date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2015/05/12
| 4,313
| 17,084
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose I see that Book X is cited by several papers with reference to some particular Fact Y. I wish to cite Fact Y. As far as I know, Book X is the only reference for Fact Y.
I have never looked at Book X. Nonetheless, I cite it like this:
`'Fact Y' (see Book X)`
My question is: Is this ethical, given that I've never looked at Book X?
**More context for my question.** I am NOT asking whether this is good scientific practice. I am NOT asking how a good scientist should actually go about citing Fact Y. I am NOT asking if this could undermine your credibility as a scientist.
Instead, I am asking this question because it seems to be a somewhat-common practice. And moreover, as far as I know, no scientist has ever been issued even an official rebuke (much less fired) for engaging in such practice. This would suggest to me that this practice is not considered to be unethical.
Of course, it is not binary as to whether a practice is unethical. But I would simply like to know whether the academic community in general considers this to be even a mildly unethical practice. Or if it is perhaps very slightly unethical, but not a big deal. Or if it is not in the least bit unethical.<issue_comment>username_1: When you cite a source, you are not actually claiming that you have read it. What you are *actually* doing is staking your professional reputation on that source containing the information that you claim that it contains.
In most circumstances, of course, this gets instantiated exactly how you would expect: at least one of the authors has personally read the source. There are, however, certain circumstances in which citation of an unread source is actually appropriate. Let me give two examples:
* The source is cited as a secondary source, e.g., "Feng et al.[17] claim that the species presented in the Necronomicon[18] can be found in Antarctica." Here is is appropriate to give the bibliographic "pointer" to the secondary source even if you cannot access it yourself.
* The source material may be known by a different route than the original publication. This frequently happens with software tools and standards: for example, you might cite a standard that you are using even if you haven't read the standards document. Likewise, if I am using a software tool, the authors often point to a particular paper as the preferred appropriate citation for the tool, and I am happy to take their word for it without reading that paper.
There may be many more cases as well. It all comes down to this: how certain are you that you *really* know that the document you cite serves the purpose for which you are citing it?
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: It's less unethical than the circumstance you want to compare to without question. I don't think anyone has ever gotten fired citing something they didn't read, but it's possible for there to be a lot of trouble. Imagine the case where you cite a source for some fact which that source got from somewhere else. If you don't go check that they got it right, the entire validity of your article could come crashing down because you didn't bother to read enough sources. That's unlikely to cost you your job, but it could if the consequence of your article's invalidity are high enough.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If not unethical, I would certainly say unwise, since you are unable to find the context surrounding the statement of fact or answer that you want to reference. To clear yourself of this, you would have to mention that the text **X** is unattainable and that it mentions fact **Y** as useful, but that you would need further review of the material to verify the complete veracity of the statement as it applies to your specific usage of that fact. In other words, if you have bias in your presentation, acknowledge it clearly and don't hide it.
***In answer to your specific question of how ethical this practice is...***
I would say that it is unethical. The lesser transgression of ethics would be simply that the article would be using another person's work to pad the robustness of the bibliography. This is a minor point.
The greater transgression brings me back to my earlier point of referencing a fact without context, which puts you in a questionable position when someone asks you for more information about that fact. Worse still would be to base one of your key thesis arguments on a fact from a text you couldn't find.
*I understand that **you** are not actually doing this, so am only using **'you'** for the purposes of conversation.*
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: (*This is largely a response prompted by your addendum 2*)
>
> I'm not asking if such practice is a good idea or good scientific practice. (One comment and one answer seem to be saying that it is not good scientific practice. Which I agree with.) Instead, I'm asking if it is viewed among academics as unethical. (And to what degree: Is it no big deal? Or something to be deeply ashamed of if you're caught?)
>
>
>
Everyone agrees that it is neither a good idea nor a good practice, for reasons pointed out in the other answers. So, let's leave that out and focus on the crux of your question.
>
> Is it unethical?
>
>
>
Yes. It is. More generally, claiming anything to be true when you are not too sure is unethical in the strict sense.
>
> ... something to be deeply ashamed of if you're caught?
>
>
>
Absolutely (i.e. if you are caught). Reputation (or disrepute) spreads. Or even if it doesn't, at least the people who catch you will always be skeptical of your claims, even when you are right. These seemingly innocuous, freak mistakes can easily blemish the reputation you earn the hard-way, by working very hard. Irrespective of how you try to *sell* it (upon being caught), it does count as unethical and is bound to leave you red-faced.
A big part of being successful and renowned in academia is earning respect and credibility through work. This question is best answered by asking yourself - *Would I believe the claims of someone whom I've caught doing this*?
---
PS - I'm sorry, I'm being the ethics police here. Other answers are claiming that this is harmless and won't cost you your job. I agree it won't, but it will cost you credibility and respect. If you repeatedly stress that your question is *Is it ethical*, I'm afraid, someone will have to stress that it really is not ethical. :)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: Think of the case when you are the author of the paper that wasn't read. A paper I had written was cited, but the authors only quoted a counterargument I had used, not the main conclusion of my paper. They then went on to argue that I was wrong, but reached the very same conclusion that I had presented later in my paper, but claimed theirs as a new result. Whether technically unethical or not, how do you think I feel about the authors and their paper? I certainly wouldn't be likely to collaborate with them or recommend their work, for fear of having my own work stolen or again misrepresented. As others have pointed out, their reputation, as far as I'm concerned, is gone.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: You make statements that you believe are true, e.g. citing a source for a fact. If you cite that source incorrectly - you fully believed that source corroborated your fact, but you were in error - you did poor work, but you did it ethically. If you *can* do more work to verify your source, but you do not, or you represent that you *have* done more work to verify your source that you have not done, then it doesn't matter whether the source corroborates your fact or not, you have behaved unethically.
If you are completely honest about exactly the level of work you have done to verify that the cited source corroborates your fact, you are in danger of being proven wrong, or of being dismissed as not having done the appropriate level of verification, but you have behaved ethically.
It's situational, in general it's probably poor practice but if you as the reader are aware of this situation then I'd say the author has at least behaved ethically.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Yes, I think you can cite in a way that is ethically correct. If you claim c which is mentioned in book C, but you know this from book B which references C, you can cite:
>
> AuthorC: "C", PlaceC, TimeC, cited in AuthorB: "B", PlaceB, TimeB.
>
>
>
even without ever holding book C in your hand. You delegate the responsibility for correctness of the information c to B.
See also: <https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/148878/phrase-cited-after> as well as <http://www.reading.ac.uk/library/finding-info/guides/lib-citing-cited-ref.aspx>
The phrases "cited in" and "cited by" are more common, albeit you may find "cited after" in some cases.
With regards to ethics, using the abovementioned method of citing you do avoid being dishonest and deceitful. However, the professor marking your scientific text may still think that you have cut a corner by not tracking down the actual source yourself.
Still hoping my answer helps,
username_7.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: I am a Computer Science major and I have come across obvious instances of this in several of the journal articles I have read. Sometimes it seems ethically sound and sometimes it seems like the person was being lazy.
I agree with others that the key to remaining ethical is not presenting the information in an ambiguous way where a reader might think you have read the work when you have not. For instance, you have seen in book Z that book X is a reference to fact Y. I do not think it is then safe to say, "According to [book X], it has been shown that [fact Y]," but it is ethical to say "[Book Z] claims [fact Y], referencing [Book X]."
Whether this is effective enough in a paper is a matter of opinion I suppose, but I do think it is fair to say that it actually depends somewhat on the field. The more the research is based on experimental data, the more it seems like you would want to review the data yourself before citing it. However, if you are talking about what people are saying as opinion, academic, professional, or otherwise, you run less risk of making your paper less credible if you are clarifying that another author first made that interpretation of what that opinion might mean.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: This is often known as an 'indirect source' or 'secondary source'. Check the citation standards for your community, as there may be a specific style that should be used for these cases. In some styles you list only the secondary source in your reference list (with original mentioned in the text), in others you list both the original and secondary source as seperate items, and in others you have a sort of merged reference entry.
Note that you should only use this case if you either can't obtain the original (check with your library; they can make requests through inter-library loan, but this doesn't work if it's something that was never publihed), or you can't read the original because it's in a language that you don't undertand.
Here are libguides from various institutions that cover some common styles:
* [AMA](http://libguides.sullivan.edu/SUCOPAMA/intextcitation) & [APA](http://alliant.libguides.com/content.php?pid=268617&sid=2956256) : use the phrase "as cited in", cite the secondary source.
* [Chicago](http://libguides.murdoch.edu.au/content.php?pid=156934&sid=1329007) : use "cited in" or "quoted in", cite the secondary source
* [MLA](http://libguides.trumbull.kent.edu/content.php?pid=333150&sid=2844963) : use "qtd. in", cite the secondary source
* [Turabian](http://guides.lndlibrary.org/content.php?pid=409107&sid=3362224) : merged reference (*Original*. Cited in *Secondary*)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: The devil is always in the details, but it can be perfectly ethical and professionally correct. There are several cases when it is almost inevitable: depending on your field, many equipment, software etc require to cite given references when you use them. These are technical citations that you may or may not read, and most of the times they have little useful information for you and you cite it to indicate to use the given method.
In e.g. chemistry typical examples are crystallography software, quantum chemical simulation software, visualization software, but I am sure you can find typical examples in many other fields.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: I think it’s not unethical in general, even if there could exist cases when the decision could be poor judgement, hence diminishing the credibility of the authors and trustworthiness of their work. But this is not about ethics.
As said in a comment, I don’t expect authors to have read all the cited works (each wholly, instead of partly, or indirectly…). In the same time, when I read a paper and find a specific claim with a reference, say, *The fact Y holds [X],* I expect *X* to be the paper or book supporting the statement. I am not really interested to know whether the authors have read *X* at all: I have only to know if *X* supports the claim or not.
Nonetheless, what if I read *X* and find that it is misquoted? Or if I discover that its results are misunderstood and that they do not support *Y?*
Since I don’t know whether the authors haven’t read *X* and they are instead trusting (wrongly) another source I can’t trace back (since they missed to provide me with the proper clue), their credibility crumbles in front of my eyes. In the same time, the citing paper loses all its supposed value.
Thus I can see only two reasons why authors should specify that the claim is supported in *X* **and** that “the claim is supported in *X*” is stated in a paper *Z* (**and** that this is how they know, or believe to know that *Y* is true):
* to aknowledge authors of *Z* for their work (in fact, I suppose there’s a reason if the authors have read it);
* to keep every link of the “chain of trust”.
In my opinion, only the former has something to do with ethics, while the latter has something to do with how scientific (and non-scientific) knowledge proceeds. I won’t elaborate on this “chain of trust”, but think about few things: If *Z* (containing the claim supported by *X*) was peer-reviewed, would you feel suspicious when you read *The fact Y holds [X]?* Would you act like a reviewer or just like a user assuming *Z* already proved to meet the necessary criteria to be considered trustworthy, in general and so in particular about that specific claim and the references? Would you instead go and check and verify all references, and then all the references contained in the referenced works, and so on? Would you stop at level 2, level 3, level 4 or level N before you think something is trustworthy enough? And if the paper is not peer-reviewed at all, what does it make trustworthy to you in first place?
When you decide to write *The fact Y holds [X]* and skip the link with your primary source, you are making a precise bold judgement: The link you are skipping is 100 % right, errors-free and nobody needs to check it (or even to know you relied on it). This is problematic for you, as an author, but not for any reader: You are not cheating “against” the reader, since to judge your work he only needs to know if *X* really supports *Y* (in turn, if the reader trusts you, he might decide you are not lying, unintentionally or not – another link in the chain), and you give him the reference, so he knows where to check for the claim. But, skipping the link *Z,* you bring on your shoulder the burden of anything *Z* does, mistakes included.
Therefore I agree with anybody saying it’s **good practice** to be accurate and let people (and reviewers) know *The fact Y holds [X]* is written in Z, and that this is your primary source for the claim. But I can’t see grounds to say that if you don’t, it is unethical – rather, it is simply in your own interests to do so.
In your case, there’s no *Z,* if I’ve understood correctly. It seems there’s something like a common knowledge, i.e., a collection of sources agreeing on the fact *Y* and suggesting (or stating) that the claim is supported by *X.* Your paper adds one more to this “cloud”, eventually growing the loop and a possible bubble — bad approach (especially if actually the author hasn’t picked one of those sources at all), but isn’t unethical to me.
(Let me say that if *Y* is something like *<NAME> and <NAME> discovered the double helix structure of DNA* and the book is *[The Double Helix: A personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/074321630X),* I would not say that it is a bad approach. So, it might strongly depends on what we are actually talking about.)
I hope my answers, while touching already cited themes, adds few sparks to elaborate over the reason why it should, or should not be considered unethical the behaviour the OP describes.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/12
| 710
| 3,013
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is there an academic justification behind most U.S. classes weighting exams at very high percentages of the overall grade in a course? So if a student does exceedingly well throughout the course in all projects, but bombs both tests, their grade is drastically skewed towards the exams rather than the coursework leading up to the exams.
Full disclosure, this happened to me this semester. I have a 97.75% on our projects throughout the course (4 major projects, each taking ~20 hours to complete). However, I admittedly bombed the final and did fairly poorly on the midterm (37% and 70%, respectively). Projects in our course are weighted 60%, but the remaining 40% is entirely midterm/final. My final grade for the class is hovering around 80% before the curve.
I want to understand the mindset behind these weights though, and where the idea of heavy cumulative exam weights came from? In other words, if I've *demonstrated* the understanding of the material to almost perfect standards, but I failed to *represent* that on a test, how does that translate to me being given a grade that doesn't really represent a strong understanding in the subject?<issue_comment>username_1: Cumulative tests show that you understand everything so far; they are meant to help students who perform poorly on the first exam, so they can do better on the second one, since they will have an idea of what to expect on the second one. It is uncommon when a student does worse from one test to the next.
Also, going back to projects, some professors don't value homework/projects as much because any student can copy / get help for their projects. Some professors I know would even give 100% for homework/projects just for turning them in, as they are meant for students to practice and learn by themselves. They are meant to help students prepare for tests. Because of this projects and homework are not a good (trusted) indicator of how a student is doing in a class.
By the looks on your grades, most likely you still don't know the topics of your class, if it was a more strict professor / class, just for failing the cumulative final, you would have failed the class as well, as this would be an indicator that you (*maybe*) cheated on your projects.
Cumulative tests are usually weighted high because in order to do the last topic you need to know the previous topics as well.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: At my department, the final exam is typically worth around 50% of the grade. This has two main causes:
* Our department has a rule that requires at least 50% of the evaluation of the student to be done by the professor. Since assignments and midterms are typically graded by TAs, this leaves only the final exam.
* It is much harder to cheat on the final exam. A determined unscrupulous student could easily cheat on most assignments and midterms. By weighting the final exam at 50%, it is much harder to pass the course without a solid understanding of the material.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/12
| 284
| 1,141
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently working closely with a professor on a research project as an undergrad student. I always address her by her last name: Dr.xx. However, this makes me feel distant from her.. I am wondering by which point I could call her by first name?
Here is some background info:
I got to know her in person by taking a class taught by her and then started working together on this project at the end of last term. We had meetings together for a few times and exchanged a few emails back and forth. She always addressed herself by her first name in the email but I insisted called her Dr.xx to show my respect. However, some of her grad students in the lab are calling her by first name...
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: Ask her!
Forget about figuring out *when* you can address her by her first name. Be up front, and ask politely if you can address her by her first name.
Do not be offended if she declines.
Naturally, if in conversation she invites you to call her by her first name, then that's pretty clear.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In Germany; when he/she tells you to do it.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/12
| 1,418
| 5,968
|
<issue_start>username_0: My apologies in advance if this is a duplicate. I did search a bit about this before posting here.
This is related to my previous posts so, briefly: I want to leave my current position and I have another offer that I will eventually accept (not finished negotiating). I won't be able to "officially" drop the hammer for at least 1-2 weeks (negotiating, getting the offer, signing it, etc.). I teach one absolutely essential course in the fall (a core course in a graduate program) and no one else is qualified to teach it but me.
My question: In a tenure track position, what is the minimal notice period for leaving? This is not a question about "what my department would like" or how to optimize my standing with the department after leaving. This is a question about **professionalism**-- specifically what is the minimal notice period where the department members couldn't justifiably go around calling my conduct unprofessional. (I couldn't create a "professionalism" tag, so I tagged this with "etiquette")
Clearly, leaving one week before the semester is too late. Giving 2 years notice is probably more than enough. The answer must be somewhere in between. In my own case, I am contemplating delivering the news in around two weeks (so, over three months before classes begin).
**Edit**: (1) This is related to a previous question I asked
[I want to leave my tenure track position before fall. I have great prospects but no new position "locked up": when should I break the news?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/43528/i-want-to-leave-my-tenure-track-position-before-fall-i-have-great-prospects-but)
But I think it is still distinct. That question raised the issue of whether to inform my department *before* having a definite offer, in the interest of giving them enough time to plan. This question is about the standards of professionalism in resignation notice (analogous to the conventional two weeks in many non-academic jobs).
(2) Our contracts are year-to-year (August through April) with guaranteed renewal before tenure review. There are no specific terms written there about resignation periods. I could just fail to renew my contract (this issue would arise in about two months) but, still, the question is whether this is meets the standards of professionalism in academia, not whether it's "legal".<issue_comment>username_1: Hiring an adjunct or borrowing someone from another department for one course is about the least bad thing that can happen in this world. Giving the kind of notice (9 months?) that would have allowed them to do a full candidate search is impossible for folks who move laterally out of a department. This is pretty common and departments simply have to manage it. Everyone knows that offers are being locked in during the April-May time frame, and sometimes you lose someone key. It would not be unprofessional if you chose to avoid delaying your career by staying for an extra semester in order to make your current department's process painless.
Nobody wants to see you go, but you're working within the system to the best of your abilities. You're not screwing them, and it's not unprofessional to wait to give notice until the new offer is accepted.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The American Association of University Professors has established ethical guidelines for hiring faculty from one institution to another. Perhaps the most relevant clause in their 1993 policy document ["The Ethics of Faculty Recruitment and Appointment"](http://www.ccas.net/files/EthicStatement.pdf) is the following:
>
> An offer of appointment to a faculty member serving at another institution should be made no later than May 1, consistent with the faculty member’s obligation to resign, in order to accept other employment, no later than May 15. It is recognized that, in special cases, it might be appropriate to make an offer after May 1, but in such cases there should be an agreement by all concerned parties.
>
>
>
The [American Association of Universities](https://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=13252) adopts a slightly stronger stance:
>
> We believe that a responsible approach for both institutions and the faculty members would be to consider offers made or pending on May 1, or thereafter, to be effective normally only after the intervention of an academic year.
>
>
>
In my experience, US universities that follow these policies do so as follows. Suppose university X wants to hire someone on the faculty of University Y, to start the following fall (typically August 15). If the offer is made after May 1, the appropriate dean at University X first officially requests permission from the appropriate dean at University Y to extend an offer. The dean at University Y will usually agree, especially if the request is made early in the summer, but for late requests or other special circumstances, the dean at University Y may request (or "demand") a deferral.
There is no legal force to these policies, but following them is widely considered good professional practice — bluntly, the protocol is enforced by peer pressure. Deans that don't agree to *reasonable* hiring requests may find their own faculty hired away without their agreement later. Also, these agreements bind *institutional* behavior, not the behavior of individual faculty; under normal circumstances, you do not need your dean's permission to resign. (There are some exceptions; for example, my university requires faculty on sabbatical leave to either return to campus for one year after the sabbatical ends or repay their sabbatical salary.)
So if you were in the US, your current dean, and therefore your department chair, would **already** be aware of your offer. Even if they don't, the AAUP guidelines strongly suggest that **three months notice** (May 15 to August 15) meets any professional obligation to your current university.
Upvotes: 4
|
2015/05/13
| 670
| 3,017
|
<issue_start>username_0: Based on my limited experience in academic job search, most advertisements for *academic positions* (it seems, more often the faculty ones) include phrase, similar to the following:
>
> To guarantee full consideration, applications must be received by
> *DATE*.
>
>
>
I am curious about the *strictness* of that requirement, in other words, what "full consideration" really **implies**. The requirement seems to be *relative*, but to what extent? Moreover, I'd love to hear your advice on best **strategy**, if any, in terms of applying to positions, where the specified date has *already passed*, but the position advertisement is *still active*. **Just ignore the requirement and apply? Are there any differences in that regard between faculty positions and postdoctoral positions? Is there anything else that I need to know?**<issue_comment>username_1: What is usually means is that they will start reviewing applications on or after that date. How much of a disadvantage applying later is will depend on things like (i) how much later, (ii) how fast the department goes through the hiring process, and (iii) how difficult it is to find suitable applicants.
It's generally not as bad to apply late for postdoc positions, since hiring is often more flexible for that. (For tenure-track there are meetings to decide who to interview, etc, so if you apply after these meetings, it's harder to be considered.)
One thing you can do, if there is someone you think will be genuinely interested in your specific application, is contact this person to let them know you applied. That way, even if they are already done looking at applications, they may take another look when yours comes in.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: @kimball is partly right in that applications may also be considered later than the deadline, in particular if you know someone in that department who can speak for you.
On the other hand, many departments start building consensus for candidates even *before* the deadline. For example, many departments have deadlines in mid-December for full files, but members of the department know many of the candidates and start talking about them to their colleagues long before that. (Between the mid-December deadline and early January, nothing much is going to happen anyway.) If an application appears on the date of the deadline out of the blue, it will be considered, but human nature being what it is, it may be difficult for this applicant to supplant a candidate whose file has already made the rounds within the department and has been found to be a good match.
In other words, while there really is no reason not to send an application *after* the deadline, my recommendation typically is to (i) send the application well *before* the deadline, and (ii) tell your friends in that department that you applied there so that they can talk to their colleagues about your files before other candidates become lodged in their heads.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2015/05/13
| 1,068
| 4,387
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently trying to change careers after doing postdoc physics research for many years and not being able to obtain a research faculty position. I really enjoyed my university teaching experiences and want to focus on teaching as a career. But I haven't been successful in finding a nonresearch teaching position with an EECS PhD.
My goal now is to teach Mathematics at either the community college or liberal arts college level. Is it impossible to achieve this goal with only a BS in Mathematics plus EECS PhD? It seems like I need at a minimum a MS in Mathematics.
There was a related question [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/36498/is-it-possible-to-earn-a-phd-in-mathematics-with-emphasis-in-teaching). There was a suggestion for that person to look into getting a DA degree in Mathematics as a way to get a doctorate with an emphasis on teaching. I've never heard of it, but based on descriptions of the DA program I've found online, it seems to match my teaching goals perfectly. (There were also suggestions to consider the PhD in Mathematics Education, but I don't think it would be a good fit for me.)
My questions:
* Am I wasting my time applying to college-level math teaching jobs with only a BS Math + grad engineering degrees?
* Is a Master's degree good enough or even preferable to a DA if I only want to teach?
* I am interested in the DA, but I'm worried that the commenter in the link above says "It's a bad idea". Is it true that most Math departments don't even know what a DA degree is? Will having a DA put me at a disadvantage compared to others having a PhD if I apply for a teaching position requiring a doctorate degree?
* Since it's been a long time since my BS Math degree, would getting a MS Math degree first be a good idea before thinking about getting a doctoral degree?
* I'm not sure if getting another degree is a reasonable way of planning my second career. It's been 10 years since my PhD and if I decide to do this I will be over 40 by the time I finish another degree. Is it a bad idea to go back to school as an older student just so I can teach college math?<issue_comment>username_1: I attended a junior college before finishing my BS Math at university. My University Physics II instructor at the junior college had a BS Physics and a Master in Church Music. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to find a job teaching mathematics at a junior college with your doctorate.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you would be especially qualified to teach an applied mathematics course – I would say go for it now not later
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: You mentioned positive university teaching experiences. That's a big plus.
I wouldn't mention "doing postdoc physics research for many years and not being able to obtain a research faculty position" in your cover letters or your interviews. You probably weren't going to, but I just wanted to make sure. You could say that as you were wrapping up a project, you realized that the most rewarding job you've ever had was teaching.
If you don't mind being a poorly paid adjunct instructor at the beginning, you should be fine.
Perhaps you could take an education class concurrently with starting your adjunct teaching.
You may also want to consider high school teaching as an additional possibility. If you do that, being able to teach both math and physics will be a special plus.
Contact some instructors and ask permission to do some observing.
Good luck.
---
Getting a job has a lot to do with timing and luck, so don't get discouraged if a department doesn't snap you up right away. You can mention your postdoc physics research background, but you need to give a different spin on it than "not being able to obtain a research faculty position." You could say something like "physics research is fascinating, but I have discovered that what's most important to me is helping young people get the tools they need to be successful in a STEM area."
You could get your feet wet with teaching as a Peace Corps or other type of volunteer, or as a high school substitute teacher. Anyone with a Bachelor's degree can work as a sub.
Practical experiences like these can give you clearer ideas about what would be a good fit for you, and you may also be able to get some strong recommendation letters.
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/13
| 370
| 1,707
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to advertise some PhD scholarship positions located a Sydney, Australia in the fabrication of novel nanoporous material like mesoporous silica. I am finding that it is not straightforward to advertise locally and internally. Most of the big scholarship and general job sites are expensive to post too.
What other options exist for finding candidates?<issue_comment>username_1: Posting to social media is free, but only useful if you make the effort to identify and connect with people that might be connected to good candidates. Likewise, you could post to professional and academic mailing lists related to nanotechnology. Finally, you could send direct emails to the Department Chairs for relevant departments in Australia (Materials, Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, Industrial Engineering, or what ever fits).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Are there discussion boards, social media accounts, or email lists for societies or interest groups that are directly/indirectly part of your field? Can you email the links to other researchers (the ones you cite or who cite you)? Perhaps there are researchers who are particularly adept at their internet presence (websites, social media accounts etc) who would be willing to share the information.
In my field, there are numerous opportunities for free advertising on all of the above-mentioned areas. Most faculty I know of are happy to share opportunities like that for students, since they recognize funded opportunities are increasingly rare.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Sponsor your post in facebook & show this advertisement only to those who have interest about that particular topic.
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/13
| 1,565
| 6,805
|
<issue_start>username_0: Something I have noticed in my courses over the years is that in addition to all the online distributions of textbooks (which I understand to be mostly illegal), I can often times find universities posting sections of books online, particularly just the exercises. Doesn't this violate the same copyright law?
Here are some examples of what I am referring to from books I have studied from in the past.
