't be my recommendation, though.
Good luck. Hopefully they aren't being unethical themselves, but if they are, then rejecting it might be wise.
Fraught.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You can say to them:
>
> Would you please extend the deadline to the date recommended by the AMS, which is February 6?
>
>
>
Ask for higher pay, or something like that, too. Negotiating sometimes gets you what you request. It sometimes creates useful delays. I once allowed a postdoc job offer to expire and then had the offer reissued after my questions were answered.
I think it would be very appropriate to criticize them publicly for their dishonesty. You can wait until after the hiring cycle is complete if that feels more comfortable to you.
The AMS agreement probably has no enforcement mechanism. It might be interesting to think about what the law says about [agreements not to compete](https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors). Maybe your offer comes from a department that has decided to compete. Maybe it comes from a department that expects to have any unspent budget taken away on February 5th.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Here is what I would write to the math department at University X:
"Dear Professor/Chair/...
First of all, I am excited to receive an offer of a postdoctoral position from your department! I noticed that the deadline for my decision on this offer is January \*\*. At the same time, according to the information that I found on the AMS site [...], Mathematics Department at the University X participates in the Coordination of Postdoctoral Job Offer Deadlines Program, with the common deadline of February 6. Therefore, I would like to inquire if the deadline of January \*\* from my offer letter is the result of a clerical error. If not, would it be possible to extend this deadline to the common deadline of February 6?"
One more thing: In the US postdocs salaries are fixed (and frequently are even listed in job ads). Thus, avoid salary discussion (as well as the teaching load). But you can try to negotiate other things if you first accept a postdoctoral position at X but then receive a postdoctoral offer from Y which is, say, a research institute (IAS, MSRI, MPIM, IHES, etc.) with no teaching duties: You can ask if the department would agree to let you go to Y for a year before coming to X. (I know some instances when the answer was positive.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/12
| 1,665
| 7,472
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose there is a paper with 3 promised reviews, 2 of which have been submitted. In this scenario there will usually be no decision while the editor waits for the third review. Will the author want to see the submitted reviews before a formal decision is made?
Intuitively I'd guess "yes", especially if the decision turns out to be "revise", but I am not so sure if the decision turns out to be accept/reject. It could be jarring for the authors to see reviews with minor comments, and then receive a scathing 3rd review & a reject decision, for example.
Another possible issue is if the 3rd promised review never arrives, which from the editor's perspective will inevitably happen for some papers, but this seems less likely to aggravate the authors.<issue_comment>username_1: There is little disadvantage in having information earlier rather than later, so I doubt many authors would object to getting some reviews earlier (though I don't think editors usually give this option). Certainly some academics might want to hold off starting any revisions until they have all the reviews, just in case they end up changing something based on incomplete information and making their paper worse! (E.g., in the case where two referees ask for inconsistent things.) I don't think it matters too much if the last review is a rejection, since you will usually want to incorporate the suggested revisions anyway before resubmitting elsewhere.
In regard to the possibility of a jarring rejection in the presence of other positive reviews, I think most experienced academics are aware that referee reports are pot-luck and they are prepared for wild inconsistency in opinions on their paper. Most academics who have submitted a lot of papers have probably encountered the situation you describe, where one referee loves your paper and another rejects it entirely (sometimes the latter is just a scope decision even if the quality of the paper is good, so that is also reasonably common). As to the possibility that the final review never arrives, I guess eventually you have to prod the editor for a decision.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The way you ask the question, the answer inevitably is: Some authors will prefer early sharing of referee reports, some won't. I personally would not care too much about it. However, I am not sure if early sharing would improve the overall process, and therefore would indeed be in the authors' interest.
Generally, it is in the authors' interest to have a smoothly working publication process. That includes a transparent review process. You may argue that by early sharing you would increase transparency, and would enable the authors to start revising early. In my view, this would be a marginal improvement at best because also currently authors eventually see the referee reports.
However, of similar importance in the publication process is a responsive editorial office. Every message you send to the authors (automated or not) has a certain probability to generate a response, and I predict that you would end up with a lot of additional (unnecessary?) communication between editor and authors. Such responses may be, among others:
* Asking when you will come to a decision, given that one referee report is already received.
* Asking to use the two received referee reports to come to a decision due to some external pressure to publish rapidly (thesis defense, project reports etc.)
* Already submitting a revised version taking into account what the first referees said.
Therefore, early sharing would have to go hand in hand with a strategy how to deal with such responses (I don't mean chat bots...) without imposing too much extra workload on the editors (who may even work on a voluntary basis). This is to ensure that the responsiveness of the editorial office for really relevant issues is as good as it should be. Editors also should be able to spend some time to actually look at the manuscripts.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Getting one review per week instead of all 3 after 3 week wait (yeah, we can hope), would only make me, as an author, start fretting about response to the reviewer, wondering whether the paper is getting accepted or not, or starting to fix the paper according to wishes and whims of the first reviewer.
Assuming I did start acting on the first review, then, another week fixing stuff for the second reviewer, then yet another week to try accommodating the third reviewer. In the final week I also have to make sure I didn't now overwrite the first reviewer's opinions (it would be mightily unfair to have his opinion count the least because he submitted it first), but also that I didn't slight the third one which only got a week of my attention instead of 3 the first reviewer did.
And, even if I didn't bother fixing anything, I also don't gain much by getting those 2 reviews sooner. In the best case I would probably only think more about the just submitted paper, instead of forgetting it for a while and starting to work on the fresh new thing - so, in effect I would waste 3-4 weeks on review instead of 1-2, no matter how I approach this.
But, IF I am given the option to read the reviews as they come, would I say thanks but no? Hell no. Even knowing it will be quite possibly counter-productive waste of time, I would still love to read those reviews as soon as possible. Because, on the bright side, they might even help shape future research if they found some flaw in the current paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As an author, I would appreciate this. One reason is simply that it would give me some sort of progress report. It's usual for me to have several papers under consideration by various journals and to have no idea how any of them are progressing until I get a decision. It would be nice to know "we have received two of three promised reports, based on which we want to wait for the third", even without getting to see the first two. (As well as simply "nice" it may be useful, if I can see early on that a particular journal is behind schedule and should be gently reminded.)
The additional advantage of actually seeing the first two would typically come if major revisions are required, particularly if a reviewer has identified some gap that needs fixing. It may be that it will be more convenient to think about how to solve the issue now, compared to after the third report comes in, either because one of the authors has more time available or because it is possible for authors to meet in person.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: I’m sure some authors will want to but most editors will not. The reason is simple enough: the editor can choose to ignore some of the reviews.
Editors don’t necessarily keep track in real time of the referee reports and any report transmitted to the author should be scanned so it does not contain objectionable comments that would jeopardize the refereeing process. An obvious example would be a report that contains insults but some reports might need to be invalidated for a number of reasons: they could be unclear, reveal information about the referee, be clearly biased (positively or negatively), \*etc.
Ultimately, the referee reports are only *recommendation* given to the editor by (presumed) experts in the field, so the editor is well within their right to edit or not to transmit reports that they judge inappropriate.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/12
| 303
| 1,263
|
<issue_start>username_0: If a senior math PhD student makes mistakes or gives a wrong mathematical argument that illustrates some misconception in the understanding of the concept, do the PhD supervisors think less of him? Are they like- "he doesn't understand things properly and is not ready to graduate"? What goes on in their mind?
I'm particularly interested in mathematics, but I would like to hear from non-mathematicians as well.<issue_comment>username_1: The set of PhD supervisors is not homogeneous, neither is the set of mistakes. Generally everybody makes mistakes, so in principle this should not be a problem, but there are extraordinarily demanding and unforgiving supervisors, and there are also mistakes that reveal really fundamental misconceptions that wouldn't be expected at this level and can hardly be tolerated. So the answer is probably, "mostly not, but it can happen".
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This very much depends on the supervisor's tolerance for errors, patience and expectation.
As an example, I am OK if a student makes the same mistake twice. The third time, the student will see frustration; i.e., I've explained this twice now! The fourth time is when I tell the student off; i.e., you should quit!
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/12
| 2,000
| 8,618
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a final-year PhD student in Canada studying cybersecurity. During my PhD, I did not have very good supervision. I told them I wanted to defend soon. However, one of my supervisors keeps on telling me: “Don’t rush, you may fail”.
I got one first-author paper in IEEE Transactions and 3 medium level first-author conferences accepted. How can I fail? Is it possible? Has anyone ever failed the PhD defense?<issue_comment>username_1: There are definitely fails in PhD defenses. It may depend on the specific system and I don't know about Canada, but I know of a number of them in the UK, where the candidate was asked to rework and come back in a year or so. Also PhD examiners in the UK don't have to accept a thesis just because there are publications. I do think some published material shouldn't have been accepted, and not everything I have seen published is in my view acceptable at PhD level.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Your supervisor is aware of expectations for a PhD program. Their role is to help you understand these expectations and develop your PhD work to this standard.
Having one IEEE Trans publication and a few proceedings is good, but not necessarily indicative that your work meets the criteria of a PhD award. Normally, PhD dissertation is a major piece of academic research, which can be compared to a manuscript (a book). A journal paper is a more scoped contribution compared roughly to one chapter of your PhD thesis. Having one journal paper published does not guarantee you a PhD. I am aware of some candidates with 5+ journal publications, who failed their defence because they rushed and did not write an adequate PhD dissertation. It definitely happens.
Having a postdoc offer before you completed your PhD is a good sign that your work is interesting and promising. However, if your postdoc offer is conditional on you completing the PhD successfully, you still have to complete your PhD. Seeing your advisor as an obstacle is not constructive or helpful. Once again, they are trying to help you, and you should see their expertise as a resource.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Yes it is possible to fail a PhD defence and it does happen. Thankfully this is rare.
I’m not in CS so I cannot compare with your peers but you should not make the error of thinking that you need so many publications to get a degree.
If anything, compare a situation where you have x publications as a single author with a situation where you have x publications with many co-authors. Obviously your intellectual contribution to each publication matters; your supervisors and members of your PhD committee can decide you have not done enough even if you have 2x publications because your contribution to each publication has been minimal. I want to emphasize I’m not talking about writing codes or some other such tasks: a PhD is a research degree so your advisor needs to convince your committee and eventually the external examiner that you have made significant and novel contributions to these publications.
I have heard of students failing at the defence stage. This is not pleasant, and it’s a situation everyone wants to avoid. It *often* (but not always) happens because the candidate is rushed by external events - some visa issue, some family matter, whatever.
In most systems I know, candidates will first go through a sort of “internal defence”, where the student may have to present their work to the committee, or there is some big committee meeting where the final draft of the thesis is evaluated before the thesis is sent to the external examiner. Nobody wants the student to fail so having the committee on board minimizes but does not eliminate the risk of failures. If the thesis is marginal and some committee members still have issue, but the thesis goes out anyways, there could be trouble at the defence with the external examiner.
If you think you have done enough but your advisor does not agree, it’s time to have a frank discussion with your supervisory committee to sort things out, and establish clear milestones for the completion of your degree.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Good answers already, but I think this might also be relevant.
Have you found your institution's academic regulations relating to research degrees? If not, you should. They might be a boring read but they should lay out the exact procedure and requirements for a PhD assessment as well as all the possible outcomes. There will be "failed" outcomes in the regulations. Sadly there will also be stories of students who have failed (even with publications). There might be resit opportunities, too. The regulations might also detail the appeals process if you do fail.
There is some debate in the comments here as to whether "major revisions" are considered a fail or not. The short answer is that depends on your institution's academic regulations.
One thing that the academic regulations are very unlikely to say is "1 good journal + 3 medium conferences = pass", so although your chances of passing are good, your chances of failing are unlikely to be zero.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Why PhD Defenses fail rarely
----------------------------
The main reason why PhD defenses fail rarely is that the process is structured so that in general people attempt their defense only when they are almost certain to pass. If there are any issues and objections, there is a strong preference to have them resolved *before* a defense, not have them be raised during a rejecting vote in the defense process. No one wants to waste all the formal process effort on a failed attempt, so supervisors and committees will *know* that someone is likely to fail and strongly advise them to not make the attempt and postpone it, so in general a failure should happen only if the student has been warned that they are likely to fail and disregards this advice to make the attempt anyway. This sounds suspiciously similar to what you are describing.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: From reading your other question, your supervisor isn't really saying that they think it's likely that you fail.
>
> I need to submit one paper to a journal and write one conference paper, then I am ready to write my thesis.
>
>
>
>
> I got a postdoc position in a great research lab. The tentative start date is the beginning of May. They asked for a letter from my supervisor, stating that I am going to defend before the beginning of May. However, my supervisor keeps on telling me he can only state that I can submit my thesis before that date. He wrote a letter for that.
>
>
>
Your current timeline has you starting, finishing, submitting, and defending your thesis in less than 4 months (really more like 3 months), with your defense being sometime in late April. Even if you and your supervisor do everything perfectly there are still a lot of outside factors that can impact that, the biggest one being when can/will your committee get together to hear your defense. Your timeline is so tight that if you submit your thesis and the committee takes a week to review it and then says we want some minor changes, we'll be able to review those changes in another week... What are you going to do? Or if one person can only meet on Wednesday and another person is unavailable on Wednesday so they have to schedule your defense for a week later? (Or two, or three...)
If you submit your thesis but don't have time to do the changes then it's possible that you could fail. It's even more likely that you don't *fail* but you don't pass your defense *on your timeline*. Your supervisor is (wisely) unwilling to commit to other people doing things that are outside of your control.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: The reason it is rare to fail a Ph.D. defense is that supervisors make sure nobody defends until they are ready. Don't push to be the exception.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: If your advisor says "it's time to get ready for your defense", your odds of passing are extremely high. If you try to defend against your advisor's will, that's a different story.
I would suggest you talk with your advisor about why they think you are not ready. It could be that they are not happy with your work and need more. It could be that they think you should take as much of the free study time you have in grad school and make the most of it: trust me, you will miss this aspect later in life!
If you believe you are being treated unfairly by your advisor in this situation, I would suggest you discuss with the chair.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/12
| 1,935
| 8,692
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to know if there is an easy way to find the research gaps and the new possible development track in the subject, apart from reading hundreds of articles.
Indeed I would like to elaborate a research proposal without some additional added value (not doing what others have already done)
Thank you!<issue_comment>username_1: That depends a bit on the field, especially on its "maturity" and on the number of people interested in it, not just currently, but in the past as well. In a new, fresh, hot field it will likely be easier than in an old, well travelled one since people may be skipping a lot as they push on.
But for most people, no, there isn't an easy path. You gotta do the grunt work to root out the gems.
You can ease the task, however, if you have a group of collaborators who meet fairly regularly to kick ideas around. Some of them will be trivial, others very hard, some just right (three bears problem). For a student, the advisor, who should have more breadth of knowledge in the area is a useful resource.
Experience also helps, but it takes hard work to get that experience. If you have insight into a range of problems the missing chinks might be more visible.
And it takes more that "reading". Careful, critical, reading is needed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'd like to chime in with an important caveat to what you said - it appears you want to avoid reading "hundreds of articles". The purpose of reading an article is not just to understand what is left to be done. Rather, it is important to understand the field, its lingo, what has been solved, common research methods, expected level of discourse and analysis etc. Although it has been said that academic papers are how scientists obscure their research from one another, it is also true that academic papers are how new researchers get introduced to the field and existing researchers keep abreast of it.
When I was a masters and PhD student, I would spent a lot of time reading the introductions of papers, since it was there that I found the most interesting overview of the field. As I progressed, I skipped those sections because, for the most part, they became all the same ("X is a problem, however, Y. Therefore, Z is needed").
In addition, papers often have a background section and their own reference lists, many of the references are absolutely crucial to understanding the field. I've read many bad papers that turned me on to a set of gold references.
Research problems are not found simply by looking for things no one has done before. That is just chasing novelty and the problem often is that novelty isn't enough. For instance, it's true that no one has tried to put a motor into a pork chop, but that doesn't make it a relevant robotics research topic. Reading a paper to find research ideas should be more like "Oh, they did XYZ. Interesting, because that method has a deficiency when dealing with the following class of outliers. I wonder why they didn't explore that?"
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: #### Focus on your own curiosity and knowledge gaps --- some of these will be research gaps
In my experience, one of the most effective ways to find and plug research gaps is to ask yourself questions that are of interest to you as you read through the material in a field and play with problems for your own enjoyment and interest. When you read a paper, it ought to spark a few questions you have that are of interest to you, and you will probably be motivated to play around with the problem and see if you can figure out the answer. This will also lead you to see if these questions are already answered in the literature, and if so, whether the answers in the literature are the same as your own answers. If your question is already answered in another paper, you then read that other paper and it then sparks new questions, etc. If your questions are not answered (or if they are answered in a different way, such that your own alternative answer is a useful new perspective) then you have found a gap in the literature relating to a question that is of interest to you, which then gives you an opportunity for a publishable paper.
In conducting this exercise, I find it best to ignore consideration of wanting to find research gaps and publish things, and instead just focus on satisfying my own curiosity about problems. Plenty of times this leads me to solve problems that I initially think are original work, but which turn out to be re-discoveries of material that is already published (for some examples, see this [related answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/159450/159452#159452)). That is okay, because it was still interesting to work on the problems and it is heartening to rediscover valuable results in your field.
You should not impose preliminary limits on how much you ought to have to read to perform this process. If you have an aversion to reading a large number of papers in your field then it suggest that perhaps this field is not something you're passionate about, so a research career in that field is probably a poor choice for you. In my own field (probability/statistics/data science) I can happily read hundreds of papers because I find them interesting and they lead me to interesting problems that I can toy around with for my own amusement. (In practice I would probably start toying with problems before reading even ten papers, let alone one-hundred. Comprehensive reading of the literature tends to occur when I'm doing a literature review after having found a specific problem I want to write about.)
---
**An example:** At the risk of being self-ingulgent, I'll give you an example of a recent paper I've written that came out of this kind of inquisitive process. (Some field-specific jargon used here, but hopefully you get the idea.) A few years ago I got interested in occupancy distributions in probability, which came out of asking a simple question about random sampling. This led me to an interest in a probability distribution called the "classical occupancy distribution", so I started reading a bunch of papers about this distribution. One thing I noticed in the papers is that they all gave the mean and variance formula for the distribution, but did not give formulas for other properties of the distribution called the skewness and kurtosis. So already I had an immediate question of interest to me --- what are the formulae for the skewness and kurtosis. I also noticed that the papers mentioned that the distribution converges to a normal distribution under broad conditions (so you can use the normal distribution as an approximation in some cases), but the papers did not really attempt to describe how fast this convergence occurs and how accurate/inaccurate this approximation would be. So I then had a second question of interest to me --- how accurate is the normal approximation as I change the distribution parameters, and how large do those parameters have to be before we get really good accuracy? Finally, I had some questions about computation. The distribuion can be computed recursively, but this is slow when the parameters are large, so it occurred to me that you could compute recursively when the parameters are "small" but then switch to the normal approximation when the parameters are "large". But where is a good dividing line for this change in computation method --- i.e., what is a good point where you should change from recursive computation to an approximation method?
As I read through more papers on the topic it became evident to me that these questions did not have answers in the existing literature, so I worked on them myself, mostly out of personal interest and a desire to compute the distribution effectively. Had I worked on this and figured out the answers, and then found out they weren't novel, that would have been okay, because playing around with those problems is interesting and good fun. But in this particular case, once I'd figured out the answers I then had the material for a publishable paper that plugs a research gap ([O'Neill 2020](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.2019.1699445)). This paper answered the above three questions I had asked myself while I read other papers in the field. I've since done more playing around with extensions and variations to this occupancy distribution and I've found more interesting questions that were not answered in the existing papers, so this has led to more publications in the field. This is the type of process that I find leads to my research --- reading papers, asking myself questions, and toying around with problems.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/13
| 1,074
| 4,654
|
<issue_start>username_0: The reason I've brought up this question is due to the following observation.
Let's say, for instance, there is some field which is called "Specific Grand Theory".
The field is quite minor and only A,B,C are the reputable experts regarding the field.
Reading some published papers from young researchers concerning the "Specific Grand Theory", someone observes every of those young researchers shows a gratitude to one of those A,B,C at the 'Acknowledgement' section.
So that 'someone' begins to suspect that whether there is an implicit rule in that field which demands for a young researcher to consult one of the experts before publishing his/her own paper to the field. Otherwise, that 'someone' should worry about the acceptance rate of his/her submitted paper for not getting stamped with authentication by the experts around the field.
The hypothetical situation I described above is similar to what I'm facing. I think that even assuming this kind of custom do exist in some fields, it shall vary field by field. The field I'm particularly interested is one of discrete mathematics. However, if you have your own experience with my question in your field, I would also like to hear your opinion.
Added:
I have an additional question. I may assume that the hypothetical situation I've described above exists, leaving aside whether it results from the custom in that subdiscipline or just a coincidence by the closeness of network.
Then, in the eye of journal editors, would not getting some authentication mark by the experts affect the credibility of the newly submitted papers compared to other papers which got its stamps from those experts?
I'm particularly concerning this, in mathematics, many of the papers are left unread if they give some air of crackpots.
I wonder the opinions from journal editors or reviewers whether not having some authentication mark unlike others will have possibilities to affect the credibility of the submitted paper in some minor fields.<issue_comment>username_1: Short answer: no
Longer answer: in small fields many of the junior researchers will be PhD students or postdocs with either expert A, B, or C. Since the advisor often comments on articles before they are published or are in another way helpful, they end up in the acknowledgement section.
Maybe there is a really supportive culture in that subdiscipline and the experts are really generous with their time, and thus often end up in the acknowledgement section.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: For the record: My area is math, I had served as a managing editor for 3 journals, currently just for one. I also edited proceedings of several conferences.
As an editor/referee I pay very little/no attention to acknowledgements when evaluating a paper (with one exception that I discuss below). As an editor, I either know the specific research area of the paper well enough to evaluate if it is at the level of the journal after a quick look through it (which includes eliminating crockpot papers) or I ask for an "expert quick opinion" instead.
Now, for the exception. In general, I prefer to receive a quick opinion or a referee report from a person who is not too close to the author(s) of the paper, to ensure impartiality. If the author thanks all three main experts in the area, my job, as an editor, becomes more difficult.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: **Do journal editors/referees expect relatively unknown authors to provide evidence of counsel from an expert when submitting a paper?**
No, but ...
No: Whether there is evidence of a mentor is not considered by the editors.
But: Whether the paper shows understanding of the field is important. One way (not the only way) to learn the ins and outs of a field is through a mentor.
And a corollary: "Name dropping" a famous person will not rescue a bad paper from rejection.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I agree with the No answer above. Adding names to the acknowledgment section will not alter your acceptance rate.
However, some authors do play games with acknowledgments: assume one is in conflict with profs. A, B, C. One does not want them to review the manuscript as it would reduce the chances of acceptance. Therefore, one acknowledges them! Next, the editor reads these acknowledgments and does not consider A, B, or C as potential referees (see the last paragraph in the answer of @MoisheKohan). After the manuscript has been reviewed by other unproblematic referees and already accepted, one removes acknowledgments while in the proofs stage.
It remains to be said that I do not support such practice.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/14
| 2,588
| 10,443
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am wondering if some postdoc positions are evaluated using a rubric, like when students hand in tests and the instructors grade using a rubric? If so, is whoever gets the highest score the person who gets hired? In case rubrics are used, are they publicly availabe?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that is unlikely in the US, at least. Much more likely is a meeting of interested faculty (one or more) who hash out the merits of candidates. They might use something like a rubric to make sure that all factors are considered, but it is really individuals making decisions about who might be best to work with and such.
I'd also guess it is impossible to create a valid rubric to be used as you suggest. There are too many variables and they have varying importance.
I can't rule out that it has happened, though.
---
Since the question was changed to "sometimes" I'll add the following. Yes, everything happens "sometimes". But in the US I think that faculties would consider a rubric (such as the Italian model) to be overly limiting. The problem is that you can't take advantage of opportunities that arise only after the call is published and applicants appear in the pool.
One of my (fondest) memories is that of a bunch of senior (male) mathematicians deferring to a junior (female) faculty member in the choice of a postdoc. Just by chance, an applicant turned out to be especially well qualified as a collaborator of the junior colleague and their work together could be expected to benefit both. This would, in particular, aid her in gaining tenure. But that application was serendipity that they were able to take advantage of because they weren't overly bound (and were a collegial bunch).
In general, different people have different characteristics and it is IMO not possible to build a rubric that sufficiently covers the ground unless flexibility is also possible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Despite the fact that they are sometimes called "trainees", from an administration perspective postdocs are generally managed as employees rather than as students.
This means that you should think of a postdoc application like a job application, rather than like any of the program admissions that you may have faced before.
Critically, this means that despite the conflation of "applying to a program" vs. "applying to a laboratory" in many discussions, the hiring process is usually completely different:
* Graduate students typically apply to a department, which handles all applications together via an admissions committee. Professors may be able to "earmark" a student by saying "I want that student / I will support that student", but ultimately it is the department and not the professor that admits the student.
* For most postdocs, the professor is the hiring manager and has complete discretion on how their make the decision as long as it is within the institution's employment regulations.
There are exceptions to these generalizations, such as organizational fellowships, but overall you should expect there to be absolutely no uniformity across institutions or even within a single institution as to how postdoc job applications are handled.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: In some countries, yes. This is for a position in Italy I am involved with (translated from Italian with the help of Google Translate):
>
> The evaluation takes place through the attribution of a score, up to a maximum of 100 points, broken down as follows:
>
>
> ⦁ up to 10 points for a research doctorate or specialization diploma in the medical area;
>
>
> ⦁ up to 40 points for the following documented qualifications: degree mark, post-graduate diplomas, any contracts, scholarships, enrollment in doctoral or specialization schools, conference talks, other documented titles;
>
>
> ⦁ up to 40 points for publications and other research products;
>
>
> ⦁ up to 10 points for the possible interview.
>
>
>
The hiring committee first has to write a more detailed outline of how these items will be scored, *before* looking at the applications, and then proceeds to evaluate the candidates according to these criteria. There is still some space for informed judgement of the committee though; for instance the expanded rubric for the third item is:
>
> The score is awarded considering publications that are relevant with the research program and congruent with the scientific area of the call: based on their number (up to one maximum of 10 points); on their originality, innovativeness and methodological rigor (up to a maximum of 20 points); on the scientific relevance of their publication venue and their dissemination within the scientific community (up to a maximum of 10 points).
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I can only speak to how I evaluate candidates at a US national lab. The posting (any posting) will have a set of Required and Desired attributes. HR screens for the Required, and I generally ignore applicants that don't meet those (although I do scan to see if HR messed up - I've learned to make the Required ones as easy to understand as I can, so no technical terms).
The Desired attributes are for me to score, and I usually have 5 or so. I do it very simply - a 1 is "does not meet", a 2 is "perhaps meets", and a 3 is "definitely meets". Add those up, and one typically get a few general groupings. There are quite often a number of 'does not meet any desired attributes', some with 1 or 2, and then those with 4-5 or so. Normally there is one "high point", but some strong candidates close behind. I'm looking for the top 3 or so, if things are close I'll look at a few more but usually will only select 3. Then I'll set up interviews for about 3 candidates. The choice to hire is based solely on the interview results - the "rubric" was only to get to the interview pool. The 'high point' candidate is not always the selection.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: There's no general answer for this because **it varies *immensely*** between countries, fields, and individual research groups––and sometimes even within them!
How hiring works generally
--------------------------
At one extreme, some positions will put out a call for applications, collect a bunch of them, and have them reviewed by a committee. I've never heard of a process quite as systematic as the Italian one described in username_3's [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/192519/15762), but it would not be odd for them to use some sort of rubric or checklist to assess candidates.
At the opposite extreme, some postdocs are arranged without much formal process. An applicant contacts a potential PI and expresses interest in joining their group. If the PI reciprocates that interest (and has money, space, etc), then a position is created and that person is hired. The applicant might be invited to give a talk or meet with other group members to help the PI make a decision, but there is no structured process and the only "competition" against opportunity costs (e.g., Will a better candidate appear in the near future?) There may be some minimal bureaucratic component, like checking that the person has a PhD, or [posting a job ad](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/190203/extremely-short-application-deadlines/190210#190210), but it is almost entirely *pro forma*.
Crucially, both can even happen in the same department. My PhD department participated in a School of Medicine-wide postdoctoral program that was reviewed by a committee, but many postdocs were hired via informal channels.
### How to get yourself hired
I'd guess you want rubrics so you can maximize your own chances of getting hired.
Unfortunately, there's no magic formula and even the same lab may have different priorities at different times: funding with tight timelines and specific deliverables often need someone who knows the field/techniques already; more open-ended funding like an NIH R01 might instead be good for someone promising who wants to learn.
In general though, all the usual markers of academic success help (papers, presentations, fellowships, etc). Interactions with the PI—either directly or via strong letters—can also make the case that you've got knowledge and skills that may not be reflected on your CV. Asking trusted mentors (your thesis committee?) may give you a rough assessment of your chances.
Another way to give your applications (of all stripes) a leg up is to *clearly* explain what you hope to bring to *this particular lab* and what you hope to get out of your time there. I think this is often neglected, but is also completely under your control. Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: In the U.S., in math, I have never seen anything completely determined by "rubrics"... despite a long tradition of *trying* to make decisions by algorithms based on various numbers. :)
In math, we mostly do *not* have "labs", and funding is more centralized, etc., so there is less reason to give final decision-making power to individual faculty.
And, yes, in recent years, there has been a somewhat-reasonable push to make hiring and admissions fairer by having some quasi-objective rubrics play a larger role, as opposed to old-boy-network criteria. A fundamental problem is that "to compare" we seem to need "numbers", and a valid way of assigning numbers ... and adding them up... ?!?!? ... is very difficult, if not impossible. As in "really, can we *quantify* the prestige of journals?". And what *weight* to give...?!?
On another hand, the hiring/admission processes in math in the U.S. *are* less closed-to-outsiders than they were years ago, I think. Rubrics may help a bit, but I think even more important is a change in attitude/culture, realizing that the old almost-purely-networked culture had many implicit biases.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: In simple words, it is not necessary. However, it seems that the use of rubrics is becoming increasingly popular and is receiving unprecedented attention.
See [here](https://postdocs.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PERA-2021-Rubric.pdf).
Even, the Virginia Tech Presidential Postdoctoral Fellowship RESEARCH FRONTIERS & CYBERSECURITY Proposed Scoring using Rubric. See [here](https://www.research.vt.edu/content/dam/research_vt_edu/postdoc-associates/files/vt-frontiers-cybersecurity-postdoctoral-fellowship-rubric-for-web.pdf).
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/01/14
| 2,316
| 9,519
|
<issue_start>username_0: For faculty candidates with history of severe mental illness, would a Diversity statement be an appropriate place to raise those issues? Could such a candidate bring a unique background that could be valuable to an organization?<issue_comment>username_1: **Note**: this answer was written when the question was framed as "someone with severe mental illness", not "someone with a history of drug abuse and suicide attempts".
---
It would depend on who was evaluating your statement! It's pretty easy to find support for the view that disability is considered (by some) a component of diversity, e.g. from the (Canadian) [Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council](https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/apply-demande/guides/partnership_edi_guide-partenariats_guide_edi-eng.aspx?wbdisable=true):
>
> Diversity is defined as differences based on factors such as, but not limited to age, culture, **disability**, education, ethnicity, gender expression and gender identity, immigration and newcomer status, Indigenous identity, language, neurodiversity, parental status/responsibility, place of origin, religion, race, sexual orientation, and socio-economic status.
>
>
>
(emphasis added).
And also that mental illness is considered (by some) a form of disability, e.g. from the [Ontario Human Rights Commission](https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-based-mental-health-disabilities-and-addictions/13-duty-accommodate):
>
> The duty to accommodate mental health disabilities is no less rigorous than the duty to accommodate physical disabilities.
>
>
>
My own two cents: whether having a mental health disability counts toward EDI (equity, diversity, and inclusion) will depend on who is reading your statement. Some people evaluating diversity statements value "personal" diversity (i.e., you are a member of an underrepresented/equity-seeking group), and some want only to know how you will improve outcomes for members of underrepresented/equity-seeking groups.
Think carefully about the different reasons that EDI is valued, and articulate which ones/why you think they are important. Don't say "I have mental illness, therefore I am deserving of a position" (*this is deliberate exaggeration on my part*); instead, explain **why** your mental illness improves equity, diversity, and inclusion, and why that matters:
* *diversity to improve research outcomes*: perhaps your mental illness (and, hopefully, having overcome/managed it) allows you to bring a different perspective to problems
* *representation*: if you are open about your mental illness, that representation (i.e., knowing that someone with mental illness can succeed in the field) could encourage participation by/success of students who have mental health issues
* *improving outcomes*: your experience with mental illness could give you an advantage in helping students with mental illness succeed
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: ### Frame challenge: Your question implies you don't understand mental illness, nor suicidal ideation, nor drug abuse, nor diversity
Drug abuse is not a mental illness, for starters. Certainly there are people with mental illnesses who abuse drugs, and there are some drugs (e.g. cannabis) where extended heavy use can cause mental illness, but the two should never be considered synonymous.
Suicidal ideation certainly can be a symptom of mental illness, most obviously depression. However it can also arise from extreme sadness (which is not the same thing as depression), such as the death of a loved one. It can also be a reasoned response to other profoundly negative life events such as the loss of a job, chronic pain, homelessness or severe bullying, which the person cannot see a way through. Whilst there is more of a link than with drug abuse, you still need to be very careful about making that link.
If these links do exist for someone, they will be linked to some identifiable condition. In that case, the most important feature of this mental illness from the point of view of someone employing you is that your condition should be managed appropriately, most likely with medication. At that point they *shouldn't* need to consider it. You may need to include it in any medical statements, and your follow-up appointments may be covered in the same way as for any other employee with a medical condition. But this isn't who you are now, because your medical condition is managed, and it no more counts as "diversity" than, say, a history of obesity solved with a gastric band.
Diversity is about who you are, not about what your history is. There certainly are conditions which would be appropriate for inclusion under "diversity". My fiancee has a very mild form of Tourette's syndrome for example, and occasional mild physical tics do not affect her ability to work. Similarly, people with some degree of autism may need to wear noise-cancelling headphones in an office to limit their stimulation. The point of diversity is that if this doesn't affect your work then other people are expected to normalise it, and other people learning that there are other kinds of normal is always good.
I would still be wary about the "unique perspective" angle though. The point of diversity is to normalise these differences. If you're treating them like a special sparkly unicorn, you aren't looking at this as if it's normal. Diversity checklists of "one black, one wheelchair, one autistic, one gay" are a tokenism exercise which does no-one any good. Diversity is always an opportunity for people to learn how to do better, and that's going to benefit your organisation, because your organisation consists of people. But the point is considering them as equals, not something different and "special".
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The diversity statement is not about who you are. It is about how you will be an effective faculty member. If you can explain how your experiences with mental illness will result in better teaching of diverse students and better collaboration with diverse faculty, do that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The post keeps changing, but I'd like to add my take on the questions currently in it.
>
> Could such a candidate bring a unique background that could be valuable to an organization?
>
>
>
Yes.
Anyone's lived experience provides some value to their organization, and unique experiences not fully represented by others in the organization provide a diversity of perspectives which is generally valued even further.
However, whether that value will be recognized or valued by a hiring committee is a separate question, the answer to which is "sometimes yes sometimes no".
>
> Would a Diversity statement be an appropriate place to raise those issues?
>
>
>
The use of the word "issue" is a bit ambiguous here, so I will address what I think are the two most common interpretations.
If you mean issue as in *problem*, then I would look at the [Workplace.SE post](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/189429/how-to-talk-about-depression-in-interviews) mentioned by [@lcrmorin](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6588/lcrmorin) in the comment to the OP. In general, it seems counterproductive to preemptively bring up potentially negative aspects of your application early on in the hiring process. If you will need particular accommodations due to your disability, when to raise these in the interview process is a bit of an open question (there are lots of related posts about the two-body problem). While you should not be misleading in your application, and while discriminating on disability (such as mental illness) is illegal in the US, mental illness is still strongly stigmatized and it is impossible to control how people will react.
If you mean issue as in *topic*, then I think it would be suitable for a diversity statement.
However, **the goal of the diversity statement is not to learn what demographics groups you fall into so that the department can fill out their diversity [bingo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingo_(American_version)) card**.
Rather, the main purpose of the statement (in my view) is to gauge how well you will be able to contribute to the organization's goals surrounding diversity/etc.
These goals are often described on a department's website, and commonly include things like improving student outcomes (e.g. enrollment, graduation %, feeling of belonging, etc.) for those from underrepresented groups or providing a diversity of perspectives on research, department culture, etc.
**Who you are and your history** (including current *and* past struggles with mental illness, substance abuse, self harm, etc,) **are both potentially relevant for such a statement**, if they make you a good candidate for contributing to the department's diversity goals.
As an explicit example: graduate students suffer from [high rates](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-emotional-toll-of-graduate-school/) of mental illness, so having faculty who are familiar with the impacts of mental health and can provide mentorship/guidance/support to these students is beneficial.