[Do Carmo, Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces](http://fermat.usach.cl/~vguinez/GeoDif/Guias/guia10.pdf)
[Here is a solution manual](http://math.sfsu.edu/beck/papers/complex.pdf) to about half of Brown and Churchill's book in complex analysis (sections of the book itself can be found as well, and it may be worth noting that this is not the university the authors were associated with, I don't know).
There are other examples from other pretty well known texts in mathematics.
How is this legal for universities to do? Do they need to consult the publisher or something first?<issue_comment>username_1: First of all, copyright infringement on this scale, which is not done for financial gain (in most common law countries) is not *illegal* but *unlawful*. The difference between these two things is that illegal behavior can lead to punishment, whereas unlawful behavior is simply *not protected by law* - if you are doing something lawful, you are protected from someone seeking redress. If someone seeks redress from you because you have distributed their copyright work, you cannot argue that your behavior was permitted by law.
With this in mind, it's not necessarily an important question whether or not your university is doing something which infringes copyright. In theory, everything is either lawful or unlawful, legal or illegal, with nothing in between. In practise, the only person who might reasonably be able to determine this is a judge (assisted by several lawyers). Partly because the time of judges and lawyers is costly, whole areas of human behavior exist in gray areas which are not in anyone's best interest to resolve one way or the other.
People break the law all the time. Some laws are never enforced, and some laws are unenforceable. Everyone is familiar with urban myths about various commonplace things such as Christmas pudding, or kissing on a Sunday being illegal in various jurisdictions, other practices such as outdoor nudity or urination being technically legal although they might be expected to lead to arrest, and yet further things such as weekly archery practice being required by law. Some of these stories are completely true, by the letter of the law. Large organizations such as Apple and Microsoft agree on wide-ranging 'patent swaps' rather than try to figure out who is infringing whom. Doubtless any organization as large as a university is constantly breaking some law or other, if you include building codes, employment regulations, health and environmental restrictions, tax codes, immigration requirements, etc. Probably lots of people are employed to do nothing except check that the university meets the regulations, but these people are constantly playing catch-up to new rules, as well as trying to make sure that the thousands of people working within the institution are obeying the internal policies which call for compliance to the law, rather than disregarding them (as they usually are).
Now, most academic publications are both written by academics and mainly bought by them, as well as by academic libraries. Academics are paid by universities to do research which includes the writing of books, and while lots of textbook publishers are corporations, some belong to universities, or work in joint ventures with universities. Thus publishers, authors, editors and readers of these books together with university organizations form a *community*. For publishers to spend their time trying to investigate instances of copyright infringement like the one you mentioned, would be the equivalent of you constantly remeasuring the borders of your backyard, trying to determine the exact boundary line ever more precisely, asking your neighbours to tear down fences and re-erect them a few inches over, and snipping the branches of plants which overlapped by a small amount. While your legal right, it would be very detrimental to the community, in this case the community of people who live in your neighbourhod, of which you are part. It would also be a huge waste of your time, for little or no benefit.
Far more important than legality is the question of *ethical* behavior. Unlike the law, one is not expected to attempt to conform as best one can, but to behave completely ethically, and make it clear that one is behaving ethically, at all times. The flip side of this is that you cannot behave unethically by accident, or without your own knowledge.
For a textbook publisher to reprint (say) a complete collection of one academic's papers which were published on her website, without notifying her or asking her approval, would be completely unethical, even if they were stated to be in the public domain. Similarly, it would be unethical for that academic to turn her university homepage into a site called 'FreeTextbookz' with a large collection of files and paid banner advertising. Many things which fall in between this are accepted by consensus of the community as being benign or trivial.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In ordinary language usage copyright infringement (such as you describe) is illegal, specifically it is a civil tort, not a crime (except in the US when the infringement passes the $1000 threshold). In the Beck et al link, posting the book is not infringement since the would-be infringer and copyright holder are the same. In the case of the exercises that you linked, we (at least, I) cannot tell -- is the "host" the author, or does he have permission to post the exercises? This may not constitute infringement.
I do know (from having been violated, myself) that some faculty arrogate to themselves the right to claim the right to freely distribute other people's creations. The remedy in individual cases is for the copyright-holder to file a take-down request, but that requires specific knowledge of the infringement, and often, stolen books are only accessible from behind a pay wall. But also note that these items were not posted by the university, they were posted by people with an affiliation with the university. As such, the university deserves moral blame only if they have willfully tolerated copyright violations. For the most part, universities are diligent (albeit rather ineffective) at combating blatant copyright infringement, though many do play rather fast and loose with "course reserves" and the concept of fair use.
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/13
| 1,586
| 6,900
|
<issue_start>username_0: I've recently embarked on my PhD studies (cancer, structural biology) and have yet to publish. Currently, there are some 200 papers in my name and several thousand under my surname. Because of this, I am considering switching my surname to an old, rare, surname in my family, which is only used by one active researcher.
My question is this: are there any reasonable alternatives that does not include legally changing my name? I personally don't mind changing it, but the old surname happens to be "noble", and may come off as quite pretentious. I would be able to change to another, less pretentious, surname, but in terms of rareness, no alternative comes close.
In short, what are my alternatives?<issue_comment>username_1: If you are going to change your name (and I'm not convinced that you need to) why not change or add a middle name? There may be many <NAME>s in cancer biology, but I imagine there are few <NAME>. Even the relatively poor disambiguation technologies in use at various bibliometric databases can handle middle initials with relative ease.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In terms of publishing papers, I'm not aware of any requirement to use your *legal* name. A common example would be those who continue to use their maiden name (where people change their name on marriage). A friend of mine did the reverse, and wrote her first paper under the name she would assume when she married shortly afterwards.
The trickier case is what will appear on your PhD. It may not matter much, but it would probably make life easier if that said the same as your papers. You'd have to talk to your university about their rules.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: The previous answers point out two things:
* add/modify a middle name
* use a pseudonym
I can agree to the first one, but the second seems more trouble than it is worth, as you yourself state. Further, I find modifying your name a bit of an extreme measure, i.e. "legally" changing your name, solely for the purpose of academic recognition.
I'd advise you to shift your view to other means of identification. All papers that I came across have some information regarding the institution of the authors and their emails. This info is also mostly freely available, even revenues that charge you for the paper usually allow free access to the abstract and author information. So, I don't really see a problem that someone wouldn't be able to contact you or find your website or your profile at your institution. Even with a large amount of redundancy, e.g. someone with the same name at the same institution, your email is still unique.
Consider also that a great amount of publications require a bio of the authors, mostly including a picture.
You mention citations, they are kept intentionally very concise, because they primarily point to the reference in the literature section of the paper. There is the full reference to be found and by following the above approach, everyone interested will be able to identify you.
The point being, aside from taking very drastic measures, you will not be able to guarantee that your name is/stays unique.
I suggest you stay with your present identity, the one which identified you throughout your life and which family, friends, and colleagues use to identify you and let the scientific community get acquainted with you as you are. I'm sure in time you'll see that it isn't such a big deal and your earned scientific renown won't suffer.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I would suggest that you take into account where your name would come in papers ordered alphabetically in your field.
At least one of the authors of this paper on the subject considered legally changing her name because it has such a notable effect on career outcomes in their field due to conventions about how names are ordered on scientific papers.
<http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/debraj/Misc/LastNames/Einav_Yariv.pdf>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Add a name instead of changing it
---------------------------------
Using a different name than your legal name can bring all kind of difficulties, however, people often use a *subset* of their full legal name. While changing names legally can be a hassle, *adding* an extra first or middle name is much easier.
Assuming that your current name is, say, <NAME> with a middlename already, amending your legal name to e.g. <NAME> would allow you to his would allow you to still use the sub-name <NAME> in most normal situations, while having <NAME> (or Aardvar<NAME> for alphabetic ordering reasons) on your publications and academic business cards. This has the advantage in case of any misunderstandings with 'non-matching names' an ID with the full name clearly resolves them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I have the same problem like yours since my mother tongue consists only of one-syllable words, each of them are extremely common.
Adding a hyphen between middle name and first name works for me. While it make significantly different in Google search results, nobody will care a hyphen. My university even allows me to use my name with the hyphen in my thesis so that it is consistent with my other papers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Have you looked into using something like [ORCID](http://orcid.org/)? It will not prevent people from talking about the "Smith paper", but at least it makes things easier to identify as yours, after the fact.
Also, nothing wrong with going with a "von so-and-so", but it seems like more trouble than it is worth....
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: I also have a very common name (usually quoted along the lines of "<NAME>.") and despite the fact that I have worked and published with two different institutions there has never been a problem assigning all my papers to me personally (ORCID and other system let you take your institution(s) into account). As long as there isn't a person with the same first and last name in your institution (and even then, it usually a couple of clicks to rectify the situation and I am speaking of someone who had to contend with a Joan/<NAME> situation).
My university makes all researchers from post doc onwards keep a list of their publications on their official university homepage, so even google will associate my publications correctly. So if you come across a paper from my old affiliation you can get my current contact data from this.
And honestly most subfields are specialised enough that people roughly know that <NAME> at institution A is working on a certain topic (because that's what your group does) and <NAME> at institution B will probably not have published a particular paper. If people want to talk to your about your results, they will find you, even with a common name.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2015/05/13
| 3,564
| 14,973
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm over half way into my PhD in psychology and neuroscience in the UK. I think that leaving the programme is the best decision but I'm unsure whether my reasons are good enough. I have gained some valuable experience: computer programming, applying basic mathematics, addressing software and hardware issues etc.
I approached my supervisor and the director of research 4 months ago about quitting and I was encouraged to continue, but these 4 big issues with the project have persisted, which are sufficient to make me think quitting the programme is the right decision:
1) Before starting, I was not aware how involved the post-doc would be in my project, who is overbearing and has been very difficult to work with from the very beginning. The post-doc is more concerned about being right and getting his own way than being helpful. This hinders my progress because I have to wrestle with what their idea of what my PhD should be. If I had known this, *I would not have applied for this PhD.* However, I think it's too late to point out this problem and my supervisor would probably think I'm using it as a scapegoat for my own problems. For now, I'm treating it as a 'training exercise' because you can never choose your colleagues in the real world - but this is a bad reason for staying on with a PhD.
2) My passion for the subject is gone and I have no intention of carrying on in academia afterwards. I don't think my PhD has a use in the real world, so I will definitely be applying for jobs in in the real world. However, if I quit prospective employers will think I'm 'a quitter' and will be put off employing me, but carrying on comes at the expense of experience in the real world, which I think is more valuable.
3) I have found the PhD experience very alienating and I find what I do for a living embarrassing. I'm reluctant to talk to new people because what you do for a living inevitably comes up and I like to avoid talking about it.
4) There is a some mathematics that I have to teach myself (I'm ok with this in principle), with no support from the department, leading to uncertainty as to whether I'm doing it right or whether I'm qualified enough for my position. This combined with reason 1 is slowing down my progress and I'm afraid I won't get enough done and fail the programme.
Do these reasons seem sufficient or should I bite the bullet and carry on?
Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: I agree with you that, regarding 1) - difficult co-workers - you very well might quit and have just as overbearing a boss outside academia. Although it is difficult, that shouldn't be a key driver in your decision.
(Note that pride is strongest within academia, so working with people who always think they're right is pretty normal!)
However, reasons #2) & 3) - having no passion because you don't think your work is useful to anyone, and being embarrassed about what you do - are very good reasons to seriously consider changing jobs. This would probably be true in or out of the academic world.
Reason 4) - the fact that you have to learn something difficult all by yourself - may be pretty normal for many different research fields. However, the thing that often propels people through these difficulties is a passion for what they're doing, either because it's enjoyable or because it feels like it'll be really useful later (to yourself or others). If you don't feel either of those, then learning the new topics might be quite painful.
Depending on your situation, another option may exist - assuming you, at some point, were really excited about starting research in this field, perhaps changing projects (or changing the particular aspect of your project that you pursue) could reinvigorate you?
It should be noted that just about every PhD goes through a time similar to what you're experiencing - the end not in sight, too many hurdles, just want it over, along with the constant fear that you're underperforming. For me, I realized that at least I could say I loved my daily work, and thought it was really cool. If I hadn't had that passion for what I was doing I wouldn't have been able to make it through the slump(s).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Let me offer you my two cents, as a recent Ph.D. graduate, who was in the program for a *very long time* due to serious family circumstances. Generally, I think that decisions of such nature and scale are *highly personal* and **significantly** depend on various *factors* and *circumstances* that nobody on this site is aware of (your brief description of the situation IMHO is not enough and, this, I wouldn't count on it). Therefore, I would advise you to take all advice here with a huge grain of salt. I think that the best advisor in such situations is... **you**, meaning your *gut feeling*. Having said that, keep in mind that your gut feeling *might change* over time and due to changing a perspective, when looking at a particular subject or matter. Now, I will briefly address your concerns/reasons, as they appear in your question.
1) You're right in considering your difficult to work with postdoc as a *real-life test*. Plus, it is a **temporary situation** and, hopefully, further in your career (in academia or beyond) you will be working with more cooperative and nicer people. Moreover, even from this difficult situation you might take some really **valuable experience** from interaction with that postdoc (for example, his perspective, thoughts, approaches, skills, etc.).
2) While your feeling that *academia* is not for you might be the right one, it is very well *might be the wrong* one. Speaking about your lost *interest* in the topic, this might be permanent, but, as well, you might **regain interest** in that topic, if you could look at it through different **"lenses"** or via different **perspectives**. The world is not black and white.
3) While working on Ph.D. is mostly alienating or, rather, *lonely* experience, the research (or other work) that follows afterwords, is mostly not. Quite the opposite - it often represents **collaboration**. As for "embarrassing", I'm not sure why you use this term - I find research (as well as teaching) a **respectful**, even **noble**, activity, as it involves seeking the truth and expanding humanity's knowledge horizons and, even, producing some practical and, often, immediately useful results.
4) It's a valid point of concern (but IMHO should not be considered as one of the critical factors, when making the decision). I can relate to that, as I remember my sense of being completely lost in the **ocean of statistics**, when I decided to use certain statistical methods for my quantitative dissertation research study. I might have gotten some statistical support from my advisor, but I have decided to ask help from an external consultant, who not only was very knowledgeable in the methods I was employing, but also in R statistical environment, which was very helpful and, even, crucial to the success of my research, considering that I was writing software in R for data analysis. However, recognizing this consultant's significant help, I think that, ultimately, it was me, who pushed myself forward to the success, via long hours of reading books and papers, *immersing* myself into statistical topics as much as possible, participating in discussions on StackOverflow (R-related) and Cross Validated (statistics-related), as well as reminding myself periodically about the *larger goals and aspirations*.
One more aspect. I'm not sure how your studies in the Ph.D. program are handled financially, but, seriously consider the **financial aspect**, especially, if you have some *family responsibilities*. I was thinking dropping out of the program after some very serious life-changing events, but, considering all the efforts (mine and my loved ones), time, money and, most importantly, larger goals and personal promises, have decided to continue and complete the program (plus, I was farther than your mid-way point in the program, so that also impacted my decision). However, now I face serious financial issues, which I have to deal with, hence my emphasis on this aspect. *RA or TA positions*, *grants*, *fellowships* and other means were not accessible to me for various reasons, but, if you can use any of them, strongly consider that help. Hope that my answer is helpful. Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I'll answer because I've had a similar struggle, and maybe just hearing how someone else is thinking through his/her experience will help you.
I've grown to really loath my time at graduate school. The PhD program is not at all what I imagined it would be. I went to an applied department with aspirations of making a difference with my work, doing "real" research with "real" people, being on the front lines of the biggest issues our country is facing, etc. From the onset I had no aspirations to pursue "the life of the mind" or to be a professor. I wanted the PhD so I could impact policy outside of the academy.
*What went wrong?*
A lot of the same issues you are facing.
**Realization 1**
The first frustration I faced was realizing that the process of getting a PhD was not something I could push through based on my own hard work. The reality of working for an advisor and in a lab, and maybe this is unique to the social sciences or my experience, is that I found my timeline for getting through the program totally dictated by the needs of my advisor's projects. Fine. I could deal with that. Maybe I'd work on projects I didn't like or what not. What I had a problem with was working hard and trying to move my own work along in the face of this context, only to have my timeline for moving through the program constantly moved. We don't have funding... suddenly I went from graduating next year to 2 years from now. When you are already struggling on a stipend it is just totally disheartening.
**Realization 2**
I focused on honing the very skills most graduate students in the social sciences struggle with... statistics and programming. I'm very good at those skills and I have put in and continue to put in substantial time, study and practice to stay on top of those skills. As I ultimately became one of the 2 or 3 default stat persons in my department I found myself feeling a bit more taken advantage of in my lab. Unrealistic work deadlines, needing to take on more and more work simply because others could not handle even beginning the tasks, and being micromanaged on projects where the person managing me couldn't even do the project by him-/herself themselves, and feeling like in the face of that when I'd express concerns about the pace and quality of work I'd just be ignored, all left a sour taste in my mouth. If this was a job and not linked to getting the degree in the end I would have simply left my job without hesitation.
**Realization 3**
A total loss of faith in the quality of published research. I simply couldn't replicate results in our field and I was tired of doing my own research and feeling pressured to find the p-values that would conform to the narrative people wanted to hear. When you see confirmation bias in vivo over and over again it just gets discouraging. I don't think that the people I was dealing with have any real malice about it, it's just that there's too much pressure to "get the next grant" or "find the results that will help get the next grant" that it just becomes part of the greater context that you have to exist in. Read <NAME>'s blog. He likes to pick on social psychologists, but the problems he points out, in my opinion, are systemic in other fields, and at the least all of psychology.
*What am I doing about it now?*
Like you probably have done, I'd chat with my closet friends in the program. Some of them would understand my frustrations other's seemed to just totally buy into it all and seemed to care more about being Dr. so and so than I ever would. I got the mix of feedback: maybe you just need to talk to your advisor, maybe you need to change labs, maybe you need to take a year off, maybe your are depressed and should talk to someone.
I thought long and hard about it all. I wasn't depressed. I'm super happy in all other aspects of life, have a great partner, family and friends. I have all sorts of passions outside of academia. Maybe I'm just not passionate about being a scholar. Talking to my advisor hadn't worked in the past when I had tried to come at it indirectly. Moreover, the biggest predictor of future behavior is what has been done in the past. So, I truly felt like no matter what the conversation was that we had, when the deadlines came marching in everything would go back to what it was like before. Taking a year off became more intriguing.
I settled on just not working for my lab. I'm in the midst of looking for a part time position that would pay me more than I make as an RA, and would leave me 20 hours a week to focus on just MY work. Honestly, when I've chatted with potential employers no one has thought of me as a quitter! You might want to even consider the fact that by getting a PhD you will be over-qualified for what it is you want to do. PhD does not = job.
Anyways, it sounds selfish, but it's the only way I'm going to get the space to move my work along. Further, by removing myself from the context of working and being in the lab all of the time I'll realize whether or not I truly love my research or still care about getting a PhD. Maybe my advisor won't be happy with that decision, but I'm not happy, challenged or getting any personal or professional growth with my lab responsibilities and that's what should matter the most in all of this. The process of getting a PhD is **your** experience and no one else's.
So, that's what I'm in the midst of doing.
You know what? Second to the decision to propose to my fiancee, I've never felt more happy and at peace with a decision in my entire life!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It's been a long time since you posted this question, and I hope that you are at a much better place now. God forbid, if you're still at crossroads, I'd like to recommend a book by Cal Newport - So good they can't ignore you. The book busts the 'follow your passion' approach and encourages a 'craftsmanship' approach wherein dedication, and hours of deliberate practice helps you invest in your career capital, so much so that you get so good at it, that it will make you feel good about yourself, add to your self-worth, and in turn make you love your job because of how amazing it makes you feel about you... You will have turned your work into your passion then... Please don't quit! We as humans are fickle, our desires, even our basic natures change, what you are passionate about today, might be something you loathe tomorrow... Follow your heart is terrible advice, the heart can't be trusted!
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/13
| 1,769
| 7,493
|
<issue_start>username_0: I often write promotion letters for faculty going up for tenure or promotion to full professor. For those who are unaware, this involves reviewing a candidate's entire portfolio including research statement, publications, teaching, funding, etc., and cannot really be done properly without reading several of the candidate's papers.
Recently I received a request of a new sort: I was asked to go through the entire process associated with a tenure letter, simply for a third-year review of a tenure track assistant professor at another institution. (If it matters, the request is from a good R1 school, but not a super-elite ivy or equivalent.)
To me this seems a terrible practice. It is already a ridiculous waste of time that some schools ask for 15 or more promotion letters. Figure that letter each takes a minimum of one day for a well-established senior professor to write. Could the marginal information provided by the 15th or even the 10th letter possibly be worth that much of the community's time? We are already suffocating under our peer review obligations; adding the huge additional burden of writing promotion letters for routine reappointments strikes me as ridiculous. Yet I'm loathe to refuse, lest I hurt the candidate.
Is this a practice that others are seeing in their fields, or is this some dean's stupid idea that is being forced upon a single unfortunate college?
**Edit:** If this is uncommon, we should nip in the bud. Bureaucracy, like entropy, is monotone increasing in this particular universe. Thoughts on what I should do would also be appreciated, though I suppose that's technically a separate question.<issue_comment>username_1: If this is a request from outside your university, tell them no, and tell them why. If this is from inside your university, get with your department chair and go to the dean in question. You don't want to seem uncollegial, and you don't want to be seen as refusing to write a letter for this specific person, but I think you're right to want to cut this off now.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As in my comment, I've not heard of any such thing in mathematics, ... but hadn't really been worrying about it.
It appears a gross inflation of things, yes, and wasteful, and so on, as in other comments.
Yes, I fear a refusal *could* be used against the candidate, by anyone *interested* in pushing against them, despite the problems with this general direction.
It occurs to me that this grossly inflated situation *could* be occurring due to some political infighting at that other institution, so that some faction hostile to the candidate is "playing chicken" with the supporters of the candidate, and/or with the candidate themself. This is already a bad thing. So, yes, anyone's refusal to write a letter could be aggressively interpreted against the candidate (despite the usual convention that it is possible, in principle, to refuse to write a letter, due to other commitments... which could in an adversarial situation be aggressively re-interpreted...)
Is it possible to get some side-channel information from the other institution and department, without compromising yourself or the candidate? If so, a "what the heck is going on?" is irresistible to me. If you have no side channel available, I think you might have been "succesfully" extorted into writing a letter.
Sufficiently long *after* the letter, some systematic push-back should be harmless to the candidate, but would be informative, ...
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I don't know whether it is common, but a version of it, a 4th-year review, exists (determined by department pattern of administration) at Ohio State, and it's actually useful. It gives the candidate a good feel for what the actual tenure review will be like the next year, and alerts them to problems that can be remedied. Letter writers are usually asked to update their letter for the real review (though not if they wrote a crappy letter for the 4th year review). Similar letter-inflation exists in Alaska, Vanderbilt.
I take the point that this is a form of bureaucracy- and service-inflation, but it actually gives reviewers a longer time to read the papers, in case they are not familiar with the candidate's work. The problem-detecting function is quite valuable, I would say.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I have heard about this in math, and in fact believe that my department does it too (though only a small number of letters, if I do recall correctly).
Now, here's my (probably unpopular) opinion on letters in general. In applied mathematics, it is not usually very difficult to judge whether a candidate is good or bad just by looking at the basics: publications (where, how many, how often they have been cited), grant funding, impact in general. Realistically, I cannot name a case where letters were really necessary to make the case for or against a candidate. Certainly not within a department, but probably also not with the higher ups -- they, too, will be able to identify the strong and weak candidates just from their CV.
On the other hand, candidates in pure math oftentimes have relatively few publications and fewer external funds. Publications are also often not very well cited. All of this may come with the turf -- or maybe it doesn't and it really speaks to the candidates, I don't know. In any case, in such cases it sure helps to bring letters from Fields Medalists or similar luminaries to the table, in order to push a candidate beyond the finish line. Within the department such letters are hard to argue against. For the higher ups, they may sound reassuring.
The thing I find annoying that in pure math the letters are almost uniformly positive and do, in fact, not really help distinguish between candidates -- I could not name a case where the letters *really* helped me identify who really is very good and who is just ok (which, I will admit, is often good enough in my view to get tenure). All of these letters praise the impact of the work (which isn't backed up by citation counts), the fact that they have proved some deep conjecture (of which of course there are many), and that the mathematics is beautiful. The candidate is also invariably among the best -- at least among those between 35 and 45 working on cohomologies over fiber bundles of the projective space F\_2/Z endowed with a nonstandard topology (i.e., the subfield is so small that there are likely only a handful of people in this age group anyway). These are all things I can't judge as an outsider to the field -- I simply have to believe it, and trust my colleagues who understand the issues better. In the end, however, I find that many of these letters are slightly dishonest in that they never really reveal how good a candidate *really* is because they are so uniformly outstanding (a sentiment I know many of my more applied colleagues share).
So the purpose of these letters in math, and their number, seems to me to be more as additional ammunition to prop up cases that by themselves (i.e., by just looking at the CV) do not look all that impressive. This propping up will likely help both within the department and upstairs: bring enough letters that all sound very good without really making a distinction, and the candidate's file looks pretty positive.
So there certainly is room for improving the process in our discipline. (And no, I'm not up for having this fight.)
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/14
| 836
| 3,629
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted by math paper to an Elsevier journal around 6 months ago. Today I logged into EES and saw that the status changed to "Required Reviews Completed" about 10 days ago. Is this good news or bad news ? Does it mean my paper is rejected and the Editor is basically preparing the rejection letter :( ?<issue_comment>username_1: This simply means the reviews are completed. It is not good news or bad news, it simply means the reviews are available to the editor. Hopefully you hear back soon, although frankly sometimes even at this stage it can take weeks (even months)!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: You need to learn to have patience with the peer review process. It means neither good nor bad, just that the reviews are in. You can't see further into this hole than that.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: It doesn't even necessarily mean that *all* reviews are completed. Sometimes editors invite more reviewers than is required. This message only means that the configured lower bound has been reached.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: It means just what it says on the tin - that the required reviews are *complete*. It says nothing about their content, and whether a paper is accepted or not, it will likely come with a number of revisions and the like from reviewers. The editor needs to read the reviews, decide whether or not to accept the manuscript (and there are several different scales between just accept and reject), compile those comments into something coherent, etc.