Critically, however, **being mentally ill does not automatically make you this person.**
Someone who is not mentally ill but has demonstrated a past history of passion regarding mental health advocacy would better suit the department's needs than someone who simply listed that they are mentally ill.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/14
| 2,265
| 9,322
|
<issue_start>username_0: A while ago I asked a senior mathematician a question. He made some suggestions for some papers to read and had a broad outline for what steps might work. Then I read those papers and proved a theorem and wrote it up and sent it to him.
He thought that what I wrote could be strengthened to make a more interesting paper. He suggested that I agree to co-author the paper so that he could "teach me good mathematical style." I agreed.
But it became clear over time when we met that he just wanted me to do all the work. When we met he would say things like, "Try to prove this..." I could tell that he wasn't interested in proving anything himself, even though the draft so far had results that were all due to myself.
Well, I am not a sucker. I will do everything I can to stop him from getting his name on the paper if he is not actually trying to prove anything.
He also seemed to lose interest in the project. We stopped talking because I had other things to work on, but we are generally on good terms. What should I do? The paper is just sitting in my computer doing nothing. But I want people to know that I did prove something that might be publishable.<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, if I were your advisor or mentor, I'd do pretty much the same thing as a way to help you to becoming a better mathematician. He may well have had proofs (or proof ideas) into the things he was suggesting, but felt (as I feel) that minimal hints to students (an probably mentees) is better than giving solutions.
Math is funny in a way, in that it is possible to be a co-author on a paper in which another person does the majority of the "work" but who provides the necessary insight (the "a-ha moment") that makes it all come together. A five minute conversation over coffee could, in principle, result in primary authorship, though mathematicians don't usually think in terms of "first author".
If you are sure that the person has not contributed intellectual content to the paper (a risky bet) then you can publish on your own. Or you can explore with them whether you should do so. But, his "suggestions on how to prove it" might be enough that you ethically need to include him.
My suggestion, possibly not shared, is that you try to continue to work with him to strengthen the work and get it published, possibly with both as author.
---
Time in the saddle or relative number of keystrokes are both meaningless measures of contribution in math and in some other fields. And, math maturity is measured in insight, which normally comes from hard work, though it can be communicated. But communication is facilitated by that hard work.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: You are a bit unreasonable. He pointed you to the right direction to derive the proof. He did not do nothing.
It is also not true that senior academics who always tell students what to do and never do any "actual work" are just trying to exploit the students. They are experienced researchers who (may) know what to do to come up with the results, and they are just trying to point the students to the "right" direction.
*"right"?* Of course, sometimes, they are wrong. However, their margin of error is much lower than their students'.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_3: There is often a dilemma about whether a contributor has done enough to deserve co-authorship or merely a mention in the Acknowledgement sections.
I would say that, when it comes to practically-intensive fields like medical research or basic biological laboratory research, it can be argued that someone limiting themselves to contributing ideas that move the project along toward publication rather than actually doing any lab work or writing anything that appears in the final draft merely deserves an acknowledgement (as opposed to co-authorship).
However, in a theory-intensive field, and especially in a field which is completely theoretical, such as Mathematics, *ideas are everything*. If the contributor has given you very significant original ideas, ideas without which you could not possibly have produced the work you have in hand now, I would say that they definitely deserve co-author credit. Besides, you did agree to it, it's only ethical to keep your word.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Usually, in situations like yours, the first advice is, "you should have talked about authorship before you started to collaborate". In your case, this happend and you should not publish on your own without the senior researcher. You are bound to your agreement to have him as a co-author. If you are not satisfied with the extend of his contribution, you should talk to him.
Further, I expect if you finish your first draft and show it to your co-author, he gives helpful hints on how to improve your writing and overall presentation. Factor in these future contributions before you make your evaluation of his contribution.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: **tl;dr:** Rather than "have to", consider the possibility that you might be "lucky enough to be able to" and see if it could be a better fit.
---
In my opinion [@buffy nails it](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/192527/69206) as usual, but I'd like to add some additional spin and context.
Those familiar with it will know my answer by a single reference to [Erdős number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s_number). As discussed in answer(s) to the History of Science and Math SE question [Which mathematician traveled to and moved in with each collaborator?](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/q/12355/3869) where Erdős would not only invite himself into the academic world of various other mathematicians, *he'd also invite himself into their homes!*
The idea that the more senior and/or experienced mathematician saw that discussing together was going to be productive and so would *a priori* decide for both parties what would happen next might seem at first weird in the 20th century to most, but as several answers point out things are a little different in mathematics; and **mentorship** is much more common and probably much more important than in many other academic fields.
You have to trust your gut, but if your gut allows for the distinct possibility that you are being mentored, that you will learn a thing or three from this interaction, that the road to paper acceptance might be a little smoother and faster, and that there's nothing that smells particularly predatory about the interaction; in other words, if you can't identify any clear harm here, I'd say go for it!
I have seen mathematicians' web pages which list their interactions or even the "lineage" advisors of advisors prominently, and heard accounts of grand-advisors and great-grand-advisors firsthand.
Collaboration is often hard for people; demonstrating that you can do research with and write a paper *together* with another mathematician, and that you can accept mentorship are great qualities to show.
---
<https://www.mathscareers.org.uk/erdos-numbers/>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YsZ67.jpg)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: The question, well posed by OP, is *what to do **if I feel** that a senior academic is trying to take advantage of me?*
What the senior academic (SA from now on) is doing has been carved out by other answers, however there is an important part that are the *feelings* of OP.
OP genuinely feels that the SA is exploiting them. Although this can be the case, given the details in the question, I agree with the other answers that quite likely there is a healthy collaboration, that the SA is investing their own time to support, push and improve the work of OP, without exploiting OP. But OP is still feeling exploited.
I do not want to speculate on the OP-specific deep psychological reasons of this, I would like to remark that it is common for young academicians to be exploited, it is common for academicians to be *willingly* exploited (please note the praise that is often given to "hardworking" people). Such an self-imposed exploitation is possible only because working in a certain department/group is percevied as being part of a close-knitted group, where the needs of the individual have to be sacrified to the higher good of "scientific progress". It is a primordial behavior, it is deeply seated in the mind of people, it surfaces again and again in the academia (where the brightest and bias-free minds are, supposedly).
In general terms, this is typical of religious sect, the same sects impose a shame on the people leaving them, similar to the shame some academicians give to their (ex-)colleagues leaving the academia to work in a company.
Therefore, I guess the OP is feeling exploited because the senior researcher is from an external group, is not from the same group, so the primordial defensive response of one's own group is coming out.
I suggest OP puts themselves in the shoe of the SA: assume the SA has already enough to do and is approached by a brilliant colleagues from another group with a very interesting question. SA knows that has zero time to spend on the question, but can give out for free all SA's expertise and experience, only in a discontinuous pattern. What would OP do?
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/01/14
| 804
| 3,523
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am halfway through my Honours at an Australian University and am wanting some advice about grad school admissions and acceptance.
Last year I got accepted into an honours program at one of the top universities in Australia, despite my unimpressive grades. I attained a WAM of 56% in my Undergrad and 70% in my grad-dip. I never finished high school due to hospitalisation and it has taken me a fair few years to catch up with everyone else. Despite this, my honours WAM has been significantly improved and is sitting at 91.5%. Additionally, I have been hired as research assistant for one of my Profs, presented my research at a post-grad conference, and will have (fingers crossed) my name on a published paper by the time I graduate.
My supervisor has told me to think about doing a PHD once I graduate. However, I am worried that my past performance will restrict my ability to get into a good program. I would love any thoughts as to whether my recent positive achievements could out way my poor previous mark. Also, would it be wise to explain why my past grades where so poor when applying to grad programs?
Any opinions or advice would be deeply appreciated!<issue_comment>username_1: I don't have a way to evaluate the Australian system, but my guess is that you are fine and you should relax. You've already demonstrated that you can succeed despite some serious issues and the implication is that some parts of your CV make you stand out.
The strong support of your supervisor is also something that points to success in moving to the next level.
Some places might put overmuch emphasis on the grades but not everywhere. Cast a wide net for places to do grad work and you should be fine. (View from across the pond. No, the other pond.)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Your WAM in your honours year is in the high-distinction range, and depending on the weighting used across the years in your degree, you might end up with First Class Honours. In the Australian system that is sufficient for entry to a PhD candidature and is usually also sufficient for a scholarship. Depending on the school you apply to, you might need to identify a supervisor willing to supervise you or you might be able to get entry prior to identifying a supervisor.
When schools review applicants for a PhD candidature they are trying to determine whether the applicant has the skills needed to start learning research work, including the relevant undergraduate background. High marks in the honours year usually means that the applicant has a good grasp of the undergraduate material and this is likely to be more important than earlier undergraduate grades. Having previous research experience on a conference paper and another publication is also much more valuable than higher grades in earlier undergraduate courses. Reviewers will probably look primarily at the honours class received in your degree (e.g., first class, upper second class, etc.), which is determined by the weightings used in your current university.
So long as your overall honours class is good, it is unlikely that lower marks in earlier undergraduate courses would cause concern. At most, your lower grades in earlier undergraduate courses might lead a reviewer to conclude that you may have some skill gaps in undergraduate material that need to be plugged. Your high grades in honours year show that you are able to overcome any such deficiencies and improve rapidly, so it is unlikely to be a big concern.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/15
| 2,000
| 7,727
|
<issue_start>username_0: In ancient Greece, it was generally accepted that philosophers and teachers like Socrates did their work out of love of wisdom. If they were paid at all, it was by private parties and not by the state.
I personally never really understood the "Scandinavian" way of looking at education, namely that it is practically a job to be almost entirely subsidized by the state.
**Is there any reasonable ground (through studies on cost to society, overall well-being of people etc) or any indisputable historical origins behind why state-subsidized salaries were introduced for higher education?**
Related: [What is the socio-economic argument or historical basis for university tuition fees?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21189)<issue_comment>username_1: In the US, at least, and likely true elsewhere, some (not all) colleges and universities are funded primarily by State governments since it is recognized that an educated populace is a common good and contributes positively to the economy. Therefore tax revenue (which comes from the populace) is used to fund it. The Federal government tends to fund projects that might happen at universities, but not so much the universities per se.
I don't know if this was the first use, but when the US started to expand westward, the ["land grant"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land-grant_university) program was used to create a system of universities that were primarily (in intent) to advance agriculture. Midwestern states in particular still have universities that devote a large part of their attention to agriculture. Cornell has such a division, as does Michigan State. But both of those, like the others have a wider mission support of which is related to economic ideas.
If the citizens know more they will, in principle, be more productive.
Possibly orthogonal to this is that in a democracy, there is a sense that an educated populace, even in such things as philosophy and other humanities, will lead to a more stable society. Government has a vested interest in stability as well as the economy.
---
If you go back far enough in history, the educated were also the wealthy. And if the social system required that all wealth be inherited by the first born son, then others in that social class needed something to do since they weren't "managing" the land. Some became educators: tutors. Some took up science. If pay was needed it would come from "patrons". But that system doesn't scale well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As the question is asking about the "Scandinavian" model, I will try to provide an answer from a (central-)European focus.
During the Middle Ages universities, as we know them today, did not exist.
The universities from those times were often independent study and teaching associations without formal structure.
During the Renaissance, alternative research circles formed outside of the universities.
In the early modern age (Napoleonic and Victorian eras), many things changed.
For one, the idea of nation states emerged.
This meant that the administrative cadre was no longer simply nobles who fulfilled their duties to their overlords, but that there existed a state who employed people as administrators.
This coincided with the rise of a Burgeois class of administrators, who needed formal education to fulfill their duties. This led to state run primary and secondary eduction, but also to the establishment of "modern" universities. For example, France instituted universities (or "grande école") that educated their students in one particular topic (such as naval engineering or mine supervision). In Germany, for another example, the Prussian reforms after the defeat against Napoleon established a similar bourgeois body of administration instead of the absolutistic system. University were founded to guarantee proper eductation to the new administrative cadre.
These early universities were seen as necessity by the state to raise its own prospective administrators and were therefore largely subsidized or run by the state itself.
However, Humboldt developed a different vision.
Among other things, students at this university should have the freedom of study, rather than following a strict curriculum.
His ideas spread throughout Europe and even into the United States.
The modern European university system is therefore a remnat of these Humboldtian ideals.
The state no longer funds universities for creating their own administrative cadre, but to offer a comprehensive education for its well-informed citizen.
The question about the socio-economic benefits therefore becomes a bit moot, as the states run universities not because it is cheaper (or better) than private funding, but because it is seen as the duty of the state to provide this type of education.
Of course modern systems vary quiet widely between countries (even in Europe), so that of course there exist many nuances that I did not cover in this answer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The purpose of a system [is what it does.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does) If a system has been around for considerable time and nobody has changed it, then it must be concluded that they want it to do what it is doing. Or, at least, they don't dislike it enough to make the effort to change it.
What does the government funded university system do? That will tell you what the purpose is. Any claims about what it is intended to do that contradict this will need to be deprecated.
[Over the period 2003 to 2023:](https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities)
* Tuition and fees at private National Universities have jumped 134%.
* Out-of-state tuition and fees at public National Universities have risen 141%.
* In-state tuition and fees at public National Universities have grown the most, increasing 175%.
Hmmm... Saving money does not seem to be in the list of purposes of government funding.
Why are universities becoming so expensive? The answer is clear: [much larger number of administrators per student.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureaucrats-and-buildings-the-case-for-why-college-is-so-expensive/?sh=3507743a456a) A quote from that article:
>
> “The interesting thing about the administrative bloat in higher education is, literally, nobody knows who all these people are or what they’re doing,” says <NAME>, a law professor at George Mason University
>
>
>
But there is a reason for it, and there is somebody who knows. (Well... That is, he used to know. He has sadly died.) <NAME> [told us](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#:%7E:text=Another%20%22law%22%20of%20his%20is,and%20sometimes%20are%20eliminated%20entirely.) what happens to bureaucracy when permitted to grow.
>
> Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy:
>
> In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely
>
>
>
Some universities have become indoctrination centers for various dogmas from left or right. Some have become places for CEOs and politicians to be "from." Some have become party schools where students go to destroy brain cells for four years.
But nearly all of them have become places to hire onto as administrators. Government funding protects them from competition and prevents them having to "clean house." And the administrators then wield the university's resources to protect their administrative activities.
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/01/15
| 1,059
| 4,401
|
<issue_start>username_0: When submitting papers as a student, I was asked to provide referee suggestions to the editor. The problem was that I didn't know anyone at the time in the field (I still don't, but I'm also not a practicing researcher anymore, so it's less relevant). I would either just write the names of authors I had just read papers from or leave that field blank. Was that a bad practice? Does it affect the editor's perception of the paper?<issue_comment>username_1: Every editor is different of course, but I doubt that such is a common factor. The purpose of asking is to ease their job in finding reviewers, not to make a judgement about the author.
The editor's job is to publish good work. Thus, their most important consideration should be, and usually is, the quality of the work itself. Associated with that is the need to improve works that have underlying value but have some flaws.
The only issue I see is that if it is difficult to find appropriate reviewers, the process might take longer or even, in unusual cases, fail altogether. But this is rare as the editor has a stable of reviewers that they depend on.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The various publishers now have lists of referees by topics, and these automatically come up as suggested referees when the handling editor is at that point in the process. So: it doesn’t make much practical difference.
I should say that I *always* contact some referees outside the list suggested by the authors. In fact looking at the list of suggested referees will not always reflect positively on the authors.
On balance, it may or may not make a difference in individual cases, but I’m betting on average it makes no difference.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As an editor, the answer is no. Many authors fill in that part of the submission form with 'random' names; some times they fill in key/big names, who are unlikely to accept my review request unless they know me or the authors.
At the end of the day, there is only one critical criterion: paper quality.
The authors, their affiliations, and who they suggest as reviewers, do not come into play.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: An Editor should not look down on a manuscript submitted without *suggested reviewer*.
With that said, there are many nuances at play.
1. Some journal makes *suggested reviewers* mandatory. Failing to comply results in the manuscript not getting submitted successfully.
2. For some journals, *suggested reviewer* is optional. While in others, it is not required.
Suggested reviewers list comes in handy for different purposes
3. Some Editors use it to gauge an author's knowledge of the topic/field. Some might be fuzzy about it and do a desk reject. Often, it does not have a critical role in decision-making.
4. Some Editors use it to ease their 'finding' of suitable reviewers. Editors are, however, not obliged to limit to the submitted *suggested reviewers* list or even utilise/engage any of the suggested ones.
5. Some Editors, on the other hand, use the *suggested reviewers* list to extend the pool of their potential reviewers in the future.
6. Editors are aware that some authors 'pack' the \*suggested reviewers' list with their allies (or even intimate colleagues. Obviously, this is *unethical*. Although, in some disciplines, few though, the pool of reviewers is *narrow* due to the nature of the domain/discipline/sub-discipline.
By and large, the role/purpose of *suggested reviewers* list varies from journal to journal, from publisher to publisher.
[Was that a bad practice?]
`I would either just write the names of authors I had just read papers from` - This is fine. If done constructively, you'll get to understand the trend in the domain or sub-discipline better.
`leave that field blank` - I personally did not think this is a constructive approach: limited engagement with the topic or discipline. If there is an option, put down at least two: You need not put all 5 or 8 as may be requested. While at it, do not put colleagues or collaborators (especially on the same topic).
In-btw, leaving it blank, if required, might suggest a lack of supervisor/advisor! (if the author is a student).
`Does it affect the editor's perception of the paper?` - As indicated, it depends on the Editor. It depends on the goal of the journal. It depends on the sub-discipline.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/16
| 972
| 3,983
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am transgender woman and recently updated my name (which also changed my initials). In addition, I retroactively updated my name on most of the papers that I have published in the last couple of years.
Looking around on the internet, it seems that none of the bigger indexing services have not yet picked up on this change. [This answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/10701/110592) suggests that this process might not happen automatically; however, [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/144983/110592) says the change should at some point be picked up by the indexing services.
So I was wondering: **Will the indexing services update my papers in their databases automatically (and how long would that take)?**
(Examples of websites that still list my papers under my old name are Scopus, Web of Science, DBLP, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar).<issue_comment>username_1: Here I'm largely guessing about what is possible. I would think that many such services would consider it desirable to update such things, but the problem is very difficult given the nature of academic publishing: many publishers, many countries/languages, etc. Thus, any attempt to do this would likely be slow and imperfect. It might, actually, wind up in a chaotic situation for some people and scholarship generally. There are both ethical and financial elements to this.
It is also an problem that updating without explicit permission of authors is an ethical issue.
Moreover, it is an expensive process with servers needing to constantly search of name changes and make updates, when those name changes might not be obvious as they are collected, if at all, in various places. And such reindexing would need to be applied to older papers as well as latest offerings.
The biggest issue, of course, is that changing the name in an indexing service would complicate citations already made. For this reason I suggest everyone to choose a name for publication purposes and stick with it throughout their career whether they change their legal name or not.
So, the best situation might actually be to make such updates only on request of authors after some verification. That is, best overall, but not best for a given individual.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Unfortunately, at the time of writing, most indexing services (with the exception of Google Scholar) do not state that they will automatically re-index publications after a name change.
However, almost *all* of them provide a form (or some other means) to request data corrections.
Here is an in-exhaustive list of all the indexing services I requested my a correction for my name with:
* **DBLP**: email: `dblp [at] dagstuhl.de`. [FAQ page](https://dblp.org/faq/How+can+I+correct+errors+in+dblp.html). Time until resolved: `one day`
* **Google Scholar**: I haven't figured this one out yet, but [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/117163/110592) suggests that this will happen automatically.
* **ResearchGate**: [request form](https://help.researchgate.net/hc/en-us/requests/new). Time until resolved: `one day`
* **Scopus**: [data correction form](https://service.elsevier.com/app/contact/supporthub/scopuscontent/). Time until resolved: `one month`
* **Semantic Scholar**: Profile name changes (done after through signing up) are reflected on all the papers that were matched to your name.
* **Web Of Science**: [data correction form](https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/datachanges). Time until resolved: `[TBD]`
As I proceed sending in the data correction requests, I will append new indexing services to this list, and how long it took from submitting the request to the data being updated in the index.
**Update:** Google Scholar seems to recrawl the papers from their original sources, but it happens slowly. No paper was updated after 3 months. But after 4 months some of my papers have been updated now.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/16
| 2,653
| 10,820
|
<issue_start>username_0: Someone under my pastoral care asked me the following, wishing to remain anonymous: I had published several papers with my so-called supervisors before, during my PhD, both of whom never actually contributed a single word/idea/method/anything of value or even read or edited those papers; nor would they have been capable of contributing a single word in the first place. As a PhD student I was implicitly coerced to include their names as gifts as honorary co-authors or else I would not have received any institutional support (namely residence permit and contracts).
Now I have come of age and emancipated myself from that abusive relationship and become an academic myself. I badly want to remove these unreal authors' names from my publications to end this history of abuse and set an example for fighting against academic bullying and harassment!
How would you suggest someone do this!? I am aware of similar questions such as [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/141785/removing-co-authors-after-re-running-study) but none of them exactly cover the case of the unfortunately very common 'extorted gift authorship' phenomenon.<issue_comment>username_1: If, as you say in a comment, this is very "common in this field", then you are probably stuck with it. It is difficult to overcome common practice in a field, even if it makes little sense. It is probably impossible for an individual to overcome on their own due to the likely and possibly severe blowback.
If you have enough standing in the field to absorb that blowback then you might make a stab at it, but an early career individual could be damaged I fear.
So, my suggestion is to let it go as a matter of self preservation.
One thing you can do, however, is refuse to accept gift authorship in any form when offered.
I'm surprised, honestly, to see that this happens in a math or CS related field. Like you I don't like the practice.
Note that in some fields, supervisors and PIs are so "honored" because they provide the environment, such as a lab and the funding, that makes the research possible. Though they may contribute little to an individual paper, they set the overall framework in which it becomes possible to do the research leading to that paper. I still don't care for the practice, but understand that it is common and accepted in some fields.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This will be an unsatisfactory answer, but my suggestion is to focus on the future rather than the past.
To do what you want to do is going to be an endless task where people will be reluctant to do what you suggest from beginning to end, with no guarantee that it will actually happen, and generating ill will all around. Fundamentally, publishers will not want to do what you want because they have published a paper as is under the assumption that authorship was legitimate. To change that after the fact will require *proof* that authorship was fraudulent. I can only imagine that your co-authors will not be willing to sign corresponding legal affidavits so the question becomes: How will you provide this kind of proof? The point being that publishers will want *you* to prove that these other people shouldn't have been authors, rather than *them* to prove that they deserve authorship.
It is probably easy to see that this will not be an easy process, will require millions of emails to be written and read, possibly lawyers, and a process at the end of which everyone is aggravated by the amount of time and money lost. Whether you can actually succeed with the quest remains questionable, but for sure everyone (editors, your illegitimate co-authors, the legitimate co-authors that will be dragged into the process, university administrators who might have to deal with this) is going to be unhappy and you will have a dozen or two well-meaning colleagues and friends less than you had before.
So I get why you want to do it, but my advice is to not do it anyway because the costs in terms of money, time, and friendships are going to be too high. Rather, my suggestion is to focus on what you *can* achieve: Be a role model, and set ethical standards for those around, going forward in your interaction with your colleagues and students. *That* is a worthwhile use of time and energy, and it will win you friends.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: I will not repeat the points made in the excellent answers by username_2 (it is too legally complex to deal with; just focus on the future) and username_1 (let it go and resolve never to do unto others as they have done unto you), both of whose perspectives with which I wholeheartedly agree. I do want to add a complementary point, though.
I, too, have a couple of coauthorships from my PhD days that do not merit it (though not as bad as your case). Thankfully, my supervisor was a genuine and very active coauthor, but there were a few other professors in my program that got their names on some of my and my colleagues' papers whose names should not be there.
I hope that I am not reading too much into your question, but if your feeling is something like what mine has been, there might be a sense of dishonesty when you look at your list of papers and you see a name that you know ought not to be there. If that is your case, then I will address how I address the unease of conscience. In my case, my CV is my CV and so I list the publications to which I know that I honestly contributed. If ever a particular paper comes up in discussion, then I will be honest and admit that some coauthors did not do much and that their names are only there because of PhD student pressure. So, with that, my conscience is clear.
Remarkably, such a scenario has never come up--not even once--concerning any of these papers. That is, no one has actually asked me about these specific papers such that I have needed to explain their background. One reason that it has never come up is that I do not have any vengeful sentiment that I need to "expose" these professors. So, I do not look for opportunities to bring it up. And none has ever come up.
So, echoing the advice of some other respondents, I recommend that you leave the past in the past and look forward to a future career where you can be an example of how to properly respect your junior colleagues. Beyond that, I strongly urge you that when you learn of junior colleagues being abused in such ways, you do your best to intervene to prevent such abuse from being done to others. That way, the past negative experiences that you have suffered can have a productive outcome in you being an advocate to prevent such behaviours from being repeated by others.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: @FatherGepetto, I will address the anonymous person under your pastoral care in the second person, as though they had asked the question.
### Proof?
>
> I had published several papers with my so-called supervisors ...
>
>
>
Are you claiming they weren't your supervisors? Likely not. So let's call them your supervisors. If you are claiming you weren't supervised, that would be a different question.
>
> ... during my PhD, both of whom never actually contributed a single word ... or even ... edited those papers;
>
>
>
Maybe that's true, but - can you prove it?
>
> never actually contributed a single ... idea/method ... or even read ... those papers;
>
>
>
Even if this were true, this is effectively impossible to prove about your supervisors.
>
> anything of value
>
>
>
Perhaps that's what you believe, but - they supervised you. Naturally I don't know any of the details, but a case could well be made that they contributed *through you*, their supervised junior.
Should that be enough to entitle them to authorship of your papers during your Ph.D.? Perhaps not. But - that's debatable. And many would argue the answer is that it does.
>
> nor would they have been capable of contributing a single word in the first place.
>
>
>
Not only is this effectively impossible to prove, but is also rather slanderous of a claim. People could sue you for saying that - at least in principle.
---
Bottom line: As far as any adjudicative entity can tell, you might just be lying because you had some sort of a personal quibble with these people; and even if you were to present evidence for the more provable parts of your claim, it would probably not be enough to merit a finding that their authorships should be stricken from those papers.
I'm sorry for the harsh tone, and it's quite possible that you were used for aggrandizement by your supervisors and that they shouldn't have accepted their names being added to those papers, but - this harsh tone is what you'll probably hear when you make your demands.
### Motivation
With respect - I question your motivation here. You write that
>
> I have ... emancipated myself from that abusive relationship
>
>
>
but it seems that you have not quite done so. You are still hung up on relationship with these advisors, not focused on moving forward in your academic career - nor even on improving supervisor-supervised power relations in academia in general - but rather on what could be described as personal vindication.
Even if you were to achieve your goal and remove your advisors/supervisors as co-authors, very little would have been gained except possibly emotionally. You will likely not even have affected a change in these people's future treatment of supervised graduate students.
So have you really
>
> Now ... come of age
>
>
>
? I doubt it. This endeavor seems like the misjudgement of someone who has not come of age. You seem to want to expend extensive effort and place yourself at all kinds of risk and adversity - to right a wrong, perhaps, but in a way which will have very little effect other than personal emotional benefit.
You also use rhetoric like "so-called-supervisors" and "unreal authors", which suggests you're rather distraught about this still.
### What can you do instead?
You write that:
>
> As a PhD student I was implicitly coerced to include their names as gifts as honorary co-authors or else I would not have received any institutional support (namely residence permit and contracts).
>
>
>
If you can establish this coercion indeed occurs, that is a matter which is much more likely to be effectively actionable.
Consider discussing this with other (current or former) Ph.D. students; faculty members who disapprove of this practice, if you know any; the junior researchers' labor union (if your university has one); the university ombudsman, comptroller or self-inspection body if one exists; and finally, perhaps the press. But - don't focus on your individual supervisors. Instead, make this about the general problem of coercion.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/16
| 1,291
| 5,831
|
<issue_start>username_0: I finished my bachelor degree in math and computer science (double major) recently and am applying for a PhD very soon. During this period I wanted to know how it feels to do research. Personally I am more interested in pure mathematics. As a result, I searched for around 20 open problems (not Riemannian hypothesis, small and unknown open problems) to see if I can achieve anything new about them to publish.
The problems did not need much to be understood, mostly in combinatorics, linear algebra and analysis. I was able to find new results about 2 of them, meaning that, I was not able to find any article that mentioned my results. However, I always feel my results are very bad and have low quality and I feel if I submit them to any journals I will only hurt myself. To explain a little bit more how my results look, I should say I was able to prove some special cases of the problem and find another elementary proof of one of the theorems that someone else found using advanced techniques. So by no means, I do not feel I did anything worthy of publishing.
However, when I am looking around the internet I see people publish results that are really easy to achieve, for example an elementary proof of Fermat equation for case 11. During my journey I found out achieving very good results will take years, those problems won't be solved easily and there is a reason that they are open for years if not decades.
So if we want to call a person a good pure mathematical researcher, does that mean solving very difficult conjectures only?
It's really important for me because I am not sure if I want to go into the CS industry or do research on math and CS theory. Because I am afraid I am not a good fit for research and I feel that is because I have high standards.<issue_comment>username_1: As a novice, you probably don't (can't?) know if the results are worth publishing. Get some feedback from someone you trust, perhaps a professor.
No, mathematicians don't always work on or publish only the hardest of problems. Some of those have taken hundreds of years to resolve, not to mention new technology to assist. Some problems are very niche and contribute something of interest to only a few people. They can be significant, but the main interests of the moment are elsewhere. My dissertation was like that. One of it's main useful features is that it gave me insight into a class of problems.
Also note that you don't suddenly become an olympic level swimmer the first time in the pool. It takes years of practice and probably the aid of a good and observant coach.
If you think you have a worthy result you can take a small step and share it with some other more skilled mathematician asking for feedback. You can also take a large step and submit it to an appropriate journal and rely on the review process to get feedback on its structure and value. If it is terrible you will learn quickly in most cases. If it is worthy but needs improvement you will get some feedback on that (most cases).
But, you have to get in the pool to start the process, which you seem to be doing.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'm not a mathematician, but I will try to explain you the general principle of deciding whether a research result is worth publishing.
Whether your research findings are a result of hard work or were derived in just an hour is pretty much irrelevant, and what's actually important is their significance. Ask yourself the following question: how will my findings impact the research area? How will they be used by other researchers? If you have something positive to say in response to these questions, then your result is worth publishing at least somewhere.
Next step: try to somehow quantify the significance of your research result in order to determine the best suitable journal. You can make a crude estimate based on the impact factor. Every journal has an impact factor, which is essentially how many times papers in that journal get cited per year on average within the two years following the publication year. So, ask yourself how many citations you expect per year. To figure out the answer, you can have a look at citation stats for papers that address problems of similar significance in your research area.
Also, keep in mind that different journals have different scopes and styles. There are journals for relatively short letters, and there are journals for long detailed articles.
One more thing to consider is that writing a paper takes time and effort, so you should weigh what's more beneficial for your career - spending time on writing up the results you have at hand or trying to get more significant results instead. And the choice here depends on your survival strategy in academia: some people publish like crazy to build a long publication list, while others strive to publish in top journals and achieve impressive citation stats. So, if you want to impress potential employers by a long publication list, publish everything you can - the more the better. But if you want to impress them by the quality of your research, then an almost uncited publication in a subpar journal won't help you much.
So, the issue boils down to what you are as a researcher, and no one is going to tell you exactly what you have got to be. You've got to decide about it yourself.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Something I will add is that its not necessarily your job to decide if something is publishable - or even interesting. That's the job of an editor and reviewers. If you have made some advancement then it is arguably worth you pursuing publication - small incremental publications are better than no publications in my opinion. It's hard to judge your own work, so submit it and leave it to the editor to decide
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/16
| 451
| 1,968
|
<issue_start>username_0: I’m really freaked out. My professors and manager have submitted my LOR’s to colleges. When I asked one of my professors to send me the letter she wrote for me, I noticed that she mentioned the paper we published together (to which I have also provided a link and PDF as part of my application) but the name of the journal mentioned seems to be incorrect. I am sure its a genuine mistake and a mix up of names but will this look bad on my application?
The rest of the information is strong and talks about everything else I have achieved. I have also added this paper to my portfolio as proof and provided a link to it in my resume. What should I do now? I am really hoping this isn't going to hurt my application.<issue_comment>username_1: This is unlikely to have any effect other than possibly asking you about it. Since you have the correct information in the application materials it should be recognized as a simple mistake. Just be prepared for the question, should it arise.
Some places might be able to accept a correction from the letter writer. People make mistakes. Other people recognize that.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Don't worry. The letters will be read by members of a committee who are of course familiar with academia and know that writing letters of recommendation is a bit of a chore. An error such as this (if even noticed) would be immaterial and attributed to an overworked professor.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: If your professor made a minor mistake, that doesn't reflect badly on you at all. The only way that this might conceivably hurt your application is if the incorrect name is also the name of a journal, but one significantly weaker than the actual journal. Then if someone doesn't notice the error they might think the paper is less impressive than it really is.
Even in this case, I wouldn't bother to mention it - it is more important to avoid annoying your professor.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/17
| 1,269
| 5,563
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in a desperate situation. Nine months ago, I submitted a manuscript to journal. In the first five months, the manuscript remained with the editor without being sent for a review. During that time, I sent an email to the editor urging him to find a reviewer soon, but it did not happen. Then I sent another email after two months stating that I will consider withdrawing my paper if the handling editor is not able to find reviewers. The status then immediately changed to "reviewers assigned", which made me really suspicious. Is my manuscript really under review or is the editor just trying to preclude me from withdrawing the manuscript?! I mean for five months he failed to find reviewers, then the status changed to under review after one day of sending my message about potential withdrawal, it was all suspicious. However, I neglected my suspicions and faithfully waited for a final decision from the handling editor. I waited three months, but nothing came from the editor. I sent an email to the editorial office asking about when the decision is expected to be taken and he said we will notify you as soon as we receive a letter from the reviewer. Another month passed and there was no progress in the review process (if there is any).
After roughly nine months of waiting, I really started to think the decision will never come. Therefore, I decided to withdraw my manuscript. In late December, I sent a message to the editorial office and the handling editor to inform them that I decided to withdraw my manuscript. The editorial office stopped replying to my messages ever since I started asking for a withdrawal. The handling editor never responded to any of my inquiries during this whole period. I contacted the publisher directly, so they can help me to solve this problem, and they promised to look into this matter. Two weeks passed but I did not receive any answer from them.
I could not wait any longer, so I sent my manuscript to another journal. The second journal rejected my paper because they found out that it is still under review in the first journal. Perhaps my mistake is that I did not explain the situation before sending the manuscript to the second journal. However, I sent them a letter explaining the situation after the rejection decision. the second journal did not answer me after all.
I am afraid that the same thing will happen if I sent my manuscript to a new journal, what should I do now? How I can solve this problem? I have no intention to carry on with the first journal because of their mistreatment.
Note: the editorial office of the first journal is not part of the editorial board. They are affiliated with the publisher to monitor the process, so they could be as uninformed as me about what is really going on with my manuscript.<issue_comment>username_1: I actually just encountered something similar from the other side (as the publisher), coincidentally enough.
When you submit to the third journal, tell them it is possible the manuscript is still being considered by the first journal, but you have (tried to) withdraw the manuscript there. Either include all correspondence you have with the first journal, or say you can provide the correspondence if desired. You can do this in the cover letter or, if there is no option to include a cover letter, by including a separate letter to the editor among your source files.
Your goal is to make it clear to the third journal that you are respecting publishing ethics and not trying to hide the possibility of a duplicate submission. The second journal presumably found out during the peer review process that your manuscript is simultaneously being considered by another journal, which reflects badly on you since by not reporting it, it seems like you tried to hide it. If you alert the third journal early, you should have nothing to worry about.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> Perhaps my mistake is that I did not explain the situation before
> sending the manuscript to the second journal. However, I sent them a
> letter explaining the situation after the rejection decision. the
> second journal did not answer me after all.
>
>
>
Absolutely a huge mistake, without any perhaps or maybe: you did not give a vital information. I would not be surprised if they put you in a kind of black-list of "authors trying to do everything to get published". After all, "to err is human. to forgive is divine" (Pope, 1711). There are predatory publishers, but there are predatory authors, too! No one serious wants to deal with such authors, since authors are abundant, the quick way is to cut off with someone showing these traits. Stop worrying, there are plenty of venues to submit your paper, plus the turnover in editors is quite rapid, so I guess in 3-4 years you can try to submit again to the 2nd journal ...
If you do the same thing with the third journal, it is highly likely that you will get the same outcome. "Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum" (2000 years ago, many people), which I liberally translate as "to err is human, to keep up with the same errors is stupid hellish".
Briefly explain to the 3rd journal the same facts you presented here, devoiding them of all personal evaluations. If you have to give some personal evaluations, just give them on your actions, such as not giving the second journals all the facts, but even there avoid any moral judgements.
If you want to be treated profesionally, treat the others and yourself profesionally.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/17
| 1,100
| 4,820
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in the final year of my master's and the professor who supervised my bachelor's thesis is offering a PhD position that I would like to apply to (the professor even encouraged me to do so).
They ask for two letters of recommendation, but this professor is basically the only person that could write an LOR for me (since I haven't really had contact with other professors apart from going to their lectures, so they probably don't even know my name).