The only thing you *can* divine from that message is that it wasn't rejected without review, which is also a potential outcome of a paper submission.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Based on my experience, it is a good news that you will be hearing soon from the editor regarding your paper (although you might hear a bad news).
In general, it is good to get an idea about the time frame for the journal your are submitting to. I use the Journal Finder from Elsevier (<http://journalfinder.elsevier.com>), which you can use to make a decision regarding the journal. This will show you the different times and acceptance rate.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I had the same question and I got in touch with the journal editorial office and got a quick reply saying:
>
> Upon checking, I noticed that some reviewers have yet to submit their
> reviews. The status "Required Reviews Completed" shows when the
> required number of reviews is reached. Please note that the editor is
> still waiting for additional reports for your manuscript. Rest assured
> that you will be notified once updates are available.
>
>
>
So as others mentioned above, some reviews came through, maybe 2 as the minimum default on the system, and there still some to come so the editor is waiting to receive all prior to submitting a final verdict.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: I have got the same situation. I also submitted a math paper. This status implies that the referee have submitted his/her report. The handling editor then looks into it and make the next step: revise/final decision/reject.
In my case, I got this status two times. At the fist time, the handling editor required to revise the manuscript. And at the second time, the status changed to "decision in process". Finally, my paper was accepted.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: If you see this status after submitting the revision, it is definitely a good News.
If it is after the first submission, it means that you will received the comments from the reviewers! keep your belt fasten!
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/14
| 1,239
| 4,592
|
<issue_start>username_0: According to the [American Association of Union Professors (AAUP)](http://www.aaup.org/report/ethics-recruitment-and-faculty-appointments),
```
A faculty member should not resign, in order to accept other employment as
of the end of the academic year, later than May 15 or 30 days after
receiving notification of the terms of continued employment the following
year, whichever date occurs later.
```
...
```
An offer of appointment to a faculty member serving at another institution
should be made no later than May 1, consistent with the faculty member’s
obligation to resign, in order to accept other employment, no later than May
15. It is recognized that, in special cases, it might be appropriate to
make an offer after May 1, but in such cases there should be an agreement by
all concerned parties.
```
The few relevant comments in this thread
<http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,163851.15.html>
(e.g. comments 23, 26, 27) seem to indicate that this standard isn't important/widely observed.
However, it appears that some universities do observe it (or some variant), e.g. [University of Pittsburg](http://www.provost.pitt.edu/memo/05-08-2006.html) and [University of Louisiana and Lafayette](http://apfd.louisiana.edu/sites/apfd/files/Document%20XXVI-AAUP%20Statement%20on%20Recruitment%20%26%20Resignation%20of%20Faculty.pdf).
My questions are
* Is this etiquette widely observed? That is, would this be a reasonable barometer of what is "ethical", or is the standard dated (if ever relevant), as indicated by the commenters in the linked thread above?
* should I let the existence of this AAUP standard modify the way I handle accepting a pending offer that would require me to go beyond this May 15th deadline?
I'm soliciting anyone with knowledge of these matters but information from deans, department chairs, or anyone who has resigned at this late stage would be especially valuable. Thanks for any info.
---
**Note**: Previous posts of mine give a bit more (probably not relevant) background:
[I want to leave my tenure track position before fall. I have great prospects but no new position "locked up": when should I break the news?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/43528/i-want-to-leave-my-tenure-track-position-before-fall-i-have-great-prospects-but)
[Proper "notice period" for resigning a tenure track position?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45325/proper-notice-period-for-resigning-a-tenure-track-position)
The second one is closely related but is distinct in that this question specifically is about observance of the AAUP standard that I learned about today while reading the chronicle.
---
**Note 2:** Mine is an AAUP school but does not have any explicit policy like the two mentioned above.<issue_comment>username_1: I have seen faculty leave or take positions at all kinds of times during, before, or after the semester or even right after (or during!) sabbaticals. The AAUP guidelines are nice, but, ultimately, everything depends on the schools involved.
If you are concerned about ethics, I would recommend being upfront with both departments (the one you are leaving and the one where you will be hired) and coming up with something that leaves both of them satisfied.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Given that generally universities do not provide faculty with the supposedly-relevant information (salary increases... but, also, anything else that will be top-down foisted upon us) in any sort of timely fashion, it is absurd to imagine that we (faculty) have any substantial obligation to make future promises... when none have been made to us, etc.
Yes, this situation is deeply disturbing! Why *can't* we find ourselves in situations where both sides have made sincere, binding commitments, in all good faith? Ah, well, we should all know better than to think that any such thing is the norm in human conduct... (E.g., this is why we need unions.)
That is, the two sides are wildly disproportionate: the institution will always find a way to cover its ... obligations/butt... but it is not nearly so easy for an individual. If you are simply honest with your colleagues, but not allowing yourself to be set up for disaster, it is entirely morally correct. Ethically, sure, easily.
Such questions are analogous to asking whether it is "unethical" to try to prevent a tiger from devouring you. The only possibly ethical/moral issue is whether you escape by leading the tiger to your friend, a slower runner, and less aware of the danger. >:-(
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/14
| 1,589
| 6,728
|
<issue_start>username_0: [Implicit gender bias](http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/4403.abstract) is present in academia (at least in the sciences). I've heard that some journals hardly accept any manuscripts written by Muslims. To what extent do the religious beliefs of an author affect their paper's chance of being accepted? Have there been any studies that look at implicit religious biases?<issue_comment>username_1: It's plausible that there's cultural bias that's correlated with religion, but it's hard to imagine that religion is actually the primary factor. After all, referees typically have at best weak indications of the author's religious beliefs. Furthermore, cultural and religious bias could play out identically in practice, which makes them near-impossible to distinguish.
I don't think gender bias is a particularly illuminating comparison. There are widespread implicit associations of men with science and math competence, which at a nationwide level are correlated with differences in achievement. (See, for example, [this study](http://www.pnas.org/content/106/26/10593.full).) These implicit biases could also interfere with the evaluation of academic papers. However, whatever negative associations people have with Muslims, I don't believe being bad at science and math is generally one of them. That makes it a rather different form of bias, and one that's less likely to play an insidious role in evaluating academic work.
>
> I've heard that some journals hardly accept any manuscripts written by Muslims.
>
>
>
This sounds like utter nonsense, although of course it can't be disproved. For one thing, there's no official list of journals: anyone could set up a web page entitled "Journal of Hateful Bigotry: No Muslims Allowed". Furthermore, I can imagine weird exceptions, such as theology journals run by religious groups that have no interest in an outside perspective. However, I don't believe any mainstream journal holds articles by Muslims to a much higher standard than other submissions. Certainly not in mathematics or related areas (which are the cases I'm most familiar with), and I'd be amazed if there were examples in other fields.
It's plausible that there's bias against researchers working in developing countries, which for researchers in developing countries that are primarily Muslim could be difficult to distinguish from anti-Muslim bias. This bias could manifest itself in various ways. For example, prejudice against topics that are particularly popular in developing countries, or against researchers without prestigious affiliations. There's no doubt that research from or on developing countries is [underrepresented](http://www.voxeu.org/article/geographical-bias-top-journal-publication) in the top journals in at least some academic fields, such as economics, but it's difficult to pin down exactly why. (One key difficulty is that we have no objective, absolute standards to compare with.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In my entire scientific career, I have seen religious belief come up precisely once: an (apparently Christian) author closed a paper with "AMDG," which apparently stands for [Ad maiorem Dei gloriam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_maiorem_Dei_gloriam). Of the set of three peer reviewers, one ignored it, one was confused by it, and one asked for it to be deleted as irrelevant to the substance of the paper. The authors removed the acronym as part of their revision (amongst other changes) and the paper was published.
The other place that I know that religion comes into play in scientific publication (though I have not personally encountered it), is when a person attempts to use statements from their religion as evidence for a position. This never goes well: in a scientific context, claiming "the Bible says ..." or "the Koran says ..." is equivalent to saying "The Lord of the Rings says ..." or "Fifty Shades of Grey says ..." Such a document is a secondary source at best, and one that has no particular reason to be regarded as a reliable source of evidence, despite the magnitude of cultural belief. Such books can, of course, be cited and analyzed just as any other literary/historical work, but that is different than using them as evidence for a scientific position.
So, in short: if you don't make your religion an issue in your manuscript, it should never come up as an issue in the normal scientific publication process. This doesn't mean you might not encounter horrible and inappropriate behavior (scientists are just as capable of being terrible people as anybody else) but it is definitely outside the norm of the peer review and publication process.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I want to address part of the question, because I think there's an important comment on the nature of such accusations.
The "this [bad thing that happened] was because [person or group X] is prejudiced against [group Y with which I'm affiliated]" trope is one that I've heard for many, many years, in part because I am part of multiple such groups Y which have been the subject of societal prejudice.
However, it is also the case that most of the people I've heard who have used that line of reasoning are using it as a rationale to place blame on someone else. Before jumping to claims of bias and prejudice, one should check that one's own behavior isn't at least partially the problem. For instance, blaming prejudice for not getting a job when one's cover letters are *pro forma* templates and one's CV is full of typos and useless information is just shifting blame and responsibility. It's easy to do, and it perhaps makes one feel better about oneself ("it's not me, it's them"). But in the long run, it's a dangerous attitude to have, because it hampers one from the self-improvement needed to break out of the cycle.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I've never heard of religious bias existing in academia. You might face problems if your field is closely related to religion and you are expressing views that are fanatic and not based on clear reasoning or evidence. However, apart from that, I don't see any reason why journals would not accept papers written by members of a particular community.
However, I have heard of a case where an author's paper was taking a long time to be processed after acceptance by the journal because he was from a country that's politically unstable. According to this author, the journal required some special permission from the government for publishing papers from this region. However, all this was being taken care of by the journal; the author just had to wait a month or two longer than usual for the procedures to complete.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/14
| 754
| 3,158
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am PhD student. My PhD advisor wrote a research paper literally copy pasting several paragraphs from a already published paper, which was written by me as main author and he is just second author. Copy-pasted paragraphs where without any citation to this paper written by me.
QUESTION:
1) Is the accuse of plagiarism still standing, when the main author of a paper copy-pastes from a paper where he/she was only second author?
2) What is your opinion about addressing the issue directly to the funding scheme which has financed the project and of course the scientific output?
3) Furthermore he copy-pasted a full methodology from a un-published document written by me, of course without citing. Unfortunatly this document has no specified authorship although through email traffic I can proof that I am the main developer of this document. Do you consider that also plagiarism?
thanks for answer provided.
Alfred<issue_comment>username_1: Re-using text from a previous paper on which one was an author is known as [self plagiarism](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2893/attitudes-towards-self-plagiarism). Opinions vary on the gravity of this sin, but it is pretty clearly not best practice. In my opinion, re-use should be allowed for descriptions of methods or presentations of proofs, provided that they are adequately flagged as such with citation to the original paper. "Following our previous analysis (Smith et al 2013), our methods are as follows..." If no citation is provided, this seems to me to be a transgression.
Authorship order is not relevant. Self-plagiarizing from a second author paper is no better or worse than doing so from a first author paper. Overall, you seem to have a misunderstanding of how collaboration works. Once two people collaborate on a paper, the output belongs to them jointly. One author does not have greater ownership over a particular paragraph what for having written the initial text of that paragraph.
I would hope you would directly discuss this with the PI before going to a funding body.
Depending on the circumstances, using your text may or may not be plagiarism. If I am paying an RA to work on a paper but she does not rise to the level of authorship, I see no obvious reason why I cannot ask the RA to help draft portions of the text. Similarly, PIs routinely ask graduate students and postdocs to help prepare grant proposals on which the PI is the sole author. I've never heard this considered to be plagiarism.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Ethically, it is unwise to use large portions of a document written by a subordinate in one's group without giving appropriate credit (which in this case would be co-authorship). However, it is **not** the same as saying that the PI has plagiarized the earlier document, as it has not been entered anywhere into the record.
Quoting a paper that has been published **is** a problem, as username_1 points out, because it's self-plagiarism. This is true for any author who quotes a paper in which she was an author, regardless of being the first, second, or *n*-th author on the quoted paper.
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/14
| 434
| 1,623
|
<issue_start>username_0: I know asking undergrad questions are not well received here. But I don't know any other place have the standard of this place.
I am a Bachelor of Information technology student. I am maintaining a second upper GPA at school. My target is to become a data scientist. And this is my plan.
I will learn data science basics on coursera. I will start with a diploma in applied statistics parallel to my final year of my degree. Then I will go for a M.Sc in CS. Where I come from doesn't have undergraduate/pg math degrees available for me (only for few merit students who enter state universities get to those). I will do a research more related to data science. (Not sure if I can do it in a M.Sc in CS)
I know there should be opinions, and this question won't lead to a one single perfect solution. But I'm asking if you can tell me if this is a good plan.?<issue_comment>username_1: **Question**: How can one become a data scientist?
**Answer**: Call yourself one.
That's what everyone else does. (Yes, cynical, I know.)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I have answered several related questions on the *Data Science SE* site some time ago. I hope that my answers are relevant to your situation and will be helpful. Wishing you best of luck!
* [Graduate Degree Choices for Data Science](https://datascience.stackexchange.com/a/3737/2452)
* [Starting my career as Data Scientist, is Software Engineering experience required?](https://datascience.stackexchange.com/a/742/2452)
* [Data Science Project Ideas](https://datascience.stackexchange.com/a/843/2452)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2015/05/14
| 636
| 2,443
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm uncertain whether speeches by Heads of State or other governmental figures are academic sources? Can someone please clarify?<issue_comment>username_1: A speech by a head of state is a [primary source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source) and can be used and cited as such:
>
> <NAME>'s Gettysburg Address begins "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation" [Lincoln, 1863]
>
>
>
It is not a peer reviewed scientific document, however, and should not be used in that way:
>
> The United States was founded in 1776 [Lincoln, 1863].
>
>
>
That's a very easy way to get things wrong, because speeches by heads of state are generally used for political effect, not for delivering factual information. For example, if you used Lincoln as a citation, you'd be rather misled, because the United States per se did not exist until [the adoption of the constitution in 1789](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Independence_and_expansion).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Speeches by public officials, and especially heads of state, are historical documents, as they often crystallize and clarify political priorities, justify policy decisions and set the tone and direction for action.
Thus I would not call speeches by heads of state "academic" sources, in the sense that they are neither written and delivered by academics, nor are they intended for academic audiences or purposes.
As @username_1 points out, they are not peer reviewed, nor are intended to be, in the same way as are academic publications.
However, in certain disciplines, especially history, political science, and communication/media studies/PR, they are probably widely used and considered acceptable primary sources that can be tapped for citations to support academic arguments (e.g. political positioning, rhetoric, or persuasive strategies).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If President Obama says, in a public speech, that the Riemann Hypothesis is true, then this is sufficient backing for writing, in an academic paper, that "President Obama said that the Riemann Hypothesis is true." It is not sufficient backing for writing "The Riemann Hypothesis is true."
This has nothing to do with his being a head of state. The preceding paragraph would remain correct if you replace both occurrences of "President Obama" with "<NAME>."
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/14
| 1,619
| 6,967
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am working on research that will lead to a paper. The research isn't finished but I've finished enough that I have a good idea of what the basic idea of what the paper will say and look like. Is it better to start writing the paper now and make revisions as my research progresses or is it better to finish the research, have firm conclusions already in place, and then start writing?<issue_comment>username_1: The concept of "finished" is problematic when it comes to research. I think that [the same quote applies as for art](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_Val%C3%A9ry): research is never finished, it is only abandoned.
Less poetically and more pragmatically, it is often only in the process of writing that certain critical aspects of the work become apparent. When a person is in the midst of working on a project, they tend to get very close to the material and begin to take as clear and obvious things that are very much not so for others who are not so deeply involved. Writing one's work up in a scientific paper forces one to step back and build those gone-implicit arguments from the ground up (or at least it does if you are writing well).
This often leads to discovering unexpected problems, which lead to new literature searches, new theorems, new experiments, and even whole new perspectives. I have had nearly the entirety of a paper change out from under me as we wrote it and revised it, and the work became much better as a result.
So, to return to your question, of when to begin writing up a paper. My advice and experience is this: begin writing when you think you have achieved the key results that you want to build the paper around. As you begin to do so, you will likely discover gaps that need to be filled in, which will shift how you write the paper, etc. When the process converges, you know you've got a good paper on your hands, and it is ready to submit into the tender mercies of your dreaded peers.
Don't let yourself move *forward* with the research, though, to try to achieve the *next* key result. It's fun and exciting to do new things, but you must also have the discipline to cross the Is, dot the Ts, and observe the little things that need to be corrected and might otherwise escape your notice.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To sharpen username_1's point a bit: my primary specific recommendation is that you not spend any significant amount of time *polishing* the paper until you're confident that very nearly the sum total of its contents are collected in front of you, literally or figuratively. A more-or-less-messy pile of scratch can be enough to facilitate the process of thinking through one's lines of argumentation, depending on one's personality and modes of thought, while taking a comparatively small amount of time away from continuing the necessary research/experimentation.
Just like it's often a terrible waste of time to plan most experiments or lines of research too far ahead, it's also typically a terrible waste of time to refine a manuscript too far ahead. You may find you've spent a couple dozen hours wordsmithing text that never finds its way onto an editor's desk.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: For me, writing a paper is a process that is not unlike how an author writes a book. I am constantly thinking about the "story" while I am doing the research. While working on a research project, I will suddenly think of some nice manner of presentation, phrase or even a single word that capture nicely some aspect of the work and I write these down in a raw manuscript file. Then, as the project advances to a more mature state where I know the majority of the results I will jot down a very rough outline. The actual hardcore writing then consists of putting everything together.
So in short, I suggest to start jotting *ideas about writing* as early as possible, but don't worry waste time on organizing or polishing these notes.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: **It depends** – on your content or type of research as well as on your approach to writing.
The two **approaches to (scientific) writing** I would like to distinguish are:
1. Start with writing a quick draft and then revise and restructure it many times.
2. Start writing with a clear structure in mind and try to optimise every sentence from the beginning.
In my experience, neither approach is generally better, but for most people, one approach is better suited than the other. If you are the person who prefers approach 1, you might start writing as soon as you finished an aspect of your paper; if you prefer approach 2, this may be a waste of time, depending on the content (see below). While there is a grey zone between the two approaches, I have not met anybody yet whose approach lies in it.
The types of **content** I would like to distinguish are:
* Modular papers: There are several chunks of work that have little interdependencies to each other. If you would practice extreme salami publication, you would publish each one as a single paper, with no paper building up upon an unpublished one. So while some of these papers would cite others, there would be no loops in the citation graph.
* Interdependent papers: There is no structure like the above. For example the results of experiment A lead to experiment B, whose results in turn inspire to repeat experiment A with other settings and so on.
Obviously, modular papers are much more suited for early writing.
To give an **example from personal experience**, I am the sort of person who prefers the second approch to writing and I wrote most of my papers so far after all the work was finished. Nontheless, I recently wrote a paper in a totally different style. However, this paper was a method paper, which I knew to be modular. I did things in the following order:
1. Encounter a lack of a method during research.
2. Have an idea for a method.
3. Look, whether somebody had the idea already or there is a better method.
4. Devise the core method.
5. Find central conjecture required for core method.
6. Prove conjecture.
7. Write down core method and conjecture (I started this step the very next day).
8. Perform theoretical runtime analysis of method.
9. Write down runtime analysis.
10. Apply method to artificial data to test its performance.
11. Write down results.
12. Devise artificial test case to compare method with best existing method and perform the comparison.
13. Write down results.
14. Apply method and existing method to real-life problem from step 1.
15. Write down results.
16. Write abstract, introduction and conclusion.
At no point in the process did I need to perform revisions to already written stuff other than adding a sentence for explanation or renaming a variable. While I am very happy to have done it this way and this saved me a lot of time, I also know that this approach would not have worked at all for any of my other papers.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/15
| 1,558
| 5,830
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I was offered a full salaried postdoctoral position (not a fellowship) in Australia (with a long lead time).
I am a US citizen, so can also apply for the NSF international postdoctoral fellowships.
Suppose, hypothetically, that I apply for and receive an NSF award.
**Is it acceptable to increase my postdoctoral salary with the fellowship, or would it not make a difference?**
*Given that I already have an offer in hand, if the NSF fellowship wouldn't increase my salary, then it isn't worth it to me to apply* (I realize there are other benefits, prestige, that go along with receiving a fellowship, but I'm time-strapped at the moment).<issue_comment>username_1: There will be rules that NSF sets for these fellowships. You need to look them up and/or talk to the program officer who administers the grant.
My best guess is that you can't double dip. So you will likely have to decline one salary or the other. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with still listing the grant on your CV -- it is a grant you won in a competitive solicitation, so it belongs on your CV.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I am only familiar with the US NSF Fellowship, but there should (hopefully) be a comparable FAQ for the international version. But in the US, you are allowed by the NSF to accept a fellowship and other source of funding - potentially!
The NSF explicitly forbids "double-dipping" of **federal** funds - so [you are not allowed to accept an NSF fellowship and a DOD fellowship](http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12062/nsf12062.jsp#irag), as they both are paid out of US Federal Government funding sources.
Are you allowed to accept other sources of funding, along with the NSF fellowship? According to the same FAQ for the US domestic fellowship:
>
> **Where can I find funding for my Reserve Years?**
>
>
> Many programs and departments have research and teaching
> assistantships and fellowships available for GRFP Fellows. In
> addition, the nsfgrfp.org website has a listing of other funding
> opportunities. See the Guide for rules regarding multiple funding
> sources.
>
>
> **May I be supported by a Traineeship (e.g., NIH, IGERT, etc.) while on Reserve?**
>
>
> Yes. Traineeships are appropriate for Fellows on Reserve.
>
>
> **May I accept or be paid from a private Foundation Fellowship?**
>
>
> Supplementation to a Fellowship while on Tenure is at the discretion
> of the GRFP Institution. Fellows should check with their COs.
>
>
> ...
>
>
> **May I also be paid (supplement my Stipend) from a university or private Fellowship?**
>
>
> Supplementation to a Fellowship while on Tenure is at the discretion
> of the GRFP Institution. Fellows should check with their COs.
>
>
> **May I be paid (supplement my Stipend) as a teaching or research assistant on top of my Stipend?**
>
>
> Fellows are expected to devote full time to advanced scientific study
> or work during tenure. However, because it is generally accepted that
> teaching or similar activity constitutes a valuable part of the
> education and training of many graduate students, a Fellow may
> undertake a reasonable amount of such teaching or similar activity,
> without NSF approval at the affiliated institution. It is expected
> that furtherance of the Fellow's educational objectives and the gain
> of substantive teaching or other experience, not service to the
> institution as such, will govern such activities. Compensation for
> such activities is permitted based on the affiliated institution's
> policies and the general employment policies outlined in The
> Administrative Guide for Fellows and Coordinating Officials.
>
>
> **May I have an outside job?**
>
>
> Outside employment is not governed by the NSF. Fellows should check
> with their CO about specific institution policies.
>
>
> **Does the NSF GRFP Fellowship provide funds for my research project?**
>
>
> No research or travel allowances are provided with the fellowship.
>
>
> **May I accept funding for my research project?**
>
>
> Yes. Fellows are permitted to solicit and accept, from NSF or other
> federal and private sources, support for research expenses, such as
> laboratory supplies, instrumentation usage fees, field-station usage
> fees, travel expenses, conference/registration fees, workshop
> expenses, or subscription fees. For Fellows on Tenure, support for
> living expenses associated with off-site research activities will
> require approval by the CO.
>
>
>
So the answer for US NSF guidelines is that you are free to accept monies that are not strictly from US federal government fellowships in addition to the NSF fellowship. Whether or not this is also true of International applicants, I am not at all qualified to say - but hopefully this will help you know what to look for and what questions to ask of your sponsoring institution and of the NSF international program.
Note that some institutions establish stipend maximums, often under conditions such as "if the scholar is receiving any stipend from the school, their total stipend may not extend X". If your outside funding is greater than the school maximum you are generally allowed to decline the school stipend and accept the greater outside funding, sometimes while the school still provides other compensation such as health insurance, etc. Again, at least this is true of US institutions - I can't speak for Australian rules.
If you are still interested I would encourage you to review the NSF international rules for similar provisions, and speak with your sponsoring department in Australia to see if they have any experience with these sorts of arrangements. There's nothing sneaky or dishonest here, and such financial questions aren't weird or out of line.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/15
| 2,050
| 8,668
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a junior student at a private engineering college. The amount of dishonesty I have seen in the last 3 years is tremendous.
There has not been a single assignment which hasn't been plagiarized by the entire class. Usually a couple of people do it early and everyone just copies it from them. This is not even considered cheating but rather treated as real work. Some of my friends think that this is the way assignments are supposed to be done because this is the kind of culture they have heard about from their friends in other colleges and even from lecturers' description of their years in college. It does not end here.
I have seen the entire class cheating in exams. Almost every time, there are people who are carrying the entire book in their pockets to cheat from. They generally get the textbook copied to A6 or A7 pages. Numerous times I have seen invigilators either actively passing around answers or mostly just letting everyone and anyone copy answers from each other.
Our course grades are decided 80% by the final exam and 20% by mid term examinations. I have seen very few(hardly 3-5 course instructors out of the 36 courses I have taken so far) course instructors who did not manipulate the 20% mid term grades heavily. Each semester has a certain number of labs and these grades are also rigged.
There have been exams when every single person in the university knew the question paper in advance. It was reported in the [newspapers](http://udaipurtimes.com/rtus-1st-sem-engineering-exam-paper-leaked/) but was plainly brushed aside by the university management.
This has effected the quality of my education to an unusual extent. It is very lucrative to cheat when you realize that you are failing the course and a single peek can pass you. I do not think I will be able to stand against this alarming tolerance for dishonesty any longer.
It makes me question the authenticity, if there is any left, of my degree and the value of my education. Can I do anything at all to change the status quo? How should I go about collecting facts around this and document my findings as something concrete that will likely create an impact?
**Edit**:
I should make an important distinction between my university and college and clarify that my university is an Affiliating University. There are 128 engineering colleges in the state, both public and private, that operate directly under it. If you were to pick say 5 colleges in this sorry mess that attract the most employers, my college will certainly be in that list. Yet, that says nothing among the quality of the jobs offered which are both low-paying and disappointing.
I have sat and talked about this with my parents and professors. A lot of answers suggest transfer or a fresh application to a different institute. I am, however, reluctant to go for either of these for a variety of reasons.