Ignoring the problem that I don't know a second person I could ask for a LOR for now, is it weird to ask the professor I am applying to for a recommendation? It feels kind of weird, but he is offering the position together with another professor who doesn't know me, so maybe it's okay?<issue_comment>username_1: *Ignoring the problem that I don't know a second person I could ask for a LOR for now, is it weird to ask the professor I am applying to for a recommendation? It feels kind of weird, but he is offering the position together with another professor who doesn't know me, so maybe it's okay?*
Two major caveats to my answer:
1. I am not familiar with the German academic system.
2. Graduate admissions cany vary greatly by program, even within the same university.
In the US for most natural resource programs (my own background), I would view this as okay because the application process is more of a formality at many programs if a professor wants a student and the student meets the minimum program requirements.
I understand this situation seems weird to you, and it is. But, I would personally take the easy wins in life when you get them. The professor seems to know you and you know the professor. Hence, you are both known to each other.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I've been in the academic systems of the United States, Canada, and France, and in these systems, I would say: **YES, definitely ask for this professor's recommendation.**
In these systems, recommendation letters from known professors are very, very important for PhD admission. A recommendation letter from a professor who wants to supervise the student is considered extremely strong. It means that:
* someone whom the admissions committee knows personally (and hopefully respects!) vouches for the student; and
* the student is guaranteed to have a suitable supervisor in the program.
And to add to that, instead of the members of the admissions committee having to look for a good reason to justify admitting you (which is the typical case with random applicants), they would rather have to come up with very good reasons to be able to justify themselves to their colleague for rejecting you despite his recommendation.
This is the ideal situation for everyone involved: the professor, the admissions committee, and of course, you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: **Ask the professor for advice rather than a rec letter.**
They're going to be more familiar with the hiring/admissions process than any of us here are. The situation is rather simple to explain, as you've done here: one of the best-positioned people to write you a letter of recommendation is the very person you are applying to work with.
In cases where it would be appropriate for them to write the letter, they can offer to write it. That may make the most sense when the applications are judged by some other committee. In case the primary decision making is really up to the professor (and perhaps their colleague) and the letters are more of a formality, they can say this and you can collect some other less-than-stellar letters without worrying too much, or maybe they'd still write the letter just so it's on file and can be referred to if there is ever a question about hiring practices at the institution. Or, it may be that they ask that you have outside letters and then write their own additional letter as sort of a "friend of the committee" notice offering to fund/admit you to their supervision.
For what it's worth, when I applied to PhD programs (in the US) I also applied to my undergraduate institution (though I ended up going elsewhere). My letter writers included the chair of admissions for that graduate program, and another professor there - I can't see who else I would have asked, and this didn't raise any concerns, but also this is the sort of program where students are admitted to an overall program rather than directly to a lab. Occasionally in my field, students *are* sometimes admitted directly to a lab when a professor has funding for that student. In that case, I'd still expect them to write a letter, but it wouldn't necessarily be a *recommendation* letter per se, instead it would be addressed to the admissions committee basically saying "if you admit this student, I'll pay for them."
Upvotes: 5
|
2023/01/17
| 2,748
| 11,835
|
<issue_start>username_0: Upon reading many papers in my field, which is Mathematics. I have come across many complicated theorems and proofs in which long overwhelming computations have been done. While paying attention to the peer-review time, I have noticed that many of those papers didn't spend a long time as they should, which is a deduction I based upon the complication of the proofs present in the papers.
This made me ask the question. Do experienced peer-reviewers occasionally ignore verifying "the math", and rather focus on the validity of the techniques used in the proofs and numerical simulations (if applicable)? Since experienced peer-reviewers are very busy academics, I guess it wouldn't be possible for them to verify each point in the proof. However, by not verifying each point of the paper, including the details in the proofs, the peer-review validity becomes questionable.<issue_comment>username_1: It's a bit of both. First, peer review explicitly states that the validity of the statements is not being checked, and is the responsibility of the author. Peer review decides if the results are original, significant and interesting, that is all.
Having said that, many referees do check arguments. For complicated computations, maybe not every line is checked, but whether it passes the 'sniff test'. Does every line look like it follows from the previous line?
Some referees will check every detail, some will be more holistic about it.
Edit: This was mentioned in the comments, but it deserves to be in the answer, especially as for some reason it was accepted over the other, better, answers. I said that referees are not checking validity. By this I mean that a mathematical theorem is either true or false, and referees do not, and realistically could not, check every paper in sufficient detail to confirm validity. And even then that just means two people have checked it, not that it is true.
Referees are certainly asked to comment on whether they think that a paper is correct. This is a very different thing: I can make a guess as to whether the paper is broadly correct, but I might well be wrong. It is down to the individual where on the spectrum, between checking every detail and just looking over the proofs, they lie.
But very few papers over, say, 50 pages long, have had every detail checked. One of my more recent papers (among other things) corrects the main theorems of three other major papers. Two of these three papers were peer reviewed, but the errors were not caught. This is neither the authors' nor the referees' fault, as the errors were subtle and the result could not be verified computationally at the time. It was only by approaching the problem in a completely different way that the errors came to light.
Do I believe the main theorem of this paper? Of course, but then so did the authors of the other papers. Do I believe my paper is error-free? No. I doubt if any paper over 50 pages long is error-free, because humans are not error-free.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Indeed, in the last few decades, there has been a clearer mandate from editors to reviewers, to not check "correctness", but, more about "suitability for the journal".
This does pointedly suggest that refereed-journal-publication is not so much a certification of correctness, but a certification of having passed some status-gate-keeping.
Nevertheless, if/when the result is unsurprising, expected, and (therefore?) probably correct, no one cares too much about checking the details. No controversy is being opened. And, in fact, maybe no one really cares...
If/when a paper makes a big claim, then people *do* start looking critically at the details.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: **Preliminary remark**
What is considered a "complicated computation" can depend quite heavily on the field, and also on the individual mathematician.
But even in fields or papers that don't rely so much on lenghty computations, there might still be lengthy technical arguments, to which the same question applies.
It think it is worthwhile to add the following point to the answers already given.
**About checking the correctness of proofs and computations**
In my experience many people who start out in mathematical research have a somewhat inaccurate impression of how more experienced people (well, many of them, I guess, though probably not all) tend to check the correctness of mathematical proofs:
Going through every single line of a proof and a computation is not only lenghty and cumbersome, it also tends to be extremely (and by this I mean *really extremely*) unreliable.
Human minds are not computers and are highly succeptible to various types of mistakes - in particular if we don't produce an argument ourself, but just read an argument that somebody else has written down.
Without a very good intuitive understanding of a proof, it is just too easy to believe that "every step follows from the previous step" - and to overlook a missing assumption in some step, or a wrongly applied theorem, or a plain sign error, or what not.
What is much more reliable (and, luckily, also much more efficient) are certain high-level checks: figure out the crux of an argument, see where a new idea enters the game, test a result against the common counterexamples which you know prevent related statements from being true, see what part of the argument overcomes, in the present situation, the phenomenon that occurs in all these counterexamples, and so on.
**Personal experience**
I tend to regularly find critical mathematical mistakes when refereeing papers (although I haven't counted the precise percentage where I found such a mistake) - but I don't remember a single instance where I found a mistake by checking every line in a proof, noticing at one step that "this line doesn't follow from the previous line".
In most cases it goes much more like this:
*"Ok, Theorem 1 claims this and that. Under the additional assumption A, which is not there, I know that it's true - let me see if I can remember how the argument goes... Ah yes, and for this particular part of the argument I would need assumption A. Now let's see how they do it without this assumption, because this feels like quite a strong claim.*
*[Start to read the proof, skip the first ten lines because they contain just the usual stuff which one always does to prove results of this type.]*
*Ah, here's where it get's interesting. They say that claim C is true. Hmm, well, I can see that claim C, once established, will probably imply the theorem. Now let's see how they can get C without A. Ah, ok, here's the crucial argument. Hmm, but I don't understand why this should be true. Let me think again - ok, I have an example which shows that the crucial argument does not work, in general."*
This can happen in many variations - but the point is always that, with increasing experience, one often does not need to check every line since one knows how the standard arguments in the field go. So instead one looks for the crucial parts of arguments where things happen that seem to be surprising or non-obvious (to somebody familiar with the standard techniques in the field).
**Related**
Closely related, and certainly worth a read: <NAME>ao's [blog post](https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-mathematics-than-rigour-and-proofs/) about the three stages of rigour in mathematics.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_4: Here is my perspective as a frequent reviewer in several areas of pure mathematics. I cannot speak for other people so I’ll answer the title question as if it’s asking about my specific practices:
>
> Do ~~peer-reviewers~~ *you* ignore details in complicated mathematical computations and theorems?
>
>
>
**Utopian short answer:** no
**Realistic short answer:** sometimes, but only to the minimal extent necessary
**Detailed answer:** I consider it my responsibility as a reviewer to check correctness of the results. Correctness comes before anything else: if the paper is not correct it shouldn’t get published, period, and peer review is precisely the sort of adversarial process designed to minimize the risk that authors will get away with mistakes, sloppiness and outright dishonesty (all of which are common human behaviors). Not even *trying* to check for correctness simply defeats the purpose of peer review.
The only exception to the above is if a journal asks me to review a paper and explicitly says I don’t need to check correctness. And that has only ever happened to me in requests for a “quick opinion”, where I knew that if my opinion was favorable then a more formal and detailed referee report would get solicited later, and that report *would* include checking for correctness. If a journal asked me for a normal referee report but said I don’t need to check correctness, I would frankly worry whether such a journal should exist and what the point of it is. It would almost certainly devalue my opinion of the journal and of any paper published in it. But as I said, this is not something I’ve ever experienced.
That being said, there are utopian ideals and there is reality. In reality, it is not always practical for authors to include all the formal details of their arguments and calculations (doing so might inflate, say, a 60 page paper to twice the length, ensuring that it wouldn’t be read even by the very small number of people who would be willing to read through a very technical 60 page paper). And similarly it is not always practical for a reviewer to verify all the authors’ calculations - certainly the ones that were omitted, and even the ones that were included. So the only way for me to maintain the ideals I was espousing above would be to simply refuse to review papers where I knew I could not check all the details in a reasonable amount of time.
However, refusing to review a paper could carry its own negative consequences, since many review requests are in specialized areas where I am one of only a few people (or in some cases literally the only person) with the relevant expertise to be able to evaluate the paper. So if I refuse the assignment, it would fall to someone less qualified, who would still likely not check all the details, or worse, the paper couldn’t get reviewed at all. So the outcome of refusing to compromise my ideals could be *worse* than if I accepted to do the review.
The upshot of this analysis is that sometimes ideals must be compromised a bit. So what I end up doing in such situations (and what I would guess all serious mathematicians do when reviewing papers for respectable journals) is not check *all* of the details, but check *some* of the details — as many as can be checked in a reasonable amount of time — and beyond that, I try to look at the broader picture of the arguments the authors are making, see if they make sense by applying my intuition and experience with similar analyses, and running various “sanity checks” to see if the results seem plausible. It is a kind of probabilistic correctness checking, which can still work pretty well (I have caught many mistakes following this approach). With the level of experience I have doing this, I would like to believe that the probability of a serious error managing to get past me is fairly small. Although it is not zero obviously (in fact let’s be honest, it’s not zero even when I *do* check all the details).
Bottom line, my recommendation to any researchers reading this is, do not allow yourself to be sloppy in writing your papers out of a belief that you will get away with it because the referee doesn’t have time to check what you did. That would be doing a great disservice both to yourself and to your research area. Moreover, it is bound to catch up with you sooner or later.
Upvotes: 5
|
2023/01/17
| 1,918
| 8,573
|
<issue_start>username_0: Let me start off by saying that I am really a nobody in my field of research. Several months ago I reached out to a very well-known researcher, one of the big names, with a draft paper I was working on. I was very surprised to get an answer back from them. I originally wanted their input on a paper I was preparing for publication and thought having them add their two-cents into what I had written would really improve the paper. In exchange I offered them to be a co-author.
The researcher was hesitant to agree to my offer citing that they believed what I had was a really nice piece of work and they were concerned that by adding their name to the paper, people would end up attributing the work to them. Instead, given that my paper was theory heavy, they wanted to do a follow-up paper together that was focused on experimental verification of my theory and also bring in their PhD student to help. I can understand that they saw this as an opportunity for the PhD student to get in on a paper (who does not have any publications yet) and at the same time give me an opportunity to collaborate with them (the big name researcher). Everyone would benefit. Anyways, the researcher in question suggested the possibility of the PhD student taking the lead as first author and that we should rank authorship based on who contributed the most.
I am not sure if the PhD student was too busy, or just didn't understand the topic but for whatever reason they showed very little interest in actually doing the work to get the paper done. They did put their name as first author on the paper at the very beginning of the research effort but then did very little after that. I ended up writing at least 80% of the paper, and my collegue did all the data processing, with the PhD student capturing the data and writing an abstract and a paragraph in the introduction. I could see when they made edits to the paper and it was always last minute (the night before our meetings).
Now, I would not necessarily care too much about the author order here; however, because I don't think the PhD student understands the topic well at all, I don't want correspondence for the paper being sent to them. I wrote almost the entire paper and also all the details of the algorithm/theory used to produce the results. I know the material very well and am able to actually answer questions and discuss the work with those who may be interested.
This is an awkward situation for me. I don't know how to discuss/propose the authorship order change and also don't want to cause a fuss because I want to work with this researcher more in future projects. I saw this project as starting a relationship with this researcher and don't want to rock the boat too much. I have more ideas that I want to work with them on. Can anyone please help me navigate what to do?<issue_comment>username_1: There seem to be several issues here, most prominently, a collaboration gone bad.
IMHO the authorship question may now be considered fallout of this issue.
Albeit this is easy to say in hindsight, but if you have had the feeling the PhD student didn't contribute sufficiently, the proper way would have been to discuss that with the student and if afterwards your impression persists, potentially escalate that with the professor.
Anyway, regarding your question. Corresponding authors and first authors are a different concept. As you seemingly are from a field which aligns authorship roles with contribution, the first author is understood as the person contributing the most. Totally separate from that, a corresponding author may be indicated. However, neither you nor the PhD student are a good choice for this position as people may contact you in five years from now. The professor is the best bet as a person who can be reliably contacted after that time. Furthermore, since you write about experimental data, usually the professor can always provide access to that whereas you might not necessarily be able/allowed to.
Finally, to provide a suggestion: Have you discussed either changing the author order with the PhD student or the option of sharing first authorship? IMHO this is the most sensible way to proceed here with the latter providing the highest likelihood of success. This way you may indicate that you are the person most involved in the conceptualization/execution. However, this should be discussed with the PhD student before involving the professor.
If you select to go with this, this can even be done in a way that saves the PhD student's face if let's say the mutual first-authorship is brought up towards the professor by the PhD student, much rather than you. This way, the student may say he thinks so highly of you, you should be elevated to co-firsthauthorship.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If the PhD student collected the data for the follow-up paper, I can see why they feel they deserve first author spot.
However, what you are worried about is the corresponding author, which is not the same thing as first author.
Keep the PhD students as first author (isn't it what you agreed with their advisor? did they do the bulk of the work for the paper, i.e. data collection?) and then at submission put your name as corresponding author (I guess you are dealing with the submission, so you have a certain responsibility and you deserve that role).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: It's often a problem that burden of effort shifts during a project, and that initial authorship expectations should therefore be modified. However, it's far better to make these modifications along the way rather than at the end.
>
> I ended up writing at least 80% of the paper, and my collegue did all the data processing, with the PhD student capturing the data and writing an abstract and a paragraph in the introduction.
>
>
>
Really, before you took on writing most of the paper, you should have renegotiated the authorship arrangement, or at least had a conversation about it. Some things you may need to consider are:
1. Writing can be either a relatively minor contribution or the major feature of a paper. I would not necessarily consider the person who wrote the most words to be the person most deserving of first authorship.
2. Likewise, data collection is sometimes a very undervalued part of a project, depending on the type of data; for other projects, data wrangling tasks can be just as important and time-consuming. In some cases, you really need to do an entire separate hidden research project that's nonetheless completely unpublishable and uncredited just to start data collection. I don't know whether that's the case here, and you may not either, but it's something to consider.
3. It's not really fair to 'steal' a paper by doing someone else's work. If you start a collaboration with someone, you should expect that your project with them is not their only time commitment. If you separate the tasks, it's good to communicate about expectations of when those tasks are to be done, but if you'd like things to move more quickly and therefore start taking tasks that weren't yours, well, it's not really fair to then say the other person didn't do the work: you didn't give them a *chance* to.
---
With that out of the way, your next step really is to just have a conversation about it. Maybe everyone is in agreement on a new authorship order, and there's no real problem to solve. If there are *disagreements*, then you can start weighing the alternatives. Try to have a good sense of what things you *value* going into that conversation, rather than fixating on a solution. If your field recognizes "senior"/last authorship, maybe that's an acceptable position in the author list for you and your role. It may be useful to have a neutral/semi-neutral party help mediate. As in any negotiation, you shouldn't expect to get everything you want, but hopefully you can settle on something that everyone feels is a reasonable compromise.
I do not get the sense that the "very well-known researcher" you initially contacted will be a barrier - they already proposed a very reasonable solution when you initially reached out. If they were the sort of person who abuses authorship they'd likely have had no problem being an author on the first paper. They may also feel a duty towards their PhD student, however, but I think you really need to have the conversation first and see how things shake out before you worry too much that you're rocking the boat or burning bridges with them.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/17
| 756
| 3,485
|
<issue_start>username_0: I may need to transfer my PhD to a new university soon due to moving overseas. My PhD can be done entirely online, so in theory this shouldn't hinder the research itself.
For my current project, I have already had my ethics application accepted by my current university, along with a substantial number of other documents (e.g. data management plan, data sharing agreement, etc). Will I need to repeat this documentation at a new university? I.e. will I need to redo my ethics application and data sharing agreement?
Thanks a lot<issue_comment>username_1: >
> will I need to redo my ethics application and data sharing agreement?
>
>
>
Yes. It's possible (but not particularly likely) that you will be able to expedite approval a bit if you've shown you went through the process before, but every institution is in charge of their own research program, and you're now going to be part of a different institution's program. If both you and a colleague at a different institution were involved in collecting data for the same project, you'd likely both need to get separate approval in that case, as well.
Hopefully most of the writing you've done can be used again, saving you some work, though different review boards may have different standardized forms they want you to use.
One way to think about this is that basically your old institution no longer has any sway over you, so they can't really hold you to anything. They can't fire you or prevent you from getting a degree or anything - your new institution can, so they're the ones that have jurisdiction over the work you do. In the US (other countries may be similar), the laws governing ethical research typically apply primarily to the institution: as a result of receiving government funds, the institution promises to comply with certain regulatory requirements, including ensuring that work done at their institution is performed according to certain ethical standards. Even if you were moving within the same country, the new institution would need to sign off on your work. It's even more unlikely that anything approved in another *country* could be considered ahead of time to comply with the local regulations.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Unfortunately, the approach that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Human Research Ethics Committees HRECs) take to approving research at universities tends to conflate *ethical behavior* with *institutional risk*.
As a consequence, a decision by a university to *approve* a research project should therefore usually be interpreted as a positive statement about *two separate issues*, one of which is general but the other, university specific. In particular, the approval probably implies that your research both conforms to generally accepted ethical standards of behavior and ***also*** does not expose your approving institution to unnecessary (or, for them, unacceptable) risk.
The problem is that if you then transfer to a new university, the new institution might well agree with the first university regarding the conformity of your research with accepted standards of behavior. However, they will almost certainly want to make their own assessment about the extent to which the research exposes them (i.e., the new institution) to risk. You are, as a result, almost certainly going to have to submit a new ethics application.
... As an academic, I'm just about to do the same thing myself!
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/18
| 529
| 1,978
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is the correct way to write academic degrees after the name? The degrees are RN (registered nurse) MAN (Master of Arts in Nursing) MBA (Master in Business Administration) and DBA (Doctor in Business Administration<issue_comment>username_1: This is somewhat country specific. In the UK there are a few commonly referenced conventions for post-nominal letters (first two require purchase):
[Titles and forms of address: A guide to correct use (2007). London: A. & C. Black.](https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/titles-and-forms-of-address-9781472924346/)
[Debrett's Letters After The Name](https://debretts.com/etiquettes/forms-of-address/)
[This guide](https://gazette.web.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/gazette/documents/media/calendar_style_guide_2018.pdf) is followed by Oxford University.
I have never compared these, but I suspect they are very similar.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: This is just a suggestion for those places in which there aren't firm conventions. If a single person held all those degrees, which cover two fields, I would just list the highest degree in each field, with doctorate(s) listed last. So
>
> <NAME>, MAN, DBA
>
>
>
Since MAN is less common than many others, further explanation might be needed in some contexts.
If you need to list them all, then listing in the order earned is one option (later, last), perhaps grouped by field. But, again, the it is useful to list the highest degree last.
If you are in a very formal place (Germany, Austria, Switzerland,...) then local conventions and, perhaps, even laws apply, so find out what the requirements are locally. A university might have someone to make that clear. The "Registrar" of records might help.
Professional licensing is a different matter. It might be good to list those before the degrees unless they can be assumed in the titles. So a licensed medical doctor might list M.D. before the advanced degrees if any.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/18
| 3,055
| 12,131
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in the second year of a three-year PhD in algebraic topology — though not in topological data analysis or anything practical — and I am beginning to think about job prospects and life after my PhD.
I have been fortunate in that my PhD has gone well so far — I've written a few preprints — and I (hopefully!) won't have much difficulty finding a postdoc. However, I am not sure if I want to go down that route. I love research but I hate teaching, and, more than that, I am really tired of being poor and having no job (or even geographical) stability. I have a partner with a non-academic job and I don't want to abandon her and to go to Canada or something in a year's time. Continuing in academia would seem to prolong the problem for another ten years at least (and that's assuming I don't fail as a postdoc which is a big if). Thus, I am wondering what jobs are available for those who earned a PhD in algebraic topology, or, indeed, in pure maths generally?
I spoke with my advisor, but he never seriously considered a career outside academia himself and doesn't really see the point in not "trying a postdoc." The other questions I could find on Stack Exchange mainly address people who only realise they don't want to be academics just before their PhD defence. Is there any way I can spend my final year as a PhD student to make myself more employable?<issue_comment>username_1: If you managed to survive for a PhD, you can take any advanced qualification cetificate that is expendable in the place where you reside now. Every university offers them, they are your paid entrance to the workforce. Find one that fits your profile and interest
However, yes, there is a way to spend your time to be more employable, you should look at what people are doing in the private world.
Like your PhD topic, which is an open research question looking for someone to tackle it, a job opportunity arise because there is a need in a company for a profile like "yours".
But no one is looking for your profile, there is simply a need for your skills.
Now you are deep in your PhD trench, thinking that you can do and can fulfill your working life only in the very specific topic of the holomorphism of biquadratic asymmetric complex tensor, therefore either you find a job dealing with holomorphism of biquadratic asymmetric complex tensor (or at least holomrophism of biquadratic symmetric complex tensor) or your life will be devoid of meaning and you will suffer for your choice.
This is not how the human mind works, and especially this is not how the market for the workforce works. If you have a PhD in Mathematics, or in Physics, or even in Chemistry, in general it is equally relevant to the potential employer: they care, but they do not really vouche for the content, they hire you for *the method* you applied to tackling problems.
Or, if everything is unsatisfactory, you start your own company and you enjoy the ride in providing algebraic topology services.
I know nothing of them, but there must be a market. Check what others did (5 secs google search brought me to <https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2016/01/27/next-areas-of-math-to-be-applied/> ) and then good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: A brief report from the front, from a postdoc who does topological data analysis and is on the job market:
* Computation of some sort is the only obvious route to a non-academic job that uses math skills. I'd urge you to pick up some type of coding basics, naturally I'm biased towards data analysis. My friends who don't have these have struggled on the job market.
* I don't know of any employers outside the academy that are interested in pure algebraic topology. Even the people I know who do TDA at receptive National Labs are more focused on useful computations than extensive theoretical work. Geometric and topological reasoning about data otherwise seems to land you largely at tech companies. Graphs are topical.
* Rumor has it that the NSA has some demand for theory. But who knows? And historically the theory part of their objectives aligns with number theory, by reputation.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You could possibly find a research institute that does not have a teaching aspect. There are some around. Here is one.
<https://perimeterinstitute.ca/>
You have to be pretty stellar to get a job there. And it is in Canada. There are other such institutes. Google for them.
Industry is going to want some kind of thing that can, in some way at some level, however indirectly, be sold to a customer.
Computers of some kind is the obvious one. Programming in nearly any language is a good start, especially if you have done some significant software project. Database development is possible. Signal processing is big. Artificial intelligence is huge right now.
I recall a story about a large auto industry company that hired an astrophysics guy. His job was to teach the car engineers about various things such as cosmology and stellar dynamics and so forth. Not to get them doing research, but to broaden them and give them ideas about various methods of solving problems. But then, you mention you don't like teaching.
Maybe you have some kind of hands-on technical hobby? One of the techs at this company got his start learning to "cherry out" his racing car. He does everything on the car from electrical to fuel injection to body work. Then he personally races it. So when he's putting together some equipment in the lab it's a breeze.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> What jobs are available for PhD in algebraic topology or indeed in pure maths generally?
>
>
>
I suggested [Are there any research careers except professorship for a person holding PhD in pure mathematics?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/18300/4140) in the comments. On the one hand, there are careers like management consulting, where being highly intelligent and articulate is more important than having specific knowledge. On the other hand, there is anything IT-related, where there is a presumption that anyone who understands algebraic topology can pick up whatever they need. I personally do think that formal education in software engineering is usually better than educating someone on the job - but math Ph.D.s *are* capable of being trained on the job for most-if-not-all IT-related jobs, so our job prospects in this sector are quite good. On the third hand, there is insurance, but that has been a bit eclipsed by the other two options.
>
> Is there any way I can spend my final year as a PhD student to make myself more employable?
>
>
>
First off, it's great that you are making plans *now*! Since your final year is going to be busy, you need to focus here. Three very specific recommendations:
1. Learn Python if you don't know it yet. This is the most common programming language out there, and will thus open the most doors for your time investment. No need to become deeply proficient - just understand enough to be able to tick the box (many application forms are nowadays processed automatically), and master some simple coding challenges in the interview, like FizzBuzz. If you are already comfortable with Python, attend a Data Science bootcamp or similar. Data Science is still hot.
Both suggestions are actually not (only) about the sheer knowledge you will gain. They are in large part about signaling: by investing time in these areas, you show potential employers that you are thinking ahead and doing things to make you more employable. Talking about this is a great conversation to have with a recruiter.
2. When you do talk to a recruiter, they will ask you what you did in your Ph.D., as a way to break the ice, and to see whether you can explain complex topics to a non-expert - which is a skill you will need in *any* job you might get that goes beyond flipping burgers. Thus, develop and practice an elevator pitch. Test it on non-experts. This is typically not easy for pure math Ph.D.s.
3. Once you have that elevator pitch, start networking and talking to people. Attend job fairs. Does your university have any kind of assistance? This can be invaluable. Use these opportunities to perfect your elevator pitch, to ask what people in industry are looking for in candidates, what else you could do to make yourself more employable. Do more listening and less talking at the beginning, and leave a good impression. (Which is why you should get that elevator pitch down *first*, and start on Python or Data Science.)
A bit of encouragement: I am working with a couple of math and physics Ph.D.s, and most of them are doing something completely different than when they studied, mostly software development and data science. And I recently was involved in peer reviewing my old math department as an "industry representative". The industry job market for mathematicians is definitely quite good, and if you do invest in yourself, there will almost certainly be a job for you out there.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: If you want a job as a mathematician outside of academia, possibilities might include anything in high tech that really depends on math, e.g., machine learning and robotics, or perhaps Wall Street, where they do a lot of modeling and can afford to pay piles of money.
But it may also be helpful (or not) to know that the [largest single employer](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mathematicians-and-computer-scientists-shrug-over-the-nsa-hacking/) of mathematicians in the US is the NSA. Is government service a possibility?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: "what jobs are available for PhD in algebraic topology or indeed in pure maths generally?"
First, recommend you look at these questions, that refer to real-life applications of algebraic topology.
* [MathOverflow - Real-World Applications of Math](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/2556/real-world-applications-of-mathematics-by-arxiv-subject-area/2559#2559)
* [Reddit - Applications of Topology](https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/sdlure/applications_of_topology/)
* [MathSE - Real life applications of Topology](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/73690/real-life-applications-of-topology)
* [Quora - Applications of Topology in CS](https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-common-applications-of-algebraic-topology-in-computer-science)
* [Ghrist - Research Interests for Applied Topology](https://www2.math.upenn.edu/%7Eghrist/index_files/research.htm)
Short Summary of Fields where they hire topology folks in industry:
* Sensor network design (ex: global sensor integration)
* Computer vision & pattern recognition
* Robotics for motion planning and behavioral algorithms
* Logistics and factory operations movement
* Protein folding and analysis of DNA function
* Game theory for economics (thru Brouwer's fixed point theorem)
* Nuclear power risk management
* Nuclear instability modeling (fusion attempts ex: DOE)
* Actuarial science modeling
* [Asynchronous computation](https://cs.brown.edu/%7Emph/HerlihyS99/p858-herlihy.pdf) and concurrency issues for parallel computing
* [Topological data analysis](https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2009-46-02/S0273-0979-09-01249-X/S0273-0979-09-01249-X.pdf) (mostly simplification of "big data" sets)
* Hydrodynamic instability modeling
* Design of topological insulator materials for computers
* Mesh processing for 3D modeling and printing
* Neurology to understand the functionality of brain parts
* Agriculture (mostly sensors and logistics - also [spherical cows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow))
* Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
A quick search of [Jobs Topology](https://www.google.com/search?q=jobs+topology) finds that in 2023:
* Amazon is hiring quite a bit in this area for logistics, factory, and delivery optimization
* Los Alamos (although Post-Doc) is hiring for topology of quantum materials
* National Institutes of Health (NIH) is hiring for DNA topology
* Lawrence Livermore is hiring for topology optimization of HPC computation systems
* Mitsubishi is hiring for topology optimization of electric machines
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/18
| 1,061
| 4,501
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently submitted a first-author paper to a top-tier scientific journal (A). The editor responded that the paper would not be reviewed in that specific journal (A), but that it could be transferred to (and guaranteed reviewed by) a middle-tier journal (B) under the same publishing family.
Searching online, I believe this process is called (or similar to) "cascade peer reviewing". The benefits would be that I would not need to entirely resubmit and would be guaranteed peer review.
Despite these benefits, I prefer to submit the paper to another top-tier journal (C) in the same publishing family. I tentatively plan to transparently ask the editor if we can defer the offer, submit the paper to journal C, and if the paper is rejected from journal C, then reconsider the offer to transfer (or perhaps entirely resubmit) to journal B. Would this question be lacking in respect and/or grace?
I plan on asking my coauthors if we should ask the editor directly about this detail on their policy. However, before even asking my coauthors, I wanted to check with anyone's experience with this topic here. If this idea of even asking is considered inappropriate, then I would probably avoid asking altogether.<issue_comment>username_1: I assume you submitted to *Nature something* (or even *Nature*, whoop whoop!) and now they are offering you to transfer it to Nature **Communications**? Because that appears to be their usual practice, and it is a win-win -- at least, for Springer-Nature. These manuscripts often become good papers that are highly cited, pushing Nat Comm's impact factor -- and, they are at least half-reviewed. Nature editors are professional editors \*) and take time to carefully check the paper before sending it out for review. So, even if only a Nature Methods editor has looked at the paper, it is 10% reviewed.
If this is the case, you can absolutely try another journal before going to Nat Comm. NC is very fine too, but it is somewhat more commercial (costs you 4k). The editor knows the game, they will not mind. I am still a little bit annoyed that I did not know this 10 years ago and accepted the offer.
\**) OK this is not 100% true because there are now so many *Nature something* journals, and I don't think they all have professional editors. Let's say, the top-10 or top-20 has.*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The value of the editor's offer is **basically zero**, and, while being polite, there is no point in making arrangements to keep it, in case that your paper is rejected at the other journal.
Assuming that your paper is decent (which would be required to avoid a rejection anyways), it will almost certainly go through review in any suitable middle-tier journal that you send it to. Hence, the natural strategy is to send the paper to top-tier journals as long as you still have some confidence in a successful outcome. When you lose that confidence, you can send it to any middle-tier journal, either the one the editor suggested or another one.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Despite these benefits, I prefer to submit the paper to another top-tier journal (C) in the same publishing family. I tentatively plan to transparently ask the editor if we can defer the offer, submit the paper to journal C, and if the paper is rejected from journal C, then reconsider the offer to transfer (or perhaps entirely resubmit) to journal B. Would this question be lacking in respect and/or grace?
>
>
>
You are almost in a game theory situation! This depends upon your time and need for a high-tier publication. Here are two approaches I use:
**Try for another top-tier journal:** What I have done is leave the manuscript in the system for journal B, and not respond and because journals A/B considers a lack of response to be a decline to transfer. Usually, journal B gives you multiple months to respond before un-submitting the journal article automatically.
During this period, I submit to journal C. I usually hear back from journal C before I time out at journal B.
**Easy publication route:** In my experience, some journals will give a paper an editorial only review (i.e., the editor reads the paper and reviewer commens/response and then accepts) **IF** you address all of the peer review comments from the first review.
I would discuss both rotes with your co-authors. Depending upon your timeline and career stage, either route might be the *best* choice for you.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/18
| 1,220
| 5,351
|
<issue_start>username_0: At my university, in a Computer Systems course I'm TAing,
there are some experiment based assignments in which students are expected to
perform experiments, record the results and prepare a report to explain the results.
Post Assignment submission, there's a viva. They're expected to demo the experiments on the same laptops/PCs they did the assignment on.
During the viva, many students are able to reproduce results close to the ones they
reported in the assignment submission, while for others there are
large deviations.
Slight deviations are okay (and even expected), but large ones are not.
Does this constitute cheating?
Clarification:
--------------
Demo testing is not running a single instance.
Students are expected to report average, standard deviation
taken over a very large number of instances of the experiment.
On all machines where the TAs have performed the experiments, we have been able to reproduce the results with slight deviations later.
That's why I said slight deviations are okay, but
Large deviations from the reported results might mean they've not honestly reported their own results, but instead mentioned copied, slightly-modified results taken from their friends' assignments.<issue_comment>username_1: It does not constitute to cheating in and on itself, but it does raise questions in my opinion. The students should be able to explain to you why there are such large deviations, and if they're unable to, it might be worth looking into their work further if you still suspect cheating.
I'm not sure why deviations are expected. (They might be, I'm just not sure what experiments you're conducting.) In my experience, setting seed values for RNGs works very well to ensure that results are consistent across multiple experiments.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would suggest that in the case of elapsed time as a measure of program efficiency, a single run tells you absolutely nothing, as the load on a modern computer is very (very very) difficult to control, unlike an old IBM 1130. Lots of background processes may be running with no user control (or very little).
That is why we don't measure the efficiency of algorithms in general using elapsed time to run, but with theoretical measures instead (number of comparisons, number of data swaps,...).
This might be especially true of a laptop that is started or awakened in a new (wifi...) environment. The temperature of the CPU might even be a factor. It takes my desktop almost five minutes in the morning to start my browser since it is seldom restarted and the browser needs to swap out other processes to get enough ram to run, especially since the auto-backup program also demands service on awakening.
If time means anything at all (elapsed time), it needs to be averaged over a large number of runs.
That said, if a compiler is poorly written, then the compilation time might differ wildly on similar *seeming* programs.
So, no, in itself, a slow run in a viva means nothing in itself. But it might indicate lots of things that require further exploration.
---
To say something explicitly about cheating, I doubt that it is a valid indicator, especially given that the student knows about the viva that will occur. There would be little point and a lot of risk in trying lie or fake something in the written report in that scenario. It might indicate other flaws in the program or the experiment, of course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm trying to recall where exactly I got this example from. It may have been in ["Code Complete"](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0735619670) by <NAME> but I don't have a page reference, so I could could be wrong.
The story is, the famous author was being asked to debug a timing issue with a menu system in a major software product. At times it would load quickly, meeting the timing requirements. But at other times it would take *ages* to load. After some investigation, including using a debugger to crawl through the code, he discovered it was a swap-out issue. If part of the code was not called for a certain time, the system would swap it out of memory. Then, to call the function, the swapped out portion had to be swapped back in. This meant that many meg of code had to be found on the hard drive, swapped into RAM, and then used. And depending on exactly what was swapped in and out, the amount of RAM could vary quite widely. So, getting the File menu to open would, under the "perfect storm" conditions, take 15 seconds.
So you need to be careful about using timing as a metric on code. It requires careful thought to be sure you are not running into such issues. And the reason for changes in timing may be entirely *NOT* obvious.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If they can't reproduce the results because they falsified the data, it's cheating. If they can't reproduce the results because they stole the data, it's cheating.
If they can't reproduce the data because they're not good at doing experiments, it's not cheating. If they can't reproduce the data because they're not good at designing experiments, it's not cheating. If they can't reproduce the data because they have a confounding variable they don't know about or don't know how to hold constant, it's not cheating.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/19
| 986
| 4,262
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is the worst thing would happen to a person who leaves their postdoc position without any prior notice and leaves the country?<issue_comment>username_1: It does not constitute to cheating in and on itself, but it does raise questions in my opinion. The students should be able to explain to you why there are such large deviations, and if they're unable to, it might be worth looking into their work further if you still suspect cheating.
I'm not sure why deviations are expected. (They might be, I'm just not sure what experiments you're conducting.) In my experience, setting seed values for RNGs works very well to ensure that results are consistent across multiple experiments.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would suggest that in the case of elapsed time as a measure of program efficiency, a single run tells you absolutely nothing, as the load on a modern computer is very (very very) difficult to control, unlike an old IBM 1130. Lots of background processes may be running with no user control (or very little).
That is why we don't measure the efficiency of algorithms in general using elapsed time to run, but with theoretical measures instead (number of comparisons, number of data swaps,...).
This might be especially true of a laptop that is started or awakened in a new (wifi...) environment. The temperature of the CPU might even be a factor. It takes my desktop almost five minutes in the morning to start my browser since it is seldom restarted and the browser needs to swap out other processes to get enough ram to run, especially since the auto-backup program also demands service on awakening.
If time means anything at all (elapsed time), it needs to be averaged over a large number of runs.
That said, if a compiler is poorly written, then the compilation time might differ wildly on similar *seeming* programs.
So, no, in itself, a slow run in a viva means nothing in itself. But it might indicate lots of things that require further exploration.
---
To say something explicitly about cheating, I doubt that it is a valid indicator, especially given that the student knows about the viva that will occur. There would be little point and a lot of risk in trying lie or fake something in the written report in that scenario. It might indicate other flaws in the program or the experiment, of course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm trying to recall where exactly I got this example from. It may have been in ["Code Complete"](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0735619670) by Steve McConnell but I don't have a page reference, so I could could be wrong.
The story is, the famous author was being asked to debug a timing issue with a menu system in a major software product. At times it would load quickly, meeting the timing requirements. But at other times it would take *ages* to load. After some investigation, including using a debugger to crawl through the code, he discovered it was a swap-out issue. If part of the code was not called for a certain time, the system would swap it out of memory. Then, to call the function, the swapped out portion had to be swapped back in. This meant that many meg of code had to be found on the hard drive, swapped into RAM, and then used. And depending on exactly what was swapped in and out, the amount of RAM could vary quite widely. So, getting the File menu to open would, under the "perfect storm" conditions, take 15 seconds.
So you need to be careful about using timing as a metric on code. It requires careful thought to be sure you are not running into such issues. And the reason for changes in timing may be entirely *NOT* obvious.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If they can't reproduce the results because they falsified the data, it's cheating. If they can't reproduce the results because they stole the data, it's cheating.
If they can't reproduce the data because they're not good at doing experiments, it's not cheating. If they can't reproduce the data because they're not good at designing experiments, it's not cheating. If they can't reproduce the data because they have a confounding variable they don't know about or don't know how to hold constant, it's not cheating.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/19
| 1,190
| 5,106
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my current position, my committee believes that I am by all metrics a successful student. I'm even working on two papers. But I've had to endure sexual harassment and working conditions that endanger both my life and the neighbouring labs'. My prof does little to address these issues and discouraged me from taking them further. I've gone to my dept and to the university ombudsman, but there are no official procedures for this so nothing happens. Additionally, of the 6 PhD students who have come before me in the lab, only 1 will be able to defend and both of the other women quit within 1 yr.
In cover letters I'm upfront about the fact that I'm switching programmes. But I'm afraid saying anything negative about my current lab to a new prof only reflects poorly on me so I only state that my research interests have shifted and my current lab doesn't have the resources to support that. I'm afraid this sounds hollow though. Is there a better way to go about this?<issue_comment>username_1: It does not constitute to cheating in and on itself, but it does raise questions in my opinion. The students should be able to explain to you why there are such large deviations, and if they're unable to, it might be worth looking into their work further if you still suspect cheating.
I'm not sure why deviations are expected. (They might be, I'm just not sure what experiments you're conducting.) In my experience, setting seed values for RNGs works very well to ensure that results are consistent across multiple experiments.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would suggest that in the case of elapsed time as a measure of program efficiency, a single run tells you absolutely nothing, as the load on a modern computer is very (very very) difficult to control, unlike an old IBM 1130. Lots of background processes may be running with no user control (or very little).
That is why we don't measure the efficiency of algorithms in general using elapsed time to run, but with theoretical measures instead (number of comparisons, number of data swaps,...).
This might be especially true of a laptop that is started or awakened in a new (wifi...) environment. The temperature of the CPU might even be a factor. It takes my desktop almost five minutes in the morning to start my browser since it is seldom restarted and the browser needs to swap out other processes to get enough ram to run, especially since the auto-backup program also demands service on awakening.
If time means anything at all (elapsed time), it needs to be averaged over a large number of runs.
That said, if a compiler is poorly written, then the compilation time might differ wildly on similar *seeming* programs.
So, no, in itself, a slow run in a viva means nothing in itself. But it might indicate lots of things that require further exploration.
---
To say something explicitly about cheating, I doubt that it is a valid indicator, especially given that the student knows about the viva that will occur. There would be little point and a lot of risk in trying lie or fake something in the written report in that scenario. It might indicate other flaws in the program or the experiment, of course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm trying to recall where exactly I got this example from. It may have been in ["Code Complete"](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0735619670) by <NAME> but I don't have a page reference, so I could could be wrong.
The story is, the famous author was being asked to debug a timing issue with a menu system in a major software product. At times it would load quickly, meeting the timing requirements. But at other times it would take *ages* to load. After some investigation, including using a debugger to crawl through the code, he discovered it was a swap-out issue. If part of the code was not called for a certain time, the system would swap it out of memory. Then, to call the function, the swapped out portion had to be swapped back in. This meant that many meg of code had to be found on the hard drive, swapped into RAM, and then used. And depending on exactly what was swapped in and out, the amount of RAM could vary quite widely. So, getting the File menu to open would, under the "perfect storm" conditions, take 15 seconds.
So you need to be careful about using timing as a metric on code. It requires careful thought to be sure you are not running into such issues. And the reason for changes in timing may be entirely *NOT* obvious.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If they can't reproduce the results because they falsified the data, it's cheating. If they can't reproduce the results because they stole the data, it's cheating.
If they can't reproduce the data because they're not good at doing experiments, it's not cheating. If they can't reproduce the data because they're not good at designing experiments, it's not cheating. If they can't reproduce the data because they have a confounding variable they don't know about or don't know how to hold constant, it's not cheating.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/19
| 1,206
| 5,177
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a student from India, and have applied for some PhD positions in the UK. All the universities asked for scores of one English language proficiency test. Some of them had an option to request a wavier based on the fact that my school and college curricula were taught completely in English. Some others had an option `I have planned to take an English language test, but haven't registered yet`, so I chose that. The projects that I have applied for specifically mention that they need IELTS scores of 6.5 overall.
I want to wait until I get accepted and then take the test. Is this possible, or do I need to be ready with the test scores even before they pick me?
The reason I wish to wait is, if I don't get accepted anywhere, then the test would be just useless, with all the money going down the drain. Manchester, for instance, gave me a desk rejection stating "you do not have the academic qualifications for this program". If that happens in all cases, I will just lose money.
The field is accelerator physics, in case that matters.<issue_comment>username_1: It does not constitute to cheating in and on itself, but it does raise questions in my opinion. The students should be able to explain to you why there are such large deviations, and if they're unable to, it might be worth looking into their work further if you still suspect cheating.
I'm not sure why deviations are expected. (They might be, I'm just not sure what experiments you're conducting.) In my experience, setting seed values for RNGs works very well to ensure that results are consistent across multiple experiments.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would suggest that in the case of elapsed time as a measure of program efficiency, a single run tells you absolutely nothing, as the load on a modern computer is very (very very) difficult to control, unlike an old IBM 1130. Lots of background processes may be running with no user control (or very little).
That is why we don't measure the efficiency of algorithms in general using elapsed time to run, but with theoretical measures instead (number of comparisons, number of data swaps,...).
This might be especially true of a laptop that is started or awakened in a new (wifi...) environment. The temperature of the CPU might even be a factor. It takes my desktop almost five minutes in the morning to start my browser since it is seldom restarted and the browser needs to swap out other processes to get enough ram to run, especially since the auto-backup program also demands service on awakening.
If time means anything at all (elapsed time), it needs to be averaged over a large number of runs.
That said, if a compiler is poorly written, then the compilation time might differ wildly on similar *seeming* programs.
So, no, in itself, a slow run in a viva means nothing in itself. But it might indicate lots of things that require further exploration.
---
To say something explicitly about cheating, I doubt that it is a valid indicator, especially given that the student knows about the viva that will occur. There would be little point and a lot of risk in trying lie or fake something in the written report in that scenario. It might indicate other flaws in the program or the experiment, of course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm trying to recall where exactly I got this example from. It may have been in ["Code Complete"](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0735619670) by <NAME> but I don't have a page reference, so I could could be wrong.
The story is, the famous author was being asked to debug a timing issue with a menu system in a major software product. At times it would load quickly, meeting the timing requirements. But at other times it would take *ages* to load. After some investigation, including using a debugger to crawl through the code, he discovered it was a swap-out issue. If part of the code was not called for a certain time, the system would swap it out of memory. Then, to call the function, the swapped out portion had to be swapped back in. This meant that many meg of code had to be found on the hard drive, swapped into RAM, and then used. And depending on exactly what was swapped in and out, the amount of RAM could vary quite widely. So, getting the File menu to open would, under the "perfect storm" conditions, take 15 seconds.
So you need to be careful about using timing as a metric on code. It requires careful thought to be sure you are not running into such issues. And the reason for changes in timing may be entirely *NOT* obvious.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If they can't reproduce the results because they falsified the data, it's cheating. If they can't reproduce the results because they stole the data, it's cheating.
If they can't reproduce the data because they're not good at doing experiments, it's not cheating. If they can't reproduce the data because they're not good at designing experiments, it's not cheating. If they can't reproduce the data because they have a confounding variable they don't know about or don't know how to hold constant, it's not cheating.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/19
| 1,276
| 5,456
|
<issue_start>username_0: A grad student has offered to hire me to write simulation code of a published paper and they said they need the simulation for their master thesis. Is it considered cheating if I accept the project?<issue_comment>username_1: Not necessarily, though it might be on their part and it might not be wise to do it in such a case.
I suggest that you ask for a three way conversation with the student and their advisor to clarify.
The software might not be an important component of their intellectual contribution to the thesis, or it could be.
Ask for that conversation. If the student refuses to do it, you have a strong indicator that they aren't being honest.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: As long as the thesis states who did which things, it's not cheating.
If the thesis says someone else did all the work, it will fail, but it won't be cheating.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: You do not say what field your "client" grad student is in.
In physical science fields it's normal for the grad student to do models, simulations, etc, themselves - though the extent of the help they get from others (typically in their Academic Computing Support service) depends on the nature of the project and the degree of coding skill by the grad student.
If I was you I'd:
1. Meet the grad student *and their supervisor* to discuss the work and ensure that nothing is being done by you that - academically - ought to be done by either the grad student or by staff in the ACS unit.
2. If the extent of the work goes beyond what a grad student in that research field could reasonably be expected to do, or if the ACS cannot/will not provide adequate help, then remuneration to you is in order. The extent of the payment - either on a task or hourly rate basis - should be outlined at your meeting with the grad student and their supervisor.
I should mention that **if you are on the permanent university staff, academic or not, it is generally seen as bad form to seek money for small services to other staff/students.** Rather it is usual to have the benefiting department "owe you one" in the future. This promotes goodwill and give-and-take between faculty in different departments which is worth more than money to permanent staff. Naturally, your own department seniors should be aware and approve of your freebies to other departments as it does take your time (which is really at their disposal) and they have to "get something back" from that allocation of your time.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Without a much better description of the situation it's pretty hard to tell, but as written, but no, providing a computational tool, is not in and of itself cheating. Also, yes, there are ways that the student can write this up in the dissertation that would be cheating.
Let's use a typical piece of lab apparatus as an example. If a student needs a gas chromatograph to analyze samples, and goes out and buys one, I think everyone would agree there's no dishonesty there (so long as the student doesn't claim to have built the chromatograph).
In this case, the student is asking the simulation a question. If the student says "I specced out a simulation and it was constructed to that spec by person X", citing the code builder, there would be nothing dishonest about that. If the student says "I built a simulation and used it", that would be clearly dishonest. If the student presented it a little more wishy-washily, so it wasn't perfectly clear that the simulation was created by another, that's a bit more of a gray area, but most would say without proper citation that would be cheating.
Now, if the sim were absolutely central to the student's work, and not just a side gig, then it's a bit more serious, even with proper citation. The coder may well deserve authorship, and the student's supervisor and exam committee may well question whether the student made an adequate contribution to merit a degree. Note that these issues are not cheating per se, but it may be a reason why the student one of these issues is necessarily cheating, but might provide motivation to hide or obfuscate the provenance of the code, which would be cheating.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Yes it is cheating if the student did not do the work itself than the student is cheating. An dyou are an acompliance to it.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: The thesis should clearly state that *you* wrote this software. So when the thesis is judged, your software will contribute zero to the grade. As long as the grad student does this properly, they are not cheating. If they gave you instructions how to write the software they can add those instructions to the thesis, because they wrote those instructions.
Are you cheating? If the grad student is cheating and you knew or suspected it, then you would have contributed to cheating. If you are a student yourself that might be a problem.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Undergraduates and graduates have a toxic behavior of having such assumptions of cheating behavior regarding moral (godly) judgment. As long as things are consensual, you can pay anyone to do anything to you. Another question is if the content is highly valued intellectually and financially, which makes rather the question a further issue related to publishment and credit sharing in future profits. I helped my colleagues in college to do their essays for free. :-)
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/01/20
| 1,092
| 4,766
|
<issue_start>username_0: Sorry if this question has been asked before.
I recently reached out to the advisor I want to do my PhD with. This is a person that I have corresponded with in the past (I wanted to collaborate with her back when I was an undergrad but she was going on sabbatical and was unavailable). She responded quickly, and I ended up meeting with her where she briefly interviewed me about my experience and then she gave me a tour of her lab and introduced me to some of her current students.
Additionally, one of my letters of recommendation was written by a close friend of hers who does research in the same field. Recently I was catching up with this person and they told me that the potential advisor I met with was "excited to have" me join their group. However, when I toured her lab she told me she was glad I was passionate about their research but that she was "not on the admissions committee".
What impact does this potential advisor have on my admissions decision if she's not a member of the committee? Will the committee take her thoughts into account, even if, for instance, the committee itself found me less desirable for the university?<issue_comment>username_1: In the US it is unlikely that, in your case, a potential advisor will have any influence, or even any interest in influencing the decision at this point in time.
Some fields in physics (high energy, perhaps) where people need vast funding and extensive labs, might be different, but for the most part, the doctoral program will be course intensive at the start, leading to the comprehensive exams. Once you get through those, you can get serious about a research advisor.
But generally, the advisor isn't the one responsible for your funding (the department is) and so will wait to take on students until they are "ripe".
If you are in an exceptional case (or in Europe) then the conversation has already discussed funding, I'd expect.
The advisor might already be on the admissions committee or, in an exceptional case (truly exceptional - young Dirac/Einstein) might put in a word, but admissions is normally done on a wide range of factors as indicated by the extensive admissions materials.
My best guess is that they will have little impact either way unless they already want to fund you, which is more likely to happen later. Telling you that they aren't on the committee, however, is a strong indicator that they won't be involved.
The people who write letters of recommendation for you probably will have more influence on the committee, assuming they confidently predict your success.
---
See: [How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in Country X?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/75368)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: There is no single system in the US, so every department can manage their admissions process however they want.
In the arrangement I am most familiar with, the limiting factor on the number of admitted students is **money** ("money" could be based on "number of TA slots", or traineeship/fellowship slots). The primary criteria for admission are **potential** and **fit**. So, you rank the students by some rough weighted combination of potential and fit, and admit from the top to the bottom of the list until you run out of money.
**Potential** is how "good" a student is - how likely they are to succeed in the program and in the future. A potential future advisor doesn't have much influence on potential - potential is better judged by people the student has worked with in the *past*, not the future.
**Fit** is about how well the student matches the particular program: if a student really wants to study an area of physics that no one at the university studies, maybe that student has a lot of potential but they're a poor fit. Interest between a potential advisor and a student counts positively towards fit, even if the advisor isn't on the admissions committee.
**Money** is something that a potential advisor can influence most directly. Note that the process "rank students and admit until you run out of money" doesn't mean that every qualified student is admitted. If a student is below the program's "money threshold", they might still be able to accept a qualified student who has funding available separate from the department's own money pool. That could be an outside fellowship, or a promise of funding support from a faculty member, contingent on the student joining that person's lab. However, if your intended area of study is not one where there is sufficient grant money given to professors for them to fund students directly, this may not be an option for your specific case; I'd expect it would have been mentioned directly as an option if it were.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/21
| 4,704
| 18,103
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a student from Germany and currently preparing for some exams. I got an email from one of the professors that contains information about the cheat sheets you are allowed to write and use in the exams. These consist of four DIN A4 pages (so default writing paper) you can write your “Formelsammlung” (formulary, literally: “formula collection”) on. This is important, since the issue is, what does he mean by this?
Depending on the professor, this can mean anything from “Really only formulas, if you write a single word, it will be counted as an attempt to cheat” to “Do what you want with it, I couldn't care less”. Most professors go with a more liberal approach, but there are some who don’t want anything but formulas. What almost all exams have in common is that you are allowed to use one of those cheat sheets. Usually I would just ask the professor, but he explicitly stated in the mail that he refuses to elaborate on that:
>
> Ich werde auf Nachfragen der Art „Was darf auf die Formelsammlung?“ nicht antworten. Eine Formelsammlung ist eine Formelsammlung.
>
>
> (I will not answer questions in the style “What is allowed on the cheat sheet”. A formula collection is a formula collection.)
>
>
>
Which is the cause of my question: If the professor refuses to answer, what becomes fair game?
EDIT:
Due to numerous complaints the professor has just written another email. He clarified what he meant, which was: No examples of appliances of formulas with example numbers, and no labeled graphs. I assume no circuits either, but now I know that I can at least put somewhat descriptive labels on my formulas and put graphs without labeling.
>
> Zahlenwertbeispiele, konkrete beschriftete Skizzen o.ä. sind NICHT erlaubt.
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: There isn't a "fair game" because it isn't a *game* at all. The best advice in such a case is to interpret the words strictly and conservatively. If you make more liberal assumptions and are wrong, you don't get points for trying. Is there a "ref" than can call fairs and fouls?
Perhaps, however, you can get some information from former students of this prof how they have behaved in the past.
What you need is a "safe game", not a "fair" one. And gaming an educational system isn't always winnable.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I disagree with the other answer here by username_1; write whatever you want and as much as you want. If your professor refuses to communicate username_10wable scope or restrictions then there are none. He cannot reasonably hold you to restrictions that exist only in his imagination. (Also, keep his email in case there is a dispute over this.)
---
**Update:** Additional information has been added to the question after my answer, showing the actual email lines the professor sent. In my view, his statement could be taken to imply that he is one of the professors who wants to you restrict your sheet to only formulas (i.e., no accompanying textual explanation) and so he *has* elaborated on what he means (contra the original question). This complicates the matter, but his refusal to clarify further still operates in your favour. Since many people already voted on the original question and answer I am posting this as an update rather than revising my original answer.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: I personally would do 1 of each kind. If you are username_10wed to use and are told "that one is not username_10wed" you have the other as backup. I have had to do this for a few of my classes.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There is actually a book genre called Formelsammlung ([typical example](https://www.amazon.de/Formeln-Hilfen-zur-H%C3%B6heren-Mathematik/dp/392392335X)). Those works that I am aware of contain words and even whole sentences. You might want to keep the relative share of formulas and sentences in a range that you can justify with a printed Formelsammlung.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: I will just say what I would do.
First, evaluate how much would you benefit from writing anything else but formulas. If the benefit is small I would not bother and follow username_1's advice.
If the benefit is very big, I'd make two cheat sheets. One that is strict, and contains only formulas that I'd keep just in case and one that is useful for you. Then I would send an email to the professor, with the attached cheat sheet saying something along the lines
>
> Dear Professor X.
>
>
> Since I was not absolutely sure what you meant by "Formelsammlung" I
> am attaching my cheat sheet in here. If there are any problems please
> let me know before the test.
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
> monamona
>
>
>
Or whatever you feel comfortable with. That way the professor is at least more responsible to whether or not your cheat sheet follows the lines. (and you have already prepared a back-up if the Professor has problems with your current version).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: Speaking from my own experience as teacher at German universities: If the professor cannot be bothered, then they believe the cheat sheet will not make a huge difference anyways. Even more so because four pages is already quite a lot. The professor is simply not into testing your memorization skills. So simply follow their instructions by the letter and you will be fine.
But also be aware that investing all your time and effort only into preparing the "best possible" cheat sheet is probably not the best way to username_10cate your ressources. I'll try to explain to you why.
I think that cheat sheets are particularly common in math courses. Mathematicians do not value memorization pretty high. What's more important to them is the understanding of the concepts and the skills to perform computations and logical deductions. (And with regard to computations it is often considered most valuable that the correct algorithms are used; small errors in the computations typically result in only moderate score reductions.)
A typical exercise in such an exam is to perform Gaussian elimination on a small system of linear equations. A cheat sheet would not help you much if you have not thoroughly practiced the algorithm before the exams. Even if you put all steps of the algorithm onto the sheet, you will simply lose too much time when you try to reproduce it for the very first time.
Another example is computing an integral by substitution or by integration by parts. You can put these rules on the cheat sheet. (It is indeed a good idea because it is easy to get them wrong when one is nervous.) But you would hardly be able to apply these techniques without having developed an intuition on where and how exactly to apply them.
Writing a cheat sheet is a good idea nonetheless because the process of writing
1. helps with memorization;
2. is a good warmup (you can refresh your knowledge and load it into a region of your memory that can be quickly accessed by your "central processing unit");
3. gives you an overview of all the material, and it might tell you which topics might be worth more practicing.
Note that for all this to happen, it is crucial that *you write you cheat sheet yourself*. And it might be a good idea to do it in handwriting, not with the computer.
Also, having the cheat sheet with you during the exams is a good psycholgical trick and might help to lower your level of nervousness.
And remember: The best cheat sheet is the one onto which you don't have to look during the exams!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Your school will have an academic integrity office whose purpose is to investigate academic misconduct (so cheating, plagiarism etc.).
If your professor won't lay out what the restrictions on the cheat-sheet are, refer the matter to the academic integrity office and they'll be more than happy to find out for you.
The last thing they want is a professor arguing a student has cheated when the student reasonably believed that what they were doing was username_10wed just because the prof was too lazy to answer questions.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_8: First of all, exam conditions should be properly specified, as it is unfair to make the exam a guessing game as to what you can do and what not. Most examination rules, boards, etc. recognise this. I would consider organising to contact the professor centrally, e.g., via the student union to urge him to specify what he means. This does not only help you but also future generations of students. (You could also just show him this Q&A to demonstrate that things are not as clear as he thinks they are.)
However, going by your quote, I wouldn’t assume malice or laziness on the side of the professor, but rather a common misunderstanding of how language works:
>
> he explicitly stated in the mail that he refuses to elaborate on that:
>
>
>
> >
> > Ich werde auf Nachfragen der Art „Was darf auf die Formelsammlung?“ nicht antworten. Eine Formelsammlung ist eine Formelsammlung.
> >
> >
> > (I will not answer questions in the style “What is username_10wed on the cheat sheet”. A formula collection is a formula collection.)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
This second sentence strongly implies that your professor thinks that “Formelsammlung” is a clear specification. His preemptive rejection of questions on this suggests your professor has given out a similar ruling before, received questions and was annoyed by this – since he thinks his statement is clear. (Note that being generally annoyed by student questions on exam details is an occupational hazard for professors. The amount and kind of questions students can ask even on clearly stipulated exam rules can be staggering.)
Of course the problem is that “Formelsammlung” (formula collection) is not sufficiently clear but can, e.g., be interpreted:
1. literally, such that it is only a collection of formulas (including explanations what the respective symbols mean);
2. following the style of a particular “Formelsammlung” your professor has in mind;
3. broadly, including everything that can be deemed worth memorising, e.g., algorithms, circuit diagrams, descriptions of devices and experiments.
Somebody who writes “Eine Formelsammlung ist eine Formelsammlung.” is almost certainly the kind of person who interprets language overly literally (and assumes everybody else should too) and thus means Interpretation 1. So if I had to put all my stakes one interpretation, this would be it. There is a slight chance of Interpretation 2, in particular if there is one very established standard formulary for your field.
This is further evidenced by the amount of pages you can use, which is very high:
For every exam I ever took, I could fill the relevant information on a single sheet (without writing particularly small).
Four pages suggests that your professor think a space restriction is not necessary, since he has a content restriction in place.
If I username_10wed for four pages in an exam (without content restriction), I might as well have an open-book exam, as some student will manage to write every solution to every exercise ever made on that sheet.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: Couple of things.
Firstly, referring to the materials or notes username_10wable in a formal examination as a "cheat sheet" seems like it reveals something about the mentality here.
Secondly, your professor may be sufficiently familiar with you to know that you're attempting to probe the outer limits of the wording and defeat the constraint, rather than align your own understanding of a "formulary" with his.
There is a school of thought which is not that you will be held to the letter of the law, and the obligation is on those laying down the law to be unambiguously precise about the form of every possible violation.
Instead, the law is laid down merely to note that there is the existence of a policy, and it's incumbent upon you to familiarise yourself with the purposes of the policy (such as, to relieve the students of the need to memorise a large number of formulas), the conventional shared practices around it (such as what others are putting on their sheets), and use your good judgment to cooperate with the policy.
You may be asked to account for yourself later, and you may be judged and penalised if someone else thinks your judgement was not normal or correct.
The exact information that ends up on the cheat sheet is probably not important. What is important is that a group of students conform to a shared norm about it.
Depending on your appetite for the risk, you can either be conservative and write down only formulas, or you can take your chances on what you write and risk being declared a cheat.
What you probably want to do, but cannot, is simply write down whatever you want but risk no consequences.
The reality is that all the time spent considering the margin of what might or might not be acceptable on the formulary, would probably have been better spent studying and memorising whatever questionable information you had wanted to include in the formulary.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_10: What you describe is kind of a limited "open book exam". You're username_10wed to look up things, because you're expected to solve transfer problems. Let's say you can write down the value of pi to the needed number of digits, as the professor expects you to solve problems involving pi and not remembering many digits of such a constant.
Limiting it to one page has some advantages, as students need to think about what's important and write it down. This selection and noting is already a repetition. In addition, a full "open book exam" may lead to people bringing tons of books (Scripts, formularies, etc.), so it is reasonable to give a limit.
One (possibly two-sided) Din A4 page is, what should be reasonable for the things needed for a fair exam. If you need more, you probably didn't know how to select the really relevant things.
In that spirit, I would say you can write down anything. I think the refusal to answer questions in the e-mail has the purpose that students cannot ask "Will I need section 2.37 of the script on my cheat sheet?"
The problem is, when you really fear that "write a single word" is cheating, you will need clarification. Maybe you can find someone who took the exam last year and can tell you about their cheat sheet? Maybe they can even provide you their sheet and some hints what the exam was about.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: The fact that the professor itself doesn't want to answer and spent his time explaining what he thinks belongs on the sheet doesn't mean that TA's won't give you answer when you ask them.
Especially if you already have a set of sheets prepared you can easily ask your TA whether or not it is username_10wed when you meet them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_12: I am working at a German university, and from my point of view, he has answered the question quite clearly.
"Eine Formelsammlung ist eine Formelsammlung" is a clear statement that he only accepts formulas on the sheet. Nothing else. End of discussion.
That he does not want to answer any further questions on this topic only means that he does not want any further discussions about this.
If you don't want to get into trouble, you should follow the rules and stick to formulas.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: Wikipedia has this on the "Formelsammlung" page:
>
> Eine Formelsammlung ist ein Nachschlagewerk, das fachgebietsbezogen
> meist naturwissenschaftliche oder mathematische Formeln enthält.[1](https://www.amazon.de/Formelsammlungen-Sekundarstufe-Realschule-Formelsammlung-LehrplanPLUS/dp/3464523314/ref=sr_1_20) Es
> werden in Formelsammlungen in der Regel keine näheren Erklärungen bzw.
> Beweise dargestellt. In Form eines Buchs oder einer Broschüre dient
> die Formelsammlung unter anderem als (zugelassenes) Hilfsmittel in
> Prüfungen oder als Lernmittel im Unterricht.
>
>
>
Translated by my favourite ~~AI~~ automated statistics-based translator this means:
>
> A collection of formulas is a reference work that usually contains
> scientific or mathematical formulas related to a specific subject.
> As a rule, no detailed explanations or proofs are presented in
> collections of formulas. In the form of a book or a brochure, the
> formulary serves, among other things, as an (approved) aid in
> examinations or as a learning tool in class.
>
>
>
This seems pretty straight-forward to me, and matches my experience in the past. In school (Bavaria) we had a little blue Formelsammlung IIRC, and it was exactly as in the quote. Lots of formulas, no explanations. Of course there were words and sentences to structure the formulas where it made sense, or to explain something about the syntax.
I cannot remember to be username_10wed to use a Formelsammlung at Uni, but I would go with that. Cram your 4 pages full with formulas; use titles or little intro words as necessary, and you should be quite fine.
Check out this [Formelsammlungen Sekundarstufe I - Bayern - Realschule: Mathematik - Physik - Chemie - Formelsammlung - LehrplanPLUS](https://www.amazon.de/Formelsammlungen-Sekundarstufe-Realschule-Formelsammlung-LehrplanPLUS/dp/3464523314/ref=sr_1_20) and use the "Blick ins Buch" feature to read some of the pages. If your prof gives you trouble for your four pages, and if worst comes to worst, you can show him a book like this. There are plenty of words, sentences, explanations etc.
And to elaborate on what you should *not* write:
* No proofs.
* No elaborate explanations (like a whole paragraph with free text on how to use the formulas, or with the "algorithm" how to solve problem X in general).
Here are more examples:
* [Geometric formulas](https://www.docsity.com/de/formelsammlung-mathematik-zentrale-pruefungen-10/5670763/)
* [And another one](https://www.yumpu.com/de/document/read/17025489/formelsammlung)
* [And another one](https://www.studocu.com/de/document/universitat-rostock/mathematik-fur-elektrotechnik-3/mathe-formelsammlung-aus-pdf/17467869)
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/21
| 3,137
| 13,137
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm referring to [an incident at Purdue](https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202302/rnoti-p196.pdf?adat=February%202023). The head of the Purdue math department tried to pressure an older tenured faculty member to leave by setting his salary to 0 (among other things).
I actually don't understand how she had the authority to do this. Do department heads typically have control over everyone's salary? Why was he not allowed due process? If you are no longer performing your job, who is responsible for "firing" you?<issue_comment>username_1: No, it isn't "common" for a department head in the US to have such power, but it might be possible for them to (at least) start termination procedures for some faculty, especially untenured faculty. Starting the process for tenured faculty is probably also possible, though the process would be different. (I can't speak for other countries.)
I don't think that the faculty as a whole at any reputable US university would stand for a system in which anyone's salary could be adjusted downward by fiat. The revolt would echo across the nation, if not the world.
But, I think that claims are being made, not all accurate, and possibly not all honest.
---
For various reasons, a person could become incompetent to continue teaching; stroke, severe concussion.... A prominent person in my field was hit by a bus. He survived but was badly impaired. That would require some process to remove them from teaching to avoid damaging both the students and the university. Buyouts might be part of the offerings, but those would normally require acceptance. The level of buyout might be negotiated. "How about one year's salary in exchange for giving up tenure?" "Two years?".
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Very clearly, this is not common practice or we would all know such cases.
It is, then, an apparently exceptional case to which a university has applied exceptional measures. I don't know any of the specifics of the case, nor do I know any of the protagonists, and so have no opinion on the matter. At the same time, the concept of tenure leads to situations -- known to many who've been in academia for long enough -- where someone just doesn't care any more about doing a good job, and departments then have to think about what to do in such situations. These are personnel matters, lawyers are involved, privacy rights need to be considered, and as a consequence one almost never gets to hear the university's side of the story: What you hear about is the affected professor's side of the story, and that of colleagues who may or may not actually know the truth of the matter. I suspect that in the current case, nobody other than the professor and the department head know whether the person's salary really was set to zero: The professor can claim that it was, the department will not be able to comment on the matter, and everyone else should consider whether what they think they know is the actual truth. There is a lot of material in [this file](https://web.math.princeton.edu/%7Ecf/DonnellyAppendices.pdf), but I don't think we should assume that everything in there is factually correct.
Fundamentally, though, the file linked to points out the sorts of problems departments face. Someone hasn't done research in a few years (no publications, and colleagues will generally know whether the person really did or didn't do anything research-related), hardly any service contributions to the department, and giving lectures that students loathe and (more importantly) that do not teach them what the general public that pays for the university needs them to learn. Just like any other employer, universities cannot tolerate this for very long. At least morally, while tenure is supposed to protect faculty from recriminations about speaking out, it isn't meant to protect faculty from just not doing their job; yet, tenure is something that makes it very difficult for universities to fire someone who isn't doing their job, and so they have to resort to uncommon measures like those mentioned in this case.
So no, this isn't common. Whether it's legal I don't know; whether it's actually true I also don't know. But situations like the one that appears to be at the heart of this case do happen on a regular basis, and universities have to come up with solutions.
---
There is another part of the question worth answering separately:
>
> I actually don't understand how she had the authority to do this. Do department heads typically have control over everyone's salary? Why was he not allowed due process? If you are no longer performing your job, who is responsible for "firing" you?
>
>
>
First, the salary wasn't set to zero (if one were to believe the linked to files): The person was placed on unpaid leave. Second, the professor *was* afforded due process: The letters by the department head show that for a long time, he was placed on what is typically referred to as a "remediation process" whereby you are assisted in performing a number of steps that get you back into good standing (in his case, writing a syllabus, writing lecture notes, and writing a research plan); he just chose not to do it, or at least not to take it seriously. As for who is in charge of firing a professor: There is a process, called "post-tenure review", that is used to revoke someone's tenure; it usually takes several years and the university apparently did not want to take that long.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I don’t know about that being common but it is absolutely possible to reduce salary in many systems, but the university will need to document why and in the context of that universitiy’s rules. The situations can vary widely and vary further if the faculty is unionized or not. Also relevant is whether this is in a public university (where broad state laws may apply to all state employees, such as forbidding unions). This is in contrast to private schools, though some things such as ‘right-to-work’ laws may apply to all workplaces in a state. The university will have stated levels of performance (such as minimum outside salary to be replaced by grants/contracts,also such conditions may be in individual faculty member contracts) and probably has stated what can happen if not met. In some systems if salary reduces below 100% tenure is automatically lost. This last is questionable but not challenged. In my opinion tenure is nothing but the requirement for substantial due process. The specifics of that due process are typically stated in university rules.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Is it common for the head of a department to be able to reduce a tenured professors' salary to 0?
>
>
>
No, department heads do not have that kind of discretion anywhere as far as I know.
>
> I actually don't understand how she had the authority to do this.
>
>
>
<NAME>, the writer of the letter you are citing from, does not allege that she/he did, and it does not appear that this is what happened exactly. Fefferman said that the department head *threatened* to reduce the professor's salary to zero, and that the professor's salary is currently set at zero.
To understand better what actually happened, I looked at the [documents](https://web.math.princeton.edu/%7Ecf/donnelly.html) on Fefferman's website. Appendix 15 in the appendices document is the letter in which the professor was informed that he was being put on Unpaid Personal Leave status. (The wording of the letter and the context of the previous letters makes it clear that this is what was meant by the references to "setting the salary to zero".) Importantly, this letter was signed by both the department head and a higher university official with the title "Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs College of Science". Thus, the authority for the decision to place the professor on leave came from outside the department.
(This resonates with my own experience as department chair — a position with comparable but typically slightly less authority than a department head — some years ago. I would often write letters informing people of various things, but whenever I lacked the authority to make a decision, there would need to be a separate letter bearing the signature of the person above me in the hierarchy who had the relevant authority, otherwise it would be meaningless for me to state that decision as fact. Sometimes the letter from the higher administrator would take a while to prepare, so the initial letter from me would say something like "I would like to inform you that I am recommending to the Dean that ...".)
What about the "threatening to set the salary to zero" part? That part is in Appendix 10, which is also a letter from the same two people. Anyway, even if the department head made such a threat all by herself/himself, it is conceivable that a department head would make a threat to do something that is not strictly within their authority to carry out. Possibly making such a threat could simply be shorthand for "I will ask the university to reduce your salary to zero, and I have confidence that they will follow my advice", or it might be empty bravado.
>
> Do department heads typically have control over everyone's salary?