* There is a serious lack of such institutions in India. I have talked to a lot of people from all parts of the country and the academic dishonesty is omnipresent. I would not be surprised if a link is ever found between academic dishonesty and bureaucratic corruption. A handful of institutions which still uphold the standards of formal education (by my perception) do not have undergrad programs or they are terribly tough to get in.
* The financial burden of a fresh application or more expensive tuition at a different institution will be huge. Most of the scholarships offered in India are based on GPA or Entrance Exam scores, the rest are only for applicants of certain castes. Neither do I boast phenomenal test scores nor am I from those castes.
* Physical classrooms are a very inefficient method for delivery of information and ideas. A fair share of what I have learnt comes from the freelancing and the internet. I have varied interests in a lot of subjects. For that reason, I have rarely been doing anything for longer than a month or two. I have been a huge supporter of OpenCourseWare movement and MOOCs for a long time.
* The only reason I have not dropped out yet is because I do not know what will I do if I drop out and secondly, I find college an amazing place to interact with a lot of people.<issue_comment>username_1: There really isn't much that you can do to change the system, especially if it actively turns a blind eye to the issue. If that is the trend at your university over a significant number of past generations, the credibility of the university might already be damaged. That can hurt you chances with employers. If this trend is relatively new, the bad reputation will come, albeit hopefully well after you graduate.
You can do something how you tackle your education. You should try to learn more than you're required to pass the exams. Browse other programs' curricula and see what the differences are and then try to fill those gaps. Find internships to get practical experience. In other words, try to acquire much more expertise than your peers. Although a university's reputation goes a long way as a recommendation, in the end it is your skill level that defines your worth.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Sounds like extreme case and very difficult situation. Assuming the situation is in India based on link in OP's post.
To answer your specific questions:
>
> Can I do anything at all to change the status quo? How should I go
> about collecting facts around this and document my findings as
> something concrete that will likely create an impact?
>
>
>
I would advise to save yourself a lot of time and frustration and *not* challenge the established system. I agree with previous posters who also advised against this. If the system is complicit and the practice exists in spite of widespread awareness of it, then you are facing an uphill battle that should not be where you need to invest your time as a student.
An exception might be a situation that nobody (or only a few accomplices) is aware of, in which case whistle-blowing might yield results with minimum adverse impact for you. As it stands, even if you step forward, you will likely face retribution and will lose more than you will gain, except a clear conscience.
Instead, I would suggest to speak up through your own example and action: take whatever knowledge you've learned with you and move to another place where you can enter a more reputable institution. Once you are safely established in another university, write an (anonymous) but public, open letter to the administration of the "problem" university outlining your reasons for leaving in relation to the cheating practice.
To make it count, you might consider publishing your letter as an anonymous (under a pseudonym) letter to the editor of a more progressive local newspaper in the city where this university is located, in print and/or online (especially online, where it cannot be forgotten the next day). Public shaming can be a powerful weapon, especially in the East/Southeast Asian cultures...
What you are describing does indeed sound like a waste of your time in a formal education environment.
Therefore, I'd say to cut your losses while you still have time, enroll in a better school (transfer credits from this school if you can) and finish your degree there.
In the end, this is about principles, and what your education and future is worth to you. It is easiest to think short-term: "hey, others are still studying here and seem to be graduating and getting OK jobs, why should I be different?" Such short-term thinking might give temporary comfort.
But the long term cost of such near-sightedness will be high: foregone opportunities, low reputation of your degree, limited job prospects, and a different self-image and identity as a result. To me these factors seem important enough to seriously evaluate other options.
Even if a better choice may be more difficult in the short term (finding/moving to another area and enrolling in another institution), the long-term wisdom of such a decision is not to be underestimated. It will pay dividends with better education, better career prospects, and a brighter future. You will thank yourself for it soon enough. Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I do not think I will be able to stand against this alarming tolerance for dishonesty any longer.
>
>
>
I think what you are saying is that you are feeling yourself starting to give way and succumb to participating in the cheating at some level.
Here's why I think you should continue to resist the temptation.
* I doubt you need to cheat.
* Cheating would corrupt you and change you into a different person.
Upvotes: -1
|
2015/05/15
| 1,190
| 5,158
|
<issue_start>username_0: I intend to pursue a masters in business analytics in the United States. However, since this is a highly quantitative program, I doubt I will stand a chance to be admitted given that my undergraduate degree is in accountancy.
What are the options available for me to obtain the requisite quantitative knowledge? I think the Quantitative Studies for Finance program offered by [Columbia University](http://ce.columbia.edu/certificates/quantitative-studies-for-finance-certificate) would be suitable but it is quite pricey.
Are there similar programs in other universities or alternative modes of study that can give me sufficient quantitative background to apply for grad school?<issue_comment>username_1: There really isn't much that you can do to change the system, especially if it actively turns a blind eye to the issue. If that is the trend at your university over a significant number of past generations, the credibility of the university might already be damaged. That can hurt you chances with employers. If this trend is relatively new, the bad reputation will come, albeit hopefully well after you graduate.
You can do something how you tackle your education. You should try to learn more than you're required to pass the exams. Browse other programs' curricula and see what the differences are and then try to fill those gaps. Find internships to get practical experience. In other words, try to acquire much more expertise than your peers. Although a university's reputation goes a long way as a recommendation, in the end it is your skill level that defines your worth.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Sounds like extreme case and very difficult situation. Assuming the situation is in India based on link in OP's post.
To answer your specific questions:
>
> Can I do anything at all to change the status quo? How should I go
> about collecting facts around this and document my findings as
> something concrete that will likely create an impact?
>
>
>
I would advise to save yourself a lot of time and frustration and *not* challenge the established system. I agree with previous posters who also advised against this. If the system is complicit and the practice exists in spite of widespread awareness of it, then you are facing an uphill battle that should not be where you need to invest your time as a student.
An exception might be a situation that nobody (or only a few accomplices) is aware of, in which case whistle-blowing might yield results with minimum adverse impact for you. As it stands, even if you step forward, you will likely face retribution and will lose more than you will gain, except a clear conscience.
Instead, I would suggest to speak up through your own example and action: take whatever knowledge you've learned with you and move to another place where you can enter a more reputable institution. Once you are safely established in another university, write an (anonymous) but public, open letter to the administration of the "problem" university outlining your reasons for leaving in relation to the cheating practice.
To make it count, you might consider publishing your letter as an anonymous (under a pseudonym) letter to the editor of a more progressive local newspaper in the city where this university is located, in print and/or online (especially online, where it cannot be forgotten the next day). Public shaming can be a powerful weapon, especially in the East/Southeast Asian cultures...
What you are describing does indeed sound like a waste of your time in a formal education environment.
Therefore, I'd say to cut your losses while you still have time, enroll in a better school (transfer credits from this school if you can) and finish your degree there.
In the end, this is about principles, and what your education and future is worth to you. It is easiest to think short-term: "hey, others are still studying here and seem to be graduating and getting OK jobs, why should I be different?" Such short-term thinking might give temporary comfort.
But the long term cost of such near-sightedness will be high: foregone opportunities, low reputation of your degree, limited job prospects, and a different self-image and identity as a result. To me these factors seem important enough to seriously evaluate other options.
Even if a better choice may be more difficult in the short term (finding/moving to another area and enrolling in another institution), the long-term wisdom of such a decision is not to be underestimated. It will pay dividends with better education, better career prospects, and a brighter future. You will thank yourself for it soon enough. Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> I do not think I will be able to stand against this alarming tolerance for dishonesty any longer.
>
>
>
I think what you are saying is that you are feeling yourself starting to give way and succumb to participating in the cheating at some level.
Here's why I think you should continue to resist the temptation.
* I doubt you need to cheat.
* Cheating would corrupt you and change you into a different person.
Upvotes: -1
|
2015/05/15
| 795
| 3,143
|
<issue_start>username_0: Just like the Latin honors system in undergraduate programs, is there such a system for postgraduate degrees ?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that it significantly depends on country and university, but, based on my kind of unfortunate experience, graduate schools very rarely use the Latin honors system (with the exception of the JD degree and, less frequent, some other degrees - see below for an example).
As a recent Ph.D. graduate with high GPA (3.94, which usually corresponds to *summa cum laude*), I was wondering the same thing, while updating my CV and resume. I have asked someone at my program's office, but the reply was that at our university the Latin honor system is used usually for undergraduate and, perhaps, for some medical degrees. The lady was polite and advised to inquire further at the program's office. However, after reading [the corresponding Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_honors) and browsing some graduation-related documents on my university's website, I have figured that further research is not worth spending my time, so I have just made sure that my CV and resume contain correct GPA numbers for all my degrees (it is not as practical as the Latin honors terms, since those terms can be used in other contexts beyond the one of CV or resume). I hope this is helpful.
**NOTE.** Here's the information on grading and academic honors at some of the top MBA programs: <http://poetsandquants.com/2014/02/27/how-mbas-are-graded-at-top-schools/2>. Note the total *lack* of graduation honors at Yale. Despite the existence of a variety of *unique honors* at some of the top schools, for the majority of the rest of graduate schools, the most common academic honor terms at the graduate level seem to be "with distinction" or similar, as mentioned by @username_2.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: At my university, you can graduate at the doctoral level "with distinction." This is the only honor we offer (aside from dissertation prizes) and it's entirely based on the dissertation, not on coursework.
We don't even calculate the GPA of our graduate students.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: No, there are no such titles or honors with grad school, as you must maintain a B or higher to pass. A grade of B- or lower will result in failing or incompleting the course. Due to this standard of requiring at least a 3.0, all
students inevitably have high GPA's upon graduating. Ultimately, grad students are expected to work harder, provided harder work and obtaining a high GPA is no longer an accomplisment, but rather anticipated.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Not in the US. However, many Universities will put "passed with distinction" or some variant of that on your transcripts.
As for the people that say "nobody cares about your grades in grad school"... try explaining your theory to a potential employer when justifying why you are a better choice with your 3.4 than your competition that has a 4.0. Employers do care because your grades are a solid indicator of the level of work you put into things.
Upvotes: -1
|
2015/05/15
| 777
| 3,245
|
<issue_start>username_0: I wonder why editors sometimes do reject submitted manuscripts for being out of the journal's scopes while the authors have utilized published papers from the same journals.
Is it just a polite way of rejection?<issue_comment>username_1: Citing articles form a given journal does not automatically mean your paper is in its scope.
Even if the subject and methodology of your work seem similar to the ones of the articles in a given journal, the scope can also include quality criteria. As an example, Nature Chemistry, in the [description of its scope](http://www.nature.com/nchem/authors/aims_scope.html) says:
>
> Nature Chemistry is committed to publishing **top-tier** original research in all areas of chemistry [...]
>
>
>
Or, some journals decide to accept only papers based on their impact potential. If we look at the New England Journal of Medicine, the [scope description](https://cdf.nejm.org/misc/authors/) states:
>
> We are interested in original research that will **change clinical practice** or **teach us something new** about the biology of disease.
>
>
>
etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: username_1 has given a good answer, but it's not the only possibility for such a rejection. Suppose you publish a paper in, say, "Topology and Its Applications", in which you prove some topological result using (among other things) a set-theoretic lemma. And suppose I later prove some result in algebra using (among other things) your lemma. Of course, I would cite your paper, but that doesn't put my algebra paper into the scope of "Topology and Its Applications".
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: One of the most common cases for being out of scope for the journal in such a case is that the paper is not at the right level of the theory-practice scale.
In particular, an application paper can make use of a lot of concepts of earlier theoretical work. Yet, that doesn't meant that the application paper is in scope. If the readership of the journal most likely does not understand the details of the application that are needed to understand the paper, then this is a good reason for rejection.
Likewise, for a theory paper, the problem studied may be well-motivated by practice. Yet, if the novel result builds on concepts that are out-of-scope for the rather practical journal, then the paper is also likely to be rejected.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'll add another example to the several already given. There are a number of journals (e.g. some or many of the *Letters on...*) which have a somewhat fast review process, in order to publish results on "hot topics" in a relatively short time.
However, to publish in those kind of journals, not only does your work have to be on-topic, original, innovative, etc. (the usual stuff), but you should also justify the need for such a fast publication track.
Now, even if you produce an original high-quality work with the aim of publishing in such a journal, and even if your paper is apparently within its scope (and even citing references from that same journal), you might have worked on a topic which was hot ten years ago but now barely warm, and your paper would definitely fall out of scope.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/15
| 854
| 3,446
|
<issue_start>username_0: [This question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11191/do-online-cs-cse-masters-programs-add-any-value-when-applying-for-doctoral-phd) seems to indicate the answer is no but I don't know enough to see whether being accepted into a PhD program equals getting a teaching job. I attended a private four-year school at which the professors did minimal (if any) research and spent a lot of time personally assisting students outside of class. Because I've never attended a large, state school, I don't know if this is what it's like but I've heard it isn't.
I am much more interested in what I described (teaching and helping students) than in having large, impersonal classes and conducting research.
Would an online masters degree increase my chances of getting a job teaching computer science (the subject of my four-year degree) in the manner described above?<issue_comment>username_1: Probably not. Most teaching jobs require a PhD, and those that don't tend to be reserved for PhD students (my freshman and sophomore English classed were taught by PhD students, quite well, I might add). After many years of established practice as a computing professional, you might find yourself able to apply to teach at a community college in your area (if you're in the US) since your professional experience might substitute for the PhD. You might also qualify to teach a single special course as a adjunct professor in your narrow area of practice at a 4-year school, but it is doubtful that you would be hired as part of the regular faculty.
As noted in the other question, online master's degrees tend not to be focused on research, and so don't help much towards getting a PhD. We can argue about whether it is truly necessary to have a PhD to teach at the college level or not, but that is the norm in the vast majority of university education in the US and most of the world.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: No.
---
In the US, permanent university-level teaching positions in computer science, even at small four-year colleges, require a Ph.D. As I explained in [my earlier answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/11209/65), an online master's degree will *not* help you get into a PhD program.
For some non-tenure-track positions, a master's degree *with a thesis* may be enough, but a terminal/professional/course-based master's degree won't be; whether that terminal master's program is online or on-campus is essentially irrelevant.
In short, if you want a permanent teaching position, you need formal research experience.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: A master's degree would probably put you in a position where you could teach as an adjunct at a university. Adjuncts typically teach on a class-by-class basis, they are generally not full-time employees, and don't get paid very well. You might be able to teach at a community college as well (likely in a similar position).
Your master's degree program will probably influence your ability to get a job. While some online programs are good, many are not, and some come with "baggage" that might get in your way (for-profit degree programs for example).
If you still live in the same area as your undergraduate institution, you shoiuld mention to a faculty member you are close to there that you are interested in teaching as an adjunct. They would be able to give you better advice for what to do.
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/15
| 707
| 2,908
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently undertaking my PhD in a very niche sub field of Artificial Intelligence. However, I have, what I consider, a strong background in programming and often contribute to many open source projects in my spare time. I have recently started an Open Source project which solves a very particular problem, but is outside the scope of my PhD research.
I wish to publish my hobby research and I doubt this is something my project supervisors, or university would be interested in. Should I go ahead and publish without their knowledge, or should I ethically bring it to their attention before I send it off? It should be noted, because it is my hobby project, I don't particularly want it influenced by an academic agenda.<issue_comment>username_1: This is something that you need to discuss specifically with your advisors. They may or may not be interested in the publication—but they may also have an interest in ensuring that your goal of publishing doesn't interfere with your paid work. (For instance, spending a lot of time editing your "hobby" manuscript when you should be working on your talk for an upcoming conference for your "paid" project.)
You should also check with your university's intellectual property office about the guidelines for such work. So long as you're doing things on your own without university assistance or resources, there might not be a problem. But if you need to use equipment owned by them to produce your idea, things might change.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> I wish to publish my hobby research and I doubt this is something my project supervisors, or university would be interested in.
>
>
>
Well, why not. As long as it does not interfere with your day-to-day work, I would not assume that your advisor has quarrels with that. However, note that e.g., going to conferences might be tricky. In a bad case, you'll need to fund it all by yourself, and conferences can get quite pricey. In the worst case, you even need to take off to visit the conference.
>
> Should I go ahead and publish without their knowledge, or should I ethically bring it to their attention before I send it off?
>
>
>
Only if you desperately *want* this to end badly. If they don't want you to do this research for some reason, them finding out after the fact won't make it better at all. If they like you to do this research, or don't care, they will *still* be pissed that you did not say anything. I can't imagine a realistic scenario where it's better for you to not have said anything.
>
> It should be noted, because it is my hobby project, I don't particularly want it influenced by an academic agenda.
>
>
>
If they don't care about the project, why would they want to influence it? *If* they care about it, they will be annoyed that you decided to work on this on your own one way or another.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/15
| 2,768
| 12,043
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm just curious. I have a strong GPA, but I heard that's not enough. I was told that among a GRE score, schools actually place stronger emphasis on performance in 4 classes: a proofs/logic course, analysis, discrete math, and a linear algebra course (this was apparently has less emphasis than the first 3). I was told that these classes are the bread and butter of most graduate math classes and are indicative of how well you can learn the more rigorous content. Is this true?
I have some research experience under the NSF in mathematical epidemiology with a few poster presentations and abstracts at conferences.
Do these schools care about extracurricular such as volunteering experience? I know these aren't going to get you into Harvard per se, but do they slightly augment your profile? I know academia is primarily concerned with research so this may not be too relevan.<issue_comment>username_1: I am an (associate) professor of mathematics at the University of Georgia and was involved in graduate admissions for several years. My answer is based on a perspective which is somewhat skewed towards pure mathematics: we have applied mathematics in our department as well, but it is one of seven research groups, so when looking at applications, to a first approximation we select for the same things among pure and applied applicants (and in fact not all applicants clearly identify themselves as one or the other, which is fine). There are other departments that are more than half applied mathematics, and yet other departments (e.g. at Harvard) where applied math is a separate department entirely.
The main things we look at are competitive GRE scores (including the math subject exam), strong grades attained in strong courses, and very strong recommendation letters which convince us that the student would have a good chance of succeeding in our program. These letters generally come from faculty who have taught the student multiple courses, including an advanced course and/or a reading course. Getting one letter of recommendation from someone who directed undergraduate research is a popular choice and is fine, but it does not really make a big contribution to the application because most such letters sound exactly the same (no one is going to say "So and so did an REU with me, and let me tell you: we got nothing done over the whole summer.")
>
> [S]chools actually place stronger emphasis on performance in 4 classes: a proofs/logic course, analysis, discrete math, and a linear algebra course (this was apparently has less emphasis than the first 3).
>
>
>
I don't find this to be especially good advice. For me, the key courses are
(i) real analysis, (ii) abstract algebra, (iii) topology, especially the first two. These are in fact three of the four topics in which most of our PhD students take qualifying exams [some applied students take numerical analysis and/or probability]. Moreover, every graduate program in math I've ever heard of requires students to take exams in real analysis, abstract algebra or both. Because these courses exist at both the advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate level, we really want students to have taken the undergraduate versions and have done well in them. If they haven't, then they need to begin a graduate program taking these undergraduate courses, then make the transition to the graduate versions and then take and pass the quals, all within a couple of years. That's hard.
Concerning your list:
(i) proofs/logic
Many students do not take a separate course on this. In my undergraduate program we have a course on this but the strongest track of student avoid it by taking a kind of analysis class in which this material is taught on the fly. Whether a student knows proofs and logic should be clear from the rest of their coursework and their recommendation letters.
(ii) analysis
Yes, this one is dead-on. Let me say that a lot of courses are called "analysis". We look carefully to see what the text is and what the topics were. Something at the level of Rudin's *Principles of Mathematical Analysis* should be taken in order to be competitive.
(iii) discrete math
No, this is really not a critical course. I can't think of many graduate courses that have such a course as a prerequisite. Also the name "discrete math" is often used for a lower level course not even taught to majors. But if you mean something like combinatorics, probability or graph theory: these are courses which most students enjoy, but they are not the courses we are looking to see if our applicants have taken. This is not to say that the material from these courses is not important or useful in mathematics: it most certainly is, increasingly so across all parts of mathematics. But it's not hard enough to learn to separate applicants like certain other courses. I have never taken a course in graph theory, but some of my papers contain results about graphs: it's just not that hard to learn graph theory on the fly.
(iv) linear algebra
Yes, you need to have taken such a course, just like you need to have taken a course in multivariable calculus. But this is (at the latest) a sophomore-level course for most students who go on to graduate school. A course (or more) in *abstract* algebra, which will in places build on the linear algebra, is much more critical.
>
> I was told that these classes are the bread and butter of most graduate math classes and are indicative of how well you can learn the more rigorous content. Is this true?
>
>
>
As above, I don't think the list is well-chosen to be among the most important courses. Also "indicative of how well you can learn the more rigorous content" is a red flag to me: a student's graduate application should be replete with *evidence* of how well she has learned the more rigorous content, by successfully completing coursework containing this content!
Who is giving you this advice? Faculty in your department?
>
> Do these schools care about extracurricular such as volunteering experience?
>
>
>
Not really.
>
> I know these aren't going to get you into Harvard *per se*, but do they slightly augment your profile? I know academia is primarily concerned with research so this may not be too relevant.
>
>
>
Very slightly at best. Just putting it on your CV is probably worth precisely nothing. If you can describe your volunteering experiences in your personal statement in a way which makes them sound compelling *and* relevant to your graduate career then....well, then you have written a good personal statement, which could help you a bit. If you did something really substantial which shows
off organizational and administrative skills that most students lack, that would also help a bit...but not as much as the time you put into it. Obviously there are other good reasons to do volunteer / community work that have nothing to do with an academic application, so you should certainly feel free to do so. Just don't think of it in terms of improving your application.
**Added**: The OP asked for followup information from an applied perspective. I can only give the perspective of a math department that admits some students who study applied mathematics. In our department, the requirements for applied students are only slightly different from all other students. In particular, [see here](http://www.math.uga.edu/written-qualifying-examination-study-guide) for qualifying exam information, which shows that all students are required to take both real and complex analysis and (algebra or topology); students who do not want to take both algebra and topology can take probability (which by the way is very close to real analysis and quite challenging) or numerical analysis. I believe that the vast majority of students in my PhD program specializing in applied mathematics have taken the abstract algebra qual.
My department has recently added on **applied area of emphasis** for its undergraduate math major. In this track, abstract algebra is not requrired (though it is required for all other majors): [see here](http://www.math.uga.edu/sample-math-major-programs) for some sample programs. On the other hand, as a student interested in graduate study you need to know that these major requirements are very intentionally designed to be *as minimal as we can get away with*. We want to have more math majors, not less. Students who want to take more classes are always free to do so. Moreover we tell our students that for certain career paths they should take more classes. Especially [here](http://www.math.uga.edu/doctoral-work-mathematics) we recommend further classes, including two semesters of algebra. This advice is not specifically targeted at students who are interested in pure mathematics. And by the way, there are many kinds of applied mathematics which you would be absolutely locked out of without an undergraduate background in algebra.
>
> I do not think I will need abstract algebra directly, but I'm slightly ignorant.
>
>
>
It is very unlikely that any undergraduate math major can say with any assurance what kind of mathematics they will not need in their PhD studies or later career. Making this kind of decision is a kind of negative investment in the future.
>
> Some schools of interest do not have that content in the curricula.
>
>
>
Please let me know what specific programs you are looking at. That would be useful information to me and I could give you more targeted advice. In particular, all of this advice is predicated under the assumption that you are applying for graduate study in a **mathematics department** in the United States. If you are interested in an interdisciplinary program, or e.g. want to do mathematical biology from a biology department, then things will be *very* different. If you are applying to a university which has separate programs in pure and applied math -- or has separate posted admissions requirements -- then things will be different again. But for general admission to a math department in the US: not having abstract algebra will be a huge point against you, I believe.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Seconding @PeteLClark's points, and continuing on certain points, such as <NAME>':
First, as <NAME>' comment: even successful grad students (both in admission and in the program) very often do not understand what it was about their situation that gained admission, and has allowed them to succeed afterward. That is, people with little perspective cannot know whether success came *because* of X, or *despite* X, etc. Ask faculty, especially people who've been involved in admissions.
About REUs: while "applied" REUs can be more genuine, if you're part of an ongoing research team that was not called into existence just for the sake of "having an REU", then this starts to be a plus on your CV. On the other hand, if you're the most-junior author on a five-author paper, that in itself is not so special. If the project is genuine and on-going, and you can get a letter saying that you made a contribution at the level of somewhat-more-senior team members, that's worth something... But, still, application of routine mathematics outside of mathematics is not strong evidence of future potential. In many cases, letters from non-math people endorsing grad math applicants are not so helpful because they give immediate evidence of having too little idea about what is routine versus new, etc., in mathematics.
I would think that "swapping out" abstract algebra for numerical analysis is ill-considered, even if the (minimum?) standards of some program allow it. The very-basic abstract algebra (much like very-basic analysis) is necessary to avoid pretty-serious illiteracy (e.g., in understanding some aspects of numerical analysis...) Over-narrowing, or misguided premature "specialization", is unwise. "Advanced undergrad" material is ... not very advanced: it's just the basics. Don't short-change yourself.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/15
| 724
| 2,991
|
<issue_start>username_0: I realize this is field- and topic-specific but I'm hoping some of this is generalizable.
I'm in the social science side of information science and narrowing down dissertation topics. Some of what I'd like to do is frankly probably too ambitious for a dissertation, involving randomized control trials in the field (a developing country) that may take a while to get right. So I've thought of doing the dissertation as mixed-methods, based around interviews and surveys, but in such a way that it plants the seed of an RCT that will bear fruit after I write the actual dissertation.
* Generally speaking, in the social sciences, does it make sense to embark on a longer-term project but write a dissertation on one part of it?
* What external resources could help me figure out the trade-offs here? Obviously my adviser and committee will be the best resource, but it could also be helpful to network with people who have done something like this. Where would I find them?
Again, this may be so context-specific that it's hard to give useful general answers, and I can try to rephrase it in a more helpful way. But info science is a pretty small field, the part that deals with international development smaller still, so asking a question specific to that niche seems unlikely to benefit anyone else.<issue_comment>username_1: Research is rarely a one shot affair. Whatever you do you'll likely be building on later on, whether it was your original plan, or some offshoot you didn't even dream of initially. So I'd say you should be glad to have some plan for "after dissertation" now.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This is, in my mind, a fairly common way to actually do a dissertation, and if you're proposing extensive field work and I was on your committee, something I might actually insist on, for one reason alone:
**Field-work is unreliable**
So your data gets lost when a truck upends on some rural road. It turns out the place where you should be getting subjects who have X trait doesn't actually have anyone like that. You wanted to kick off something in rural Guinea in the summer of 2015, but you'd rather not get Ebola...