>
>
>
Department heads in some universities have *some* control of faculty salaries. For example, I have heard of places where the department head makes decisions about how much of a salary increase different faculty members get each year. But I don't know of any place where the head can decide to reduce a faculty member's salary to zero unless that is done as the result of an administrative process where allegations of misconduct or incompetence can be heard and defended against. (Also, as I mentioned above, the phrase "setting the salary to zero" is informal and inaccurate — technically the only way someone's salary would be set to zero is if they are placed on unpaid leave. If they continue doing any work, their salary obviously cannot be set to less than minimum wage.)
>
> Why was he not allowed due process?
>
>
>
We don't know if he was or wasn't. If you look at the files, you'll see that there was *some* process that went on for quite a while, with various letters, meetings and so on. So I think there is a controversy about this. Possibly it's not black and white, and what one person interprets as "due" process someone else will think was corrupt and one-sided.
>
> If you are no longer performing your job, who is responsible for "firing" you?
>
>
>
All US universities have a process for firing or disciplining faculty members who are accused of violating university policy. The decision to literally *fire* a tenured faculty member (what in administration-speak is sometimes referred to as "separation", at least on my campus), is usually reserved to the university president or chancellor since it is obviously the ultimate sanction. The authority to reduce someone's salary or place them on unpaid leave for some specified duration may be delegated to a slightly lower-ranking administrator, but I don't think typically it's left to the department head.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: No, it is pretty uncommon for universities to try to take any kind of disciplinary action against tenured faculty, which is why people talk almost every time anything like this happens.
However I get the impression that [the chair](https://www.purdue.edu/science/about/news_and_publications/articles/2020-math-head.html) and the university's administration are fully in agreement. The chair didn't do anything on her own; rather, the university did it, and she was its messenger.
I've never heard before of a university telling a tenured professor that (paraphrasibg) they're cutting his pay because they can't schedule him to teach because he's a bad lecturer. This sounds novel and even innovative to me.
I would like to share a couple of illustrative stories from other math departments.
It is unfortunately more common for chairs (or assistant chairs or whoever is doing the scheduling) to intentionally schedule (tenured) faculty they personally dislike to teach at inconvenient times. E.g. I knew someone who was scheduled to teach late at night, and then early the next morning, just to mess with him, every time. I don't know whether he officially complained, but it stopped when someone else started doing the scheduling.
A newly elected chair of onedepartment sent a memo (on paper; this was before e-mail) to everyone, along the lines of "URGENT: provide your research plans for the next year by 11 a.m." Most people had tenure, discussed the request, and collectively decided to ignore him. He soon sent out a second memo, "I'm firing you all for insubordination". At this point, the administration asked him to stop making the department a laughing stock. No one was fired, of course. He only remained the chair until the end of the semester, and stopped being friends with many people. My point is, chairs lack the authority to say such things without the university backing this action.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/22
| 2,845
| 11,713
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I did my retake exam for Advanced Maths in college. Compared to the ordinary exam, it was easier. My grade was 9/10. I worked very hard for it, non-stop for 5 months, dealing with anxiety and depression.
However, instead of feeling happy and relieved I feel bad and guilty. I feel I didn't deserve to pass this subject via an easier exam, and that I should have taken the regular exam to prove that I was deserving to pass the subject. It's obvious that now I will never know.
Has anybody been through this? How to overcome this situation?<issue_comment>username_1: Congrats on your success! You deserve it.
Some people think that they do not deserve academic achievements because things are not as challenging as they expected, but they often forget what they have gone through in order to achieve that success. Sometimes, they also forget how hard it is to learn things.
Even if the exam was unreasonably easy or hard, you should move on. Do not dwell on the past. If you still think that you do not deserve the success, just work hard. Eventually, you will believe that you deserve every good thing that comes to your life.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Just to reinforce username_1's excellent answer, here's a couple of things to keep in mind.
* It is the responsibility of those who design and grade the exam to make sure it accurately tests the knowledge and skills it is intended to test. If you passed this test and somehow *don't* have that knowledge and skills, then *those* people screwed up. Since these people are experts in their field and in assessment of students, that is very unlikely. It's also not your problem.
* **There's no such thing as a "hard" test.** It's always relative. Any test is "hard" if you approach it underprepared; an algebra test that you could do in your sleep would be an insurmountable challenge to the average twelve-year-old. And any test is "easy" if you approach it overprepared. If you work hard to prepare for a test and you find it easy, that means that your preparation was very successful, and you should feel proud of that.
* Try and remind yourself that it is a well-known fact that **we are generally lousy at assessing our own abilities.** Sometimes we think we're much better than we are; more often, especially among academics, we think we're much worse. To get a better picture of your strengths and weaknesses, ask an expert who is in a position to assess you - an instructor you've worked with, for example.
* **The way you feel is important,** even though it isn't based on facts. Don't try to shove it down or bottle it up. Talk over your feelings with someone you trust, like a close friend or a therapist. And take time for self-care.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I will add two perspectives to the already great answers above.
First of all, in my experience it is surprisingly tricky for instructors to create two equally challenging exams (in the sense that they are challenging for the same reasons and test the same skills to the same extent), assuming that the subject material is broad enough. It's pretty easy to create two very similar exams that test your multiplication skills, but not very easy for advanced math. It could be that the exam just touched on your strengths, and another student would've struggled with it.
Sometimes an exam may appear easy for student A because they remember a specific method for solving a specific problem, but the same question might seem impossible for student B who is not as comfortable with the method. For example, I had an exam question that was trivial to solve assuming that the students remembered a technique I covered in the course. Students who didn't remember this technique and tried to "brute force" a solution had the dubious pleasure of solving a 4-variable Lagrange optimization problem during the exam (instead of a trivial quadratic equation using the technique).
The second point I want to make is to remember *why* we go to college. There are two goals: one is to obtain a certificate that will make you more employable. The second is to learn stuff. If your feeling stems from the fact that you are not comfortable with the course material, that's fixable. Go over the material again, take another advanced math class that will deepen your understanding, or any other method you feel comfortable with.
In either case, you should absolutely **not** feel bad about passing an exam - this is a win, enjoy it!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In one of my college math classes, the day after an exam, the professor had this quote already written in a small corner of the board at the beginning of class:
>
> It is not Justice — the servant of men, but accident, hazard, Fortune
> — the ally of patient Time — that holds an even and scrupulous
> balance.
> -<NAME>
>
>
>
And we stared at it, off and on, during class. Finally, at the end of class he made a few remarks about the exam, and ended by saying that if we were unhappy with our scores, we could be comforted by the words of <NAME>.
I think the quote means that in human dealings, "fairness" is a concept both hard to define and hard to achieve. There are just too many variables. But it evens out over time. Don't sweat the small stuff. Luck may have given you an easy exam today. Next semester, you may work just as hard on a subject and get an especially hard exam. That exam is just one part of your course grade, your course grade is just one part of your overall college rank for the semester and at graduation. And the importance of your college rank fades more and more as you get a job and get older.
You worked hard, you did the best you could, and you didn't cheat. Take the grade and move on.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Don't worry: you deserve your success! What you experience is classical [Imposter Syndrome](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/students/success-guide/pgr/professional-development/imposter-syndrome/): "belief that you don’t deserve the achievements you have accomplished, is a common feeling among students". Also read [this one](https://www.enago.com/academy/overcome-imposter-syndrome/) on how to deal with it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: It is worth keeping in mind that in 10 years you will have forgotten about this incident. In case of anxious people - mostly because other incidents have filled the limited "anxiety box".
When passing my driving license, I was shown by the examinator (who was standing outside) to move faster away from one of the spots where I was supposed to back-park. The thing is that I did not even attempt to park, and he thought I was done.
I passed the exam and I was a fraud. A very, very happy fraud because I could have failed.
I had a math exam once when I said "*... and then X happens*". The prof misheard and said "*OK, so now that Y happened, ...*". My mind was spinning in a panic because I did not know if I was right with X, or if the answer was supposed to be Y and I got just lucky.
Turned out that I was lucky. A lucky and happy fraud, with his math exam in hand, ready to move ahead.
>
> Has anybody been through this? How to overcome this situation?
>
>
>
Everyone goes through such cases. Some have impostor syndrome (mentioned in other answers), and some do not but it does not matter long term. You have another exam to get ready to pass.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I agree fully with the other answers that essentially just say "congratulations". They're correct.
However, what you're dealing with is likely a case of imposter syndrome. Fortunately for you, since you actually know where it stems from, there are some concrete steps you can take to address it.
If you're really concerned about whether or not you "deserved" to pass the exam, sit down with the "harder" paper (assuming you can get a copy) and see if you would have passed that too.
Assuming you do, your concerns can melt away. If you don't, well... I'd still argue you deserved to pass the exam because you passed the exam you sat, but you'll be in the same position you're in now.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_8: I believe that deserving or not doesn't really express your thought exactly.
Let's look at this from the other point of view.
Expectations:
-------------
You have spend hard time preparing for your exam.
* You were looking forward to a thorough exam, a difficult adventure, each step of which would remind you of how good you're prepared.
* You were looking for something that made an objective assessment of your knowledge.
* You were going for a "checkpoint" in your education which would be a proof to yourself that the time you've spent on learning is justified and you have indeed make a good progress in maths.
Reality
-------
What did you get instead? An easy test, which doesn't require detailed answers and doesn't really say anything about your knowledge that you could be proud of. It's as learning how to drive a race car in tough conditions on a twisted road, and once it's time for an exam, be presented with just a straight to "check" your knowledge. Needless to say, that wouldn't check anything and wouldn't prove you're a good racer.
What conclusions can be drawn?
------------------------------
1. The fact that your college didn't bother with making a more objective test may say a lot: they probably don't care about students as much as you expected them to do, or this college is not a such a high-tier educational institution as you would thought it is and graduating high-quality masters is not something they are fighting for. This may sound too harsh, but be ready to get an unconcerned response once you ask your teacher for a more representative exam.
2. You should have a better understanding of why you're actually studying any particular field. A good mark is not a good goal; if everything you did want was a good mark, you should also ask yourself a question: is it worth it? A rating-based system (gamification) is a nice thing in education and it often works really well, stimulating students to "beat" each other in this game, but you should also look outside this game, you should have an expressible goal of your studying and realize why exactly you're spending time in this topic.
---
You've passed an exam, and did it with a good score. However, you're not really happy about it. You just suddenly realized that a good score is not a solid goal: you're not the only one who should be willing to get knowledge, but the teachers should also be concerned about teaching you. There's different ways of judging your knowledge in educational institutions. Ones just check that you know *at least something* and you're good to go, other do really care of the quality of educations. And both of them have their verdict expressed via a mark from 0 to 10, but only one of these marks is actually valuable - the one that was hard-earned in the college that actually wanted you to become great at this topic.
That said, I would suggest you to try working on any project that will utilize "the mighty powers" you've acquired while studying, it should greatly improve your overall satisfaction, reduce stress and the number of times you ask yourself "why am I even studying it at all"
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: What is the purpose of having a good grade? To demonstrate to someone that you are competent in a particular area. All anyone after this year is going to care about is whether or not ypu can actually do maths. You studied hard and are therefore pretty competent. You have a grade that suggests to people that you are pretty competent. Sounds like you're all good to me!
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/22
| 2,645
| 11,452
|
<issue_start>username_0: Applying for many academic positions in North America often requires a diversity statement.
**As someone who is a disabled, racial, sexual and religious minority, immigrant, and someone who grew up poor, I couldn't help but feel a bit insulted by the necessity of providing such a statement.**
Growing up, I was often the only non-white student in the class. I was bullied severely for being different throughout K12. As a result, I have developed mental illness and my experience has deeply affected my sexuality as well.
But now I am told to write about how I feel about about diversity and inclusion?
**Even being prompted this question is insulting, as if the asker has never ever opened a book about the experience of minorities (esp. racial minority) in NA.**
Yeah, I guess would appreciate some diversity and inclusion. But, one, I don't want to write a book about my experience, and two, I don't want to relive trauma.
That's only on the emotional level.
On the technical level, many researchers have already pointed out that diversity (a "feel-good" slogan) affects basically no structural change on the ground. As an illustrative example, if your organization is morally corrupt, then "diversity" in that organization simply means you have many types of people working towards that corrupted goal. So simply being diverse is not enough. But is this view considered as "against diversity", or "for diversity"? - This all depends on how the hiring committee feels.
What motivates requiring a diversity statement from minority applicants?<issue_comment>username_1: The purpose of a diversity statement is typically how you approach the diversity of others in the classroom (whether neurodiverse, physical, economic, or ethnic) and how your own research concerns diversity. How does your teaching experience create a better situation (than you've experienced) for diverse learners? You are welcome to comment on your own diversity, but in my experience attending DEI workshops on writing diversity statements and working on disability justice issues, they really want to know how you approach this from the standpoint of a professor. In this sense, you can distance yourself from personal aspects. From my perspective, I've found the distancing helpful. It's also been helpful to have others, for instance, someone I trust in the campus diversity and/or teaching and learning center, review my diversity statement.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Firstly, I’m sorry to hear that you were bullied in school and that it had such negative effects on you. I can certainly understand why you might not want to discuss that issue with potential colleagues at a university you are applying to. I cannot offer a perspective on what it is like to submit a diversity statement as a minority applicant, but I can tell you a bit about diversity statements, what they are for, and how a selection committee might view your position.
Contrary to the other answer given here, the real purpose of a Diversity Statement is not any improvement in the quality of teaching or research. That is the “brochure explanation” of its purported purpose, but the real purpose of these statements is primarily to act as a *political litmus test* to minimise hiring and promotion of academics who dissent from the neo-Marxist orthodoxy of modern academia (for discussion, see e.g., [here](https://www.city-journal.org/dei-statements-empty-platitude-or-litmus-test), [here](https://www.cato.org/blog/required-dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-statements-campus-analogy) and [here](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/higher-ed-new-woke-loyalty-oaths-dei) if interested). As you correctly point out, diversity training and diversity statements have a poor record in bringing about any positive change in institutions with respect to interpersonal behaviour between people of different races, sexes, etc., but that is because that is not their purpose — their purpose is political/ideological, and they achieve their actual purpose quite successfully.
It is extremely tricky to try to predict the reception of a diversity statement, primarily because there remains quite a bit of heterodoxy —despite the goal of weeding this out— in relation to how academics view these. At the risk of oversimplifying, you might expect to get two kinds of main views, plus variations of these occurring in the middle. On the one extreme are academics and diversity administrators who find the statements desirable as a means of imposing a political litmus test on applicants, and they will favour applicants who express the correct neo-Marxist orthodoxy that they hold (the more radical the better). On the other extreme are academics who think that the entire exercise of diversity statement is illegitimate/useless and they will tend to give them little weight or ignore them completely. In the middle you will find various academics who try to square-the-circle, acting under the pretence that they can judge the diversity views of an application without any political or ideological favouritism.
As to your particular circumstance and your attitude to these statements, that is perhaps an unusual position, but not an unreasonable one. The advocates of diversity statements flatter themselves in thinking that these are a tool for helping minorities, so I suspect they would be inclined to respect your wishes not to discuss information that is sensitive to you due to your minority status. The other answer here gives good advice insofar as it notes that you can concentrate on output-based issues (e.g., your teaching, research, etc.) and ignore your own personal characteristics if you want to. On the other hand, ideally you should be able to speak to your actual views on diversity exercises, and you ought be to able to use the statement to mount the anti-diversity-statement argument you have given here. The very nature of the statement as a political litmus test means that the result of this is unpredictable, and heavily dependent on the ideological and political views of those who read it. Since your view is that the statement is window-dressing and that what is needed is “structural” change in the university, that would probably put you on the desired side of the ideological divide that the litmus test is designed to elicit (arguably more radically so), so you would be unlikely to face negative repercussions from taking this view; depending on who reads your statement, it might even count as a positive.
One day, perhaps we will all be mature enough to judge an applicant entirely on the quality of their work. Until that day comes, you may have to resign yourself to being one of the many applicants whose employment prospects hinge on unobserved ideological and political discrimination. Hopefully this answer is useful to at least help you understand the position you are in.
---
**Update:** You might also be interested in this: [FIRE statement on the use of DEI criteria in faculty hiring and evaluation](https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-statement-use-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-criteria-faculty-hiring-and).
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Coming from a minority background does not automatically make someone good at addressing/accommodating diversity issues within their field. Whether you come from a minority background or not, as a professor you're going to deal with students from backgrounds different from your own. A diversity statement is an opportunity to describe how you approach the classroom and how you create an inclusive environment for students. It has very little to do with your specific background, and to the extent your background matters, it matters less than your pedagogy and training in the subject.
Failure to write a diversity statement as a minority candidate, or worse, writing a flippant diversity statement are both worse than writing a bland statement. The former, at best, makes it seem like you can't follow directions. The latter, at worst, opens up a whole can of worms that could torpedo your application.
If you absolutely can't stand diversity statements, then write something bland and half-hearted. You'll be in very good company. That's not intended to knock anybody- every candidate has their own strengths and weaknesses. Not everyone is expected to be a DEI superstar.
But, search committees do take diversity statements seriously. If you have two otherwise equal candidates, but the first has a good diversity statement and the other doesn't, then the first one wins.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: **TDLR: Asking for a diversity statement from *minority* applicants is motivated by the fact that recruiting rules state you must ask all candidates the same things.**
Let's start by acknowledging that the original intentions behind diversity statements was well meaning. If we genuinely care that professors are able create environments were everyone feels included, supported and equally catered for, then its stands to reason that we should judge a candidate's ability to do this when they are hired. It's the same reason we hadn't just judge someone on their research abilities, and then complain that they aren't any good a teaching.
Next we should note that at least where I am from (the UK), if you ask one candidate something, you have to ask all candidates the same thing. All candidates must be asked for the same application materials, and all candidates must be asked the same questions at interview. Asking candidates from non-excluded groups to provide a diversity statement, but not candidates from excluded groups would lay the university immediately open to a discrimination lawsuit.
Now, its true that many diversity statements are bland, meaningless, and verging on dishonest. They have become a box to tick (teaching statements also read like this surprisingly often).
>
> diversity (a "feel-good" slogan) affects basically no structural change on the ground. As an illustrative example, if your organization is morally corrupt, then "diversity" in that organization simply means you have many types of people working towards that corrupted goal. So simply being diverse is not enough.
>
>
>
Is you were feeling brave this seems like a great sentiment to put in a diversity statement (Or at least, a Diversity, Equality and inclusion statement). It would immediately mark you out as someone who took the issues seriously, as long as the effect was to make the reader believe you were interested in serious change rather than cosmetic sticking plasters. However, it would need to be followed up with suggestions for what "structural change on the ground" is necessary, and how it could be achieved. It may also be appropriate to talk about who this work falls on, and how it shouldn't all fall on the shoulders of people from minorities. Finally you would need to talk about what you could do to help your student navigate the structural problems as best as is possible in the meantime.
Such a statement might ruffle feathers. It might harm your application at some places, but boost it at others. You would have to genuinely ask yourself if you would rather have a job at somewhere that didn't care about these structural issues (and therefore might not be very understanding of your own issues) or risk not getting a job at all. I'm not saying there is an easy or correct answer there.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/22
| 492
| 2,090
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to ask about any funding for PhD Students to buy lab equipments, reagents etc. Because I know a lot of scholarships and travel grants for PhD students, but no research grants.
I know PIs and postdocs are eligible to apply for grants and provide the funding of experiments. But in many cases I cannot see any differences between an experienced PhD Student with good publications or a young Postdoc with less outstanding publication list. Neither of them will get a grant for postdocs but the young Postdoc has the chance to apply. I understand that it is necessary to make a difference between a postdoc and a PhD Student, but okay, let's provide less money as a grant or sg.<issue_comment>username_1: As far as I witnessed while doing my doctoral degree in Germany (in applied computer science), it was pretty much the norm that most doctoral candidates would write - or at least contribute to - one or two research grant applications in the course of their candidacy.
These grant applications were usually meant to secure follow-up funding for the doctoral candidate themselves (once their current funding runs out), or for other future doctoral candidates in the same institute (who could, for instance, build upon the work of the applying doctoral candidate).
Now, I'm not sure whether this is what you are looking for, as these doctoral candidates would technically not personally apply for the grant themselves, even though they collected all the input for the application and wrote it. However, unless I'm mistaken, it's also not the PI or postdoc who would personally receive e.g. money for lab equipment, but their institute or group, as a (depending on the size/scope of the grant, the sole) participant of the project.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes. For example several of the fellowships listed as answers to the question, [Options other than the NSF for PhD level grants?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/64671/options-other-than-the-nsf-for-phd-level-grants/64715#64715), will fund research expenses.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/22
| 502
| 2,216
|
<issue_start>username_0: If I developed a library during my PhD (in physics, not CS), but the topic is focused on what I used it for, rather than the code development itself, how much implementation detail should I give in my thesis? The entirety of the code was written by me (and my supervisor) and a significant portion of my time was spent on the development, but I'd also like to avoid going through every module and every class.<issue_comment>username_1: As the comment says, best talk to your adviser but some things to consider when writing about the implementation:
* Is there anything novel in the implementation?
* Do you want to provide information about how someone could run the same experiments as you?
* Did you use standard packages or algorithms which would help place your work in the correct context?
* Is the hardware you target relevant?
* Were there any difficulties in translating equations or algorithms into code?
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If at all possible, avoid hiding hard work under a bushel!
It's common in pursing a PhD to have to do many things that appear only tangentially related to the "real" topic. However, frequently, those tangential things require ingenuity, creativity, insights and understanding, and just plain hard work. Unless the code is trivially obvious, and required no special understanding of the more central problem of your PhD research, I think that it would be a mistake to minimize it's importance. Moreover, by incorporating a discussion of the code into your thesis, you can show yet another aspect of the mastery you have of your subject matter.
It you cannot see an obvious way of putting the code into the body of the thesis, consider incorporating it into an appendix. Frequently, it is the unexpected, tangential things in one's research that end up being of more importance to the community of other researchers than the thing that was the primary focus. Consider, for example, [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_A._Glaser), who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for the invention of the bubble chamber ... a side-show to his real interest which was investigating subatomic particles.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/23
| 993
| 4,269
|
<issue_start>username_0: PhD hunting is not an easy task. I have to search a Phd position on several PhD portals and social media groups. For each application, they ask to write some sort of research proposal, motivation letter or statement of purposes.
Apart from research proposal, other essays can be easily managed because they need a little editing w.r.t. the university, country, research group etc.
However, I am not sure how to write so many research proposals for many PhD positions that are available. Each supervisor or a research group differ. How can I read papers in those fields and propose something new. Most often, during Phd, students don't really work on what they write in their PhD application proposal.
Is the system broken? I wonder if the high IQ students really want to do this *boring* (apologies) stuff? Best I can do is to prepare one proposal in 3-4 days in a research field. If a student takes help from ChatGPT or senior researchers in that field, is this a fair game?<issue_comment>username_1: While I can appreciate the advantages of tailoring a research proposal to the existing focus of a research group, you should consider taking the alternative approach of developing a few potential research proposals that are interesting *to you* and then using one or all of these for all your applications. This would limit the volume of research ideas you need to conceive, which would allow you to put more time and effort into each one. It would also mitigate against the risk that you will end up being accepted to a PhD candidature based on a topic that you find uninteresting.
For a PhD candidature, the supervisor is teaching a lot of basic research and writing skills, so it is usually the case that a panel can handle supervision effectively even if the topic is a bit out of their specialist area. Thus, it is not necessarily a problem if your research proposal is outside the bounds of the existing research interests of the department. (Others may chime in with dissent if they think I'm being naive.)
As a secondary matter, if you decide to be in academia/research in the long-term, you are not going to be harmed by having *too many* research ideas developed. Even if only one of these gets used for your PhD topic, the rest can stay on the shelf for now but you can come back to them as future research topics when you have time. At worst, even if you never get around to them, you will have some ideas that you can throw to your own PhD students later in your career.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: The places that are keen on very group-specific research proposals tend to be places where PhD students are admitted by specific professors for specific projects (as opposed to the North American model where students get admitted to a PhD school and find their advisor afterwards).
>
> Is the system broken? I wonder if the high IQ students really want to do this boring (apologies) stuff?
>
>
>
It absolutely makes sense to ask for personalised research statements in this context. Speaking as a PhD advisor, we generally are **not** looking for the abstractly "smartest" students, but the ones that do not find reading and thinking about our research boring.
We also generally do not consider it a problem if our model disincentives scattershot applications, where the same student applies to 25 different positions - we would much rather have everybody apply to the 3 - 5 positions that they actually are interested in and qualified for. Generally speaking, at least here in Sweden and in applied computer science, it is *not* extremely competitive to find a PhD position as long as you are actually qualified - I would say, for any of my positions I never had more than 3 candidates that I seriously considered. In that sense, I do not believe that the sometimes-read conventional wisdom that you need to apply to dozens or hundreds of posts to have a chance applies in our system.
>
> If a student takes help from ChatGPT or senior researchers in that field, is this a fair game?
>
>
>
No, but (at least for the ChatGPT part) I doubt it would help. ChatGPT is great at producing nice-sounding but uninteresting "fluff", which is exactly the kind of thing we are generally not looking for.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/23
| 380
| 1,582
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got a PhD offer from a good university, and they told me that I should announce my final decision in less than four days. Many other universities have not started interviews yet, and I really want to consider all of my possible options. I do not want to lose this offer, too. The university is also part of the Resolution Regarding Graduate Scholars, Fellows, Trainees, and Assistants.<issue_comment>username_1: You have a trial period for the PhD, as in any job offer.
Read the fine prints of the offer you received. The Resolution you mention states that:
>
> If a student accepts an offer before April 15 and subsequently desires
> to withdraw that acceptance, the student may submit a written
> resignation of the appointment at any time through April 15.
> Applicants are not required to obtain a formal release from the
> program whose offer they accepted, either before or after the April 15
> deadline. Once applicants have informed the program that they are
> withdrawing their acceptance of the offer, they then can accept any
> other offers
>
>
>
but there are many exception to the Resolution, so I strongly suggest you to contact the admission office of the University to ask if a Phd in (whatever subject is your offer) is covered by the Resolution.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Only giving you four days to respond is unprofessional. Ask them to extend the deadline. If they refuse, you should consider declining the offer, assuming you do not have a good reason to think they will stop behaving unprofessionally.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/23
| 465
| 2,015
|
<issue_start>username_0: I finished my thesis defense and my examiners recommended minor corrections, all of which are based in the lit review and results chapters. However, after they approved the corrections I made, I spotted mistakes they overlooked in my materials chapter. These mistakes were accidental and they included things like incorrect amounts of chemicals and ambiguous directions. These are things that I have intimate knowledge of. Before submitting to examiners, when I spotted overlooked mistakes in other results chapters, I only told my advisor and corrected them with his OK. I thought it would be embarrassing to confess to examiners that I had made silly mistakes when my destiny was in their hands. Why would anyone make an exam harder than it needs to be?
In hindsight, should I have told them about these mistakes I corrected even though they only specified corrections needed in other places? Correcting descriptions of methods I used isn't going to change my results. I've read online articles that recommend students not to change parts of thesis that examiners don't ask you to change. However is there a chance that I could get called out in the future, while perusing my thesis, for making changes that they did not approve?<issue_comment>username_1: In a dissertation you are unlikely to be "called" in the future, assuming you made corrections and didn't add errors (unlikely). If your advisor is knowledgeable in your field and approves of what you did you should be fine.
It is likely that the examiners just missed some things that should have been fixed. It's good that you caught them. They aren't perfect, of course.
Note that the work is yours. It doesn't belong to your examiners.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes you should have sent them a summary of changes. No it’s not a big deal. They almost certainly wouldn’t have looked at it, and they’re very unlikely to have judged you badly for it anyway, everyone catches errors when they reread stuff.
Upvotes: 5
|
2023/01/23
| 471
| 2,000
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently got accepted for a poster presentation based on a pre-registered abstract. However, all the results are non-significant (after running the analysis) and I can't help but feel slightly disappointed. Has anyone faced a similar issue and presented non-significant results at the conference? :( How often does one see non-significant results at a conference? It sucks to think that this disappointment will be blown up to poster size for all to see.<issue_comment>username_1: [Publication bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias) is a huge problem in academic publishing right now.
In summary, if a field uses null-hypothesis significance testing with some arbitrary threshold (say, p<0.05) for significance, and only significant results are published because the field is only interested in significant results (impacting publishing decisions both by authors choosing what to submit and venues choosing what to publish), many (and possibly most) published significant results are actually showing effects that are not real or exaggerated sizes of the actual effects.
A high-quality study is high-quality whether or not the result is significant. You should design studies where either a significant or non-significant result is interesting (one key aspect of this is designing studies to be large enough that non-significant results are interesting).
Think about what is interesting about your non-significant result, and know that it is honorable and methodologically far better to present such results rather than hide them in a cabinet.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If your method was promising but turned out not to work, explain both the promise and the failure in your poster.
Related: [What to do when you spend several months working on an idea that fails in a masters thesis?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30995/what-to-do-when-you-spend-several-months-working-on-an-idea-that-fails-in-a-mast/31082#31082)
Upvotes: -1
|
2023/01/23
| 940
| 4,012
|
<issue_start>username_0: My university did not have English letterheads. My professors asked me to go to the IT division and ask for one, so, I went and received an image of the letterhead, then I put the letterhead in a word document and sent it to my professors in order for them to write a letter of recommendation for me in it. They wrote in it and sent it to over 10 universities.
Now, I realized that the Word document that my professors sent their letters in has MY NAME as an author because I was the first one to create a word document. Even the ones that converted the Word document into a PDF also have my name as the author.
Are the university admissions committees going to go to the properties/metadata of the files and recognize this? I'm afraid they might think I wrote the whole letter, while I didn't!
I am so nervous right now, and I don't know what to do.<issue_comment>username_1: This is very unlikely. One normally only looks at the metadata if one already suspects fraud. And then, about half of the people in my department would not even know where to look for them. If I were to suspect something is fishy about your letter, I would first contact the letter writer to find out indirectly whether they wrote the letter. I would then either not act on my suspicion (if you would have written the letter, admission will be rescinded) or wait until I get some clarity. Finally, it is common to ask the people that ask for a letter of recommendation for technical help, so you are not the only one in this situation. In fact, I heard about professors that let the student write the letter and then signed it (or asked for changes).
Applying is very trying and people usually get very nervous about it, starting to fret about irrelevant details. I would like to tell you to stop doing that, but I doubt I or many in your position would be able to do that. In a couple of months, you will know.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: #### TL;DR [Hanlon's Razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
No, I don't think you (or your document or the meta data) is stupid. Rather, this is an example of something where the plain explanation (you helped get the letterhead) actually makes more sense than you writing your own recommendation letters.
The Word (and similar applications) meta data is a bit wacky and unreliable. In addition to your situation (you created a blank and sent it to someone else who wrote the real text), there are similar problems if a computer changes ownership (existing documents continue to show old meta data unless explicitly changed, even though new documents show new meta data), if one persons sets up documents for a group, etc. The meta data often has "junk" info if the computer was set up generically and then handed to a user (username = user, password = <PASSWORD>, etc.) And on top of all of that, I think the average user has no idea the meta data even exists!
I was once involved in a situation with some legal documents that showed something like 3am as the edit time. I am fairly well convinced (this was before most computers used automatic internet time setting) that it was not foul play in the middle of the night but rather an AM/PM problem when setting the clock on the computer.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Put yourself in the shoes of the members of an admissions committee. You have to go through hundreds of applications, and your time is limited. And, above that, you still have your routine work to do -- research, teaching, grading, writing grant proposals. Will you have time or desire to investigate the metadata of the documents? Of course, you won't -- unless you come across something totally bizarre and abnormal (in which case you will first get in touch with the recommenders). So please calm down. The chances of this happening are asymptotically approaching zero. Good luck with your applications!
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/23
| 534
| 1,979
|
<issue_start>username_0: Like instead of saying: "image taken from [1]"
Is there a better way?
I'm using Zotero linked to Overleaf. Just in case this information is somehow relevant.<issue_comment>username_1: Usually, "image taken from [1]" is sufficient.
However, you can be more specific within your citation style. For example, [in IEEE style](https://ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/IEEE-Reference-Guide.pdf), you can add a particular detail, like a lemma, page numbers, equations, a specific figure, etc.:
>
> [3, Th. 1]; [3, Lemma 2]; [3, pp. 5–10]; [3, eq. (2)]; [3, Fig. 1]; [3, Appendix I]; [3, Sec. 4.5]; [3, Ch. 2, pp. 5–10];
> [3, Algorithm 5].
>
>
>
This can be useful when the reference is very large or contains several images that could be confused.
Anyway, you should consult the citation style and reference guide for your particular publisher.
NB: for images, ensure that you actually can reproduce an image in your publication (if that is your intention), as often the copyright might prohibit you from doing it without explicitly asking for permissions (IEEE case).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It will very much depend on the who/what you're writing for. If this is towards your dissertation, you may have a lot of stylistic freedom concerning such things, or you may not. Look up your school's dissertation policy.
If this is for a journal article, read whatever "Instructions to Authors" the journal offers. If it links you to a style guide, read it. If you still can't find a good answer, "image taken from [1]" is probably good enough. If the journal feels that this isn't good enough, then it's the copy editor's job to correct it, either through an author's query in the gallies or just fixing it on their own to match their own style guide.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: If you use natbib you can use \citeauthor or \citet to get alternative presentations that include (or are only) author names.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/23
| 1,031
| 4,358
|
<issue_start>username_0: I failed two of my PhD qualifying exams (STEM) and will be mastering out from the program. I do not want to give excuse for myself but I feel like a lot of it comes from my bad relationship with my advisor who makes some things impossible for me to control (he was also on the committee for my exams) no matter how much I work.
As for my academic profile, I got all A's in my graduate coursework except for a B which comes from the only class that I took from my advisor. I also have two first-author papers at reputable journals and some other papers like conference paper. I am wondering whether should I still continue academia as although I am still interested in research, I am concerned that I have received a bad record from my current program which will affect my future prospects in academia. For instance,
* How should I explain my failure in my qualifying exams?
* Why did I not have a recommendation letter from my advisor?
* How should I explain my situation to previous recommendation letter writers to write for me again for the next application cycle?
* Should I apply for a lower-ranked school this time round since I am now seen as a more risky investment?
If I could explain my above situations wisely, I may try applying for PhD programs again. Although this experience is very disappointing for me, I will be much more prepared this time and will be more wise in terms of which lab I should join.<issue_comment>username_1: I know from personal experience that you do not need to give up! I also mastered out of a PhD program (in mathematics), but then successfully entered another PhD in mathematics program, and completed the PhD (and am now employed in academia!)
I did not explain my failing when applying to new schools- there's no way to really tell if you "mastered out" or if you were just getting a masters degree (at least in my case - double check this). I did state that my previous institution was "not a good fit," but that the potential future institution would be for ::insert reasons here::.
For my one letter writer that I reused - I simply said it was not a good fit for a program, but that I had researched and found institutions that I felt were a better fit. No questions asked!
I did not have a letter from an advisor - but in my case I didn't really have an advisor. Our advisors were assigned after passing the qualification exams. I did get a letter from one of my professors from coursework at that institution, as well as a professor that I was a teaching assistant for (to focus on my teaching skills). I also used one letter writer I had used previously (who I had published with). Again - I did not give an explanation in my applications (I think having some letters from the institution I was at helped even though it was not an "advisor")
It would not hurt to apply to lower ranked schools, but don't limit just to those. I applied to a variety. I still graduated from an R1 institution with a PhD.
Long story short - you really can still do it, if you have the passion. Do good research on good programs that fit your interest. Don't be afraid to look for a new advisor at your new institution if your first one doesn't seem to be helpful.
Best of luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Lots of people have good, satisfying careers without a PhD, including careers in research and development, especially in areas where there is a lot of industry/government research. Masters and even bachelors degrees are sufficient credentials for entry-level jobs in those areas.
Most people who earn PhDs these days also continue in one of those careers, rather than one in academia, because there are simply far more PhD graduates than there are long-term academic research positions. Of those who stay in academia, many are in positions where the primary duties involve teaching rather than research.
No one can really advise you on what you should do next, but I think it's worth considering whether attempting another PhD will make the rest of your life better or not. If you do try again for the PhD, it'll be helpful to have *some* recommendations from people that have more support for you. Really, though, you need to think about why a PhD is your goal long-term and whether a PhD from the institutions you are considering will help you achieve that goal.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/23
| 346
| 1,483
|
<issue_start>username_0: I graduated and I am trying to build my CV in order to apply for a master's scholarship. I wrote articles in my field, but since I am a fresh grad and I wrote them with no other authors, they haven't been accepted by journals. I sent them to conferences and they got accepted by multiple conferences, however, I can't afford to attend any of them.
**Should I add the acceptance letters from conferences to my CV?**
For context, I am in the medical field.<issue_comment>username_1: Will the conference publish abstracts of the accepted papers, or possibly a journal in the field may have a section where the abstracts are published, hardcopy or online? This might be citeable, but I don’t think a letter of acceptance is acceptable because what goes in a CV is work others saw or can find. A letter of acceptance by itself makes none of your work public, even the abstract.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Being accepted to a conference isn't necessarily a sign of renown/quality work. Therefore, I wouldn't advise attaching them to your CV. In your situation, it'd be best to have some joint publications or, perhaps, ask a colleague attending the conference to inquire if the conference will publish them anywhere (online or offline.)