RCTs and field studies are long, they're hard, and they're expensive. Having a smaller part of it, whether it be a mixed-methods paper, preliminary data, theoretical work, etc. can help insulate you from some of the perils of that by making sure you at least have *something* to write about.
From my own experience, I embarked on a project that was way more ambitious than was really advisable for my dissertation, and as one mentor put it after I had finished 2-3 papers..."Cut and run. Finish stuff up for your postdoc or faculty position." Having created a larger project, having lots of data, etc., and having thought about your work in a larger context that you're already working on is, in my experience, a nice way to be able to articulate your future plans as a researcher on the job market.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/15
| 745
| 3,042
|
<issue_start>username_0: To give a bit of context: I got accepted to UIUC for the Fall 2015 semester to start my graduate studies in Mechanical Engineering. I've been interested in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences as a field to specialize in for quite a while now. As such, I've been contacting many professors in that area to see if they have RA positions, but all have not been fruitful (no open slots). Having some sort of assistantship is the only way I can pay for tuition there without resorting to loans, which I really want to avoid since I was able to do so for my undergraduate studies. There are still professors I can contact in the area, but the number of options is dwindling. I've considered looking into the other departments in hopes of finding something before the Fall semester starts. I would like to "stick to my guns" on this because it is an area that I am actually interested in, but time is catching up with me quickly.
It says on the MechSE website that 85% of students receive funding this way, so it seems like I would have a good chance of getting something. Should I be worried that I don't have something definite at this time? Most of the professors have been able to respond quickly (less than a week sometimes), but some simply do not respond. I'm not sure of what to do except keep emailing professors and consider my other research options.<issue_comment>username_1: Research is rarely a one shot affair. Whatever you do you'll likely be building on later on, whether it was your original plan, or some offshoot you didn't even dream of initially. So I'd say you should be glad to have some plan for "after dissertation" now.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This is, in my mind, a fairly common way to actually do a dissertation, and if you're proposing extensive field work and I was on your committee, something I might actually insist on, for one reason alone:
**Field-work is unreliable**
So your data gets lost when a truck upends on some rural road. It turns out the place where you should be getting subjects who have X trait doesn't actually have anyone like that. You wanted to kick off something in rural Guinea in the summer of 2015, but you'd rather not get Ebola...
RCTs and field studies are long, they're hard, and they're expensive. Having a smaller part of it, whether it be a mixed-methods paper, preliminary data, theoretical work, etc. can help insulate you from some of the perils of that by making sure you at least have *something* to write about.
From my own experience, I embarked on a project that was way more ambitious than was really advisable for my dissertation, and as one mentor put it after I had finished 2-3 papers..."Cut and run. Finish stuff up for your postdoc or faculty position." Having created a larger project, having lots of data, etc., and having thought about your work in a larger context that you're already working on is, in my experience, a nice way to be able to articulate your future plans as a researcher on the job market.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/15
| 1,326
| 5,326
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently an undergraduate student at a large state university.
I have good grades (>3.90 GPA) in Biochemistry and I am now adding computer science courses. I am doing equally well in those (>3.80 GPA). But the majority of my research is in biochemistry. I did my honors thesis, worked in a wet lab for two years, and have two research publications. But these all have nothing to do with computer science.
I am really happy with the people in biochemistry and molecular biology, but not with the field itself. My biology advisors tell me I can probably do very well for myself in biochemistry. But I want to do computer science, since that is where my interests really lie. I like making algorithms out of strange algebras that don't exist and really fancy statistics that pretend they can think, and that is almost non-existent in my field of molecular genetics. I am not a fan of bioinformatics.
I already have research experience. But it might not be the right type of research experience. Nor do I have CS internships. Just lots of biology. Should I apply for those phd programs now, or should I wait until I have more research in computer science before I apply for Ph.D. programs?
Now suppose I apply for these top ten Ph.D. programs and I am rejected. How are reapplicants viewed within the academic cs community? Can I try again after a stint in your average brand-name company?<issue_comment>username_1: In navigating my own applications over the years, I'm led to believe that the most important thing they want to know about you is are you going to be a good researcher. That you have publications in a technical field helps you a lot, it demonstrates you know the process one must go through in pursuing original work.
I will say that going straight to a PhD at a top 10 university in the field is somewhat of a leap without having much CS background, they won't have much evidence that your research interests are well-developed and that you are really serious about sticking with studying computer science at that level for 5+ years. But if they like what they see from your research and undergraduate coursework and recommendation letters (VERY IMPORTANT), then they will often just have you take a handful of pre-requisite courses at the beginning to get you caught up to where they think a beginning PhD student should be, e.g. taking some upper-level undergraduate classes that give you a good breadth of CS knowledge.
You would have a much better shot at getting into a Masters program in CS coming from your position, if you are willing to fund it yourself or take out loans. Oftentimes your PhD funding comes from a member of the faculty and so they need adequate convincing that you're worth the money.
My advice would be: apply to a few top 10 PhD programs you think you'd be a good fit for, apply to a few middle-tier PhD programs to give you some options, and then apply to a few MS programs if you think you'd be willing to go that route. You'll probably get an MS acceptance somewhere, you have a good shot at getting into a middle tier school, and you never know! They may just really like your application bundle and you might land a golden seat at a top 10.
And if you don't like the results, spend a year or two doing things to improve your application (CS research, online classes, work through problems in well-known textbooks, get a MS degree, read A LOT of papers and develop very specific research interests, etc.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I actually see that you need to revaluate your Priorities about the so called Top 10 Universities.
I now see that the so called Top Schools are just Ranking Junkies.
Apply to lesser Known Schools in the USA Canada or Europe because the Top Schools attract too many Applicants for just 1000 Spots.
In 2002 Harvard Attracted 22.000 Applicants and now in 2020 it attracts 39.000 Applicants just for BA Degree Levels.
Top Colleges are now behaving like Corporations making money or mining their Students instead of Giving formal Education to their Patrons.
Hence Lies the Tragedy of College and University Education in the Western World.
So many students graduate with huge Student Loans worth averagely 45.000 US Dollars in the Grand Scheme of affairs.
College more important especially when it comes to Medecine Engineering and the Law.
Other subjects are just taking up land and Campus Space.
Besides one can also learn in the library and do Online Courses to add to the University Diploma Gained.
Less Known Colleges and Varsities have time for you and will enable you to become Outstanding at your Pace.
You see College must go at the Pace of your Intellectual Ability
<NAME> said there is life beyond the Ivy League so do not at all disregard the State Schools and Universities in the USA Canada and Europe.
Be humble and get into a lesser Known to avoid Wasting Dollars and Precious Time in So Called Elite Schools.
Think about it we are the all the same humans no matter the School we attend for a Diploma or a Certificate.
The Editors who create Rankings assume that creating a Social Class will get People a sense of Ego Snobbery and Nepotism.
If one can write and understand Good English then one has a leg up un the World of Academia and Graduate Schools.
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/15
| 973
| 4,174
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm 27 and looking for advice on the career path for lecturing in Computer Science. At the moment I have just started a job at a blue chip company in Software Engineering. However my prime goal is to become a lecturer.
My education background is a little sidewards in terms of fundamental knowledge in Computing (details in algorithms, memory, programming) as I have a BA in Graphic Design and a conversion Masters in Computing (which skimmed the subject).
I would be interested in pursuing a Phd in Computer Science focusing on HCI/ software engineering. However my concern is whether or not I have the confidence in the fundamental knowledge as I only achieved a Pass on my Masters.
So my question is, would taking a postgraduate diploma in Advance Computer Science benefit before fully undertaking a Phd?
Both courses would be undertaken part-time whilst working.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated!<issue_comment>username_1: I think that would depend on where and what you teach. I've been a "computer science" prof for years because at the beginning of my career while working for a "dot com" I was asked to substitute for a class at a very famous design school and the instructor never came back. Then I went to the department chair with a bunch of suggestions for things I thought they could improve in the program and they made me an assistant professor. Then they put me in charge of the technical faculty. Then they let me expand "coding" classes out into things like physical computing and HCI. And because of this experience (teaching, curricular development, faculty leadership, not to mention panels and publications) I've been hired at other places, and go back and forth between industry and teaching.
It does sound like you're in the UK but I know a lot (most) schools in the US will hire people with very strong industry experience even if they don't have a Ph. D. So while having a Ph. D. might be a clearer path to some extent, teaching gigs are competitive no matter what you do. Working in the industry might not necessarily work against you!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm not familiar with "postgraduate diploma in Advance Computer Science." If you were in the US, I would say, don't spend a lot of money at this point, just take a few courses as a non-degree-seeking student. You need to get deeply into the key undergraduate computer science courses, because you said you only skimmed computer science.
Getting admitted to a PhD program isn't the only hurdle. We also want to make sure you have the requisite grounding in the fundamentals so as to have a good start in your PhD program.
When you're doing your applications for a PhD program, you can present whatever degrees you have, and also the individual non-matriculated courses you took after graduating, with transcripts for everything you studied. They will be able to put the puzzle pieces together to get a full picture of you as an applicant.
(I'm assuming you have your own strong reasons for wanting to teach, so I'm just taking that as a given.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: A PhD can very much be tailored to your skills: there are lots of areas of research in computer science and your interdisciplinary background will likely help find you a niche.
Of greater concern is what sort of academic career you want. At some universities a "lecturer" is 50/50 teaching and research, at others it is mostly teaching. If you want to work at a research-led university, a PhD is crucial and you may be able to just teach the topics you research.
At a teaching-led university, your industry experience will be of benefit (as modules tend to be more practical, less theoretical), but with greater teaching load you may end up lecturing something you're less confident in. This is fine: you'll learn the subject well enough, and really the skill is in constructing a suitable environment to facilitate students learning the subject, rather than reciting everything you know. But if this is the route you want to follow, you might save yourself some stress later by becoming a bit more confident in the fundamentals now.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/15
| 156
| 650
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is there any university in the US offers PhD admission for the Spring? I'm trying to apply for the Cell and Molecular Biology at any university in the US<issue_comment>username_1: Not any place reputable. All of the reputable schools follow the standard application schedule of Nov-Dec deadlines and spring notifications for matriculation in the fall.
There may be some online or non-traditional schools with rolling deadlines, however these should be avoided.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Florida Atlantic University and Tennessee State University admit students in the Spring semester for PhD program.
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/16
| 772
| 3,104
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is there any website/forum where people post their application results? For instance a website where people write the name of university they applied for, their GPAs, their GRE/TOEFL scores, their subject, ... and the result of admission? I'm just eager to see some admission results from top US universities specially in Statistics and/or Computer Science.<issue_comment>username_1: thegradcafe.com is a popular website that, as far as I am aware, is the only site that really covers most of what you're asking for. If you search for some key words you can get a spread of a single program or university, and you can see what kinds of students are getting in or rejected.
However, people don't always state all of their information... I have seen many people who just say they "got in" or didn't. So it isn't always the most helpful source for anything but statistics, which you want, but that can be moot if only four or five students have said anything about the particular program. This happens a lot. It isn't the best spread. I also can't imagine there isn't lying going on.
One lesson to take away from that website is that there's an amazingly broad set of students both getting in and being rejected by all sorts of universities... I believe that it's a much more complex process than in undergraduate institutions. Perhaps don't be so concerned about where you match up against a couple of people there. Ask your advisors, perhaps, where you may stand, or better yet, be in touch with professors at your chosen institution!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As others have stated, [thegradcafe.com](http://thegradcafe.com/) is the most used site for posting results. It seems that applicants from almost every discipline use their [results tracker](http://www.thegradcafe.com/survey/). However, it isn't very comprehensive when it comes to stats, and many people choose to omit the limited information that it can track.
Their forums are sometimes frequented as well depending on the discipline, while some disciplines have other common discussion sites. As far as I remember, the [statistics forum](http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/48-mathematics-and-statistics/) at gradcafe was fairly active during the admissions season. I know that a lot of math grad admissions discussion goes on at [mathematicsgre.com](http://www.mathematicsgre.com/), while most economics applicants gather at [urch.com](http://www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/). I'm betting that almost every discipline has some kind of forum or discussion site that people congregate at, but I am not as familiar with other fields.
If you're looking for in-depth profiles, these forums are often the best places to look. The sample size isn't very high, but most of the time they have some kind of "Profiles and Results" thread each year that people post in (e.g. [stats](http://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/60631-2015-applicant-profiles-admission-results-biostatisticsstatistics/), [econ](http://www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/155010-profiles-results-2015-a.html)).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2015/05/16
| 1,019
| 4,435
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to know whether I can place an inquiry to a journal editor about writing an invited review paper. In particular, I would like to write a review paper on a particular topic which is currently of significant research interest. However, I have not been invited to do so from the journal (where I would like to publish this review paper). In this regard, I am wondering whether I could draw the editor's attention via email and ask him whether I could be requested officially from him to write this review paper. Is it a valid inquiry from my side?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Is it a valid inquiry from my side?
>
>
>
**NO**. Invited reviews are the word "invited" means. The other party invites you to write a literature review paper because of your great expertise. You do not invite yourself. If you are Mr.Nobody, the whole effort of self-inviting will be embarrassing for you.
That does not mean that you should not actually proceed with the review paper. Just keep in mind that review papers are usually done by respectable and well-known authors who have contributed greatly and have great expertise in the suggested area. Also, remember that writing an extensive literature review may be very time consuming if you want to cover a great area. This is why review papers are done my multiple well-established authors who contribute almost equally and not by a single inexperienced author.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, you can. What sort of reply you will get is, however, uncertain, probably ranging from no reply to a kind explanation of what applies.
Invited reviews are just invited and the way the journal editors make the choice varies. I am sure the term *Invited review* is used varies from the case where every published review is though of and invited by the editors to the case where editors consider suggestions from others, perhaps ranging from prospective authors to their own ideas of useful reviews.
Running a journal where *Invited reviews* are accepted, I can say that the word *Invited* for us means there is no point in just sending in a review for consideration, it will be rejected, but we do accept suggestions which we then check for general interest and suitability and only then, maybe, provide a go ahead. In other words, an *Invited review* strictly means we have to agree that the proposal is viable. Suggestions can come from anyone, including as mentioned authors. So this being just one case, still serves to show that the concept *Invited review* can be viewed slightly differently from the literal.
So you can send your mail but please make sure you try to figure out as best you can how the individual journal invites such reviews, it should be clear from their journal page or their "Instructions for Authors".
EDIT: I should add that any letter should also include a proposal of the review which should clearly and in a short form describe the necessity for a review of that field. This is probably a point that is "make or break" if the journal accepts suggestions from prospective authors.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think there is some confusion in this question stemming from the notion of "official invitation." Unless you have some odd bureaucratic requirement that you have to fulfill in order to submit, requesting an official invitation seems odd.
I think that the notion you are actually trying to get at is what is more typically referred to as a [presubmission inquiry](http://blogs.plos.org/biologue/2012/06/28/whats-there-to-gain-from-a-well-explained-presubmission-enquiry/). In a presubmission inquiry, you write to the journal editor and say essentially, "I'm thinking about writing Article X. Would you be interested in me submitting this article to your journal?" The editor then comes back with "Yes," "No," or "Maybe, if you do the following..."
Presubmission inquiry can often be a good idea for everybody, because it means that you don't waste your time writing something the journal isn't interested in, and the journal's submissions are more aligned with what it wants to receive. Pretty much every journal is open to them, and some journals even encourage all authors to go through a [formal presubmission inquiry process](http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/submissions/presubs/).
In short: don't ask to be invited; send a presubmission inquiry to ask if they are interested.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/16
| 818
| 3,556
|
<issue_start>username_0: I invented something as part of my job in R&D, and I plan to patent it and get clearance from my company for publication in an academic conference. All the key novel ideas are mine, and I implemented them all and ran all the experiments.
However, I just don't feel comfortable about putting down my name as the sole inventor and author. When I see single-author papers, they always make me wonder if the author is dishonest and/or bad at working with others.
But no matter how much I look at my paper, I just don't see any noteworthy contribution to it from any of my co-workers. We were working on the same problem, but each taking a different approach.
Hence, the solution I've come up with is to put a co-worker's name on my paper and ask (force?) him to make some contribution to it, like helping with the literature citations and/or experiments.
But even then, I'm pretty sure he won't contribute much and I'll still end up doing all the work.
Do I really need to go out of my way to avoid being a single author? :(<issue_comment>username_1: I do not see any **ethical** reasons to insist on avoiding being a single author in the situation you described. I think that you are overreacting with your negative view of single author scientific artifacts and their authors. However, as you most likely understand, it all highly depends on a particular circumstances and in many cases it would be unethical not to include other people as co-authors, if their *contribution* is significant enough.
I think that the **legal** aspect might be much more difficult to resolve, unless your company is not interested in your ideas, as AFAIK most employment contracts assign *intellectual property* of artifacts, created during employment time frame and at employment location, to the employer.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As the proud author of many papers with all sorts of numbers of authors, anywhere from just myself to dozens of co-authors, I see no reason to avoid being a single author.
In evaluating a researcher, I would only have concern with their ability to collaborate if they show a *preponderance* of single-author papers. If somebody has a mix of single-author and multi-author papers, then my reaction will instead be *more* positive, because it shows they are both capable of collaboration and also capable of initiating truly independent work.
So: go for it on your single authorship (and/or inventorship)! Just make certain that your co-workers agree with you that they should not be authors/inventors, or else you may have an entirely different type of problem on your hands.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: There is nothing inherently wrong with single-author papers. It seems that you have a prejudice against single authors and, instead of using your experience as evidence to throw off that prejudice (you weren't dishonest and you presumably feel you're fine at working with others), you're trying to hold onto it by projecting that prejudice onto others.
Don't try to draft somebody in at the last minute just to avoid being a single author. To be honest, the way you describe it sounds manipulative and an example of being bad at working with others. Co-authorship is supposed to be about collaboration; it's not a mechanism for using other people so you can feel better about yourself. If the work is all yours, you are the sole author; if the contribution of others would improve the technical content of the paper, invite them to join you and do that.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/16
| 869
| 3,608
|
<issue_start>username_0: Most colleges in developing countries are sub-par by western academic standards. In one developing country, for example, professors are not obliged by law or by their institutions to pursue a doctoral degree. Even worse, this country’s state colleges lack decent science and computer laboratories, affecting in turn the quality of learning experience. No doubt, higher institutions in improvised countries have much to invest in their facilities, research, and faculty.
Having said this, does a student who graduated from a lower-ranking university in a developing country have a chance to be admitted to a graduate school in a western country? Based on your experience, do graduate schools give much weight to the reputation of your undergraduate school? If your school is accredited in your country, will this help?<issue_comment>username_1: There is a chance, but it is not easy, unfortunately. We get a good number of such applications at my department, and the problem is that we have no context to evaulate what the transcript means or what standards are used in the recommendation letters. (In fact, often the letter writers do not seem to know how to write useful letters.)
As a result, you will probably need to do something else to (i) make sure you are prepared for serious graduate studies, and (ii) show that you are prepared for serious graduate studies. For instance, study some serious books and write notes on topics online, or get actively involved in an SE site in your discipline. If you can arrange to do something like an independent study with someone, or study abroad, at a reputable institution, that's even better as you can get a meaningful reference.
When you do apply for grad schools, say if you want to get a PhD from a good school it is probably easier to try to do a masters' degree at decent but not top school first, then try move onto a PhD program at a better institution.
See also the related question: [How handicapped am I in graduate admissions if I graduated from a lower tier university?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/26791/19607)
PS I doubt if the admissions committee will have any idea whether a random school from your country is accredited or not, but if it's not, there's even less of a chance it will have prepared you for grad school.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Agreed. I went to a no-name non-ranking public university in the states because I was a first generation student, and that is what I could afford. I scored very well on GRE, and had a more substantial lab experience than most of my colleagues from known schools (e.g., received a fellowship in the thousands of dollars to run my own research project, etc.), but I found I was met with a bit of snobbery in the application/decision phase. I didn't understand it at first because there is a general feeling that your work should stand on its own merits. I'd interview and professors would say things like: "I'm very impressed, but where was your college again (the state was in the title!)? Oh, I've never heard of that. It sounds quaint." Ultimately, I found an advisor who took a risk on me, more because of what my profession was outside of college and how it related to her project. I found once I was in the PhD program and it was decision time that people would talk quite openly about how coming from a certain institution meant that the candidate likely had the "right pedigree." Maybe they were/are right, but it reeked of elitism.
It's going to be a tough climb. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try if you want really want it.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/16
| 668
| 2,590
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently attended an IEEE conference and presented some work. Empirically, how long does it take for my paper to appear online?
On both: live chat and the FAQs, I got the response that it may take *several weeks*. That is less than useful. What is the average duration in general?
>
> How long does it take for conference proceedings to be loaded in IEEE
> Xplore?
>
>
> IEEE publishes more than 1,300 leading-edge conference proceedings in
> electrical engineering, computer science, and related fields each
> year. Conference proceedings appear in IEEE Xplore approximately 30 to
> 60 days following receipt of the content by IEEE. Please note that
> conference proceedings often arrive at IEEE several weeks after the
> conference date. To view the status of a conference, download the IEEE
> Xplore conference proceedings title list (options at bottom of the
> page).
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: Depending on the particulars of production on both the conference side and the IEEE side, you should expect anywhere from a few weeks to six months. Both the IEEE and the conference staff can introduce delays here (I was recently publication chair for a conference whose proceedings were delayed by five months by the IEEE simply because they kept dropping the ball).
Note, however, that the [IEEE allows authors to put a copy of their own work online](http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?id=38&fIDnum=%7C). This means that you can make your own work accessible much more quickly, and can often find PDFs of the works other others as well, well before the official version appears in IEEE Xplore.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, especially with IEEE conferences in India, it usually takes 60 days to 90 days from the date of the conference, very few conferences may unfortunately have delays, but I've not seen it take longer than 6 months.
Pre-print publishing is widely accepted in IEEE and most publishing houses these days, and you can read more about them when submitting the final agreement and submitting the copyright form to IEEE. [Details of the policy are outlined here.](https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/become-an-ieee-journal-author/publishing-ethics/guidelines-and-policies/post-publication-policies/) For specific examples of how to write the preprint/postprint messages, you can check out the footers in the [initial](https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/2011/2011.13741v1.pdf) and [final](https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2011/2011.13741.pdf) versions of this ArXiv article.
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/17
| 2,399
| 10,189
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently abandoned my master's program. Long story short, she was a very strict director who always put me down. I didn't get along with her, and she never gave me any emotional or financial support. Now that I have quit, she asks I do a backup of all of the work I have done for her. I don't think it is fair that I have to give it to her, especially since there was no funding AND she kind of forced me to quit. I can't find any rules that adresses this type of situation.
**Should I give her what I have done since I produced those results while being her student?**
Here are more details: After 4 semesters, she told me that I didn't have the abilities to complete the masters program, and that she didn't know what to do with me. While it is true that my work wasn't the best, there also were a lot of problems with the actual project which explains why we weren't going as fast as she would have liked. She went on to talk to the dean, and I went to see my co-director for some alternatives so that I can complete my studies. He came up with a new project,with less interactions with her and more with him, which she rejected. She said that seeing how I have "not produced a single result", she won't start a new project. if I want to continue with her, I have to complete a number of tasks (on the original project) within the semester, and if I fail to complete them, the project is over. Since I was (still am) in a deep depression from working with her, I refused to continue seeing how I don't want to get psychologically weaker. I left school and hoped to get all of this behind me, but she then writes to me saying that since I decided to abandon, I need to give her my all of the data, articles, and other works. I don't understand why she wants my work when she says that I was an incompetent student who hasn't produced any results.
She never did any investment apart from giving her time, I paid for all of my studies and did my own research alone. I don't think I owe her anything.<issue_comment>username_1: Typically students' work belongs to the university. The professor is responsible for keeping track of it whether she wants it or not. The professional thing to do would be to provide the professor with all the records of your work. In fact, your supervisor should have told you to do that on a regular basis when you started, not when you left.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I disagree with @AnonymousPhysicist - AFAIK, based on [US Copyright Act (Title 17 of the US Code)](http://www.copyright.gov/title17), copyright is, by default, assigned to *authors* of *original works*, with some exceptions (for details, see the Act or the article linked below). In addition to those exceptions (which, I believe, don't include specific references to academic environment), it is important to emphasize the term "joint work", as it very often is applicable to academic and research environments. For that, you need to check your student handbook and/or other university policy documents. For a brief, but more readable than legal text, explanation, see [this page](http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-ownership).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I am a professor (UK). Ordinarily work produced by students belongs to the University - I believe our policy is that submitted work belongs to the University which is a subtle distinction.
In practice, if you don't provide her with the work they aren't going to do anything about it. So if your professor was as unpleasant as you suggest, just keep the work in spite.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> She never did any investment apart from giving her time
>
>
>
Whoa, there! That sounds like a significant investment, to me. Indeed, it's hard to see what other investment you could reasonably expect her to make. She's not responsible for your funding; she can't do the work for you because it's supposed to be your master's project, leading to your degree, not hers.
Nonetheless, it is typical for an advisor to provide sufficient guidance intellectual contribution to the project that they could reasonably expect to be a co-author on most papers coming out of the project. This is joint work and it belongs as much to your collaborators as to you, even if you don't get along with your collaborators any more.
What does it cost you to hand over the material? Do you expect to benefit from it in some way that will be diminished by giving it to the professor? If it costs you little or nothing, it's hard to see any justification for not handing it over. "I don't like her" is spite, not justification. The main benefit that I see from handing it over is that you can expect to be a co-author of any paper that results directly from the work you have done. And, if you do hand over the data, you should make this a condition.
You should also consider the impact of your decision on your future career. If you intend to leave academia then it's probably minimal: you're unlikely to be asking for a reference from this professor and it's unlikely you'll have any interaction with her in the future. However, if you intend to stay in academia, you need to think carefully about this. People's perceptions of your actions will depend very much on who they think was at fault. If, for example, your professor has a reputation of being difficult, maybe you gain sympathy from the community. However, if she has a reputation of being reasonable, trustworthy and easy to work with, there's the danger that you acquire the reputation of being difficult to work with, falling out and torpedoing projects.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm not a lawyer, and I think that this whole discussion over who owns the copyright is pointless
Copyright law gives copyright owner a monopoly over distributing copies of copyrighted work. So if University has that monopoly OP can't lawfully use the data for his own good. Hovewer copyright owner can't (I'm not a lawyer) force anyone to give back a copy of copyrighted work.
University shouldn't also be able to force you to do any work for free (and backing up two years of work is a serious effort), so answer: "I'm busy" should be accepted.
In my university there is no regulation stating that student is obliged have their work properly backed up. So you are not obliged to even have the data on your computer.
So IMO you are not obliged to give back the data. Wheter you should depends on whether you want to leave academia (and you are sure that you'll never want to go back to academia). You need to decide that yourself.
If you give the data back, plesae note that you should, at least, be a co-author of all publications based on your work. On the other hand, even if she promises to give you co-authorship, you'll have no means to enforce that promise.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I'm sorry to hear about this difficult situation and your resulting depression. It sounds to me like you feel like you're being taken advantage after a few semesters of bullying and put-downs. Do you think your former supervisor is a narcissist? If so, you might want to read up on that disorder before deciding how to respond. Here are some options to consider:
If you give her your material, that represents a significant amount of time to back up the work. You won't feel great while doing it, because you'll probably feel like you're being non-assertive and bullied again. That said, you might feel better knowing that by doing so, she's less likely to contact you again and that you can close that door and begin to move on. If she's a narc, this is probably the least dangerous option, and that might make you feel better about taking this option - knowing that you have other choices to ignore/decline her, but that you're choosing to do this for yourself to minimize damage. If you go for this option, you will want to politely email her the information and also indicate that you're not interested in continuing communication with her in the future. You'll want to give a lot of thought into your response, but something along the lines of: "Attached is the information you requested - I trust this meets your expectations. I am currently moving into a different direction, so we don't need to stay in contact, but I wish you all the best with your future research."
If you are feeling too down for that, then you might temporarily feel better to ignore the request. That might solicit more emails from her, which probably won't help you - you'll probably feel guilty or bad about yourself every time she writes. She could also get increasingly aggressive. This therefore wouldn't be a long-term solution - only if you are too down to deal with it "right now".
Another alternative is an honest "no" along the lines of: "I'm afraid I can't attend to this at the moment - this represents a significant time investment and I'm currently quite busy doing other things at the moment. I am currently moving into a different direction, so we don't need to stay in contact, but I wish you luck with your future research." This is all true, because you're busy trying to recover and presumably find another route in life. Like the other options, it isn't great, because if your former supervisor is in fact a narcissist, she might get pretty toxic (mean, slanderous, etc), and she's in a position of power while you're not.
This is a tough call - there is not easy or right answer in my opinion. No matter what option you go for, remember to be polite. Also try to be compassionate to yourself no matter what you decide. Good luck!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: If she didn't help at all or provide any guidance, then it is your work completely. Don't give it to her. She didn't do her part in being a good advisor why should you do your part in being a great student at this point?
Professors think they can get away with anything. They don't do anything. They barely provide funding or guidance. You as the student come up with the idea and do all the grunt work and in the end you shouldn't be expected to advance her career when she barely lifted a finger for you.
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/17
| 2,306
| 9,515
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am approaching the end of a PhD in experimental physics. My work involves building and operating experimental equipment, primarily optics, with some electronics. I also have a significant data analysis and theoretical component. I majored in physics at the same school (a pretty well known one) and graduated near the top of my class.
However, despite what might look like a solid set of credentials proving that I really want to build a quantum computer and the obvious next step being a post doc or industry position researching the same field, I have realized that my reasons for pursuing this line of research for so long were primarily to earn prestige and respect and not because I personally care about what I am doing (although it is wonderful that others do!). In doing this I have always enjoyed the process of science and the combination of thought and creativity with the practicality of lab work, however due to my lack of enthusiasm or motivation for the actual topic of research I have often been unhappy.
I am trying to remember what exactly it was that motivated me to be a scientist and what I used to enjoy. My undergraduate degree combined a broad span of sciences and I worked on lab biology projects during vacation. However, I am quite sure that my real lifelong passion lies somewhere in the direction of ecology, earth science or environmental science, with maybe a preference towards plant sciences or broader scale ecology.
I am really aware of how vague and naive that might sound. I grew up outdoors but I never took seriously the things I care about as a possible option I would be allowed to consider in my adult life. Following a few personal revelations I now know that this is the way to madness, and you are never going to be a successful researcher in a field you don't care about anyway!
There are many things I don't know right now, but I do know that I remain a scientist and I am very much not afraid of a great deal of hard work.
Given all this my questions are:
1. How likely is it that I could make such a large career shift?
2. How do I go about finding out more about what research is out there and what I might like specifically, given the very large quantity of research that exists??
3. Does anyone know of any examples of people who have made similar shifts? (Partly just because right now I need the inspiration and belief I am not trapped!)
4. What sort of things might I do directly after my PhD to build experience/learn more? Is trying to get field experience a good idea? Should I start to consider Master's programs?
5. Am I completely as doomed as I think I could be?? :)<issue_comment>username_1: Let me offer you some advice. Please note that it is not too specific to physics-to-ecology transition, but it should be helpful as a *general approach*. Also, note that for the purpose of this answer, for **brevity**, I'm referring to *ecology, environmental science and earth science* simply to as *ecology*. First of all (and it seems that you plan to do that), I think that your *top priority* at this point should be to graduate from your program as best as you can, in terms of both *academic performance* (mainly, dissertation research) and *knowledge acquisition*.
>
> 1. How likely is it that I could make such a large career shift?
>
>
>
Nobody could answer this with *certainty*. This is because the outcome of the transition in question very much depends on a **variety of factors**, many of which include your *personal traits* as well as *external circumstances*, some of which you can control, but not all. All I can say is that is possible. Several examples that I'm providing below (answer to your question #3) illustrate / confirm that.
>
> 2. How do I go about finding out more about what research is out there and what I might like specifically, given the very large quantity of
> research that exists??
>
>
>
I'm surprised by this question, considering your background. An ability to find needed information, including an ability to find the large-scale sources (repositories, databases, journals, etc.) is IMHO a **fundamental** skill for any Ph.D. student. Yes, the amount of existing research is tremendous and is growing exponentially. This is why it is even more important for a researcher to be able to find what information do you need to find and how to do that. Basically, within academic context, I'm talking about a process of *systematic review of literature* aka *literature review*. I suspect (and hope) that you're aware of all that (then it's not clear to me why ask this question - perhaps, your formulation wasn't clear or I misunderstood it), but, just in case, please check [my relevant answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/45290/12391), which contains some advice as well as basic references.
>
> 3. Does anyone know of any examples of people who have made similar shifts? (Partly just because right now I need the inspiration and
> belief I am not trapped!)
>
>
>
Over the years, I've read about quite a number of people, who successfully transitioned not only from different academic fields, but even across completely different industries and occupations (which makes your potential transition look like child's play - just kidding). For example, I know about, at least, several people with mechanical engineering or business undergraduate education, who changed their career and became medical doctors(!). I also know about people with undergraduate and/or master's degrees in zoology and music (two different persons), who became successful executives (CEO/CTO) of software/IT companies. I'm sure that many people might provide many more similar examples. So, the point is that, since such career switches happen, your potential transition is *possible*. However, the big question is whether you can be among those, whose such transitions were successful, and how to increase the chances of that happening.
>
> 4. What sort of things might I do directly after my PhD to build experience/learn more? Is trying to get field experience a good idea?
> Should I start to consider Master's programs?
>
>
>
I would suggest you to avoid making drastic career changes, unless you have solid reasons to do so (for a hypothetical example, you realized that you absolutely hate physics and tremendously love ecology - I'm intentionally exaggerating here). What I suggest is a **smooth transition**, where you could *capitalize* on your existing skills and experience, which are *transferable* to the other domain. Considering your source and destination domains as well as other information in your question's background ("significant data analysis and theoretical component"), I would recommend you to focus within ecology domain on *research methodology* and *data analysis* areas as well as *statistical or other complex models*, which seems to be well aligned with your physics background. I would **not** consider master's programs in your situation. Perhaps, some specialized *certificate programs* or *several courses*, or, alternatively, some *MOOCs* in the target domain.
>
> 5. Am I completely as doomed as I think I could be?? :)
>
>
>
Not completely and, maybe and hopefully, even **not at all**, as shown above :-). Best of luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> How likely is it that I could make such a large career shift?
>
>
>
It is very common for people who studied physics to end up doing something rather different. Studying physics is great preparation for many different endeavors.
>
> How do I go about finding out more about what research is out there and what I might like specifically, given the very large quantity of research that exists??
>
>
>
Fun ways to do this are to attend seminars and take a look at journals in the target fields. At this point you're mainly getting your feet wet and getting a few ideas about what's out there, and what the culture of those other disciplines is like.
>
> Does anyone know of any examples of people who have made similar shifts? (Partly just because right now I need the inspiration and belief I am not trapped!)
>
>
>
My advisor, <NAME>, is a good example. You might enjoy reading this tribute and overview of his life and work: <http://www.yen.biology.gatech.edu/papers/Okubo%20tribute.pdf>
>
> What sort of things might I do directly after my PhD to build experience/learn more? Is trying to get field experience a good idea? Should I start to consider Master's programs?
>
>
>
Perhaps the shift would be less drastic if you started out by making a slight sideways move into environmental science. But that might not even be necessary.
I think you can go straight into a two-year postdoc after you graduate. As long as you choose the right sort of person or group to do it with, I don't think you'll need to do another degree or more coursework first, because of your undergrad broad span of sciences and the lab biology projects. If you find you have some gaps, you can fill them on your own or by auditing some classes while you're in the postdoc.
>
> Am I completely as doomed as I think I could be?
>
>
>
There are some interdisciplinary fields, such as mathematical ecology, that are new enough that many of the people in those fields originally trained in something else.
Final comment: the tail end of a PhD can be a desolate time, and a stressful time. So please take this growing ennui with a grain of salt.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/17
| 969
| 4,340
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm taking some time off between my undergraduate and graduate studies. I've definitely kept up the practice of my field during this time through self-study. My question relates to how I can show this to graduate admissions next year. Let's say I've been working through some very important books/papers of my field which prepare me for research. What's a good way to show this? Simply stating this on my statement of purpose isn't sufficient as I've seen first hand people mentioning or exaggerating the extent of their study/projects and there'd be no way to tell if what I'm doing is any different. Should I be typing up notes as I go along and uploading them somewhere? This to me seems like a tedious task which would take time away from the actual study. Or should I upload my hand-written notes? This on the other hand seems a bit unprofessional.
Edit: For clarification, I should mention that my field is theoretical physics.<issue_comment>username_1: Further to Aleksandr's comment regarding creating a blog comprising your notes to the literature, consider doing some small projects that are essentially, research projects.
Any graduate admissions board will want to see evidence of your capacity for doing research. A good, digested, annotated literature review is a great start. You could show yourself in the best light if you attempt to pose a problem, and attempt to solve it.
Note: you don't have to come up with an answer in these research topics that you set yourself. You want to demonstrate curiosity, self-determination, process. Blog about what you're doing. Ask questions on a relevant .se board, for instance, evaluate the responses, read further as a result, review your assumptions, recast a hypothesis, attempt an amended experiment, analyse your new results. Repeat. Show -- i.e. record -- the process that a research scientist would follow. Show that record in your application.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, things like typing up notes, writing a "learning/seminar blog" and being active on SE sites are good ways to help indicate the level and seriousness of your studies. However, unless you are spectacular at this and manage to become well known this way, on most admissions committees, no one will have seen this stuff before they look at your application. This means that they can check out your blog, notes etc but probably will not unless they are interested anyway, or it gets hyped up by your letter writers. Consequently, this will be of some advantage in alleviating concerns of your time off, and is certainly worth doing for your own preparation, but it is better if you have something more reliable in your application.
Here is one suggestion: if there is an appropriate professor from your undergrad, preferably one you were fairly close with, you can try contacting them to let you know what you're studying, with aims to go to grad school, and ask if they can spare a little time to (i) suggest reading materials/exercises/projects, and possibly (ii) answer occasional questions you may have. They may also be able to (iii) give feedback on your notes/blog, though it makes more sense to wait to ask about this until you have something in hand to show them.
Professors are busy people, so someone may or may not have/make time to help you, but we enjoy working with good students, so at least you should be able to get some suggestions on reading materials. On the other hand, there's also the possibility the professor is willing to work rather closely with you.
In addition to providing valuable guidance to your own studies, this will keep at least one professor abreast of your continued studies, which should then come through in your recommendation letter from this person.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: One thing you can do is audit one or more graduate-level classes at a local university, if this is feasible. Usually professors will let you sit in on classes and even grade your work. If your performance is at a high level this will make a positive impression on graduate admissions committees.. it shows you can do advanced work and also are highly self-motivated. You might also get a letter of recommendation from the professor in the class that way. And you might be able to pass a qualifying exam upon arrival.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/17
| 910
| 3,933
|
<issue_start>username_0: Which one do you recommend and why? 1: Finish writing PhD dissertation and extract papers from your thesis. 2. Start writing papers and complete your thesis based on your papers?<issue_comment>username_1: There's no single right answer here.
For instance, if your department allows you to submit a "stapler thesis" that consists of submitted and published manuscripts, then it makes all the sense in the world to write the papers and then submit them as your thesis. On the other hand, if you can't do a stapler thesis and have to submit your thesis in just a few months, there's no sense in pausing to write complete manuscripts.
Similarly, if you're relatively early on in your career, there's no sense in waiting for the PhD to publish (in fact, this would be a spectacularly *bad* idea, since you'd give other people time to publish ahead of you).
So, basically, you need to consider your relative progress in the PhD program, what is and isn't allowed in your thesis, and what the ramifications of not publishing immediately are before making that decision. Of course, you should also discuss this with your advisor, who may have some additional insight.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree that there is no single right answer. This is just an additional issue to consider.
There is some advantage to publishing at least one paper while still a graduate student. There is a process to matching up target venue and paper content, preparing a paper for submission, submitting it, and taking it through review and revisions. It varies depending on the field and type of research. Going through that process with access to an advisor who has done it many times for papers in your field and is familiar with your research may be the easiest way to learn it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In the UK (at least at one university), apparently one of the "boxes to tick" on the examination form is "is this publishable" - hence having at least one paper is considered good practice to have that box ticked. - However there is no explicit requirement to publish papers to obtain a PhD and people have obtained PhDs without submitting papers.
The reality is that most supervisors and universities will encourage PhD students to publish - or try to, on the one hand as it ticks the box on the other as it mean another publication to the supervisors name (despite being just a co-author).
The downside of this is that quantity over quantity is favoured - or you may end up writing papers you don't believe are finished or yet good enough... - but that's a different philosophical discussion.
As to your question:
You should check the requirements for your degree with your university first.
* IF there is significant benefit to having published at least one paper (such as the UK "ticks the box"), you should possibly see that you publish one paper.
* In the UK your chapters should not be identical to a paper - they could be the paper plus extra stuff though. Nonetheless, excluding university regulations, having a chapter identical to a paper may be problematic if you wish to make your thesis publicly available (paper copyright) and also brings up the point of "self plagiarism" - so you need to reference your own paper.
* As a result you possibly don't want both documents to be identical. (Thesis and paper)
Some other points to consider:
* If you leave academia you may not have the time to publish the papers - even though you planned to publish them. (I believe someone else had this experience here on Academia Stackexchange).
* And lastly, your supervisors might not want you to submit before you have published a paper - obviously they can't force you but finishing a PhD in a fight isn't ideal (in fact this applies to me in a way... I have to wait until a paper with a colleague is in before I can or should submit... - but again, that's another discussion).
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/17
| 884
| 3,740
|
<issue_start>username_0: **Is there any view among academicians that an undergraduate degree is just a means to get to graduate school? Does it really matter that much where you finish your bachelor’s degree?**
College applicants don’t just choose their schools based on academic reputation and excellence. Financial consideration is perhaps the biggest factor in picking the right school, especially when one avoids serious debts. Sometimes, this factor leaves a student no other choice but to enroll in a lower-tier and non-ranking school. But this shouldn't discourage them from pursuing graduate studies, even when statistics show that most prestigious universities prefer applicants from an Ivy League school.<issue_comment>username_1: If you are asking whether *any* academicians see the undergraduate degree as valuable only as a way to get into grad school, there are probably some (and if "academicians" includes undergraduate students, the number goes up). It would be a distinctly rare opinion amongst faculty.
As to whether or not the institution "really matters", it would depends on the student (some students need lots of help) and the area of specialization (don't go to an arts-focused school to learn theoretical physics). In addition, undergraduates (in the US) who enter a university thinking they know what they will major in very often change their minds.
I think that the correct way to understand the undergraduate degree is that it is basic intellectual training for life, where you learn how to reason and argue, and essentially learn how to learn. You do that by gaining some techical competence in a particular area; and then if you want to go on for a technically-focused masters in accounting or fisheries, you will be prepared.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I must be understanding your question wrongly, but the way it is phrased it seems to ask whether academicians see the purpose of an undergraduate education only in terms of a student's ability to get into graduate school.
This is of course patently wrong, and I would imagine the number of my colleagues who see it that way to be very small: the vast majority of students get their undergraduate degrees not because they want to get into graduate school, but to obtain the necessary knowledge and qualification to enter the workforce with a Bachelor degree. For almost all students, graduate school is not a consideration, and professors of course know this very well.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is there any view among academicians that an undergraduate degree is just a means to get to graduate school?
>
>
>
The answer might be country-dependent, and from an Italian perspective the answer is: yes, absolutely.
The reasons are the following (the reasons behind these reasons are somewhat more complex and depend on the relatively recent introduction of the division undergraduate/graduate education in Italy):
1. If you want to pursue a career in academia, you need a PhD, and to apply for a PhD you *must* have a Master's degree.
2. If you want to pursue a career in industry, an undergraduate degree is not considered competitive with respect to a graduate one (in many industries here, applicants with an undergraduate degree are simply discarded).
So, here in Italy, the students who drop out of university just after their bachelor degree are typically those who: i) can't afford other two more years of university because of economical problems; ii) graduated with too low grades to enroll to a Master's program; and iii) have had enough of studying.
Given the above, most if not all of the Italian academics consider undergraduate education just an intermediate step toward graduate education.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/17
| 381
| 1,587
|
<issue_start>username_0: As you may agree that most departments of most US university will have a number of Indian postdocs. But why very few Indian professors leave India to join US universities. I wonder why?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the answer is likely to be much the same reason that you see many postdocs shifting between the US and Europe, but few faculty changing shifting between the US and Europe as well. Postdocs are in a transient period of their career and will readily move to follow opportunity. Faculty, especially once tenured, are likely to be settled and not particularly interested in moving, no matter where they started.
Now, India is still different than the US academically, but as India continues to develop and Indian academia continues to expand, the difference is decreasing and one should expect the flow of scientific talent to continue to become more balanced, as is happening already.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to username_2name_2name_1's answer, I would like to add some points of my own. India is a developing country with not much money to spend on funding. Thus only a handful research institutes can support good quality research and education. Talented students who don't find enough resources in India go to abroad to pursue their endeavours. The people who remain in the country are the ones' having a 'sense of patriotism' and are here to serve the country. Hence, they refrain from leaving.
You will find most of the Nobel laureates and Turning award winners from India being non-residing Indians.
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/17
| 2,217
| 9,559
|
<issue_start>username_0: It seems to me that the terms "Teaching Assistant" and "Instructor" refer to a variety of positions. At some places, a teaching assistant is responsible for things like helping the actual lecturer by handing out papers, grading homework, etc., and instructors hold recitation sessions.
At other places, I saw the term "instructor" referring to the lecturer giving the course, while a teaching assistant is the person doing anything else (recitations, grading etc.).
Is there some widely accepted definition of the two positions?
For context: The question arose because I wasn't sure whether I'm using the correct terms in my CV -- I am a math graduate student, and I would like to make a distinction between jobs in which I only graded course assignments/final exams, and courses in which I held recitation classes\* (and also participated in grading the final exams). Is it OK to use "Instructor" for the latter? What should the former be referred to as?
\*In the course I'm currently teaching, the recitations are planned and written by the ones giving them (without the professors' supervision). Also, the people giving the recitations are not necessarily grad students (some already hold a PhD). I'm elaborating on that because from what I've seen, some of it could be relevant for the definition of the job.<issue_comment>username_1: No, there really is no universal definition of the terms; I have been a "teaching assistant" and an "instructor" at the same school for basically the same position.
The only thing that I would say is that the term "teaching assistant" tends to imply a position that does not have *significant* lecturing responsibilities, although she may be responsible for nearly everything else in the course (creating and grading homework and exam problems, interacting with students, conducting recitations sections, and so on). Note that this does not mean that the TA might not carry out a "spot lecture" or two; but this is not an expectation of the position overall.
In general, I would avoid this problem by doing two things:
* Listing on my CV the "job title" that the school assigns to the role you carried out.
* Provide a short list of the duties your position entailed.
In this way, there is no ambiguity or misconception that can result, since you're providing all the information needed to understand the breadth of your teaching experience.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To me, "teaching assistant" strongly suggests working under some other specific person who has more primary teaching duties and/or more control of the course content, procedures and grading, while "instructor" suggests (though less strongly) the person who does have those primary responsibilities. When my colleagues and I want to hit that last point more strongly, we often say "instructor of record". This means that when you look up the course in various academic records, someone is listed as "the instructor", and that person [or persons, sometimes] is the one who has the power to admit, forbid or withdraw students from the course, assign grades and so forth.
But in truth the terms are not used so unambiguously, even within one university. In my department (mathematics, UGA) we have an "outstanding TA award". This award is given for students for teaching responsibilities which are identical to my own as a tenure-track faculty member -- i.e., they write a syllabus, give all the lectures, choose all the homework, write and grade all the exams and assign the grades. (The only difference between what happens when I teach these courses and when a graduate student does it is that the graduate student gets more oversight than I do, in various ways: e.g. they should in principle be showing all of their exams to a faculty mentor beforehand.) I would be happier if this were called an "outstanding instructor award". In fact the issue of how much power and autonomy graduate student instructors should have is an active one in my department, and a minority of faculty members call graduate students "TAs" rather than instructors and use this as an argument for less autonomy in their teaching. So it's complicated!
Let me end by saying that many universities feel pressured to call graduate students "TAs": the extent to which graduate students serve as "instructors of record" varies a lot from one department to another. Moreover, in some cases it seems like it would be inappropriate to have all but the most senior grad students as instructors of record whereas in other cases it could even improve the teaching experience. (I regularly teach the same second semester calculus class that I taught as a graduate student. My understanding of freshman calculus is deeper now than it was as a PhD student. This is accompanied by less empathy for the students than I had when I was only a few years away from having learned this material myself, with the effect that I think it is likely that a majority of students would have been happier to have the graduate-student-me as an instructor than the present-day-me.)
I fear that at least in some cases universities call their graduate student instructors "TAs" so as to be able to report a larger percentage of courses taught by tenure-track faculty. Of course this is pure skullduggery, of which the graduate students are not the intended victims but rather collateral damage.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Having read a lot of CV's this year, I can say that there's huge variation in what teaching assistants in mathematics do. I saw everything from TA's who just graded papers and held office hours all the way through a PhD program to students who had sole responsibility for teaching sophomore/junior level classes while they were in the PhD program.
You should definitely use your official title ("Teaching Assistant", "Graduate Teaching Assistant", "Graduate Teaching Fellow", etc.) You should *also* explain exactly what you did for each course that you were involved in (grading, office hours, led recitation sections, lectured when the prof was out of town, ..., all the way up to "sole responsibility for the course.")
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: In the departments that I'm familiar with, "teaching assistant" has always meant a student, usually a graduate student. The meaning of "instructor", however, varies a lot. At one time it was a job title for what would nowadays be a postdoctoral position. My first job at Michigan, as a new Ph.D., was "T.H. Hildebrandt Instructor"; other math departments had similar "named" instructorships, like the Gibbs Instructorship at Yale and the Peirce Instructorships at Harvard. Not long afterward, though, many universities tried to make the meanings of titles uniform across departments. The new, centrally mandated definitions of titles didn't always match what actually happened in the departments; I believe Harvard used (and perhaps still uses?) the title "<NAME> assistant professor of and lecturer in mathematics" to indicate that the job is something like an assistant professorship and something like a lecturership. Michigan has "<NAME> assistant professor of mathematics" as the official title for certain postdoc positions (with less teaching duties than some other postdoc positions).
Having been removed from its previous faculty meaning, "instructor" became available for graduate students. Shortly after Michigan's teaching assistants unionized, their official title became "graduate student instructor". Apparently the union thought this title was more respectful, and the university administration was presumably happy to accept at least one union demand without any new costs. (Well, there was a small cost in the time of admissions officers like me having to explain to prospective graduate students that the graduate student instructorship we were offering them was essentially the same as what others called a teaching assistantship.)
All of the preceding refers to "instructor" as part of someone's job title. The word is also used in the context of "instructor of record" for a class, which <NAME> explained, so I won't write more about that.
Another use of the word "instructor" is just as a general term for anyone teaching in the university, regardless of rank. For example, our end-of-semester teaching evaluation questionnaires ask students about their agreement or disagreement with statements like "the instructor is an excellent teacher." This terminology is the same whether the instructor in question is a graduate student or the provost.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: In my experience a teaching assistant is a student who is paid for services that may include teaching, grading, one-to-one tutoring, proctoring tests, and perhaps other things. "Instructor" can mean anyone who has the primary responsibility for teaching a course, and in some cases such an instructor is a teaching assistant. Teaching by teaching assistants is often done in a role subordinate to that of the "instructor", who may be a professor. Sometimes the "instructor" lectures before a classroom in which 100 or more students sit, and the students in the course also meet in smaller groups with teaching assistants.
However, at many institutions the word "instructor" also denotes an academic rank, lower than "assistant professor", sometimes only given to persons who have completed a Ph.D., and may be given in disregard of whether actual teaching is required of the person bearing the title.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/18
| 454
| 1,864
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is the difference between an institution calling itself a "college" or a "university"? For example, take the "University College London". Is it a college? A university? Both? What does it mean?<issue_comment>username_1: Some colleges are universities: The Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London; University College London; these award degrees in their own right.
Some colleges are listed bodies of collegiate universities: Merton College, University of Oxford; Churchill College, University of Cambridge. These do not award degrees in their own right; the parent university awards the degrees. Some teaching occurs in college. Some teaching and research staff are attached to a college, and to a university-wide department; others are attached only to a department. All undergraduates are members of a college, and of the parent university.