I'd also advise you take a look at some journals that are, perhaps, less prestigious but would accept your works. Having some material that can be read and studied to determine your abilities is a plus.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/23
| 3,587
| 15,348
|
<issue_start>username_0: I got a newly hired professor this semester. He is a good teacher but sometimes gets in trouble explaining a new topic since he writes the big formulae on the board and misses a lot of things in the process. If a student raises a question regarding any notation, then we get to know that our thought process was totally wrong.
I want to suggest using slides, which will help students get everything correct and it will save time which is usually spent on writing everything down. Also the slides can be utilized by the students in the future too.
So I just wanted to know if it will be alright for me to suggest this change to the professor.<issue_comment>username_1: You can suggest him to use both slides and chalkboard (whiteboard?). They are both useful in their own ways. However, professors sometimes use ***textbooks and chalkboards*** instead of using slides.
By using the chalkboard, the professor can show his students his thought process instead of reading the slides, which is a boring task.
As a mathematics student, I love preparing slides in LaTeX, but it will never fully replace chalkboards.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You can always suggest, the question is whether it will have any effect.
The issue, at its core, is that if you're a new professor, there are a million demands on your time. You need to teach, you need to write publications, you need to set up a lab, you need to hire graduate students and assistants, etc. The only reasonable solution is to make sure you are as efficient as you can possibly be, and that also means keeping the time it takes to prepare lectures to a minimum. At the same time, writing good slides for a 1-hour lecture takes around 2 hours, 2-4 times as long as it takes to just write some hand-written notes for subjects you know well. It is almost certainly a safe bet that the professor knows about Powerpoint slides, but has made the conscious decision not to use those because it takes so much time to prepare them.
But you can always try! :-)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: You’re not in charge of delivering lectures, and if the instructor has chosen to write on the board they have reasons to do so.
Writing on a board slows the pace and is often better at retaining the attention of students. Surely you have been in classes where the contents of too many slides is delivered at light speed.
The delivery is also less robotic and generally more engaging.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: As others have suggested, slides are, indeed, good for the handouts. And yes, preparing them takes time (my personal experience is, most commonly, about 8-10 hours for an hour and a half lecture, if I am not heavily reusing earlier material).
Perhaps more importantly, while there exists a range of opinions on this, there is a case to be made for black- or whiteboard. I would recommend setting aside some time and watching [<NAME>](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unzc731iCUY) tackle the issue. He was so good at communicating, people have asked him to deliver a lecture on public speaking, and he was delivering it for 40 years straight. And while one might consider the comparison he made between slides and a board unfair because slides were not used to their fullest, a significant part of the argument still stands. A blackboard helps the lecturer to quickly illustrate points, including addressing students' questions they would have no way of knowing of beforehand; it also helps to hold the classroom attention and concentrate. And it helps with pacing a lot.
Being an inexperienced educator is overwhelming for many (most?) people, and there are bouts of self-consciousness coming and going. "Am I speaking too fast? Too slow? Are the students following? Are they bored? Damn, I am moving really awkwardly. No, this would not do either. This shirt probably looks bad on me and this is on everyone's mind. I forgot what I was talking about. Damn it all again." Having a chalk and a board in front of you may help with keeping concentration. Some educators prefer notes. Some like slides. Some resort to multiple techniques.
If you are going to raise an issue, point out the problem, not the solution. Professors are human, too. Give them some space. They are very likely aware of some issues with their teaching and are working on them, so think of your input as an attempt at steering, it is not like they do not have their foot on the gas already. And given how much time it takes to prepare good slides and learn to work with them, I would argue that effort would be better spent addressing your more immediate concerns.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I don't think your professor will respond well to your suggestion. If you want evidence, just look at the other answers you have received. They range from defensive to hostile.
You are experiencing a problem (mistakes in formulae) and you are offering a solution (change delivery method from whiteboard to slides).
I suggest if you want to have some influence on your professor's teaching method, you should focus first on the problem rather than the solution. As a lecturer it can be very difficult to know how students are experiencing your teaching method. As a student, it can be very difficult to know the various constraints on lecturers and decisions that lead to a particular teaching style.
Therefore, please approach your lecturer personally privately and mention that you are struggling to understand certain parts because you found the mistakes/corrections on the whiteboard too confusing. If he wants to engage in a discussion about potential solutions, you can mention your ideas.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: You can certainly make a suggestion, but you should not expect it will be accepted. Rather than offering this solution (which has both pros and contras some of which you don't even see from your side), just tell clearly *what exactly* are the issues with the presentation that bother you. For instance I now remove all stuff from the demonstration table in the room with a low blackboard because otherwise it obscures the bottom of the board to some students but I just didn't think of this issue when I started to teach. I took it for granted that the room setup would be adequate and my duty would be just to present the material using the
tools available.
Such minor things should certainly be attracted attention to. The solution usually requires just a slight modification of one's blackboard technique, not anything as drastic as switching to the overhead projector (which I, personally, would never do: I improvise a lot during my lectures and spend noticeable time making comments rising from student questions on the go, often using the whole board space for a single comment). So, by all means attract the attention of your professor to the problems you experience (he may just not see them from his side like I didn't see the issue with the low blackboard for quite a long time) but *leave it to him* to find the best way to resolve them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: I'm going to take a slightly different tack to the others here.
Personally, I'm a big fan of hand written math and hand drawn diagrams in lectures. And while there is some evidence about it being better, that is always going to be "on average". A good presenter can make slide delivery just as engaging as a chalk'n'talk, but it is difficult. An attentive professor will want to hear feedback, and will not always just believe that they know best, or that one type of delivery is equally good for all students.
I'll also add that chalk'n'talk delivery is a skill to be mastered, as is presenting from slides. No one is born good at either, and some people will be better at one form of delivery and others at a different form. It can take a professor some time to discover where their strength and weaknesses lie when they start.
Generally there will be an official mechanism for providing feedback on a course. This will often be a survey at the end of the course. You could ask the professor by informal means, and they may well take your feedback on board.
But...
1. Don't expect a professor to change the whole way they work on the basis of your feedback alone. They may do so if it is a pattern within the feedback they receive.
2. Don't expect a professor to change the delivery method mid-course. The die is probably cast at this point for this year.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: Yes, you can suggest to switch to slides, but it is unlikely to get the result you wish (it is a relatively crass change; and if the prof thought it would be a good idea to do that, he would already be doing it).
A better approach is usually to change yourself:
When you sit in a lecture with a chalkboard, it is a good opportunity for you to be extra attentive to what the lecturer is saying or writing on the board. The temptation may be there to just make a verbatim copy of whatever is written on the board as quickly as you can, but back in my time as a CS/maths student that was not my preferred way to do it - those sessions were usually half wasted on me, as I was so consumed by the copying process that I didn't get to really think along with the lecture.
Instead, try first and foremost to understand what the prof is trying to communicate (through words *and* the chalkboard). Assume that the salient points make sense, even if the presentation has errors, and then be gentle about asking questions. I mean, obviously, unless the prof makes it clear that they don't want questions - and always in a polite manner. Also, if you raise your hand, make obvious eye contact etc. and he ignores you, then so be it. Avoid interrupting verbally unless the prof is of the type that always faces the board instead of the room.
If it is just an *obvious* typo, then you can gloss over it and fix it yourself in your copy (maybe make a side note to check up on this). If it is a *glaring* error (which the prof should really have noticed), then ask if this is intentional - if it is, then this point may be something you misunderstood, and by asking, you give the prof a chance to clarify.
Finally, if you get the sense that you have no idea what's going on at all, feel free to ask your prof in the break or after the lecture; or figure out if the prof has an open hour for students.
In any case, it is always a good idea to know which textbook or other material works well with the lectures, and have it handy, to look up mysterious passages at home. The point of lectures at Uni is to act like a guideline - if the topic is relatively easy you can get away with no further studies, but thinking and working on these things afterwards should be a normal part of your process. Be glad if a prof gives great handouts, but by all means do not expect this to be the case.
This holds doubly so if you cannot get a handle on the topic during the lecture at all, and are totally confused. Don't try to somehow fix the lecture; instead try to at least get the big picture, and then work on it afterwards.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: For what it's worth... I've had several professors that were pretty neutral about board vs. slides and were quite fine with doing whatever the majority of the class preferred.
I wouldn't have put this as an answer except that most of the other answers assume the professor is... highly opinionated on which to use.
They do both have pros and cons. Also, as others have mentioned, a new professor may not have prepared slides and they do take significant additional time.
One of my professors actually had a touchscreen laptop with a pen and used slides, but would then draw on them to illustrate more interactive bits and pieces and to answer questions where it was useful.
Other professors indeed did have a preferred style and that's what you were going to get. I think it is worth bringing up once respectfully, but don't expect it to change and don't push it if they aren't willing to.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: Of course you are free to suggest it. Slides have the advantage of being retrievable after the lecture. But there are many pedagogical advantages of using handwritten notes
1. On a large board, several slide-equivalent notes remain visible at a time allowing students to see connections between the current talking point and what came before. This allows students to build connections, and it is also clearer when the lecturer wants to refer back to a previous concept
2. Visually processing the lecturer writing notes while also talking is a much more active process than watching a lecture drive a powerpoint like a tractor down a field. Powerpoints at their worst can be mind-numbing, and even when done well often still feel disjointed.
3. Hand-written lecture allows, perhaps even invites, impromptu discussion/questions. 3-bullet point slides discourage this as many in the audience may not want to ask a question about the first bullet until the entire slide is read
Here is a link to a remembrance article about the physicist <NAME>. Page 2 shows a beautiful series of chalkboard images from a lecture he gave in 1971.
[https://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/PubScans/VI-50.pdf](https://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Ekip/PubScans/VI-50.pdf)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_11: **Focus on the Problem**
The professor is unlikely to take your suggestion to switch to slides. As other people have said, making slides takes time the professor probably doesn't have during term. Slides are often made before the term starts and reused over several terms.
Instead focus on the problem. The problem is not the lack of slides. The problem is you do not understand the notation.
Keep asking about the notation during lessons. Encourage your friends ask about the notation too. Good Professors like when you ask questions. It lets them know whether the students understand or not. In this case it seems you do not understand:
>
> If a student raises a question regarding any notation, then we get to know that our thought process was totally wrong.
>
>
>
This sounds like you think the notation means one thing, but after someone asks, you find out it means something else entirely. You think $x\_1^2$ is the square of some number $x\_1$. But it is supposed to be the entry in matrix $x$ in row $1$ and column $2$.
If you are confused by the notation, so are other students.
This is bad. You should definitely pester your professor with questions about it. Every question requires the professor to pause the lecture to answer it. The goal is to have so many questions during lectures, and so much time spent answering the questions, that the professor rethinks their notation or starts making better teaching notes. He decides in advance exactly how to write down the formulae for every lecture and write notes for himself.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_12: I think that you will have more success in asking for precise material (a specific formula you need to know, urls, etc.) to be provided digitally.
Making your own notes is a significant learning tool, but that is conceptual, not about writing down detailed data (you may need to access the url - the content at the address, but do not need to "understand" the url itself).
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/24
| 853
| 3,683
|
<issue_start>username_0: I had the idea to create a series of short-form educational videos intended to de-mystify quantum computing. Ideally, these videos would be suitable for a wide target audience and consequently would, by necessity, involve simplifications and some lack of rigour, however I am adamant that they must not compromise on accuracy for the sake of accessibility.
For context, I am a 4th year (FHEQ Level 7) undergraduate student with a background in quantum mechanics and quantum information who aims to pursue postgraduate research in the field. My concern is whether it is responsible to create educational content at my level of expertise. All the content I produce would adhere to proper referencing conventions and be contextualised by my qualifications. Whilst I would obviously not publish anything I knew to be false, it would defeat the point entirely if I were to accidentally misinform my audience.
I would be grateful to hear perspectives on the ethics of such a project. Would it be irresponsible to assume a role as an instructor at this stage in my education? Would it be a good idea to ask an expert at my institution to review the content I create prior to uploading it? As an academic, is this the sort of request you would be happy to fulfil?
My view is that, provided I am faithful to established literature and what I have been taught, any inaccuracies would be considered 'acceptable' for people studying at my level and below; I would be considered qualified to tutor students at a lower level and I would not expect my peers to learn much from my content. Despite this, I recognise that simplifying concepts is a difficult task and a really solid conceptual understanding is necessary to make sure important details are not lost in simplifications.<issue_comment>username_1: There shouldn't be any ethical issue in a good-faith effort to educate others, especially when you provide proper context, including that of your own level of expertise.
Sometimes, in fact, a book or similar produced by a newcomer to a field can give context to other newcomers that can get them over initial blocks and problems. A "view of a novice" can be enlightening, as long as it is properly put.
But, yes, it would be good to have someone more experienced look over your shoulder as you do this. It will help you be a better presenter and also assure that your possible misconceptions don't get into the work.
Producing it, even if you never actually publish it, would also be likely to increase your own understanding.
What you suggest in the details sounds about right. Just. Do. It. (and have fun along the way)
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think there are no ethical problems here - I'd state your credentials, be cautious on over-emphasising your knowledge, and get someone to check them through for correctness.
However - If you have a friendly faculty member, there's no harm in asking for help! Personally, I'd love it - if they're good videos, I'd borrow them for educational content. If they're not, explaining to a wider audience is still sure to help your conceptual understanding of the subject. I'm also able to list things like this on the "community engagement and outreach" bit of my publication history, if it goes far enough.
I think most professors keen on teaching will be extremely encouraging of your efforts, even if they don't have time or resources to offer more direct support.
In universities I've worked at, we'd often also have some central resources for decent cameras that can be loaned, AV equipment that can be borrowed. It's worth hunting around for that kind of thing too.
Upvotes: 5
|
2023/01/24
| 3,754
| 16,287
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student, who has been awarded a young researcher grant, which I intend to use to work at another (host) institute which my home institute is collaborating with. In order to accept the grant and get reimbursed, the institution which rewarded me the grant wants me to fill in a form. It includes personal details, travel/accommodation related information etc, and also requests bank account details (like name of the account holder, bank address, country, IBAN and BIC or SWIFT) for the home institute for reimbursement, as they prefer this.
My supervisor said he doesn't know this information and thus my supervisor contacted the HR head. My supervisor told me afterwards that the HR said that for the lab I (we) work at, they cannot provide that information. When I asked my supervisor why that is the case, he gave a bit of a vague answer that the lab doesn't have an account (or that there is one on a higher level) and he used a little bit of a "none of your business"-argument, which left me in a state of confusion.
For "normal" travel/stays, like conferences/workshops (funded by the lab/institute?), there's a system which takes care of the funding. Any travel related-expenses made by that researcher can be reimbursed after they return the bills at work and the travel/stay has been registered. So obviously there is a reimbursement system and thus a bank account.
My supervisor asked me to instead give them my own bank account details. I guess I wouldn't have anything against this, but reasonably the institute must have a bank account. I have been on more than one trip since the start of my PhD where I have not been reimbursed by my home institute yet, both my supervisor knows it and the HR which handles my requests. Should I try to push my supervisor again, or see some other HR staff/other members of the lab and ask if they can get the bank account details (and also keep my supervisor updated)? I am not sure I can buy my supervisor's argument and then feel ok on following his instructions. I have a bad feeling they are going to mess up again.
**EDIT:**
Thank you all in the community for being so engaging in this matter, and sending me a lot of suggestions and options on how to move forward. It has given me more confidence to confront the people in charge (and make some progress).
After reading the fine print for the research award and contacted the institution for additional information, we found that according to EC regulations, receipts issued from XXX beneficiaries (i.e. institutes participating in XXX either as a partner or as a third party) cannot be accepted, where the institute I work at belongs to XXX. This seem to mean that in order to not violate the EC regulation my home institute cannot send them any expenses (like receipts for paying the accommodation, travel or my daily expenses). *I think this is weird...* For me this important information should have been mentioned somewhere more accessible or be more clearly specified.
The institution replied that in this case they will be in charge of booking and paying for the travel and accommodation, but they need to check if they can reimburse any daily expenses from me (as an individual). If they can reimburse me I will most likely provide my bank account details in the form in order for anyone to not violate the EC regulations (and my supervisor most likely will not need to explain why our lab/institute couldn't give the bank account details when we thought it was necessary). If the daily expenses (local transportation and food) cannot be covered by the funding, most likely my home institute will cover it (and most likely I will not need to fill in my bank account details in the form).
Let's wait for their response and I will give you a final update.
**FINAL EDIT:**
I would like to thank everyone in this community for the support, and for your suggestions in the comments. As several people have pointed out in the comments, since I am a first year PhD student, I should not spend time on acting as an intermediary, but get the respective financial staff in contact with each other. I tried my best to follow it:
The accommodation I am staying at is a university residence/student accommodation of nice quality which we all agreed upon (going for a hotel/airbnb would not be financially plausible). The institution did eventually a good job from their side and took the initiative to contact the student organization managing the accommodations, where they kept me in all email correspondence, and they paid for the stay and travel. However when I needed my supervisor with any type of support in this matter, such as resolving any misunderstandings (dates of the stay, type of payment, authorization of payment etc. ...), I sometimes forwarded to him the emails (financial staff was really out of reach for me, I was never really in touch with any of them during all this time), and he replied to me orally/wrote in the informal "work chat app" what I should email them back in such circumstances, which oftentimes lead me doing things multiple times. When we were both in doubt, I asked if we should contact the HR. According to my supervisor I/we shouldn't really contact ("bother") the financial staff/HR, as I don't speak the language fluently and we encounter oftentimes misunderstandings/no communication (and almost nobody speaks any decent English, yep, and I work in international research environment in a big city in Europe) and the HR staff is understaffed and very busy... According to this mindset, we must help them with their workload as much as possible, which can mean even outside our scope of work and knowledge, and preferably only the supervisor should contact the HR. This ended up with me being the intermediary and putting too much effort into this whole process... Should I have asked higher-ups for assistance?
*More details, two events:*
Event I:
The institution claimed eventually that the daily expenses could not be covered by them and said again that's due to the EC regulations, so my home institute will reimburse me for the daily expenses (which I think turned out to be the best outcome: I don't even want to think about sending receipts to the institution abroad, asking for reimbursement and acting as an intermediary again). At some point during this process I got introduced to a HR staff who speaks English quite well, who's been working longer than I have been at my home institute (which got me thinking why I wasn't introduced tho this person before...??) and due to my mistrust towards the specific HR from previous experience on reimbursement, this was perfect to me. She offered the alternative of requesting an advance and got me a form where you request money in advance for a trip, which I have never heard of before. I submitted the document and did get in fact an advance as requested before the trip. She also sped up the process for my reimbursement from my previous trips, which got me all the reimbursement in few days. Thank you!! Unfortunately she left the job recently :'(
Event II:
The student organization managing the accommodations, requested also that a home insurance had to be paid. If no home insurance will be provided on time, their policy doesn't allow for a stay. At this point I was too tired to ask the institute why (which in hindsight was maybe not the best option). I then asked my supervisor if the lab could cover it. He asked the HR for the lab we work at, where he informed it's not possible, moreover a reimbursement for this is not possible (The wonderful HR person has left the job by now). "The deal" communicated to me orally through the HR/my supervisor is that they reimburse me one additional meal, as it corresponds to roughly the same price (which is true, so not much money). I asked my supervisor how this deal will be assured, upon my supervisor replied: you will get reimbursed because you'll remember. Given the limited information, I found the offered solution by the HR to be appalling and unprofessional.
I have now arrived to the host institute, found my accommodation and started my work.
This whole experience has learnt me quite a lot about the institute's view on reimbursement/work. Conclusions? Ask AcademiaStackExchange for good advice. Thanks for reading and for any contributions made :)
TLDR: Rant on my home institute, the funding institution managing funding and trip and putting their work on me, and a wonderful HR worker.<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming all the institutions involved are legitimate (that is, you're dealing with an actual known educational institution and not some scam), I'd recommend you not act as an intermediary and get the respective financial staff in contact with each other and let them sort this out.
First step is to find who those people are: you may already be in contact with someone at the granting institution, you may need to ask your supervisor or office/HR staff in your department who the right financial person is on the other end.
Once you have the contact information, I'd do this by sending an email to both of them together, introducing them and stating the situation and asking them to figure it out. It might look something like:
>
> Dear Bonnie and Clyde,
>
>
> Bonnie is the financial specialist for the Dept of Things at U of A.
>
>
> Clyde is the treasurer for the Bag of Money Award at UB.
>
>
> I am a PhD student with Prof X. I received the Good Student award from
> UB and therefore UB needs to transfer funds to Dept of Things. I am
> not sure how best to facilitate that transfer, but I hope you each can
> help me coordinate.
>
>
>
I suspect what's going on is similar to the "[XY problem](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem)" common on StackExchange, where it's better to ask about your *problem* rather than how to implement a proposed solution, which might not be a sensible solution in the first place.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are two issues. The first is how your institution gets the money from the grantor. That can probably be handled by the grants office at your institution and they will provide necessary banking information to allow for a direct transfer. But you won't be involved in that and the two institutions talk to each other. The grantor and the grants office are well experienced in this.
The second issue is how *you* get the funds. They will come from your institution in most cases, not directly from the grantor. The grants office will have established an account on your behalf from which you can draw the funds. And they will subtract an amount from the grant for *overhead* in most cases.
Part of the reason for the overhead charge is that your institution takes on the responsibility for correct usage of the funds.
In the US, at least, the system for you to get the funds is pretty ubiquitous. The individual pays and gets reimbursed later after presenting all receipts. This avoids lots of surprises for the institution and makes sure that disbursements are according to the rules.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The situation is a bit unclear.
Are you asking for a reimbursement (i.e. you have already paid some invoices/bills and want to be reimbursed?) or a disbursement (i.e. you have not yet incurred any expenses but will do so in the future?).
It seems the paying institution wants to disburse the funds to your institutions, and thus need banking details to proceed with the transfer to your current institution. These funds are unlikely to go to “one” account as I’m willing to bet your institution has multiple accounts so that - as a trivial example - salaries or other current expenses are not paid from the same account as research equipments.
Likely your current institution can set up for you a *research account*, with a credit to the amount disbursed by the paying institution, minus some administrative fee (sometimes called grant tax) if this admin fee is not paid directly by the paying institution to your current institution.
Normally, HR does not handle this but there will be some office for grant services or research services, or someone from financial services, who can set up this research account. Your university will then credit an research account or a budget code or whatever terminology they are using for the amount disbursed from the payee. You then get reimbursed real money by your university after they debit this account/budget code/whatever by the amount of the reimbursement issued to you.
When your lab has a guest, expenses will likely be billed to a research account controlled by your lab. Which one may depend on a variety of factors: if the visit was related to a specific project, the account for the funds of *this* project will be billed. It’s likely your lab has multiple research accounts because different granting agencies have different rules for allowable expenses, so keeping funds from different origins in different accounts makes it “easy” to make sure the funds were spent correctly.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Research administrator here; there are two main ways fellowships get awarded. One is directly to the recipient; i.e., the bank account they want is in fact your personal bank account. Please note that any income from this fellowship may be taxable to you. The other option is to make the institution you work at the awardee, they then issue a check to you, presumably as a stipend instead of salary. This is a frequent point of confusion, even among trained research administrators. **We always need to see the terms and conditions of any award to decide how this will go--it's not up to the researcher to choose.**
As an example, the NSF GRFP and NIH F31 programs award the funding to the institution, and these are received as grants to the institution for the benefit of named individuals. On the other hand, some fellowships award directly to individuals, and when those folks come to the institution, we don't see anything involved with their funding. All of their terms and conditions are between them and the sponsor. We do expect them to disclose information to our graduate aid office.
Which bucket are you in? Contact your research administrator by going to your local department administrator and asking how to contact a research administrator or whoever is in charge of graduate financial aid. If you can't figure this out, ask the person who processes those "normal reimbursements". The institution you are at will have a very specific setup which I can't possibly advise on, as the range is huge, but one of these position types will exist. The key is getting someone who is trained to identify this language to tell you which direction this goes. Either you do in fact fill this out yourself, or this needs to be passed on to another entity to process on your behalf. Make sure you have your terms and conditions and correspondence handy for this person. If your fellowship contract is in another language; no matter--provide anyways. The institution should pay for translation services.
Here's [an example of terms and conditions](https://www.snf.ch/media/en/B0SWnPsrDCRTaiCx/snsf-general-implementation-regulations-for-the-funding-regulations-e.pdf) for the Swiss NSF Postdoc fellowship (in English). Notice the terms on page 20 dictating who gets the money (an institution). Look for information about who the awardee is, and this will help answer more of your questions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Sounds very familiar to me: Getting any funds transferred to my lab account (which is essentially just a virtual PO number) is a hassle that I (as a PI!) have no control over.
The university has a bank account and money can go there, obviously, but to make sure those funds are then actually attributed to me/the lab is much more of a hassle than one would expect it to be.
All this is to say: I can see where your supervisor might be at and also their (what to you felt like) "none of your business" response...
That being said, I think you should follow up with the advice handed out by others that this is something you should get help with/let the financial administrators sort out.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/25
| 1,954
| 8,238
|
<issue_start>username_0: could anyone please tell me how to cite a picture properly from places like this? <https://d2l.ai/_images/lstm-0.svg>
The current latex code is.
```
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[]{imgs/lstm-0.svg}
\caption{LSTM}
\end{figure}
```
should I cite it under reference? or in the image caption? or in the footnote? or in the main text of my thesis when I mention this figure?
Is using the link of the image enough?<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming all the institutions involved are legitimate (that is, you're dealing with an actual known educational institution and not some scam), I'd recommend you not act as an intermediary and get the respective financial staff in contact with each other and let them sort this out.
First step is to find who those people are: you may already be in contact with someone at the granting institution, you may need to ask your supervisor or office/HR staff in your department who the right financial person is on the other end.
Once you have the contact information, I'd do this by sending an email to both of them together, introducing them and stating the situation and asking them to figure it out. It might look something like:
>
> Dear Bonnie and Clyde,
>
>
> Bonnie is the financial specialist for the Dept of Things at U of A.
>
>
> Clyde is the treasurer for the Bag of Money Award at UB.
>
>
> I am a PhD student with Prof X. I received the Good Student award from
> UB and therefore UB needs to transfer funds to Dept of Things. I am
> not sure how best to facilitate that transfer, but I hope you each can
> help me coordinate.
>
>
>
I suspect what's going on is similar to the "[XY problem](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem)" common on StackExchange, where it's better to ask about your *problem* rather than how to implement a proposed solution, which might not be a sensible solution in the first place.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are two issues. The first is how your institution gets the money from the grantor. That can probably be handled by the grants office at your institution and they will provide necessary banking information to allow for a direct transfer. But you won't be involved in that and the two institutions talk to each other. The grantor and the grants office are well experienced in this.
The second issue is how *you* get the funds. They will come from your institution in most cases, not directly from the grantor. The grants office will have established an account on your behalf from which you can draw the funds. And they will subtract an amount from the grant for *overhead* in most cases.
Part of the reason for the overhead charge is that your institution takes on the responsibility for correct usage of the funds.
In the US, at least, the system for you to get the funds is pretty ubiquitous. The individual pays and gets reimbursed later after presenting all receipts. This avoids lots of surprises for the institution and makes sure that disbursements are according to the rules.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The situation is a bit unclear.
Are you asking for a reimbursement (i.e. you have already paid some invoices/bills and want to be reimbursed?) or a disbursement (i.e. you have not yet incurred any expenses but will do so in the future?).
It seems the paying institution wants to disburse the funds to your institutions, and thus need banking details to proceed with the transfer to your current institution. These funds are unlikely to go to “one” account as I’m willing to bet your institution has multiple accounts so that - as a trivial example - salaries or other current expenses are not paid from the same account as research equipments.
Likely your current institution can set up for you a *research account*, with a credit to the amount disbursed by the paying institution, minus some administrative fee (sometimes called grant tax) if this admin fee is not paid directly by the paying institution to your current institution.
Normally, HR does not handle this but there will be some office for grant services or research services, or someone from financial services, who can set up this research account. Your university will then credit an research account or a budget code or whatever terminology they are using for the amount disbursed from the payee. You then get reimbursed real money by your university after they debit this account/budget code/whatever by the amount of the reimbursement issued to you.
When your lab has a guest, expenses will likely be billed to a research account controlled by your lab. Which one may depend on a variety of factors: if the visit was related to a specific project, the account for the funds of *this* project will be billed. It’s likely your lab has multiple research accounts because different granting agencies have different rules for allowable expenses, so keeping funds from different origins in different accounts makes it “easy” to make sure the funds were spent correctly.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Research administrator here; there are two main ways fellowships get awarded. One is directly to the recipient; i.e., the bank account they want is in fact your personal bank account. Please note that any income from this fellowship may be taxable to you. The other option is to make the institution you work at the awardee, they then issue a check to you, presumably as a stipend instead of salary. This is a frequent point of confusion, even among trained research administrators. **We always need to see the terms and conditions of any award to decide how this will go--it's not up to the researcher to choose.**
As an example, the NSF GRFP and NIH F31 programs award the funding to the institution, and these are received as grants to the institution for the benefit of named individuals. On the other hand, some fellowships award directly to individuals, and when those folks come to the institution, we don't see anything involved with their funding. All of their terms and conditions are between them and the sponsor. We do expect them to disclose information to our graduate aid office.
Which bucket are you in? Contact your research administrator by going to your local department administrator and asking how to contact a research administrator or whoever is in charge of graduate financial aid. If you can't figure this out, ask the person who processes those "normal reimbursements". The institution you are at will have a very specific setup which I can't possibly advise on, as the range is huge, but one of these position types will exist. The key is getting someone who is trained to identify this language to tell you which direction this goes. Either you do in fact fill this out yourself, or this needs to be passed on to another entity to process on your behalf. Make sure you have your terms and conditions and correspondence handy for this person. If your fellowship contract is in another language; no matter--provide anyways. The institution should pay for translation services.
Here's [an example of terms and conditions](https://www.snf.ch/media/en/B0SWnPsrDCRTaiCx/snsf-general-implementation-regulations-for-the-funding-regulations-e.pdf) for the Swiss NSF Postdoc fellowship (in English). Notice the terms on page 20 dictating who gets the money (an institution). Look for information about who the awardee is, and this will help answer more of your questions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Sounds very familiar to me: Getting any funds transferred to my lab account (which is essentially just a virtual PO number) is a hassle that I (as a PI!) have no control over.
The university has a bank account and money can go there, obviously, but to make sure those funds are then actually attributed to me/the lab is much more of a hassle than one would expect it to be.
All this is to say: I can see where your supervisor might be at and also their (what to you felt like) "none of your business" response...
That being said, I think you should follow up with the advice handed out by others that this is something you should get help with/let the financial administrators sort out.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/25
| 439
| 1,921
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am from a developing country and I can not afford plane tickets or hotel accommodation fees all by myself, I am not funded by any organization and I am a fresh grad so not even my university can fund me.. I submitted for international conference and my paper got accepted, is there any way to get funded through any organization or through the conference itself? can I even get a discount? (it's a dental conference)<issue_comment>username_1: You can always try and ask the conference organizers for financial support, but it is not clear of it will work or not. Some organizations will also have travel grants to give out (e.g. [this one for biologists](https://www.biologists.com/grants/dmm-conference-travel-grants/)), so you might want to search the web for similar organizations in your field.
If you cannot find funding, another way to go is to see if it is possible to present your research without being present at the conference: either as a video presentation (if the conference allows such hybrid models) or as a poster presentation instead. Both options might not be as satisfactory as being there yourself, but at least you will have had the chance to show what you have worked on.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: There is a slim chance that the following might be helpful, but just in case it is...
Some large conferences in CS and perhaps other fields have a need for "student volunteers" to help manage the conference as it proceeds. They carry messages, sit at registration desks, or whatever might be needed. Such positions come with free attendance at the conference (in my experience) and might (might) come with some travel stipend.
I'd guess that most such "students" are local, not requiring funding beyond attendance, but you can explore what might be available. And, how strictly they might define "student" is another question, but asking is free.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/25
| 1,421
| 5,964
|
<issue_start>username_0: How could I get my motivation levels back up as a student?
I'm in physics/ astrophysics with other minors. I love physics so much, so I don't need anyone to ask me whether this is the right choice of majors etc. I've already tried changing majors a few times in the past, but I always wind up crawling back to physics. So, this is what I need to pursue.
I'm in my upper yrs. I had some setbacks due to an auto accident, so my grades went from mostly a's to mostly f's and now I'm back up to mostly a's (hopefully, at least). I did probably fail an introductory biology class last night, which left me crying for a few hours. Biology, the bane of my existence. I just need to take the course to complete my degree program, so I'll have to re-take it. And then I stayed up till midnight last night finishing-up my math homework. I get to school with a sense of coldness in my spine because I was very sick and missed a class, which meant missing a test. I emailed my prof about it and he said that I was fine because the worst test score would be dropped. It's all work-work-work as a student in this program. It's effing lonely work too because I don't really have friends as one of the only girls in the class. My friends are from outside of school. My hobbies are in other areas, and they're usually left neglected during crunch time.
It's just hard to keep the motivation levels up sometimes when it feels like the homework, the tests, and the studying never stop. If I ever have a minute to breathe, I don't, because I know that I'll later wind up pulling an all-nighter when I fall behind in a course and I don't know the content well enough to just waltz into the exam centre the next day.
Help please? I'm not sleeping through my classes or *this* close dropping out or anything. I'm just *this* close to burnout and trying to know how to do better. Thx.<issue_comment>username_1: This is an issue worth a consultation with a professional. Or perhaps two different professionals.
For more effective use of your time, an academic counsellor might help give you hints about process.
But for the burnout and general feelings you should speak with a mental health professional to see what is behind it and how to overcome it.
Cramming for exams doesn't help either of these.
Most (larger) universities will have one or more offices in which you can seek help on these issues. They exist because your issues are shared with others.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Assuming you are from undergrad (though this answer is probably applicable to anyone anywhere), the most obvious thing is that it sounds like your main problem is that you're working too much.
What's worth understanding is that burnout (and depression) has a biological profile not of nothing happening, but too much is happening. Your mind and body is pushed to its limit and things are starting to break down because of this, so trying to just push yourself through it probably won't work.
A couple of things that are worth keeping in mind:
1. **Perfection is the enemy of good enough.** If you reached a point where the stress and strain of trying to produce perfect work ask yourself, do you need to be perfect, or just good enough. Can you let your work slip so you have extra effort that you can invest into keeping yourself healthy and strong or to develop better coping mechanisms/support networks. After improving yourself in these ways then you can ask, should I push for perfection again.
2. **Schedule time to relax.** If you don't naturally schedule time in your week to relax and are just work-work-work, change your priorities. Life-work balance (notice I swapped the order ;) ) is not just some ideal of the average person but a way to keep your body functioning. If you feel guilt at taking time off change your frame of mind and think about this as maintenance for the flesh suit you spend all your time driving around. Keeping your biochemistry in balance is almost as important as making sure you get enough carbohydrates as fuel. This also means scheduling time to make sure you are healthy and let yourself relax when sick.
3. **Don't forget friends.** We are social creatures, human interactions can help us to relieve stress. Try to make sure you have time to catch up with your old friends, or try to find new friends even though you're the only girl, you said you keep coming back to physics, that's probably something you share with a number of people in the class, a good basis upon which to build new friendships and with whom you can share your particular interest.
4. **Change your frame of mind.** One thing that can trigger burnouts is if you have too many things where you say "I have to do X" or "I need to do X" rather than "I want to do X". You said biology is the bane of your existence and that you *need* to do this for your degree. Is there something about biology you could find interesting, even if its not as interesting for you as physics and astrophysics. If you could find that aspect then you might start to be excited to do biology homework/revision, even if you prefer to do physics homework first (or leave it until last as a treat for completing the biology homework). If you struggle to see that, maybe look at "evo-devo" or "molecular shape of you" which cover biology at that level biased towards a physics perspective (the artist got a master's degree in high energy theoretical physics, so I've noticed they are slightly biased towards the way a physicist will approach a problem)
Keep in mind I'm not a professional and this is therefore only friendly advice from the internet. And as username_1 said in his answer there are professionals you can reach out to about this who may be able to give better answers then me. Especially if this actually is coming about from some biochemical or neurological differences/atypicalities where "just do X" amounts to no more than wishful thinking.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/25
| 1,284
| 5,536
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've honestly been losing a bit of sleep over one of the sections in my materials chapters because I think it has some similarity to text from a published paper. To compel myself to write this section a few months ago, I looked at a paper with the same method and rephrased each sentence in that paper into a question. I then answered each question with methods I optimized from my own research, combined them to form the section, and moved on. So for example if I was writing about western blot, the questions I gave myself to answer were:
1. What reagents or equipment did you use to run the blot?
2. Where did you get your antibodies and samples from?
3. How did you exactly run the blot?
4. How did you analyze your western blot?
I split each response into four paragraphs like above. If I used the format or order that a former student used to describe his Western Blot to describe how I ran my Western blot (different antibodies, concentrations, incubation times, samples, etc...), would that be considered plagiarism?<issue_comment>username_1: Certain aspects of publishing are formalistic. For an experiment for example, one needs to give a description that is sufficient to repeat the experiment. The question of what is necessary and what is superfluous is decided by the "sense of the community", embedded by what paper reviewers and thesis readers give as feed-back. If you are still learning academic writing, using good examples as templates is perfectly fine and even advisable. My suggestion would be to not look at only one example.