Some colleges are residential bodies of collegiate universities, e.g. Bowland College, University of Lancaster; Halifax College, University of York. Teaching does not occur in college, and the parent university awards the degrees.
Some colleges are independent and part of no university: Ruskin College, Oxford; Working Men's College, London. These tend to make awards other than traditional degrees.
This is the situation for England. Other anglophone countries may have different arrangements.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In the US there really isn't a distinction any more. Traditionally, a university was a larger institution that typically offered graduate degrees (MA/MS/PhD) and had a multitude of colleges (e.g. a college of arts and sciences and a college of engineering) and professional schools (law, business, medicine, etc.) Now, lots of institutions that offer only bachelor's degrees have taken to calling themselves universities.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/18
| 1,697
| 7,237
|
<issue_start>username_0: Most people in research probably have first-hand experience regarding how difficult it is to get some people to reply to emails, e.g. (but not limited to) some reputed professors. It is also difficult to establish how to interpret a lack of response, because the person can be just busy and miss your email (i.e. "save for later" then forget about it) or might be purposely ignoring the email. I find the lack of response particularly annoying when contacting a listed "corresponding author" about their paper.
I have experienced several extremes: professors who reply within hours (or even minutes!); professors who failed to produce any response at all; even once I sent a job query and didn't get a response until after 2-3 months later, when the professor apologized about forgetting to reply and said he was very interested in my application.
The latter case almost cost me a job (luckily I had already secured a position elsewhere), and as it turned out later I could have resolved the situation by sending the professor a reminder that he had not replied to my earlier email. But how could I have interpreted his lack of response as either forgetfulness or disinterest?
The situation is usually better with postdocs and graduate students, who tend to reply, and when they do their replies tend to come faster.
Hence, my questions are:
* How to improve the chances of getting a reply to one's email besides the obvious "be brief and to the point"
* How to interpret the lack of response
* When is it appropriate to send a reminder and tips to avoid annoying the recipient with it
**Edit upon request:**
The typical content of the emails I'm referring to would be regarding the work done by the email's recipient or at their lab (questions about papers published by them, for instance). Non-spam job applications or surveying possible collaboration could also be included here.<issue_comment>username_1: First, I never shy away from the brief polite reminder 2-7 days later, depending on the urgency of the issue. Being polite is important: introducing the email with "Dear [title, name]," and ending with "Thank you, [your name]".
For example: "Dear Professor Jabberwocky, I'm writing to follow up on the below email. Thank you, Lewis."
You already wrote the professor once. No need to add details and make them read more than necessary.
Second, if the issue is important and I do not get a response, I will ask a colleague or advisor who personally knows the person I've emailed to connect us. That has never failed.
Third, if possible, a phone call or in-person meeting is always much more reliable than emailing, even if (or because) it takes a bit more physical and social effort on your part.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If you want to know why you get faster responses from grad students than professors, just take a look at [this comparison of email volume when transitioning from student to professor](http://www.davidketcheson.info/2011/02/06/visualizing-your-inbox-load.html). Afterward the load just continues to rise (the number of emails I get per month is now much greater than anything shown there).
Many researchers -- particularly faculty -- have an email address that is publicly listed on the internet. That means that **anyone in the entire world can contact them about anything at any time**. Some well-known researchers get a huge amount of email, and could not possibly respond to it all even if they did nothing else. Even a fairly ordinary mid-career professor with some research funds gets a pretty high volume of email from total strangers. I'm not referring to outright spam but to things like applications for student/postdoc/researcher positions; requests for research assistance, or inquiries about research collaborations and so forth. Replying to such email cannot trump essential duties like research, student advising, and teaching, so the time for it is limited.
Initial message
---------------
Given a queue of tasks (emails) that perhaps cannot ever be completed in the available time, one must prioritize. If you are emailing a complete stranger, your email is not likely to be at the top of the queue. The best way to make sure your email stands out is to
* Ensure that it does not look like a form letter. Currently, the only messages I don't reply to at all are those that look like the sender could have sent identical messages to everyone in my department (usually, they did).
* Show that you have done your homework. If you're applying for a job, do you have some research ideas that the professor would be interested in? What makes you especially qualified for the job? If you're looking for a collaboration, reference specific things in the contact's papers that are of interest to you.
* Along the same lines, don't email a stranger asking them to do (home)work for you (yes, it happens a lot) or requesting information that you could find for yourself on the internet.
* Be polite. Recognize that you are interrupting a complete stranger without having been invited to do so. You are not entitled to their time; you are requesting it.
* Write clearly and concisely. If it's a first contact and you want to ask questions, try to ask just one question.
Lost messages
-------------
It does happen that messages get lost, due to spam filters or by being buried under other newer messages. If you don't get a reply, there is no way to know whether the message was lost or just didn't make it to the top of the queue. If it was lost, a reminder may be appreciated by the recipient.
Reminders
---------
Typically, I would wait at least a week before sending a reminder. I feel that a reminder to a total stranger after 2 days is not polite. In your reminder:
* Be extra polite.
* Do not blame the recipient. A good strategy is to say you are sending a follow-up in case your original message went to spam, or something similar.
* Remember that you have no idea what is going on in the professional or personal life of the recipient, and you are certainly in no position to judge their actions.
If you are corresponding with a collaborator, the above rules still apply. Last month, a friend and collaborator suddenly stopped replying to emails just when we had nearly completed a manuscript. I waited two weeks, then sent a message just asking if she was okay. In fact, it turned out that a major personal issue had arisen that -- among other things -- prevented her from doing any work during that time.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In addition to the excellent answer of [username_2](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/45621/75368) I would add:
Make a *specific* request in your mail. Ask for some bit of information or the answer to a question. Otherwise the mail may just be interpreted as a "For Your Information" note, not requiring a reply. Many busy people won't respond with just "thank you for your note" assuming that no thanks are necessary and not wanting to take the time to compose it.
Make the request clear, such as at the very end, rather than burying it in the text. Make it simple (as the linked post suggests).
Then, after a suitable delay, a follow up is warranted.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/18
| 751
| 3,174
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm curious about the impact of geographical diversity of positions (postdoctoral or junior faculty) on career prospects in academia. In my current job search I see a small number of positions at universities outside the US that potentially fit my research interests and experience. I am wondering whether pursuing these positions would be beneficial to my current long-term goal of returning to an academic position in the US.
**What effect does international academic experience have on academic career prospects in the US?**<issue_comment>username_1: If you are just talking about the geographical role, rather than comparing things like great position at a world renowned foreign university versus a two-bit US institution, then it is true that it can be harder to get a US tenure-track position coming from foreign university. The main reasons are (i) smaller schools are often less willing to fly in overseas applicants for interviews and (ii) (for positions with teaching experience expectations) it's advantageous for candidates to have experience teaching in a system comparable to the American one. See also [this recent answer from RoboKaren](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/45588/19607). Another possible concern is that you get involved in some research niche which is popular, say only in Europe or Asia, but not the US, but this can also happen at US institutions.
That said, you shouldn't take these concerns too seriously if you find a position that you like, and these concerns don't play too much of a role for research universities. However, consider the possibility that you may need to do another postdoc in the US/Canada to improve your chances of getting jobs at smaller schools where this may be an issue.
**Addendum:** The above was just in answer to the bold question, but not to the issue in the text about whether it is in some way *beneficial* to go abroad, say strictly for diversity reasons. Here there seems to be negligible benefit, all other factors being equal, as the US already has a diverse amount of resesarch, and one can still learn from and even collaborate with foreign colleagues (at least in many fields) thanks to travel and modern technology.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Well, there are a lot of countries (and educational systems and cultures) in the world. So what I am about to say could be completely wrong for some countries.
If you want to end up doing research and teaching, watch out, as regards the teaching part. There are countries that use more of a sink-or-swim approach to university studies than we like to think we take here in the U.S. (I don't mean that to sound bitter -- there *are* a good number of professors in U.S. institutions who *do* have a real commitment to teaching.)
For the research side of things, I don't think there is any advantage or disadvantage to post-doccing overseas. The important thing is that you be in a situation that is intellectually stimulating, emotionally supportive, and collaborative, so that you can get some good publications under your belt. So it all boils down to compatibility with the group.
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/18
| 978
| 4,369
|
<issue_start>username_0: Some departments do an annual assessment of their PhD students' progress. It includes questions about topics such as: being independent, writing skills, analysis skills, time devoted, reliability, conscientiousness, punctuality, self-reliance, independence, intellectual curiosity, communication skills, etc.
It also includes a self-assessment done by the student as well as another one by his faculty research adviser. What I found interesting is that sometimes the assigned faculty meet the student before submitting the self evaluation form where he/she often tells the student to change some of the self evaluation responses. It is even indicated in the instruction of some universities' websites.
My questions are:
1. How they are assessed, are they only to evaluate students or is it also to evaluate the faculty advising skills?
2. How do these reviews impact the student graduation timeline? Although they are important skills students should acquire, mostly they are not part of the fundamental milestone for student graduation like qualifying exam, proposal, etc.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think your two questions can be answered in a very general way, different universities obviously practice this differently. What I can say is that I don't think these self-assessments have much of an impact on the graduation timeline, more that they're used to identify any problems as early as possible (when they can be more easily fixed).
I'll instead comment on this almost-question:
>
> What I found interesting is that sometimes the assigned faculty meet the student before submitting the self evaluation form where he/she often tells the student to change some of the self evaluation responses.
>
>
>
There's at least two categories of things where this makes sense:
1) PhD students (especially at around half to two-thirds in) will be overly-critical of their own performance. It's very easy to look at others and think they're doing much better than you are. Without being sexist, in my experience women in particular give themselves extremely harsh (informal) self-assesments even when they are very talented. In this case staff would correct this overly self-negative outlook.
2) These assesments are not the proper avenue for everything. In particular, at my university it is particularly stressed in the guidelines for filling out the assesment that this is **not** the correct avenue to initially notify the university if you're having trouble/disagreements with your supervisor. There's probably more examples of this.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As a grad student, it is all too easy to get into a situation where you are coasting, perhaps not making any real progress. A good advisor ensures that such a state does not persist for long. In my experience, the main purpose of these assessments is to
* serve as a reminder to less-conscientious advisors to check in with their students; and
* in extreme cases, serve as a mechanism to spur less-motivated students to get back to work (possibly by putting the student on probation or something similar).
When the student and advisor are taking their jobs seriously, the assessment is usually superfluous. But it can also be an opportunity to highlight great work to the program chair or dean.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Every department is different: I don't have any suggestion about how you actually answer the question. I know that faculty in a department will give different answers, and fellow students will give you different different answers. In my department, the assessment (a discussion in a faculty meeting behind closed doors) was nominally only about students, but it can turn into a gently scrutiny of the advisor if there is a problem. This is because it is organized around a cohorts; but earlier, it was more based on "report by advisor", which tended to encourage discussion of advisors (unpleasant!). The typical point of the review is to give fair notice to the student that their are not making satisfactory progress. A milestone is a requirement that a student do something by a particular time, and the assessment isn't something that the student does. But if your funding is cut off, as can be a consequence of a negative assessment, then that tends to have a consequence for progress to degree.
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/18
| 1,473
| 6,342
|
<issue_start>username_0: My boyfriend, Mark, is pursuing his PhD in Aerospace Engineering at a prestigious school. He has just finished up his 2nd year and passed his qualifying exam last semester. His adviser is Chinese, and the two other students are Chinese as well.
My boyfriend, being the only American citizen, feels like he is more or less the designated "proof-reader," always writing and editing their papers, presentation, and even their post-doc's papers. On top of that, his adviser is a "paper-pusher" and is more interested in publishing papers than the actual research. There have been instances of "academic fraud" where data plot graphs depicting test results are shown with a perfect straight line. Research papers and perfect results seem to be the most important thing in which his adviser is interested. Mark is very unhappy with the lab group dynamic (it's very difficult being the only American student), and the research.
When Mark first visited the university during his senior year of undergrad, many professors had turned him down (he had a 3.0 GPA, which barely makes the cut-off), except for this adviser. Mark feels indebted to this one advisor who showed faith in Mark. Although nice, the advisor did leave Mark to believe that the research and studies would be focused on Thermal-Fluids and aircraft design. This adviser has a track record with the university being misleading and vague. The research that Mark has been doing for the past 2 years have strayed away further and further from what he actually wants to do.
Now being in graduate school for 2 years, Mark has maintained a 3.9 GPA. He has spoken to another professor about his research. This professor is interested in Mark and has the funding to provide to Mark, but is very concerned about poaching students, even though Mark was the one who approached this professor.
Mark has tried to convey to his current professor that he is unhappy with the research and the lab-group dynamic. He also mentioning about this other professor. Instead of "quitting" oh his current professor, he tried to compromise saying how he can have "co-advisers" still working with his current adviser, but getting funding with the other. He tried to meet in the middle, but instead his current adviser dismissed this idea and avoided the situation.
Mark then talked to the administration: the department head and another person who handles these cases. They agree with him, and come to understand the situation. Like mentioned, this adviser has a track record of being misleading, so they are aware of his intentions. When the four of them met, the adviser was very angry, calling this meeting unprofessional and unnecessary, talking about Mark like he wasn't in the room, and accusing the other professor (who was absent) of poaching. It became apparent during this meeting this adviser is more invested in the research (in fear of losing lab researchers), than Mark's academic future and his studies.
Two days after this meeting, the adviser sends Mark a very long email. It entails a very "guilt trip" paragraph claiming that he wouldn't be here if it wasn't for him (how others turned him down for funding). He also seems to be playing the victim card saying he wished that Mark had talked to him about this. He also mentioned that he had talked to the other professor.
It appears that this is a very manipulating and toxic adviser. What Mark is concerned about is what his current adviser had talked to this new professor about. This new professor is VERY concerned about making it seem like he is poaching Mark away from his adviser. He is concerned that the new professor will back out of all of this, and he will be left going back to his old adviser since he's depending on funding.
What should he do in this specific situation? Any thoughts, suggestions, insight will be helpful.<issue_comment>username_1: The damage has already been done in this situation, and your boyfriend should move on with his future.
Basically, at this point, I don't see any way in which the relationship with his current advisor can be mended. The name calling and guit tripping makes for an impossible working environment. Even if he were to stay, he would have to deal with the cloud of the previous attempt to leave hanging over his head. Therefore, it is in his best interests to find a new advising situation as quickly as possible.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree that he needs to move on. Perhaps Mark could approach the administrators who were at the meeting, and ask them to talk with the potential adviser about Mark's need to change advisers ASAP. The meeting may have helped convince them of that need.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Mark already talked to the department chair and the graduate chair (though he might be called differently). He needs to continue this conversation urgently. He should also invite them to solve the problem instead of asking them to support his solution (even if in the end, they amount to the same). I would advise to ask the chair to find a new advisor, which could be Professor A. This way, the idea of poaching is out of the room and it is made clearer that the initiative came from Mark, who felt stuck with his current advisor.
Graduate students switch advisors and its hard for the previous advisor, as the previous advisor has invested time and money in him. Switching advisors is not a frequent, but a sufficiently common occurrence.
Mark as a graduate student has no real power (other than just leaving the program) and a reasonably functioning department will offer some protection. (I am towards the end of a lifetime in academia and in general, departments do want to protect their students. Some departments are of course dysfunctional or toxic, and some situations are not handled with the care they deserve, but it is true as a general statement. Departments are measured also by graduation rate and by the success of their students.)
Besides, the relationship between old advisor and Mark has reached a point where it makes no sense for Mark to continue with his current advisor, even if Mark would have to move to another school or look for a different career path. As a professor with graduate students, I would be foolish to insist on keeping a student who wants to leave.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/18
| 462
| 2,027
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm preparing to submit a math paper to a good general-interest journal. The page asks for a cover letter. What should this include, beyond "here's a paper for consideration"? Should there be, for example, a brief summary? Claims about why I think it's interesting? Suggested reviewers? The first two of these of course appear in the article. The journal submission page gives no guidance.
This is a near-dupe of [Are cover letters sent to referees and should you highlight the contribution of your paper in the cover letter?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1286/cover-letter-when-publishing-in-a-journal). However, Googling around suggests that the answer is rather field-dependent, and this is not reflected in the answers there. I am looking for information relevant to pure math, for which a search hasn't turned up anything.
In my previous submissions I've basically blown this off, per my adviser's advice. It doesn't seem to have caused any problems, but I'm wondering if there's anything I can do to make the editor's life easier.<issue_comment>username_1: Unless the journal asks for any specific pieces of information, then a "Here it is for your consideration" is all that's required. In the (math) journals I'm an editor of, that is essentially what the letters look like, and they almost never contain anything that is of importance to the editor or to reviewers.
I believe that this is very different in other areas, but then the submission guidelines will say so.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My impression is this often only gets asked because the submission system was set up for general journals. I agree with Wolfgang's answer that you do not need to include much in the way of content, but will add that one thing you can do is use this letter to suggest possible editors for your paper (sometimes there is no other place to put this). It of course makes things easier for the editor if they get papers in areas they know well.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/18
| 2,478
| 10,844
|
<issue_start>username_0: Suppose, for instance, that a political science professor was tasked to design a curriculum for his quantitative methodology class. Generally, a quantitative methodology class covers the application of mathematical techniques in analyzing data. Can a professor, then, given his academic discretion, design a curriculum that focuses on the philosophy of quantitative analysis and not on the actual math?<issue_comment>username_1: Answering for the R1 schools with which I am familiar:
Of course a professor has this discretion. There is no universal standards board that decides what must be taught in what course -- nor would we want such a thing. Otherwise we might end up teaching intelligent design alongside evolutionary biology and the great flood alongside plate tectonics.
The professor might be better off choosing a different course title, but there are a host of bureaucratic reasons why this doesn't always happen. So long as the syllabus accurately reflects the course material, I see no problem whatsoever. (And even if it doesn't, the professor still has the ultimate right to determine the course curriculum).
In addition to the question of what a professor is permitted to do, there is a second question about what is a *reasonable* standard of conduct for the professor. This too offers quite a lot of latitude, particularly in higher level classes.
Caveats: For certain large introductory classes or multi-selection courses, the academic department or a committee within the department may select a set of topics to be covered in order to standardize what the students learn -- but in this case the professor would not be tasked with developing the curriculum himself or herself. As we move from introductory classes toward advanced classes. Similarly there could potentially be a problem if a professor taught oceanography in an English literature class, or vice versa -- but decisions about where to fall on the philosophy / calculation spectrum within a given topic area are entirely up to the professor.
**Addendum** This whole thing may not seem like a big deal to those of us in STEM fields (with the possible exception of those fields that sometimes contradict big oil, big tobacco, or a narrow reading of the Book of Genesis). But faculty discretion over the contents of the curriculum is extremely important the humanities and social sciences where political agendas are more immediate and where the choice of a text may itself be an overtly political act.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I think the answer is "yes or no, depending on extent". When a regular course is first proposed, there is usually a procedure for describing the content of the course, and that proposal generally has to be approved by the department (thought it might by by a single person with a relevant administrative function, such as "director of graduate studies"). The proposal is scrutinized and approved or rejected by some number of higher layers of bureaucracy, and ultimately approved by the trustees, regents or whatever they are called. That, in principle, puts a limit on individual discretion.
To take an obvious extreme, if a course is described as "Introductory Calculus", then making the content actually be about GLBT theories of Dowland lute music, that would be a serious deviation from the official content of the course. Especially since other departments have an interest in the content of such a course which may be a requirement for some major, you can expect that such deviation would be nipped in the bud. On the other hand, if the official description names a particular calculus textbook that was predominant in the 40's, changing texts would not be considered a deviation from the described content.
Whether or not the specific case you describe would be considered a sufficiently egregious deviation from described content would depend on the politics of the university and the role of the course in the overall structure of university offerings. Deviations would be dealt with in a post-hoc manner, such as by the chair having a talk with the offending faculty member, and possibly re-assigning the person to a different course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: How much discretion the professor has depends on the context. Suppose that course 1 is a prerequisite to one in which students are required to have learned certain methods taught only in course 1 and that is course 1's purpose according to official policy. Then omitting everything about those methods might reasonably be considered malpractice. However, suppose the professor reasonably thinks that students should be able to figure out the quantitative methods based on the conjunction of his material on "philosophy of quantitative analysis" and things they've learned in a math course that they also took. Then it might be reasonable. Things like this can depend on facts about the student's purposes and the course's purpose.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In addition to the other answers given here, the answer also depends somewhat on the locale. For example, in Germany, a university professor has the right to set the curriculum for his course as she sees fit. The department may give him some hassles if the proposed curriculum too closely duplicates or overlaps with an existing course, but the right to teach as she chooses in principle remains.
Sometimes it may also depend on if the course is part of an "accredited" degree program. For example, the instructor of an introductory thermodynamics course in an [ABET-accredited](http://www.abet.org) engineering program probably couldn't get away with not teaching the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: There are many, many reasons why colleges and universities do not simply allow their faculty to teach any random stuff they choose as part of a course. They have to do this for accreditation. They have to do this for their students who want to transfer coursework to other schools. They have to do this so that students who take prerequisite courses are prepared for later work, which may be in other departments. Departments want to make sure that, e.g., if a student gets a degree in French, the student has actually learned certain things about French phonetics or literature.
For these reasons, every accredited college or university in the US has some kind of formal curriculum process. At my school, for example, we have a curriculum committee and a computer database in which curriculum information is stored. Courses are required to be revised every 6 years, and can be revised more often if the department faculty wish. When a course is revised, it goes through multiple rounds of commentary and editing. For a class in physics, for example, the following would all get a chance to comment: the faculty member originating the new version; all other physics faculty; administrators; and a faculty committee including faculty from other departments.
An example of the kind of thing that is hashed out in this process would be issues about class sizes. Professors would like to have small class sizes, but administrators have to balance this against fiscal concerns. So for example if I want my course to have a section size of 25, I need to demonstrate some need for that, e.g., because the class is a writing-intensive one.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: This varies tremendously from country to country. In the US, the professor has a lot of latitude.
However, in the UK and Australia, this is not the case. At Oxford, you are presented with the examination statutes when you arrive and these contain very clear statements of the topics that will be covered in each exam. Plus the examiners are not the lecturer so if the lecturer gets creative and covers different things, everyone is going to be very unhappy.
At Melbourne, there is a handbook that lists the content of every subject and how you will be assessed. The professor has to apply to change the contents well in advance, and students can successfully complain if the handbook is not followed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Mercifully, in the U.S., apparently unlike the U.K. in recent years, there is no central body whose purpose is determining or checking-up-on either the catalogue description of, or the specific syllabi of, or the actual on-the-ground-content-of mathematics courses.
Sure, for lower-division courses, and for the "core" upper-division courses, there are compatibility issues with other math courses and other science courses, and the vast majority of math faculty do not do anything to wreck those relationships. (Even for the very few faculty who do not seem to be able to understand that part of their job is to meet the needs of other people, it seems easier to administratively "work around" them rather than rush to confrontation, ... in part, I think, because "thinking outside the box" is a good thing, although there will be mistakes and infelicities. That is, the principle should *not* be to chastise people for erring while trying to think deeply about what would be good for students (which is the almost universal story even in cases where the conclusion is dubious or naive).)
Indeed, for upper-division undergrad math courses, and certainly for graduate-level math courses, it is my opinion/conceit that my (R1...) university *should* exactly expect (if not "demand") that I'd be regularly/endlessly updating the content of the courses I teach to reflect contemporary state-of-the-art. In math, it's not really that old things become "wrong", but that there are new things that may have higher priority, in the finite time-and-space of a course.
Over the years, I have indeed been involved with official revision of the course catalogue and such. For graduate courses, especially, even if my colleagues and I have a rough consensus on what a year-long core course should include, it is obviously inconceivable that "144 words or less, with minimal technical language" could describe what the dang course is about. In the 1990s we did another round of this, and the constraints and demands were so ridiculous that it cured me of belief in catalogue descriptions of courses.
Further, at my own Uni, despite the silliness of central administration and so on, the *virtue* of the situation is that, for example, "introduction to modular forms and L-functions" can be significantly different depending on which of several possible instructors take the course in a given year. Sure, there's a mock-up catalogue syllabus (which I made up 20+ years ago, because we ... had to), but no one worries about it, because they'll all exercise their own best professional judgement. Luckily!
Maybe the potential volatility in math is less than in other subjects...
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/18
| 731
| 3,086
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm writing an editorial and would like to use a figure that I published with a coauthor a few years ago.
The [copyright agreement](http://spie.org/Documents/Publications/ProcCopyrightForm.pdf) (see #4) with the publisher allows the authors of the paper to reuse any of the work in any derivative work, as long as proper attribution is given, including a DOI.
*Given the above, I would have permission from the publisher to include this figure in the editorial with proper attribution.*
The coauthor and I, however, have had a falling out, and if I did ask permission he would almost certainly say no. He did not make the figure for the paper, I did, and I am first author.
**Given that I produced the figure, and the publisher would allow me to use my work in any derivative work, am I required (even ethically) to ask permission of my coauthor to publish this figure in an editorial that I'm writing?**
More generally, when copyright terms from the publisher are such that the author(s) may use their work in derivative works (with proper attribution), as is common in my field, *must authors always obtain permission from all coauthors to republish orginal or derivative works?*<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think that it matters who created that figure or any particular *internal* to the paper *artifact*. The copyright AFAIK applies to the paper **as a whole** (would it be a data set, things might be a bit different). Since the paper is a *joint work* (legal term), even though you're a first author (academic term), from a legal standpoint, you are a **co-author** and, thus, IMHO your association to the specific artifact is *irrelevant*. Ethically, I think it would be OK to use a part, solely created by you, without the co-author's permission (not sure how helpful is that, considering the legal aspect).
Having said that, perhaps, you can use the figure in question in an editorial, based on the [**fair use**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) *legal doctrine*. I would recommend to consult with your institution's legal department in regard to assessing the *interpretation* and *applicability* of the fair use doctrine in/to your particular case.
*Disclaimer:* I'm not a lawyer and this answer does not represent a legal advice.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You -- and your co-author -- have, most likely, assigned your copyright in the paper to the publisher.
**Without knowing all the details of your copyright agreement**, your copyright agreement seems to allow you, and your co-author, the right to re-use the work, and that right applies to each of you separately. The right to re-use the work requires you to reference the original paper and all its authors.
I see no reason why you shouldn't use the figure, even without the permission of your co-author, as your copyright agreement with the original journal appears to allow this. I see no ethical argument against re-using the figure, either.