As far as plagiarism is concerned: Give credit where credit is due. You might put yourself in the shoes of the author from whom you take your inspiration. If it is about what data is needed to describe an experiment or simulation, I would not be wronged if you were to use this as a template, because I just followed a common recipe. Now, if I use a smart trick to make the experiment work, you should give me credit. If I use a bon mot, you might want to ascribe it to me, because I am rather proud of it. But if I give a recipe for Butter Chicken, and you use this as a template for your recipe for Mumbai Dal, no credit is due, because recipes are written in a very formalistic way and what matters is the mixture of ingredients and sometimes the way they are cooked. You just learned how to write recipes using mine as an example.
Now, in an ideal world, you would be able to speak with an advisor about all of this. In fact, if this were to happen at my university, the fact that you could not resolve your doubts easily would indicate a break-down in the relationship between advisor and advisee. I just assume that you are not in these circumstances.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Don't expect much originality in a Materials and Methods section! [1]
The main goal of this section is to describe what you did, so that readers can understand how it might affect your results and the conclusions you draw from them. Precision, rather than originality, is the overarching goal. Consequently, if you use the same method as Jones et al. (2022), your methods section is probably going to look somewhat like theirs too. You certainly should not copy text verbatim [2], but no one should be alarmed or suspicious if the organization and details are generally similar. There are only so many ways to describe doing a Western Blot, even if you make heavy use of a thesaurus. In fact, some tools are now even suggesting that users describe the methods in a standardized way, so that it is easy to compare within/across papers; check out this page from [NIPreps](https://www.nipreps.org/intro/transparency/#citation-boilerplates).
In other writing, you might be tempted to avoid this issue by including just a citation. However, this isn't ideal for Methods sections because it means the reader now needs to flip through other papers to figure out what you did--and it probably isn't exactly the same either.
Instead, I prefer a hybrid approach. Start with an overview paragraph that cites the paper(s) from which you derived your methods. Note any *major* changes here. In the subsections that follow, provide a complete description of your/their methods, adding in other references as needed. The methods section does not have to be purely procedural--you can also briefly discuss *why* you used specific approaches, or mention other methods that did not work as well. This can help make these sections feel more "original" if it's bothering you.
This ticks all the boxes:
* Credit is prominently and appropriately given to other work, so no one can complain about plagiarism.
* The paper contains a complete description of what was done.
* Readers know where to direct their attention. Someone familiar with cited work can skip the Methods entirely--or jump straight to the differences. Others who haven't read it gets a complete description, without having to chase papers.
Good luck and don't overthink this. Your advisor or committee should be able to help you with any specifics too!
[1]: The bar is obviously higher if you're claiming that the method itself is novel. Even there though, you'd probably test it against standard methods and those can have pretty formulaic descriptions.
[2]: Copying between *your own* paper and *your* thesis might be an exception. Some places permit "sandwich" theses where you literally include the published manuscript. If so, even literal copying might be fine (with a citation, of course).
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/26
| 1,384
| 5,736
|
<issue_start>username_0: <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04877-w>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lander>
<NAME> is 65 years old and he was Science Advisor to the President and was Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and yet he published a top article in Nature. How is this still possible to be in the leading edge of research at 65 years old? Is there something I am misunderstanding?
A researcher who doesn't work full-time and does other thing shouldn't be expected to do high-quality research, especially after he switched to a management position.<issue_comment>username_1: I noticed a couple of down-votes.
I truly understand the down-voters.
Still, I, personally, think that's a very important question (even though, I do admit, rather irritating).
Recently, I have heard several conversations at my department between the younger colleagues focusing on their inability to understand why the older professors do not retire.
That was a great surprise to me, because I, personally, had noticed the older scientists were the major contributors to the science. I thought that was natural because of their experience.
Though, my younger colleagues didn't seem to think so.
Here's my explanation why it happens.
In my life, I have encountered several professors in what can be called their old ages who were the most knowledgeable people at their respective departments, produced the biggest amount of new ideas at their respective departments and led the most groundbreaking works at their respective departments. Their minds were absolutely sharp, their colleagues would constantly go to them for advice.
And I assumed 2 things.
First, brain - as oppose to the rest of the organs - can get better with age if you keep it trained.
Second, if you are doing science not because you want your salary but because that's the way you live that brings you to harmony with yourself and somehow affects the biochemistry of the brain preventing it from aging.
I'm not going to list all the names of the scientists, I'm talking about for the sake of anonymity. I can only given an example of two scientists who are known publicly.
First is <NAME>. He is in his ninetieth. He is full of new ideas. His thinking is clear. His experience is unmatched. At some point, there was even an institute dedicated to the exploration of his ideas!
Second is - to a lesser extent - <NAME>. His thinking is clear and he keeps generating new ideas.
Again, that's not a controversy. That is an absolutely logical consequence of, first, science being your life, second, vast experience. Your body can get tired, but your brain doesn't care about that and keeps generating new ideas as long as you're happy.
And here's why I think the original question is important.
I know that UK universities have a policy that professors should retire at a tender age of 60 or something. There are cases in the US where professors are given to understand that they should start thinking about retirement due to their age.
But, in the light of what I've written above, I think that's wrong. The professors - who want to keep working - should be given everything they want to keep working. They are the greatest treasure of a nation. Their experiences and their potentials to contribute to science are invaluable.
Asking a professor to retire is the worst thing a university can do.
P.S. I understand this answer might be considered an opinion-based. And I will understand if the moderators delete it. Still, I decided to post it because I wasn't allowed to add a comment due to low AcademiaSE score, but I thought the question could lead to an important discussion.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: To publish high quality papers, you need a good team, with lots of experience in the topic and in writing papers.
Experience in general is somehow correlated with age, specially for experts in most fields, and particularly for academics (not 100% of course).
In my experience, people overall become better at writing papers with experience and age.
So then there is no reason to discount contributions from senior or even close to retirement academics, they have a lot of accumulated experience, so it should be the other way as you are implying.
Also consider that people that are passionate for science and research are very likely to want to do this literally until the moment they pass away. Personally I really like writing research and its something I would like to do for life.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Not everyone can continue to produce good scholarly work into their 70's and beyond but some can. The range of human ability and experience is extremely broad. The fact that you occasionally find people several sigmas beyond the mean is to be expected. Any large population has outliers if it has variability. That's just statistics.
The same is true in other fields as well. Music, perhaps, and art.
Some people are actually more productive as oldsters than as youngsters, perhaps due to opportunity and a developing circle of collaborators (my case). Others work in obscurity on hard problems that only mature in their later years.
One of the reasons that some of us old folks *don't* continue to produce, in fact, is change of interest, not loss of ability.
And, it isn't something that can be especially well predicted for any individual. We are also fragile beings as well as being intelligent ones. A severe concussion or stroke can end a promising career as can several diseases that affect blood flow to the brain. Heart disease and diabetes among them.
And, 65 isn't especially old these days in any case, given modern medicine and technology.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/27
| 623
| 2,703
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am new in the PhD field (hydroinformatics). I have a question: How can I understand a research paper thoroughly? I am perplexed about how the authors got the results. How can they calculate it? How did they get their graphs, tables, etc.? In general, I can understand the abstract and conclusion, but the methodology and discussion part of a research paper are quite a pain.<issue_comment>username_1: Understanding comes with practice, experience, and discussion. Good abstracts and conclusions are written to be easily digestible, and in my experience a good number of academics primarily skim those two sections to see if a paper is "worth it" before diving into the methodology and discussion. That's because understanding those sections can take some serious effort, even for people who are well versed in the field! So don't lose heart if those are the scary sections.
To get there, you have to do a lot of work, read a lot of papers, and talk about those papers with lots of people. A PhD is very much not a solo effort. Do you have an advisor, labmates, or other professors in your department/field/organization? Ask them (particularly your advisor) about what their favorite papers are in the field, or if there are any good review articles recently. Then read those papers, take notes, and *follow up by having discussions with other academics*. "I read that paper you suggested, but I didn't quite follow their method of doing X. Do you have some time to talk about it?" They probably have insight that you're still developing and are often able to guide you in the direction of the right answer.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: One of the best ways to learn about papers is to join a journal club which senior academics attend. They will know about all the little hidden things in papers 'They wrote that they did X, but we all know that really means they did Y'. They will be able to parse the complicated methodology that confuses you. Take notes, annotate the papers and keep them for later reference.
If there isn't a journal club, start one! Try and invite some senior academics to join - even post docs can be very helpful in learning about how to read and evaluate papers. The senior academics might be busy, but you'd be surprised at how much they enjoy talking and giving their opinion about papers once they get the chance...
I can't stress how much joining them has helped me critially analayse the literature and learn how to better design experiments and analyses. There's a whole trove of useful information hidden away in the minds of senior academics and one of the best things you can do as a student is to try and tap into it.
Upvotes: 1
|
2023/01/27
| 1,206
| 4,715
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm somewhat at a loss. Some time ago I privately circulated an early draft of a survey paper, and now I have found a translation of most of it into Spanish, published under three authors (one a math professor) and, of course, with no reference to myself.
The format, sections, ordering, phrasing, and references (about 73) are the same, except that the last two sections have been cut (along with the acknowledgements, of course). Well, and a few of the notational parts have been collected together into a "preliminaries" section. A number of the errors from that early version remain, as well.
How should I handle this situation? I certainly don't want to promote plagiarism, and would prefer to retain credit for my own work.<issue_comment>username_1: They expect you to never even be aware and, in the event you do become aware, to do nothing. Simply confronting the authors gives them the opportunity to attempt to withdraw the article without any other consequences, or for them or the journal to respond via lawyer. This is a serious problem in academia that I've heard about from others.
I recommend consulting an attorney. If you are in academia, your university may even be able to assist with this (and if they also have a law school, even better).
One must be very careful in circulating drafts. It's a good thing you have records to support your claim. In addition to the records mentioned in the notes, ensure you have copies of the e-mails in your sent mail where you sent the drafts out and check with one or two trusted colleagues with whom you shared it to see if they also have records of the e-mails when they received them and ask them to keep those.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: First make sure you have a strong case that you are the original author, then you contact the relevant people (your academic head and/or the editors of the journal that published the plagiarizing paper) with the evidence and enlist their help.
See [guide by AIS](https://aisnet.org/page/GuidelinesforVictim) for victims of plagiarism.
>
> 1. Get Some Perspective
>
>
> Dealing with a plagiarist may be stressful and unpleasant but the odds are on your side if you can prove your case. You need to undertake a realistic assessment of the seriousness of the plagiarism and how important redress is to you before proceeding ...
>
>
> 2. Establish the Plagiarism
>
>
> As a first step, you need to prove that you have been plagiarized. Compare in detail the work of the suspected plagiarist with your own and carefully document the evidence.
>
>
> Before you allege plagiarism, either publicly or privately, be absolutely certain you have a convincing case. This may pose little difficulty when an entire article or substantial chunks of your text have been used unaltered ...
>
>
> 3. Document Your Authorship
>
>
> Your next step is to prove that you are the original author and not the plagiarist! Early drafts and dated messages with correspondents, editors and reviewers are particularly effective in making your case.
>
>
> Remind yourself that your comparison of one article with another may only tell others that someone committed plagiarism, but it may not clearly show who. Your next step then is to focus on amassing evidence to show that you are the original author ...
>
>
> 4. Notify Your Administrative Head
>
>
> Avoid direct contact with the plagiarist. Meet with your dean and present the evidence that you have been plagiarized. Ask your dean to formally contact the plagiarist’s dean and request a formal investigation or immediate resolution ...
>
>
> 5. Notify the Editors
>
>
> Increase the pressure on the plagiarist by notifying the editors of the publications involved and requesting redress. Submit your evidence and urge the editors to seek an explanation from the alleged plagiarist. Indicate what restorative measures will satisfy you ...
>
>
> 6. Be patient!
>
>
> If circumstances favor you, the case may be resolved quickly, which is not an uncommon outcome. But if the plagiarist denies guilt or the evidence is unclear or disputable, a resolution may take time, if it occurs at all. Academic institutions, for a variety of reasons, are often less than forthcoming with decisions relating to academic personnel. You may need to be patient!
>
>
>
You might also be interested in [COPE guidelines](https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/plagiarism-published-article-cope-flowchart.pdf) for what editors should do when confronted with a plagiarism allegation. Notably these guidelines assume plagiarism is detected. The onus is on you to demonstrate that there is plagiarism.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2023/01/27
| 2,114
| 8,627
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have read from multiple sources that doing a postdoc in the same university as a PhD is not ideal. It is [heavily](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/154628/how-is-a-phd-student-staying-in-their-institution-as-a-postdoc-perceived-by-futu) [encouraged](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/143758/are-postdocs-in-your-own-institution-frowned-upon) to go elsewhere once graduating. Furthermore, often one applies to many postdoc positions, and its the luck of the draw where one ends up. However, I am curious how future hiring committees factor things like the two-body (and soon to be three-body) problem.
For context, my wife's career is taking off and we are hoping to start a family (we are in our early thirties). Both these considerations make it highly ideal to stay in the same city. That being said, the only professor in the area and is in my field is my current PhD advisor. A plus is my projects collaborate with non-overlapping sets of collaborators and my work is fairly diverse.
While my PI does encourage me to apply to other positions, it is possible to do a postdoc with him. I am curious the ramifications of such a choice. If I tell a hiring committee that I chose to stay because of family considerations, is that a deal breaker? Furthermore, I may just be kicking the can down the road, as at the end of the postdoc I am still left with the same problem, although stability in the early years of starting a family might be more warranted.
There are less ideal options that may or may not be available, depending on funding:
1. One of my current collaborators has a lab that is a 1.5 hr commute away. I am aware that he has an opening soon that I could potentially take advantage of. Plus, I also mostly do simulations, so maybe he would be okay with working from home a few days a week (I have yet to ask him, as I have no idea if that is something that's even polite to ask).
2. Do a postdoc with a different professor within the same university. This is hard as there isn't a good fit, but there are a few that are similar enough that could work, assuming they have availability and funding of course.
3. Bite the bullet and move to another city.
Any advice on what an acceptable course of action given these circumstances would be greatly appreciated.
P.S.: I am in East Asia if it matters.<issue_comment>username_1: It is looked down on by some people, but I believe that is less common than it used to be. We have several new profs in my dept that did there PhDs in the same labs as their postdocs. Indeed in one case that PhD and postdoc was in the same dept as they are now a PI.
So will it hurt your career? Possibly. Is it career suicide? No. The key is to think about how you demonstrate your independence, show you can succeed without your PI. Particularly if they are a big name in your field.
Finally, just to reiterate @user438383 said in the comments. Don't sacrifice your happiness, or that of your family on the alter of some vague possible career advantage.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Doing something (in this case: uprooting your life) ONLY to make sure it makes you more employable later on is never a good enough reason, I think. There are no guarantees that you will ever get the dream career you have in mind, even WHEN you do everything by the book to make you "most employable" - so therefore, you should always do things because you, intrinsically want them.
Remember: it's rare that you get to have it all - you will have to make decisions in life and each choice will come with consequences.
So ask yourself: What do you want your career to be like? If you want to end up being a professor with unlimited research funds at Harvard, this means you will have to do everything you can to end up in that league. That will come with sacrifices (such as moving now, but also putting work first for decades to come). Maybe that will make you happy, maybe not.
Also sketch the scenario of staying where you are - how would you fill that position and what would a next step be? - and discuss this with your current PI. How do they envision your road to independency? What would you need from them to craft your own line of research?
If you do stay, I would in either case recommend that you do try to switch fields or topics somewhat - and with that I mean that you have to start working on a new question so you can expand your technical and conceptual horizon. Don't continue to work on your PhD thesis project, but start something new. That will allow you to develop a new project from scratch, build your own network etc. independently even when you are staying with your current PI.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: My recommendation to you would be NOT to sacrifice your family plans for the sake of a better CV. While staying at your university may not be optimal (in the eyes of some), it will certainly be overweight by the quality of your research.
As a compromise, you may consider spending a year at that other position 1.5 hr away (but only if they permit you to work from home 3-4 days a week) -- and then returning back to your professor for your second postdoc.
If the hiring committee enquires why you prefer to stay, you may explain to them that you and your current professor are now getting so important scientific results that it would be impossible to interrupt this so fruitful collaboration. If I were a member of the hiring committee, I would be satisfied with this answer.
As username_2 rightly said, it may be better for you to somewhat change or broaden the topic of your studies, if you choose to stay, -- but you should mention these plans to the hiring committee only if you feel that this would help you.
One way or another, I would put my family plans first.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I see the question of postdoc location as actually irrelevant to the real career decision that you need to make here. **Do you want to be a professor, or do you want to be a scientist?**
* If you want a career as a professor, it will be very difficult to get hired in the same city, no matter where you do your postdoc. Doing a postdoc will not change this problem, no matter where you do it.
* If you want a career as a scientist, there are likely many opportunities in the city outside of "traditional academia". There is a much biggest scientific ecosystem out there than it looks like from inside of a Ph.D. program, and in that larger world the location of your postdoc is likely to matter much less than its content.
In short, I think there is no reason not to do a postdoc right where you are. If you and your partner do not want to move (and that's an entirely reasonable choice to make!) then don't move. Your next step after postdoc will be no easier geographically, and you can develop your career by good work in a lab you love.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: It's not necessarily career suicide, but it's a bit like running a race with 10 kg weights strapped to your legs. It puts you at a disadvantage compared to the other runners. You may still win the race if you're good enough, but it clearly makes things harder.
Academia is very competitive, and good jobs are scarce and highly sought after. There are many people for whom the dream of a good academic job (in the particular geographic location they want to live in) is either unattainable, or attainable in theory but requires personal sacrifices they may not be willing to make. That may be frustrating, but it's no different from how things work in many other competitive professions and industries. You need to think about what your priorities are, and evaluate your personal situation given what you know about your own talents, the competitive landscape in the job market you're targeting, and how much doing a postdoc with your current PhD advisor is going to negatively (or positively!) affect your development as a scientist and your job prospects. Then make a decision. I won't lie, it's a real dilemma, and there isn't a correct answer or an answer that won't carry the risk of disappointment or regret.
Other answers offer advice such as "don't sacrifice your happiness" and "[don't] sacrifice your family plans for the sake of a better CV". I think this sort of advice is misguided (and the opposite advice to put your professional development above all else would be equally misguided). We can tell you what the possible consequences of each decision may be, but only you can decide how to factor that into your calculations and what decision is right for you.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/27
| 1,676
| 7,219
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have completed my masters, and am currently working on a year-long project, and I am hoping that I will be accepted for a PhD position sometime by the end of this year. Although, my current project is going alright, I want to 'explore' a new field by working on some concrete research project. By explore, I mean I have a general interest and enthusiasm towards this field, but I do not know enough about it to articulate a sensible research question. Hence, I was considering cold emailing a professor in this field asking for his supervision and expertise in this matter.
Under the guidance of someone who actively works on this topic, I was hoping I could gain a more thorough understanding of this field and a hands on experience of what it is like working in this field. I do not think my enthusiasm for this topic is fickle, so I expect that if there is a project, I will not abandon it midway. I don't think I will be wasting a Professor's time (at least in this sense) if I were to work on any project of this sort. I also do not ask for any financial support from them. But my concern is that there does not seem to be any backbone for this project, as is usually there for summer projects or MS projects. I also do not have a specific research question or idea in mind, so I can't approach them by trying to discuss a particular idea or problem. Adding to all of this, I am also very unfamiliar with the world of academia, and how these things work. So I wish to ask-
* Is it appropriate to contact professors (whom I have had no previous contact with previously) for any possible research opportunities, for a person in my situation? How is it generally perceived by Professors? What may be the typical response (if at all there is one)? In general, how do collaborations work?
* If it is appropriate, would you have any suggestions as to how one might approach them/email them? What should be the email's contents? What should I keep in mind when writing such an email?
Thanks for reading!<issue_comment>username_1: Given all you say, I'd guess that very few people would respond other than to suggest you apply for a doctoral program. There is no incentive or payback to them for what you are suggesting. They are busy with their own duties and research. They are unlikely to take you on as a "hobby" project.
You seem to be asking them to become your teacher without offering them anything in return.
Cold emailing is unlikely to be fruitful, especially if you ask them to evaluate some long document. While there are no "rules" preventing such emails, they aren't likely to get a positive response other than "You are welcome to apply...."
However, if you want to make contact with someone who you know, from studying their own research interests, might possibly be interested, contact through an intermediary might work. If you have a former professor who thinks a lot of you, they might contact someone known to them recommending you. It is harder to ignore a request from a colleague/peer than it is from an unknown person.
I wonder why you are delaying applying for a doctoral program. The gap wouldn't be helpful for applications in the US, for example, unless your current project results in a publication in a respected journal. And that doesn't happen quickly.
---
Note that in Europe (some places) it is normal to contact a professor initially as part of the doctoral application process. They might be interested in you, but not necessarily in your project, as they have their own research program. But their help might be contingent on you getting accepted into the doctoral program.
In the US, such contact is rare as most (not all) applications are to a committee of a department, not to an individual.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In my opinion (and in my experience), such e-mails are normal part of collegial relations. Several times, I myself received such e-mails -- and gladly responded to them. It also happened to me that I needed consultation and wrote to experts. You can begin your message like this:
Dear Professor N,
I saw your book "..." and your recent paper "...", and I understand that you are an expert in the field of ...
A (soon-to-be) PhD student, I would be grateful to you if you could consult me on the following topic: ....
Any advise or reference would be most appreciated.
Many thanks,
...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: This probably varies by discipline, but I have cold emailed professors in North America and in the UK. I always make sure that the email is tailored, specific, and exceedingly polite. Many people won't be able to respond, but sometimes it works out. I can say that every opportunity in my career so far has come out of a cold (or close to cold) email, including my fully funded graduate studies and current postdoc at top UK universities. So, I can personally vouch for this route.
That being said, I would caution against asking for a supervised project, especially at first contact. Most people just won't have the time to take a risk on such an unknown. At first, you can at least ask to have a conversation in email or an online meeting to discuss what aspects of their work interest you. Be sure to prepare your thoughts and read their work to the point that you can structure the conversation somewhat.
I can understand wanting to take some time to develop your understanding and experience if you are considering switching fields, which I have also done. In my case, I was first a Research Assistant-a role that, again, stemmed from a cold email. If you have the chance to visit or contribute to a group locally, that might be a better way to build up your CV before applying? You might be able to sit in during journal club or attend department seminars.
I'm not yet a professor, but as someone who now receives these kinds of requests, I am always interested in enthusiastic and well-researched emails from self-motivated students. This has been, in my anecdotal experience, a better indicator of a successful project than someone who just did the right degree programme on paper. Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Unfortunately, we receive too many extremely polite and flattering letters with requests for a postdoc or PhD position from people, who, when it comes to the background check, can hardly qualify for the middle school program. Normally, I ignore everything that is not substantiated either by a reference from somebody I know and respect as a professional, or by some example of previous work done in the area by the applicant. For the rest, the answer is "Read the university application rules and requirements and follow them" if I bother to answer at all.
It never hurts trying, of course, but think beforehand what cards you will be able to put on the table if the response is some polite version of "And who exactly are you that I should get interested?" and, perhaps, even throw some of them in during the initial contact. "I have read a lot of your papers" counts for nothing but "I've read [title] and discovered that [theorem] can be strengthened/proved in a simpler way/..." can raise genuine interest.
Just my two cents :-)
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/27
| 630
| 2,349
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was just wondering about academic names for publication. Why do some writers use initials then surname (for me it would be *<NAME>*), some their names with initials (*<NAME>*), and some just their names (*<NAME>*)?
What are the considerations and what would you pick if you were me?<issue_comment>username_1: Some concerns are:
* Separating academic and private life. A "<NAME>" who publishes academic work as "<NAME>" might not want other academics to find their private Instagram account "John Doe" where they mostly post drunk party pictures.
* Avoiding confusion. When there are already a "<NAME>", a "<NAME>" and a "<NAME>" doing related work, then this person might decide to publish under the name "<NAME>" to avoid getting mistaken for one of their peers.
* Personal preference regarding what "sounds better"
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: After you start publishing papers and books, they will appear in databases (like [NASA/ADS](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/)). Your colleagues will, from time to time, look up your publication profile in these databases. (E.g., when a journal editor gets a manuscript, (s)he starts checking who is acknowledged in this field and can be approached with a request to referee this work.) If your name is, say, J.Smith, it will be difficult to single out *your* publications, because there are many J.Smith`s. So, you better publish under your full name, <NAME>.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I would not worry about it too much.
It is largely personal preference about how you want to be professional known.
Also, I have had co-authors use nicknames and not include my middle initial.
None of these have impacted my career.
Simply setup an [ORCID](https://orcid.org/) and use that number to identify your publications.
Other answers highlight the benefit of ORCIDs (e.g., <https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/100500/33210>).
Other answers such as [this one](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/192928/33210) were more important prior ORCID and other tools like it that allow you to "claim" your publications (other tools include Google Scholar, Scopus, and Research Gate). Personally, if you only use one tool to link your publications, I suggest ORCID because it's a non-profit.
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/27
| 1,757
| 7,184
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have found a report with a lot of useful data in it. It is very easy to get ahold of; the organization that ordered it actively promotes it on their website. I would like to cite it. However, the report includes a "General use restriction", stating:
>
> This report is prepared solely for the use of the [organization]. This report is not intended to and should not be used or relied upon by anyone else and we accept no duty of care to any other person or entity. The report has been prepared for the purpose of estimating the [useful data] in [country]. You should not refer to or use our name or the advice for any other purpose.
>
>
>
Does this actually mean that I cannot use the data at all? And/or is the best approach to cite that specific data, to instead cite the organisation's summary of it, even if that is in a summary report, or even just on a webpage?
In the latter case, it is also unclear to me if I should include the actual report in the reference or not.
I have reached out to the company (no individual authors are listed). Regarding quality, the only thing I can say is that the organization that ordered it seems very happy about it, as seems several other advocacy groups who have cross-links the report.<issue_comment>username_1: It depends. Why do you want to cite it? Until you are able to get more information about the provenance of the data, you shouldn't be making any direct references to it as support for any claim of yours. You have no idea how the data was gathered or what standards were used. If you can't get any more information, I would be careful about using it for anything substantive in a paper.
If, however, you merely wanted to make reference to it in a section addressing further research that is required into a topic (e.g. "an area requiring further research is whether x, a report by company y suggests blah, however, their sources and methodology were not disclosed [cite]), I don't see anything wrong with that.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: After not having received a response from my inquiries from the company that authored the report, I have decided to play it safe and disregard it entirely from my work.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Does this actually mean that I cannot use the data at all? And/or is the best approach to cite that specific data, to instead cite the organisation's summary of it, even if that is in a summary report, or even just on a webpage?
>
>
>
You have reached out to the authors, but not heard back.
I think you have answered your own question with:
**cite the organisation's summary of it, even if that is in a summary report, or even just on a webpage**.
This will allow you to acknowledge the existence of the work, but not use the data as part of your work.
If I were doing research on a topic covered in a situation like this, I would likely cite ongoing research for the topic in either the Introduction or Discussion. I would write something like:
>
> [My really important research topic] is important to [country] who [commissioned/requested/funded] research on the topic.
> [A grey paper/report/preliminary data/summary] has been posted to [the organization's webpage/other public venue (cite here in appropriate style)], but are not publicly [citable/available].
>
>
>
Depending upon the venue, you might even mention that you reached out to the authors, but they did not respond. I have seen this done when people try to recreate other studies, but the data is only available upon request and authors do not share their data.
Lastly, I have seen examples of these types of disclaimers with completion reports such as those for [US FDA studies (sorry, no link to a database)](https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/fda-bioresearch-monitoring-information/records-and-reports) and NGOs such as the [The Great Lakes Fisheries Commission](http://www.glfc.org/publication-media-search.php) who publishes completions reports and abstracts with a disclaimer such as
>
> ABSTRACT NOT FOR CITATION WITHOUT AUTHOR PERMISSION.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: In medical settings a grey area of activity is the quality improvement (QI) project. One of the hallmarks of a QI project according to [HHS](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/quality-improvement-activities/index.html) is
>
> ... quality improvement activities do not satisfy the definition of “research” under 45 CFR 46.102(d), which is “…a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge…”
>
>
>
As a QI project does not contribute to generalizable knowledge, our research support office requires all publications of QI projects to include a similar disclaimer that states the purpose of the QI project and that the results should not be used for anything but that purpose.
Ideally,the limitations of a QI project should make it so no one wants to generalize based on it, but in reality some researchers use QI projects to conduct research without IRB requirements. There is a lot of grey area in between where the methods, data and analysis may all be solid and the ability to generalize appropriate apart from the disclaimer.
The disclaimer does not read to me as a cannot, but rather a should not. If you are going to use the data/report to generalize, you should be cautious and add the appropriate disclaimers to that section of work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I disagree with the accepted answer. I think you should cite the work.
First, the gold standard for whether to cite does not exactly have to do with the paper quality or with such disclaimers, but whether it is **relevant.** Did it influence your work? Is it related to your work? Did it make a contribution to your research area?
Second, it's always safer to include a citation than to exclude it. If you're not sure how accurate the data is, you don't have to use the data (you can even say why you didn't use it), but you **should** cite any prior work on your research problem.
>
> However, the report includes a "General use restriction"
>
>
>
This use restriction reads more like legalese than anything else. It does not say you shouldn't cite it. Rather, it tries to absolve the authors of any responsibility or liability for what you do with the report.
>
> Does this actually mean that I cannot use the data at all?
>
>
>
Certainly not! The disclaimer even specifically says that you *can* use the data "for the purpose of estimating the [useful data] in [country]". Beyond this, you can likely use it and use your judgment or use it with a disclaimer.
>
> Regarding quality, the only thing I can say is that the organization that ordered it seems very happy about it, as seems several other advocacy groups who have cross-links the report.
>
>
>
This seems like good evidence that this work is already considered to be useful in your area, and has made a contribution to the field. If so, then it would be prudent to cite such a contribution.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/27
| 2,737
| 11,801
|
<issue_start>username_0: After applying to 10+ schools, I heard back from my top-choice program, interviewed with them, and was just informed that I was accepted. Given this program has always been (and still very much is) my top choice, I am considering withdrawing from my other interviews.
My question is - Is this common, and how do faculties view prospective students applying and expressing mad interest in working with them in the application but dropping out of the interview process? I'm mostly just worried about potentially having a bad reputation or that I might have awkward interactions with them in the future, perhaps at conferences or if I choose to apply to work with them as a post-doc.
I've asked friends in different fields for their opinion, and they recommend still attending all my other interviews. But these individuals are in the medical field (e.g., med school, dental school), so I'm not sure how relevant their advice is.
Am I just overthinking all of this? Potential faculty advisors probably won't even remember my name, right?
P.S. If it makes any difference, this is in a social sciences discipline in the US. And the particular research field I'm entering is actually quite small.<issue_comment>username_1: If you know that you don't want to go to a specific school because you have a better offer already, then withdraw from the interview: You're wasting your time with it, and more importantly you're wasting the time of everyone as well. People have better things to do that do interviews for which one side already knows that it won't go anywhere.
As for how people perceive withdrawing from an interview: Everyone understands that students apply to multiple schools. If you withdraw, everyone will say "Good for you for finding a better place and thanks for letting us know!"
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I feel it's a bit rude to interview for positions you do not have any interest in taking. I know some people have a different view of this, though, particularly in industry, but I feel like it wastes the time of the people who interview you and possibly their money, if they are paying travel expenses for interviewees.
I think there are a few different ways to proceed:
First, while you may have had this program in mind as your top choice, you actually don't know what the other programs are like. Interviews are two-way: it's not just them finding out about you, but also you finding out about them. Also, the PhD experience is largely about who your *mentor* is, not just the program you're going to. If you think you could potentially come across information in a subsequent interview that would change your mind, I think it's okay to still interview, even if you think it's most likely you'll still go with your original first choice.
If, however, you're absolutely set on your decision and won't change, then I think you should cancel.
A middle option might be to tell the programs that you've made a decision to attend another program and ask how they'd like you to proceed. Maybe it's possible to still have conversations with faculty members you're interested in working with and those conversations will benefit you in the future when you seek future jobs, collaborators, etc. I think this is more likely to work out if the interviews are virtual, but either way there's nothing wrong with it if both sides are aware of the situation.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: One caveat is the line "was just informed". Do you currently have a physical copy of a contract in your hand, signed by someone from that university?
Until you do, you don't have it.
So until you do, it's always a good idea to keep other options open. If it's going to cost significant money to get to an interview then maybe think twice, of course. But you can cancel interviews any time up to the actual day and no-one will care. (From their PoV a cancelled interview is unexpected free time to do actual work. :)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: If you are absolutely sure that you are admitted, signed paperwork in hand, to the program you exclusively lust after, then go ahead and cancel.
If the ink isn't dry on the document in your hand, or you don't have a document, then you must treat it as just a wish, not a given. Proceed as if you were rejected rather than accepted. Take the interviews, and seriously consider how you would feel/work/grow/publish in each institution.
And, if you have the iron-clad document in your hand, take a moment to consider that you may have over-fixated on your top choice. Go through your list of interviews and look for each institution's advantage. Perhaps they have a lab in a related area, or you know the work of the PI, or you know and respect some individuals there who inspire you in some way.
If, with an open, curious mind you are certain that an institution is just not a great fit for you, then politely cancel the interview, and tell them that you have found your dream spot. They will be happy to have their time back.
But, if your open, empowered mind causes you to see glimmers of possibility, then talk with your contact there. Tell them that you have a great opportunity elsewhere, and ask specifically about the interesting aspects that they offer. You aren't misleading them, and you are using the power you get from having a great alternative to help guide the discussion to areas of relevant discovery. You may uncover an even better situation.
I recommend continuing with the interesting interviews, especially if you are a person who can leap to a comfortable conclusion to avoid the angst of deeply examining alternatives. You have a wonderful opportunity to engage in low-risk exploration. In the best case, you uncover enticing possibilities you would have missed. In the worst case, you have had deeper, relevant conversations with people you will soon encounter professionally.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: If you have no intention of considering the other schools, then don't go. You seem pretty set on the top choice being the top choice. Potential downsides:
* It takes a lot of time, effort, and money to run an interview. Show people around, introduce them to the dept., hold the actual interview, pay tickets / hotels / food. Having been an interviewer, if someone had no intention of joining, and had already accepted a different offer, I'd prefer they politely canceled. People recruiting understand that often applicants are considering multiple choices.
* It may come across during the interviews, and then burn a future bridge. Seeming interested in applying, and then lackluster at the prospect of joining can be detected. You mention the field is quite small, that means its easier to remember someone.
If you are open to the possibility of considering the other schools, then go to the rest of the interviews that are offered. Possible benefits:
* You may like the research options better. At least in my field, schools had different alternatives available, and some research work is more personally interesting or may be a better fit for your future goals. Possibly greater likelihood to result in well-received publications or commercialization potential down the road.
* You may like the advisors or fellow students better. Faculty are human and can be quite different in personality. Would rather work with a #2 or #3 choice who was motivated to help me and my research succeed, than a #1 choice who didn't really care whether I sank on arrival.
* You may like the institution or environment better. Even in a PhD, there's a lot to academia external to just the work. The town may be a better place to live. The school may have a better cultural or social life. There may be other externalities of living there that are difficult to grasp without visiting. Maybe just, "these people are more 'fun' to work with."
* The funding situation may be better, or the requirements surrounding funding may be better. [Not All "Fully Funded" are "Full-Rides"](https://blog.accepted.com/the-myth-of-the-fully-funded-phd-using-scholarships-to-mitigate-the-financial-realities-of-research-degrees/) A top choice may not offer the best long-term financial situation when you consider living in the area, or other requirements that go with the funding (such as teach onerous hours of classes). Possibly health care or insurance differences.
* You don't mention family (so this may not be an issue), yet the family living situation may be a better fit (add this mostly as a general answers for people who may have family in the equation).
* Helps against falling prey to starry eyed views about the top-choice. At least if you go to the others, you'll have some idea of what other schools, advisors, and towns are like. Per the above, you may actually like them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Research your top choice.
-------------------------
A top choice on paper can turn out to be a difficult choice in practice. I have a friend who changed from zoology 1st at Oxford to botany PhD at Cambridge, and it turned out that the superviser was not fun, he wanted someone to do some gruelling research for him, which was actually quite repetitive, solitary, field research. The result is that he became depressed from the type of life they had to lead for the PhD and felt exploited for menial research, while he worked to complete it with flying colors. So, I'd say be very familiar with the supervisor and the day-to-day type of research you will be doing. They guy would have benefitted from choosing nearly any other PhD.
What does it involve on a hands-on basis? Why is it a top choice?
By comparison, his friend opted for a less premium PhD which involved flying microlites over savanna and tagging lions, which was a lot more fun and sociable.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Current PhD student here in the hard sciences. You are definitely overthinking it. No one will bat an eye if you turn down an interview. Schools and professors understand that there are many opportunities for students and won't take it personally if you choose to go with someone else. Saying "no" does *not* indicate a lack of genuine interest in the program.
That being said, while I don't know if I would go to all 10 interviews, I personally think it's quite valuable to interview multiple places (at least 3 if possible). Knowing what kind of options are out there and what each institute and program is like can provide some important perspective about whatever choice you end up making.
I was actually in a very similar position when I was interviewing. I got an offer from my dream school early in the process when I still had a few interviews left. Both my mentors strongly encouraged me to go on the remaining interviews and I am very glad I did.
I still ended up accepting the offer from my dream school, but those other interviews helped me realize why that program really was the best fit for me in the end. It's also has helped me on the days I've been frustrated with my current program, as a reminder that a lot of the perks and privileges I currently enjoy are not present at many other institutes. Also, to my surprise, those extra interviews are continuing to prove valuable as I look for postdoctoral positions. They exposed me to some important aspects that are lacking in my current program that I now want to make sure are present in my postdoc.
If you do end up going on some of the extra interviews, I have a small piece of advice. At the end of each interview, get out a notebook and write down your general observations, thoughts, and feelings from the experience (essentially stream of consciousness). Even a handful of interviews can blur together after a while, so writing things down can help keep things distinct.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/28
| 1,155
| 5,054
|
<issue_start>username_0: Some details will be omitted for anonymity's sake, but, hopefully, the information provided is adequate.
I am a graduate student that finished the collection of a complete dataset over 2.5 years ago. The dataset that was collected has been analyzed and is clearly publishable from the perspective of scientific merit (relevant narrative, statistical significance, etc). Throughout the 2.5 years since, my advisor has tasked me with various *other* main projects. During this period, I have occasionally inquired about writing the manuscript for the '2.5 year old data set' and have been...encouraged...to continue working on the other assigned tasks, instead.
Recently, after helping another professor with a review article in the area that I specialize in, I came across many papers citing information that, in light of my data set, is false...or, in the most charitable interpretation, insufficient. I emailed my advisor to ask again for the opportunity to write the manuscript and was rejected, commenting that my other projects had greater impact to the field.
To better contextualize this, I think it should be noted that the field I work in has a 'rival field'. In fact, the so-called 'rival field' is often claimed by people in my field to exhibit several shortcomings (agreeably so); my field quite literally emerged to address these shortcomings. However, one of the strongest criticisms coming *from the rival field* about my field is directly supported by the dataset that I collected 2.5 years ago. This particular criticism has been minimized by the false/insufficient claims that my field has made.
My concern is that my advisor is intentionally withholding the publication of this dataset because it is an inconvenient truth that diminishes the marketability of our field's purported 'edge' over the competition when it comes to grant funding. After several days of quite agitatedly asking for an in-person meeting, I have been granted one later this week.
I am writing this post to ask how best to proceed in this matter. I think I can be quite certain that my advisor will not admit to any of this and will most likely provide me with another excuse that indefinitely postpones the publication of this data set. If my speculations are true, then I wholeheartedly believe that this is unethical behavior, as my dataset will result in a potentially considerable reinterpretation of the results that my field generates.
Any advice is appreciated. Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: Unless you have good reason, it is not a good idea to presume that your supervisor is trying to intentionally block your research. At most, the information in your post shows that there may be some rivalry in academic fields. That does not seem to me to be sufficient to infer that your supervisor has any view other than that you should prioritise different research right now (a view for which he could have many legitimate reasons). Given that, the most you should do at your meeting is to explain to your supervisor why you think the research you are proposing would be useful, such that its prioritisation should be raised and you should start on it right away. If your supervisor says something that causes you to believe that he is motivated by avoiding criticism of his own field, then it would be okay to raise the issue explicitly and discuss the "elephant in the room". However, you should not presume that your supervisor is motivated by this concern unless he raises it.
As a strategic point, I will also note that this might be a situation where you are better off waiting until you graduate and then pursue this research when you are no longer under supervision. To determine whether this is the case you also need to consider the access to the data --- e.g., what right of access do you have, is this contingent on your status as a student, etc.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: As someone who has ruffled some feathers with papers before, I can see several possible reasons your advisor may be avoiding this that does not require a negative attribution about their ethics.
It is possible they could be in a vulnerable position, and such a publication could be a great cost to them at this moment, so they need to wait until they are in a better place (...probably good for you too, unless you want to scramble for a new advisor). Alternatively, perhaps your advisor is concerned about the impact that burning disciplinary bridges might have on you. The sad truth is that academia is rife with pettiness, and your advisor might be thinking about your future.
Also, you said this has taken place over the past 2.5 years, i.e., since pandemic. Please consider that many people in academia are still depleted, burned out, or otherwise not mentally healthy enough to go charging down the disciplinary battlefield right now (even if we look fine). Some compassion may be in order. I know that's frustrating for students, but clearly your advisor is still making efforts to keep you productive.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/28
| 465
| 2,046
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have received the proofs of my article a week after acceptance. There were some mistakes made during the typesetting which I have outlined while correcting the proofs. It's been a week since the corrections were submitted. My question is:
What happens once the corrections are submitted? Does the process of generating the proofs start all over again, and hence one should expect the same amount of time as between acceptance and receiving the initial proofs to pass before the manuscript is published online?<issue_comment>username_1: With modern equipment, no, the actual typesetting won't be started over and the actual time allocated for the job is likely quite short for a few corrections. Things are automated these days. Manual checking is still required though - end of page and line, ect.
But the job has to be scheduled and the business process may put the paper at the end of a queue so that the overall time that you experience might be longer than you'd expect.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> one should expect the same amount of time, as between acceptance and receiving the initial proofs, to pass before the manuscript is published online?
>
>
>
No, in my experience it is much more random than that.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: The bulk of the work - when references are fixed, figures are positioned, imprints are added, margins are modified, etc. - is done during the first proofs. That's why the first proofs are often very different from the accepted manuscript.
After the first proofs stage, any changes will usually be minor typographical fixes, which are easily incorporated (unless they cause text to overrun, but it's rare for these overruns to be severe enough to make text run between pages).
Second proofs are usually faster than first proofs, but there is some scatter in the time needed since, e.g., the journal staff may be accelerating another paper which has been marked "urgent". Order of magnitude estimate is "a few days".
Upvotes: 3
|
2023/01/28
| 507
| 1,941
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a postdoc in math. Recently, I wrote a paper in which I used a theorem from a friend's paper. She left academia 6 months ago. Her paper has not been submitted to a journal but it is on [arXiv](https://arxiv.org/). I read her paper and believe that it is correct.
Can a journal reject my paper because her paper isn't published?<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming you give proper citation then it is unlikely that a journal would reject your paper without review. The reviewers might question the validity of the other paper, of course, which would bring the validity of yours into question.
Note that putting a paper on arXiv *is* publishing, though without the usual review.
---
Note how much scholarship would be slowed if no journal would look at any paper until all cited papers had actually appeared in formal (reviewed) venues. That process can take up to a year - or even longer. There would be no such thing as a "hot" topic.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I have to (weakly) disagree with username_1.
If you're a reviewer, you may assume that a published peer-reviewed result is correct. If you rely on a result that has not gone through peer-review, then you essentially ask the reviewer to find the arxiv paper and (for all intents and purposes) review that paper first. That might not be what they signed up for.
A reviewer may therefore ask you to provide a proof of the result you rely, and thus reject the paper until that's in place.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: There are tons of published papers that cite arXiv papers, so the answer is "no".
Here is one [paper](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Counting%20Vacua%20in%20Random%20Landscapes&btnG=) I'm aware of that has been on the arXiv for years but has never been submitted to a journal. According to Google Scholar, it has been cited 23 times as of time of writing.
Upvotes: 2
|
2023/01/28
| 502
| 2,099
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a manuscript ready for submission. However, I would like to send it to some other doctoral students in my country for them to proofread. These two persons are not my friends, we met on a conference and I surely do not trust them ethically, as we have not worked together before. I have heard a lot of stories about people stealing other's works, and I don't want to get scammed.
How should I approach the situation? Is there any way I can claim copyright over a manuscript?<issue_comment>username_1: (1) You better not share an unpublished work with someone you do not trust.
(2) If you absolutely have to do this, place your text on Overleaf, and share the link with those people. The Overleaf history of the document may serve as a proof of your authorship. (I am not sure if that proof could bear legal weight, though.)
(3) Re-read item (1) above.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I do not think you can absolutely "avoid getting scammed" without publishing the paper before sending it. There are some key factors to consider that may determine how reliable they are (e.g. other people's opinions on them, their prestige as researchers, etc), but at the end of the day you have to trust them before you send them the paper.
Note moreover, that it is your responsibility to proofread your papers. Hypothetically, if someone finds a mistake in your work, fixes it, and publishes a paper on it. Then this does not count as "scamming" (it is not very nice though).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Do not send your work to people whom you do not trust!
If you simply want a proofreader, I would suggest that you find a good native-speaker of whatever language your paper is written in, and ask them to read the paper. If, on the other hand, you want to have someone read your paper for advice on content on structure, you might consider using the services of the journal where you are considering submitting the paper. Many publishers have such services to assist non-native speakers, or novice writers to get their papers into better shape.
Upvotes: 0
|
2023/01/29
| 9,556
| 40,995
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a professor at a local university. I'm passionate about teaching, and am proud to teach 100-level science and mathematics courses to young and aspiring students.
Some senior engineering students created a sort of dating service/app, "How I Met My Future Wife" (not the actual name, but close enough). It advertises itself as a way for smart young guys to meet "potential marriage material", by helping them social with "young, cultured, educated women". It works by aggregating diversity data my university publishes. This data is intended to help make a case for having more women and minorities in STEM courses so that post-university, we have more diverse representation in the worlds of science, business, and engineering. These senior engineering students used it to create a database of courses that are statistically likely to have a large proportion of young women from certain cultural backgrounds.
The stated goal of the app is to produce a list of courses that would be easy for engineering majors to excel in effortlessly, where the majority of the class is young women that would not necessarily find the class easy. It basically puts engineering majors in a position to ingratiate themselves with a large pool of potential "mates", and even guides users through getting reduced tuition or even taking the course for free (i.e. "auditing" a course; take it for free, but it doesn't affect your GPA, so as to prevent students from gaming the system and boosting their GPAs with easy courses).
A number of 100-level science courses are having record levels of senior-level STEM students auditing these courses, and a number of female students have approached me, noting they are disgusted and uncomfortable with the amount of "leching" taking place (edit: there are no unwanted advances, but it's painfully obvious to some students what's taking place). It's also demoralizing several of them, since we routinely have cases where a young man is leading open labs as if they're a teacher themselves (in order to "wow" their female classmates, offer "private free tutoring sessions", etc). Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions). This is further compounded by the condescension involved (i.e. one self-admitted user of the app told me "this material that others struggle with is so easy for me, and I'm doing it for laughs and phone numbers.").
**How can I stop this?**
People auditing the course don't have to take the exams, or attend regularly. They can showboat in a course that's easy for them at zero risk or cost to themselves. I have no means to kick people from the course, despite this obvious behavior, and the people abusing the course can basically come and go as they please.
The university administration refuses to even acknowledge the problem exists (mostly, to my knowledge, because they don't want to admit fault or harm being caused by publishing such granular diversity reports), a few fellow profs either find it comical, or are happy that open labs are so full of volunteer tutors (perk to them, I guess). It seems that all parties are ignoring the young students I teach. I don't know if there are any legal routes, and there's no way I could do a public name-and-shame without jeopardizing my career. I'm at a total loss here.
**Update**
I scheduled a morning meeting with a senior colleague who has helped me with hard problems in the past (sort of the "go to guy" when things get rough). My husband and I had a long serious talk with him, and it's been made clear the university won't help me with this, as it would mean a "black left eye" for them, and I'd be tossed to the wolves on the left and right. If I want to pursue this further, I have to be prepared to forfeit my career, credibility (i.e. be black-balled in industry), and face lawsuits and SLAPP attacks from the university. With our combined salaries, my husband and I are barely making ends meet. My only real recourse is to counsel my students, while hoping that the app eventually gets more unwanted attention. In short, the problem will have to "solve itself", while numerous female students endure even more adversity in STEM by a program intended to help them.<issue_comment>username_1: Without the support of your colleagues or administration, it seems like you are limited in your abilities to punish behavior that appears quite sexist and harmful to new students.
Within your power, however, is the ability to remind what type of behavior is acceptable, and that you will be unable to forget this behavior when it comes time for letters of recommendation. If they need your permission to audit the course again, deny it.
I also propose an alternative to punishment - instead of trying to punish the wrongdoers, you could try to put them out of business. Create a school-sponsored tutoring service or organize class-wide study sessions directly. If the sessions are struggling with enrollment, offer to drop by and answer "a few questions" as a means of endorsement. This seems more in line with your motivations as a passionate teacher of 100-level courses. Depending on your school, you may be able to find or apply for funds for such programs, some keywords being: "tutoring", "peer learning", "supplemental instruction".
Alternatively, perhaps you can whitelist tutors that you believe are not cruising for numbers, and offer to connect students to upperclassmen who have good records. Keep in mind you want to avoid conflict of interest - you certainly cannot get anything back from these tutors, consult someone else before this happens, I'm not a lawyer, etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Sexual harassment is not to be tolerated. Unwanted attention of the sort your students are reporting is sexual harassment.
1. Point out in class, and/or your online learning module, what constitutes sexual harassment according to your institute. Refer to your institute's policies.
2. Point out what are the official channels of instruction for the course, and who are the official instructors. Point out that any other source of information regarding the course or anyone else who is offering tutoring or "tutoring" services do so outside the institute's pale.
3. Post contact details for people to approach at your institute if they are being harassed on campus, or via official institute channels. Post contact details for people wishing to report harassment occurring outside these official forums.
None of these actions should be in violation of any of your university's policies, or attract any repercussions. If this is not true, your institute has deeper problems.
This problem appears to be confounded by the fact that these individuals are using publicly available student diversity data. You might be right that pointing this out to your institute might be embarrassing for them, if true. It also doesn't sound like you are surrounded by people who are taking this seriously.
Tackling the problem longer-term could mean taking your concerns to your Protor/Ethics Committee/Dean : whoever might be upset about a public expose of this situation. This might force a review of who gets to 'audit' a course, and/or how the diversity data are made available.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Contact your school's Title IX coordinator. All schools that receive Federal funding in the US must have one. Since this situation is creating an adverse experience for the women in your class, it is likely in violation of Title IX. According to the [Department of Health and Human Services](https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/title-ix-education-amendments/index.html), prohibitted discrimination can include
>
> Engaging in gender-based or sexual harassment such as making unwelcome sexual comments, advances, and/or name-calling on the basis of sex.
>
>
>
They also say,
>
> Federal courts and agencies have found that Title IX prohibits sex-based harassment, including sexual harassment, when such harassment is sufficiently serious as to limit the ability to participate in and benefit from a program or activity
>
>
>
Note that even though your institution might not be officially endorsing this behavior, they still may have a legal responsibility to act if the environment is effecting students' ability to participate. It is natural for administrations to try to ignore problems, but they will likely be much more responsive if they hear a complaint through this channel, since it means their funding could be on the line. If this fails, you could also try making a complaint directly to the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.
**Edit**: In response to the clarification in the comments, I'd like to add a few things.
* Even if there's no legal Title IX violation, the Title IX coordinator, and any associated offices at your school, can likely help you to navigate this situation. They're the ones with the expertise. I don't know what the situation is at your school, but the Title IX office at my school encourages people to come to them with concerns, even if there's no blatant abuse.
* Even if each individual student's behavior is entirely benign, that doesn't mean this isn't a Title IX issue. Title IX can apply to situations where the collective behavior of your students creates an adverse environment. Attitudes about this have changed quickly over recent decades, so you may find the Title IX office takes this more seriously than your colleagues.
* Even though you have not heard any complains about harassment, harassment may still be happening, especially outside the classroom. Students tend to be afraid to speak up about this kind of thing (the fact that you've heard complaints is significant). There is already a significant power dynamic between a senior and a younger student, but in this situation, you have younger students relying on older students for academic support. To top it off, the seniors are acting collectively, which means that can rely on each other for support in normalizing bad behavior. This situation is ripe for abuse.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_4: How can you stop this "prank"?
------------------------------
This problem is too big for you to handle (alone) and you are probably not trained to handle it in any case. Trying to solve it yourself might risk shooting yourself in the foot; one suboptimal formulation and you might find yourself the target of an "anti-woke" twitter hate campaign with reactionary state-level politicians using a 3-second secretly recorded video clip taken out of context to campaign against public education (today they call it "woke indoctrination", but anti-intellectualism has been a key part of extremist politics for centuries). I would not risk it alone.
Hopefully and probably there exists a diversity representative within your organisation, either on department or on university level. Contact them and describe to them the situation. Also contact the relevant union representatives. Hopefully they have received training and have a better idea of how to act. If not, at the very least you would need to build a team before taking any action. Alone you are weak, together with others you are much stronger.
Ideally, the aim should be to get your employer to act. If there is then a far-right outcry, you and your employer are on the same side, which makes the situation much safer for you.
---
Plan B, if you cannot stop this prank
-------------------------------------
You can announce what's going on, and state that you do not agree, then go on with your regular teaching. By marking which side you're on, you'll provide emotional support for students who agree that the behaviour is unacceptable, but who are too afraid to speak out by themselves. Thank carefully about a diplomatic but clear formulation.
Sadly, sexism and toxic masculinity remain rampant in STEM. I completely recognise the culture behind the actions you describe from my own university days in The Netherlands 20 years ago. I remember one particularly sexist poster for recruiting chemistry students, showing a young man kissing a young woman with roughly the text: \*Chemistry is everywhere. The smell or her perfume. The taste of her lips. The colour of her hair.\* — and then they're wondering why so few girls/women were signing up for the programme …
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: First of all - I'm sorry to hear this and good for you for wanting to stick up for your students.
As mentioned by others, this is too big for you to handle. Ideally you would be able to speak up in class at the start of a lecture, clearly point out what despicable behaviour is happening under everyone's noses and pointing out that this is non-professional behaviour that also lacks moral integrity. Unfortunately, this approach may backfire as pointed out by others.
So indeed, sketch your options. Identify people and/or committees/offices you could get involved - in either case as your support system and better yet as helping you to take action.
Diversity officers, Title IX, your own boss or boss' boss, perhaps even student bodies? Write an opinion piece in the university paper/news outlet? Encourage the young students who feel harassed to take action and be their support system as they press charges?
Sadly, whichever course of action you take, the repercussions are impossible to predict - but from your question I sense that doing nothing is not an option.
One thing I didn't see explicitly mentioned by others is to try and find a male ally. Do you have a male colleague (ideally more senior and/or popular with the perpetrating crowd) who might be able to shut this down and talk sense into the juvenile brains behind this whole thing who might simply not realise how despicable their actions are?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: A little bit of a frame challenge:
I think it will not be possible to remove this behavior completely. Men studying something with a low number of women will always be looking for a way to meet women. It's natural and the problem exists everywhere. However, they should behave like adults and decent human beings.
A solution could be focusing on moving the issue into a productive asset. The following is just a thought and needs tuning.
Have a talk with the course about the issue and behaviors that are unacceptable. Then set up a formal pairing for tutoring with changing tutors and small groups. Use the knowledge the older students have for good. And make sure it is work for the older students (that will deter some) and that they know that they now have official responsibilities, hopefully making them act more mature.
Use two facts to your advantage: the students need to have a good image in the course to achieve their goal and many people will change their behavior if called out.
Look at it this way: the problem isn't their attendance, it's their behavior. Change the latter and only reduce the former.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: **In addition** some suggestions from the other answers, one thing that you can do and that might at least help is deconstructing the motivation of the invading students.
For example, you could tell the entire course the story of that software and the invasion. This way, all potential targets should know that they are being targetted. This is the groundwork for the deconstruction:
>
> [addressing the invaders:] Have you ever thought this through? At some point, your “future wife” or just potential sexual partner will want to know more about you. She will learn that you are actually studying, say, electrical engineering in the fifth semester. She will then wonder why you are auditing *Math for Biologists.* And then she will connect the dots. After that, how enthusiastic do you think she will be about marrying you or even having sex with you?
>
>
>
And as this is a data-based crowd, you might spike this with some survey data about how willing women are to sleep with somebody who they know to be a pick-up artists or similar. (Technically, you could even do an anonymous survey amongst your students, but in the US this is almost guaranteed to backfire.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: I take it you sort of volunteered to do the 100-level courses?
But, even so, you are entitled to the support of your own Head of Department. I know that Math Chairs are usually introverts and loath to discuss such things. But whoever wears the badge has to face up to the bad guys: it's the main part of any management job.
Honestly, I feel that this phenomenon is serious enough—and topical enough these past years—that you should apprise your college Dean of it.
Bring a male coworker to these meetings. If you can't find one among the university faculty, bring one in from outside, e.g., a lawyer friend/relative. Otherwise, you could be into a she-said-he-said scenario.
The fact that this is happening more dramatically in STEM isn't any reflection of a lack of anticipation on *your* part: it is a reflection of a total lack of appreciation of such potentialities within a college environment by more senior faculty who really should have the sensibility to foresee it. So don't entertain any response from your university that posits this as "your problem".
I feel that despite your willingness to undertake these 100-level courses, you will have to threaten to abandon the university's official arrangements for them and offer more selective alternatives elsewhere (plus the real possibility of bad local publicity for the university) before the university takes serious action to sort out the "Kennedy Boys" in those classes.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_9: This is probably not something you can fix on your own and it is fairly typical behavior among undergraduate men in some places, hence the lack of support from colleagues. Note that the origin of Facebook was similar to this.
But, your female students aren't without agency. It is they that can/will be negatively affected by boorish and sexist behavior and it is they who can actually have an effect on fixing the problem. Possibly a bigger effect than you could have.
Individuals, however, will have little effect. A group of them can make a difference, perhaps with your guidance. If you meet with a few of them who might be inclined to organize something, then change has a chance to happen. They can collectively provide pressure on administration as well as disfavor on the boors. And for those who will remain in academia, a community of peers is a good thing to have.
In short, rather than trying to protect them, show them that they can protect themselves and how they might go about it. Become a mentor to the students that you have. You won't always be there even if you could do it on your own in this case.
Support organizations are pretty common, actually, especially in places and situations without official recognition of such problems.
---
One issue not addressed in the above is the question of people seeing your course as easy, given their own background, and taking it for credit and affecting the curve. One solution is to not use "curve" grading at all. Make it possible for every student to get full marks or zero marks depending on *only* what they do and not what others do. If someone has to fail so that someone else can get full marks then you have an inherently unfair system. I've written about that other places here. See [this question and my own answer on another site](https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/q/4513/1293) for example.
But you can also include elements in your grading scheme that would be disfavored by lazy students. One possibility is to have students give a lecture on some topic after a week's notice and preparation. There are others possible if you put your mind to it. But taking a few easy (for them) quizzes and exams isn't going to make your course more desirable for the students for which it is designed and less desirable for others.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_10: #### This method of meeting women will probably fizzle out on its own
Firstly, contrary to some other answers here, seeking the company of women and showing off to impress women in this manner is not in-and-of-itself sexual harassment. If your description is accurate, it does not sound like you presently have instances of sexual harassment occurring, though obviously you should keep an eye out in case things escalate badly. (Bear in mind that Title IX also protects the men in the class; they cannot be treated adversely merely because you or others find their romantic/sexual desires uncomfortable or disgusting.) It sounds to me like most of the women in this class are not amenable to the advances being made, but those advances are little more than awkward attempts to impress. Some element of this is a natural part of teaching at a university with lots of young people and hormones, though this is certainly a more extreme case.
My suggestion is just to manage this calmly and sensibly until it fizzles out with time. Keep an eye on class behaviour and intervene where necessary to keep things professional. Schemes like this tend to fizzle out on their own because of the laws of supply and demand in the dating pool. The scheme initially attracts a large number of eager young men, some of whom are socially awkward and try too hard, putting off the women they are attempting to attract. The small number of more suave and desirable young men will probably get dates and then remove themselves and their partners from the dating pool (or they won't be there in the first place because they are already able to meet women successfully without the aid of this scheme). Once that happens, the remaining awkward ones will most likely flounder around without romantic success until they give up and leave.
In regard to this prediction, it is notable that there are hundreds of social areas and activities where women greatly outnumber men (yoga classes, craft fairs, etc.). Any of these could potentially be targeted by young men wanting to put themselves in proximity to many eligible women. The fact that such activities do not general even out their gender participation due to hopeful young men seeking dates shows that this is generally not something that works well enough to constitute an amazing new discovery. Young male engineers are nothing if not practical and empirical, so if they find that their efforts to woo young women in this environment have a low success rate, they will adjust their method accordingly, or just get bored and start working on some new project.
(If I'm wrong, and this scheme *does* turn out to be some amazing new discovery which solves the romantic needs of young men, then you have yourselves some budding tech billionaires in your midst. Disregarding the cultural and social aspects, I can't help but be impressed with the cleverness of designing a dating App using DEI data; very entrepreneurial stuff.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_11: I've never had quite that problem but it feels like parts of other problems. A few regular lecturer tricks come to mind:
* Don't let it be personal. Sure, App-induced shenanigans is bad for the class and super-gross(\*). Professionalism and human decency says to do something, but you made an effort and in the end it's their school. With me it's cheating, but I can't catch them all, it's not like they killed someone, and worrying about it is just taking time away from other classwork. For me, whatever I do, it's not personal (even if it is). I'm just trying to protect the school from student complaints and angry employers.
* Some problems are a "next semester" issue. It's when people have more time to consider things; maybe new policies are involved (which can only be changed for next semester); maybe the problem solves itself by semester's end, but at least more data is in.
* Make sure everyone knows these helpful fellows are not TA's. That'll help prevent rumors starting (about TA's dating students) or that you don't have control over the TA's, or students' misunderstandings when they think these fellows are safer than they are because they're somehow supervised or screened. Because a group of upper-classpeople who clearly don't need the course must be something official, right? It's not as if the school would force the instructor to let lonely randos follow pretty girls into the classroom.
* This might be a fun way to learn how the University structure works. I've worked at two and never did figure out the second one. I'm still not sure what a Provost is. Some students are closer to their advisors, so it might help to be sure they know this situation. That might also clue you in about whether other classes are having this problem. Either way, I've met some interesting Uni staff starting with "I have a weird classroom problem you might have some insight on".
* Good students really want to know that *something is being done* about classroom issues. So tell those students who complained what you did. They'll fell better that you tried to look out for them. It's also a nice way to explain how universities work to them. They've probably never heard of auditing(\*\*) a class. And sometimes enough angry students can solve problems staff can't.
* Not sure if this is an issue. Maybe these people are quietly sitting in the back and flashing the regular students sexy pouts as they walk in and out, calling them Mi'lady perhaps. But if that's not the case, treat them like any other student who's a little too good for the class, always has the answer, and so on -- C students need to be comfortable asking questions, and interfering with that is disrupting the class.
(\*) So these are Juniors and Seniors cruising for Fresh-people? Eeww.
(\*\*) Allowing someone to audit my class, or just sit-in, was completely my decision (I assume since only I knew if there was room, it would be disruptive, etc... , and since there were no fees involved). It's so funny what things are different.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: If there are female students who approach you saying that they are uncomfortable, encourage them to put their concerns in writing. If you have a few written complaints, it will be hard for the university administration to just pretend that the problem doesn't exist.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_13: There's a lot going on in this question, but as I see it, most of it is not a problem (though a lot of it is rather dubious behavior). I'll take the liberty of cutting down the question to the core, as I see it:
>
> Your class has a group of overqualified students from another department, that is creating an unpleasant atmosphere for some (many?) students. A few members of this group are outright lecherous, making some fellow students uncomfortable. Their overqualification also causes issues for the other students when grading on a curve.
>
>
>
The highly granular diversity data collected (!) and published (!!!) by the university, and the app that uses this data (!!!), are all highly dubious, but at best tangential to the issue. Even without such data, every student will be able to tell you that department X has a large surplus of male students, and department Y has a large surplus of female students.
As for the actual problems:
1. If these students are so overqualified, you should consider not allowing them to take the course in the first place. If you do not have this authority, discuss this with the relevant authority. Perhaps this course should not be an elective for students from other departments to begin with, or perhaps students from other departments should get permission from you and/or their department to attend this course. Otherwise treat them like any other student that doesn't find your course challenging.
2. There are many ways in which students can create an unpleasant atmosphere. The best one can hope for is that this is not intentional, and that it is actionable. In this case, these student do not seem intent on creating an unpleasant atmosphere, it is just a side-effect. It is not clear to me whether the behavior is actionable. Do
encourage your students to file complaints on any harassment or
abuse, and of course you should report any misbehavior as well. If you return to the administration and Title IX officer with actual written complaints, they will be forced to take you seriously.
On a lighter note; any behavior that is distracting to other students, or directly hinders others' ability to participate fully, should be adressed and stopped in no uncertain terms immediately. In the 100-level courses I've taught I would give exactly one warning to someone 'clowning' around, and thereby warn the entire class. The next one is expelled immediately. I never liked teaching these courses.
3. Stop grading on a curve; it makes no sense. (Follow the link in the comments if you wish to discuss this).
Another approach you could pursue in parallel, is to redirect these students' motivations for attending in the first place. They are there to meet women, which is a very natural motivation, and a very strong one in young adults. In the US it is generally considered the responsibility of males to initiate contact, this is simply their very poor shot at taking initiative. It should not be difficult to facilitate better opportunities than 'attending courses you have no interest in for no credit'.
Consider contacting the student unions of the departments involved, and help them organize some shared social events for students from these two departments. This is of course not your responsibiliy, and I don't suggest that you become a party planner on the side, but planting the idea and maybe diverting some resources could go a long way. Think of facilitating communication between the departments/student unions, facilitating a location or redirecting a bit of funding.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_14: These are more mitigation strategies than actual solutions, but given the difficulties with actual solutions...
1. Remove the payout for the unwanted behavior. By which I mean provide plenty of help that doesn't come with ulterior motives so that students don't feel pressure to accept help from someone who does have ulterior motives. If these students are spending a lot of time/effort coming in and "helping" in an attempt to find a romantic relationship and it doesn't actually work they will sooner or later give up and go away.
2. Provide some acceptable alternative for what they're trying to do. Like a social club. Students who want to form social relationships can go to the social club meetings.
Maybe read up on operant conditioning/animal training. Many animal trainers work with animals that they simply can't physically compel (you can't compel an animal who outweighs you many times over or an animal who can easily escape) but they still have strategies to get rid of unwanted behaviors--things like "least reinforcing scenario" and "differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior".
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_15: I can see that "Officially" the Administration is deciding that this App and its fallout are NOT an issue that they are willing to take on -- both because it's potentially embarrassing and as the OP stated, the person in charge of diversity sees this as a "good thing".
However, there is no reason the OP can't do anything "unofficially"...I mean, anonymously report anything "bad" (true, the OP said that it wasn't quite at the overt level of sexual harassment yet), tweak the school paper to what's going on, see about the student government -- I'm sure there are representatives for the various classes, etc. And, use those entities to affect change -- whether you contact them officially or anonymously.
Personally, since you know who is auditing your class, I liked the suggestion of "putting them to work" and making them do a mini-presentation of a topic or person for the class -- if they don't, well, don't let them back in...if they do, well it might be a net plus for the class as a whole.
I would also see about discouraging the whole, "free private tutoring sessions", especially, if it's ONLY for the pretty girls...maybe try to divide students into groups so it's evenly divided...or remind everybody that those sessions aren't official.
I would to discourage random participation by auditors (and others), create a strict set of guidelines for attendance and behaviors...attendance, I mean you might not be getting a grade, but, you can't just show up or not as you feel like it -- and this is a 'real' classroom...behaviors, I mean remind people that it is a classroom and class and certain things WILL not be tolerated (e.g. egregious behavior against the school's code of conduct)...and if there are complaints by fellow students, they would be taken seriously.
I also think having students write up their complaints about what's going on is a good thing...e.g. I didn't say anything the students said it...
Plus, maybe, encourage them to bring up the issues to people in charge.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_16: Here are few suggestions. These will not resolve the problem completely (I think, nothing can), but might help to alleviate it.
1. **Auditors.** These might be registered or unregistered.
(i) **Unregistered**. The unregistered ones are easier to deal with (although, time-consuming). On the first day of classes, or whenever you are ready for this, bring a printout of the list of all registered (for this class) students. A day or two before the lecture send a general announcement to the class, asking everybody to bring their student Id's to the class. Then, on the day of the lecture you ask **all** present students one-by-one to identify their name, check it against the roster and if needed, ask for their Id's to confirm. This way you will find who (if anybody) is unregistered and ask them to leave and not to attend the class unless they register. If they refuse, call the campus police.
If some of them leave but come back to the next lecture (you will probably recognize such students), ask them to leave again.
(ii) **Registered**. Find out the exact campus policy regarding auditors: You can probably find it online; if it is not available, ask registrar's office or whatever office deals with registration for classes. The auditor policies vary widely. Here is just a small sample:
UCLA: No fee is required for auditing, but instructor's consent is required.
UGA: Full registration fee, instructor's consent is not required.
Harvard: $500 registration fee for a course, but instructor's consent is required.
Princeton: $200 registration fee for a course, instructor's consent is not required.
After finding out the precise policy you may find out that instructor's consent is required, just your department for some reason is not following the policy and, maybe a secretary, is dealing with the issue. In the case when
instructor's consent is required, make sure that the official policy is followed and then introduce a strict "no-auditing" system for your class. Even if it turns out (as in Princeton) that the fee is small but instructor's consent is not required, go and discuss the issue with an appropriate campus entity (like registrar's office) if you can petition them, as an exception to allow you to control who is auditing the class. As an explanation, my suggestion is to stick to educational issues and argue that too many upperclassmen are auditing the class, which disrupts the education of the freshmen students (or something along these lines) - try to avoid discussing diversity-related issues since you already know how it will be perceived. Since the money involved is relatively small, maybe your petition will be granted.
2. **Registered students, taking the class for a credit.** These are the most difficult ones to handle. On the first day of classes (or whenever you are ready), run a quiz asking students their name, seniority status, major, why are they taking the class and what do they hope to get from it. I think, there is a good chance that upperclassmen will identify themselves honestly. (You can also double check the information through official channels. I know, I can do this with my classes.) Now, you have several options.
(a) After collecting this information, you can send individual emails to the upperclassmen students, asking them to meet you, as a group, in a (reserved in advance) classroom. Then explain to them, possibly appealing to their answers to the quiz, that it seems that they are overqualified for this class. And since you care deeply about their education, you will be giving them special assignments to work on during lectures and labs so that they do not waste their precious time on the material that they already know, and tell them that they are so well-prepared that the assignments should be quite easy. Each assignment is worth zero points, but you will still collect these at the end of the class. Make the assignments sufficiently hard so that the students will spend most of their time in class working on these assignments instead of staring at the girls or showing off.
If students complain that this is unfair, you will also give individually tailored assignments (still worth 0 points) to the rest of the students as well, explaining that the assignments are designed to reflect the level of preparedness of students for the class.
Now, what is intensive the upperclassmen have to hand in their assignments if they are worth 0 points? This is because they are in the class to show off! Failing to hand-in something reasonable will undermine their credibility.
(b) You identify the enrolled upperclassmen visually (your university probably has a database of student pictures (mine does), if not, take pictures of their student Ids on the first day of classes. Also, have a list of upperclassmen ready during lectures/labs. I know that in the US "cold calling" students during the class is usually not done, but you are in a special situation. So, during each lecture/lab you would cold-call some of the upperclassmen and ask them hard questions (still based on the class material). In order to preserve fairness, you also call some of the freshmen, asking easier questions. Being unable to answer, would hurt students egos and will reduce their incentive to take your classes. And, also, the word would get out that you are a harsh instructor, but the effect will be similar.
The drawback of (a) and (b) is that these are likely to reduce your teaching evaluation averages. But think if it's worth it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_17: Just when I thought I had seen all possible questions on this site and stopped following it for a while -- wow, this is quite a new one for me.
One angle that I haven't seen suggested yet is: these senior STEM majors presumably have academic advisors, right? One of the jobs of an academic advisor is to guide and approve the student's course selection. Among other things, a senior STEM major taking a freshman level STEM course is a **bad idea academically**: it is a poor use of their time, whether they are taking the course for a grade or not. Can you get in contact with the STEM academic advisors? These people may be willing to meet with their students to discuss this. Having to explain to your advisor that you are really taking this course because of someone's addlepated theory that it will help you get dates sounds like it would be a deterrent, at least to some. If you can find a faculty member in the relevant department, they may agree to talk to students in their department whether they are their official advisor or not.
Here is another idea: write up a code of conduct that students (including auditors) in your course must sign. This code of conduct would include a statement that they are taking the course for good academic reasons and that they must make continuous efforts to support a proper academic environment. You can put in your syllabus that students meet with you periodically to discuss their progress in the course, including their conduct.
In summary, if the students who are doing this know that the faculty are fully aware of what they are doing and they are coming under scrutiny for it, then only a small percentage will continue to behave in this way. At least, this has been my experience as a professor at a public research university in the United States for getting on 20 years: some students take more effort to get through to, but the number of students who have continued to behave in a certain way in my course after I have told them suffficiently clearly that I don't want them to and why is **very** small.
Upvotes: 3
|