P.S. I have a qualification in intellectual property law, but I am not a lawyer.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2015/05/19
| 779
| 3,409
|
<issue_start>username_0: My colleagues believe that if you submit your manuscript revisions quickly, reviewers will be impressed by your confidence about the issues raised.
However, I think that a quick response is not always the best option. If you consult with other people, you may submit better revisions which of course requires more time.
* Are there any benefits in responding quickly to a request to revise and resubmit a manuscript?
* Are reviewers impressed by a quick response to a request to revise and resubmit?<issue_comment>username_1: Opinions might differ, but here is mine: as a regular reviewer for a bunch of journals, what impresses me is a resubmission that addresses whatever points I raise in my review in a thorough and convincing way, irrespective of whether the authors take one week or six months to write it up. The more seriously you take my review, the more seriously I will take your resubmission.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: It actually depends on the precise semantics of "revise and re-submit". In some journals i was involved with, three different responses were possible: a minor revision is of a mostly editorial nature and people expect that this can be done quickly. A major revision usually comes with a timeframe of four to six weeks and often requires more substantial changes (sometimes including addition of new results) but there is generally an expectation that these revisions are doable within this timeframe and the paper as such is broadly acceptable. A revise-and-resubmit suggests that the paper is not acceptable in its current form and needs substantial new content (new experiments, more comprehensive comparison to other work, etc). In particular, revise-and-resubmit is recommended when the editor (or the reviewers) is of the opinion that the revision requires more time than the four to six weeks timeframe for a major revision. In that case, a quick response will probably look odd.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The other answers are very good. I'll add that a good referee should review what's submitted, and make recommendations about what's on the paper in front of them. Let the editors worry about everything else. I try not to let the timeliness of the resubmission impact any recommendation.
That said, I appreciate it if the authors can turn it around while the manuscript is still recallable. I don't like it when a second review requires all the work of a first review because the authors waited until memories of the manuscript were vague for me. I don't care how fast it comes back, but I don't like it when it's coming up on a year (unless the original review called for more studies, which can take time). "Don't like it" of course doesn't mean that this would impact my review, just that it causes me more work.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: At least for the journals I've refereed for, the referees don't know how long it took the authors to resubmit. Since I don't know when the other referees submitted their reports, I don't know when the authors received the reports, so I don't know how long it took them to revise. Maybe the authors took three months to revise; maybe they spent 87 days waiting for the other referees to submit their reports and revised in three days. Who knows?
Since the referees don't know how long it took the authors to resubmit, that can't have any influence.
Upvotes: 4
|
2015/05/19
| 1,022
| 4,429
|
<issue_start>username_0: Nowadays I am a second year assistant professor (without tenure) in physics at a German university (rank W1, Juniorprofessor), advising 2 PhD students.
Today, it came to me the information about a permanent position abroad (in Europe) and I am strongly considering applying for it.
My problem is the following: the selection process had just started now, and I will not know the decision until middle july. The preference in the new institution is to start the new position is September 2015 (which means that between the decision and the start is less than 1,5 months).
My questions are the following:
1. At which point should I say something about this to my present institution: of course I do not know if I will be selected for the position, but I also understand that it is very bad for my present institution now to say them: "Well, I will leave the institution in one month."
2. At which point should I explain my Phd students about this change: this is definitely my most important headache. How should I present this point to them, and more important - when? Do you think it is good that I tell them that I want to apply for this position?<issue_comment>username_1: I would not tell anyone anything until you have accepted the position (ideally with a signed contract). Leaving a position on short notice leaves your colleagues in a bind to cover your teaching and leaves your graduate students (and possibly lab personnel) at risk. If you are given an offer, you may be able to negotiate solutions to these problems (or the offer may be made so late, that it is not an issue). It is not unheard of for graduate students to be allowed to transfer. Delaying the start date by a semester, even a year, is not uncommon. If the start date is not flexible, you may also be able to negotiate some sort of teaching buyout which will allow you to teach a reduced load at both universities for a semester/year with each university covering a portion of your salary.
The reason not to tell people is two fold. If the position falls through, you do not want to upset your colleagues. Telling your students also seems premature. They really little to no control over the situation and it is likely going to make them anxious.
In terms of control, the student can drop out immediately. By telling them early, you save them 2 months of "wasted effort". They can also work harder with the goal of graduating early. The 2 months additional warning time is not going to result in a significantly quicker graduation. Arranging alternative supervision is really out of the hands of the student and requires the current supervisor, the new supervisor, the department, and the funder all agreeing. They are not going to move quickly on the issue until the PI confirms he/she is leaving.
Not telling the student is not the same thing as not preparing the student. Hopefully, when you took the student on, you created a safety net for them (e.g., a second supervisor and alternative research paths). You should reconsider this safety net, alternative supervision, the key resources they need, and the time lines of their current and future projects. It is probably worth discussing aspects of the safety net and steering them into now (e.g., increased collaborations with a potential second supervisor and reducing the resources needed).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I've been in more or less the same situation, though with a slightly less strict time constraint. Here is what I've learnt/done:
1. The timing of the move is negotiable. If they really want you, they'll wait 6 months or even a year. 1 1/2 months is completely unrealistic, and they know this.
2. You may be able to have a part time appointment at your original institution. This will enable you to manage your students and projects there and facilitate a smoother transition. Avoid committing to doing any teaching. (This commitment may eventually become a real hassle, especially if you have small children you can't be away from for too long).
3. Don't tell your students or colleagues until you know something for sure. And do what you can to take care of the students, such as finding alternative supervisors, funding at your new location, or money for them to travel to visit you (or vice versa).
4. Check your university's regulations. I had to give 6 months notice before I could leave, though this was negotiable.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/19
| 851
| 3,612
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have read several posts on the forum but there seems no good information hub for EU based postdoctoral/researcher funding opportunities. I will be grateful if someone can give me a start.
By the way, I have found this [list](https://www.mariecuriealumni.eu/newsletter/10-websites-you-need-know-european-funding-opportunities) myself.<issue_comment>username_1: I would not tell anyone anything until you have accepted the position (ideally with a signed contract). Leaving a position on short notice leaves your colleagues in a bind to cover your teaching and leaves your graduate students (and possibly lab personnel) at risk. If you are given an offer, you may be able to negotiate solutions to these problems (or the offer may be made so late, that it is not an issue). It is not unheard of for graduate students to be allowed to transfer. Delaying the start date by a semester, even a year, is not uncommon. If the start date is not flexible, you may also be able to negotiate some sort of teaching buyout which will allow you to teach a reduced load at both universities for a semester/year with each university covering a portion of your salary.
The reason not to tell people is two fold. If the position falls through, you do not want to upset your colleagues. Telling your students also seems premature. They really little to no control over the situation and it is likely going to make them anxious.
In terms of control, the student can drop out immediately. By telling them early, you save them 2 months of "wasted effort". They can also work harder with the goal of graduating early. The 2 months additional warning time is not going to result in a significantly quicker graduation. Arranging alternative supervision is really out of the hands of the student and requires the current supervisor, the new supervisor, the department, and the funder all agreeing. They are not going to move quickly on the issue until the PI confirms he/she is leaving.
Not telling the student is not the same thing as not preparing the student. Hopefully, when you took the student on, you created a safety net for them (e.g., a second supervisor and alternative research paths). You should reconsider this safety net, alternative supervision, the key resources they need, and the time lines of their current and future projects. It is probably worth discussing aspects of the safety net and steering them into now (e.g., increased collaborations with a potential second supervisor and reducing the resources needed).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I've been in more or less the same situation, though with a slightly less strict time constraint. Here is what I've learnt/done:
1. The timing of the move is negotiable. If they really want you, they'll wait 6 months or even a year. 1 1/2 months is completely unrealistic, and they know this.
2. You may be able to have a part time appointment at your original institution. This will enable you to manage your students and projects there and facilitate a smoother transition. Avoid committing to doing any teaching. (This commitment may eventually become a real hassle, especially if you have small children you can't be away from for too long).
3. Don't tell your students or colleagues until you know something for sure. And do what you can to take care of the students, such as finding alternative supervisors, funding at your new location, or money for them to travel to visit you (or vice versa).
4. Check your university's regulations. I had to give 6 months notice before I could leave, though this was negotiable.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/19
| 684
| 3,161
|
<issue_start>username_0: Basically, I have written a tutorial for a code which performs a specific type of electronic-structure calculation. The code has been developed by the group I belong to and writing this tutorial/manual is part of our efforts towards achieving greater visibility and getting people to use the code.
I have put in sections on the underlying theory, some technical details, usage guidelines, and some examples of actual calculations that can be done with the code. As such, there is no original scientific contribution, since we already published the new scientific bits pertaining to the implementation in another paper. However the document is a (rigorous) scientific and technical document.
I have seen manuals uploaded on the arXiv before, but I do not know if this fits the arXiv's purpose. Hence, I was wondering whether it is appropriate/a good idea to upload my tutorial to the arXiv.
*(Note: I have been browsing the arXiv help but have not found anything on this. Let me know if I have missed any policies stated somewhere on their website.)*<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, this seems like a totally appropriate use of the arXiv. If you hope that other people will use your code, then the documentation has to be available online. While you will presumably have the documentation available alongside the code (wherever you are making the latter available), putting the documentation on the arXiv as well will certainly make more people aware of the tools you have created.
As you say, the documentation for some scientific analysis programs are already available on the arXiv. These files form a very small subset of the total arXiv, but they are valuable. Once or twice I have looked at the documentation for analysis programs on the arXiv, even though I was not using (or even considering using) the software packages myself; I looked up the documentation because it helped me understand other people's papers that did use these tools.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to the arXiv, which I do believe would be appropriate for this purpose, there is a journal called Computer Physics Communications that you might even get this published in.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: If your manual is **specific** to your group's *environment* (software, lab, equipment, protocols, etc.), then I would consider posting such document on arXiv as not appropriate. A better place for such documents IMHO would be [figshare](http://figshare.com) or [Zenodo](http://zenodo.org). Both services allow artifacts to be not only *citable*, but also *discoverable* (via DOI assignment). *Version control* is supported as well, but the advantage of Zenodo in this regard in comparison with figshare is Git and GitHub integration.
If, on the other hand, the document is **not** specific to your group's or other particular environment (or, perhaps, you want to share this document as a **model** of how such documents should be *structured*, *presented* and what *content* should they contain), then I agree with other answers in that it is totally appropriate to post such document on arXiv.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2015/05/19
| 1,187
| 4,974
|
<issue_start>username_0: I ask this because from my experience, a TA and/or a Proctor moving around the testing room looking over my shoulder is distracting and breaks my concentration. I have been in both positions, TA and Proctor and I try to only move when a student needs something, such as a pencil or paper. My administrator seemed to get angry today because I was standing in one place too long. I also noticed that I have a better view of testers when I can see them all from a fixed point not turning my back on part of them throughout the test. Does anyone else see moving around the room as distracting to testers?<issue_comment>username_1: It is not globally required: e.g. I do not move around the room unprompted when proctoring an exam. So it is probably a matter of local academic culture and/or preference of the (head) course instructor.
In these kinds of fine points, academic culture differs so strongly from place to place as to make it clear that there are not always deep, well-thought out reasons for doing things one way or another: many institutions do things in a certain way because they "always" have done so. The academic culture shock that I experienced in moving from the US to Montreal was considerable.
For instance, I believe that I first learned the word "invigilator" when someone introduced himself to me as an invigilator for my course. If you had told me before I arrived in Montreal that final exams there have *professional invigilators*, I might not have believed you. In the US, if you are teaching a course without a "common final" (I imagine that common finals occur only in a small minority of all courses taught, but I don't know for sure) then you, the instructor, are very likely the sole inviligator/proctor/administrator/TA in the room when an exam is taking place. (Not that having professional invigilators is a bad idea: if you have the infrastructure in place, why not? But I assume that they get paid at least a little bit, and this would never fly in the state university at which I currently reside.)
So understand that when I say that I do not move around the room when giving a final exam, I mean *no one does*. It is not really clear to me what cheating I might be missing out on by only looking at the students from the front of the room. I should say that I am used to a classroom environment with stadium seating and small flip-up desks so I can see a lot from the front of the room. I also teach a subject -- math -- such that coming in with a cheat-sheet or something like that would not make things that much easier. Even consulting the internet on your cell phone while in the bathroom would not help that much -- one does need to show one's work, after all -- unless the student was unusually insightful and well-prepared about how to cheat in this way. In my local academic culture, cheaters are not insightful or well-prepared...
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: When I have proctored exams, I tended to move around the room for two reasons:
1. Answering questions: in a good-sized class, there's a lot of motion just from answering questions.
2. When not answering questions, I would sometimes move around the class just because I was feeling rather bored and restless.
Looking for cheaters didn't actually enter into it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Moving around is probably not required (to do so would be micromanaging on the institution's part), but as others have pointed out, it depends on the "local academic culture" and most importantly on the instructor or whoever is in charge of proctoring the exam.
As a TA of various roles, when I've given or proctored an exam, I tend to move a lot. Here's why:
1. Depending on the test and how much time is left for the students to finish, there can be a lot of questions, which makes me move a lot.
2. I've found that moving around encourages students to ask a question. (Most of my questions are from people as I pass by them.) I think they'd rather not raise their hand if I'm in the front of the room or not paying attention because it would slow them down. If I'm near them, they can ask their question quickly and move on. This is my primary reason for moving around when not asking questions.
3. Moving around tells my students that I'm eager to help them with their questions. It shows I'm interested and mindful of them. It's an accurate impression, but I want them to see it.
4. I've caught a ton of wandering eyes by moving around. It's easier for me because I can't see the eyes of the students in the back rows well enough from the front of the classroom (15-25 m away). Surprisingly, watching students from behind can be useful because they are sometimes more careless, or don't see me watching their heads turn towards their neighbor's work.
5. Moving around gives my students the impression that I'm watching them more closely, and I hope that this (if nothing else!) discourages them from cheating.
Upvotes: 4
|
2015/05/20
| 1,617
| 7,033
|
<issue_start>username_0: So I just finished my 2nd year as an undergrad majoring in mathematics. I plan to continue on to a Ph.D afterwards, but only recently did I realize how behind I was... I haven't done any research, completed any projects or summer programs. I haven't done any outside reading so I don't really know much about any particular subject. Everyone I know in my program has at least something, so I'm worried that I'm really late in preparing for grad school.
I know I should probably consult a professor or advisor, but school's ended already... and admittedly, I've been a little apprehensive when talking with professors since, well, I don't really know anything in the first place, and I know they're very busy, so I eventually just awkwardly ask some questions and leave ASAP having not understood much.
In short, I'm just very confused and don't know what to do from here on out... so any advice would be great.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I haven't done any research, completed any projects or summer
> programs.
>
>
>
That's okay. You've only just finished your second year of *undergraduate* studies.
>
> I haven't done any outside reading so I don't really know much about
> any particular subject.
>
>
>
That can be remedied! How about taking some summer classes in a community college, in a branch of science that intrigues you?
>
> I've been a little apprehensive when talking with professors.
>
>
>
You're going to need a bit more chutzpah in order to get your money's worth out of college and graduate studies! Perhaps you could transition into feeling more comfortable with professors' office hour visits by focusing primarily on visiting the office hours held by grad student teaching assistants for the time being.
It is very common for second year students to be hit hard with an appreciation of how little they know. Try to ride this storm of self-doubt while reminding yourself of that fact.
It would be great if you could find one or more mentors, either on your own or through a matching-up program. The mentor might be a faculty member who serves as your undergraduate advisor -- the person who checks your proposed schedule and advises you about what courses to take next year, etc.
---
Edit 5/20
There are several ways to break the ice.
Ask for some undergraduate advising -- s/he will check your unofficial transcript against your proposed schedule for next semester. Make sure you have this conversation in this person's office, not over email, because what we want to happen is for the professor's natural mentoring instincts to kick in, so that one thing leads to another.
In the experimental sciences, one can ask for a tour of his/her lab. You might want to ask your question over at Mathematics Education as well.
Spend some time reading the research descriptions of the faculty in your department, to see whose area intrigues you, then take a look at some of their papers. When you find one that gets you intellectually excited, make an appointment like this: Dear Professor So-and-so, I've been reading your "title of paper", and wonder if I could make an appointment to come in and talk with you about this area of research?" Or something like that. Researchers love to talk with people about their work.
To get matched up through a formal matching up program, you need to look closely at your department's website, or ask your department administration if there is such a thing.
---
During the school year, attend lots of seminars. Be bold about chatting with grad students over cookies afterwards. If no one is bringing cookies, juice and paper cups, bring some!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If any of the other suggestions provided by excellent people here doesn't suit you, then a fallback option I would recommend is instead use the semester to plan your future strategies for next semester and prepare yourself to be more comfortable in implementing it come fall!
I would suggest picking a class/subject in your major that you will preferably be taking next semester. Then don't wait - start now! If you don't know what the course is really about (I know I rarely do in advance!), you can try to meet with a professor who will teach the class, with a department chair, or with your adviser, or you can write a short email. Let them know you want to get a jump on the next semester to prepare yourself for advanced studies/research in the future. If a general class schedule or syllabus is available, even better!
Then set yourself a nice schedule for the summer - giving yourself plenty of time to actually relax and recharge your batteries for the coming semester - and get cracking! Next semester you should be generally better prepared and be able to learn the subject deeper and more readily than others, rather than scrambling to learn what you need to keep up. You should hopefully be able to ask more insightful and interesting questions, participate in class, and maybe also go to office hours and ask even more advanced questions about the material to move towards mastery. With the extra prep you'll likely be able to also do better grade-wise.
All this extra contact and work will not only improve your education, but if you have been shy this can be your first deeper connection with a professor. After you've had time to work with them and become more comfortable, and if things are going well and they are recognizing you are a good and dedicated student who wants more than just a degree and to move on, then you will be in a great position to ask them about research options in the future - or for recommendations/introduction to another professor who you might want to work with.
You can also apply this same "show up, participate, ask questions, go to some office hours/meetings" strategy to other classes, and begin to make more contacts - naturally! It's much less stressful than it seems at first, and you might develop some valuable skills and meet some really cool people. You can then repeat all this strategy the following semester as well, and begin planning for doing research/independent study during a semester or over summer if that suits you.
Finding people you work well with and have more advanced connection to you beyond just class will also conveniently be able to help you with getting research, work with you when you hit more advanced topics, and as a bonus can also be the source of future reference letters which are actually useful because they know you outside of class!
Rather than panicking, I'd suggest you take a deep breath and instead work to prepare yourself so in the following semesters and next summer you will be ahead of the game rather than behind. And if you continue to follow through and put in the effort and use good strategy, you'll find yourself likely enjoying the process more, having better connections, being more prepared, and generally making the most of your education - and maybe even being in a better position for an advanced degree, too.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/20
| 1,894
| 7,277
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student, working on Applied Math while my wife is a software engineer. I plan on going to academia after PhD and will start to job hunt soon.
A few weeks ago, I thought of an idea that hadn't been done before. I wrote a crude C++ code to implement the idea and it worked well. I believed that with my theoretical understanding of the problem and an expert coder, we could make something really impactful and incidentally, my wife knew how to. So, we spent some evenings together writing the code (she didn't know math, but I abstracted each step so she could help implement). The resulting code is fairly sophisticated and does an excellent job. I was wondering, now that I write a paper about it, would it look weird if my wife was listed as a co-author? Her contributions were definitely sufficient to warrant co-authorship by any definition.
Let's step aside the legalese of it (my advisor doesn't care and her company might but let's leave that aside). I am asking more from the standpoint of how it looks on one's CV, job application and possibly, tenure.<issue_comment>username_1: Nobody will notice or care, unless you share a last name with your wife, in which case the strongest reaction is likely to be, "aw how cute, a husband and wife published a paper together."
Upvotes: 9 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I know several instances where spouses/couples are co-authors, though often it is not obvious to an outsider if the co-authors are spouses. (There are also many examples of parent-child and sibling co-authors, so it is not obvious even if the spouses have the same last name.) Thus it is not a strange thing to happen, particular if non-academic co-authors are common in your field.
There is only one case where I even thought one spouse may possibly be going out of their way to bring up the research profile of the other (academic) spouse, but that is due to some specifics of the situation, and I don't regard them poorly because of this (which may not be true anyway), just am unclear on one of the spouse's contributions. In your case, presumably your wife has little to gain career-wise from coauthorship, so there is not even reason for people to think this.
If you personally feel weird about it, you can always explain in the paper what each author's role was. (And, of course, you should never deny a deserving person co-authorship, especially someone you (hopefully) like.)
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: In terms of relationship with the external world, it need not be any problem. If you begin collaborating scientifically on a regular basis, however, it is likely to affect your relationship, by making you colleagues as well as spouses.
For some couples, this can be a good thing, as the shared interest and partnership can add a new dimension to the relationship.
For other couples, the stresses of scientific collaboration outweigh the benefits. Some people also find that they lose a place of refuge from work, as their work life and home life become more entangled.
Bottom line: have fun and publish together if you want, but make sure to have an explicit discussion about how you want to relate to collaboration *as a couple*, and revisit it from time to time if necessary.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I made a special appointment with a professor once to ask his advice about whether a proposed action would be ethical. He gave me an easy test: imagine a headline in a newspaper, reporting your action. Is there anything about that headline and story that would look questionable? If not, it's safe to go ahead with the proposed action.
In this case, we'd have "Woodward names wife as co-author of scientific paper." Sounds okay to me! If it were "Woodward pays wife to ghost-write scientific paper," for example, that would be a problem. But there's no money changing hands in your case, so your co-authored paper is fine!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: To add to the other answers, I think the fact that your wife does not work in academia makes it even less *questionable* (from my point of view this does not raise any ethical concerns since you say co-authorship is warranted by her contribution). Since she does not have an academic career, and this paper seems to be a "once-off" thing, I do not think anybody would think you are spuriously including her or, more importantly, she is spuriously including you as a coauthor to enhance your career.
Now, if this becomes a recurrent thing then it will raise suspicion (academia is a competitive world). I know of at least a couple of cases of spouses systematically coauthoring *all* of their papers. And I know that at least in one of these cases one of the spouses is not doing enough.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Do you know that [one of the most significant papers in Computer Science (nearly 6000 citations)](https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=3A34oCYAAAAJ&citation_for_view=3A34oCYAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C) was written by the couple Patrick and <NAME>, and they continued to co-author more than 50 papers.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: [Goodman, et al](http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/joshuagoodman/files/goodmans.pdf) wrote a paper on this very topic.
>
> The first and
> most common type of such coauthorship is by married economists with the same surname. Prominent
> examples of this include Romer and Romer (2013) on monetary policy, Reinhart and Reinhart
> (2010) on macroeconomic crises, Summers and Summers (1989) on financial markets, Ostrom and
> Ostrom (1999) on public goods, Ramey and Ramey (2010) on parental time allocation, Ellison and
> Ellison (2009) on internet-based price elasticities and Friedman and Friedman (1990) on personal choice
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_8: The 2014 [Nobel prize winners](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May-Britt_Moser) are husband and wife, so it really doesn't sound strange
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: In addition to other good answers, I'd advise:
* If you're a PhD candidate with very few papers - which is usually the case - try not to present this one as your most significant contribution, since that brings up the level of scrutiny/potential suspicion. Let it be another one of your publications.
* if there is a third guy/gal, that makes it look even less questionable; don't just add someone for this reason only, but if you add, say, your advisor, that wouldn't hurt I suppose.
Of course, I could just be over-fearful and it's fine regardless.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: I'll go against the grain in this specific instance and say your wife should not be a co-author. You had the idea. You wrote a working prototype. You provided your wife with step-by-step, high level instructions on what needed to be implemented to flesh out the prototype. Your wife essentially played the role of scientific programmer. This type of role / contribution is generally mentioned / thanked in the Acknowledgements but is not a co-author.
Those who actually read such a paper may think that your wife is only listed as a co-author because she is your wife. This may raise some eyebrows and may have some negative impact on your job search.
Upvotes: -1
|
2015/05/20
| 3,925
| 15,528
|
<issue_start>username_0: As a computer science professor, I have told some talented students one-on-one that they show a real aptitude for computer science and that they should seriously consider taking more classes in it.
I'm questioning the wisdom of this now that I'm reading *[Mindset: The New Psychology of Success](http://mindsetonline.com/)* by <NAME>, which cites extensive research on the benefits of having a "growth mindset" (the belief that intelligence can be grown) over a "fixed mindset" (that intelligence is unchanging).
Additionally, two of the students I recently told this to performed way below their ability in the second CS class. Of course, this is not statistically significant.
FWIW, I teach at a women's college with a large number of students who are the first in their families to attend college and/or from ethnic groups underrepresented in CS. Thus, all of my students are at risk of [stereotype threat](https://web.archive.org/web/20150422003343/http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/definition.html) for at least one category to which they belong. It was my hope that pointing out their aptitude would help counter this and encourage them to pursue an area of strength.
Is there any research on whether it is a good idea to let students know a professor believes them to have aptitude, or is promoting the idea of innate aptitude likely to backfire?<issue_comment>username_1: This fixed/growth mindset (~nature/nurture) dichotomy is a trap. For virtually every specialized activity both innate skill and effort are crucial.
You can't change innate factors (by definition) but you can grow, so it's not surprising why it's good to focus on the later. Yet, in the very competitive world of academia, it's good to hint that someone may be a good fit - but as long as it will make working *more*, not *less*. (Otherwise, they may think that there are not a good fit, and focus on something different or resign.)
That is - focusing on working according to one's own limits, rather being better than the majority of a class.
See also:
* [Smart guy's productivity pitfails](http://bookofhook.blogspot.de/2013/03/smart-guy-productivity-pitfalls.html)
* [The parable of the talents](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/)
And from my personal experience:
* praise made me working more,
* saying that "I put a lot of effort, because I got nice results" when I knew I put little effort made me working less.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Is praising students' aptitude harmful?
>
>
>
A universal once-for-all answer to the question is impossible. There's a lot of subjectivity in here and a lot really depends on the particular student in question. In general, both praising and not-praising can potentially have their pros and cons:
**Praise them** -
* Positives - Given the kind of students you mention, with an undeniable possibility of *stereotype threat*, it is generally a good idea to have the "growth mindset" in mind, and make sure they stay interested. They may start putting in more from their side, when you praise their *potential*.
* Negatives - There is of course a possibility of '*I'm so good, I can get away with working less, and still sail through*' mindset creeping in. And if effort drops, the *I'm so good* part becomes useless. One of my teachers in grad school used to convey this sentiment by saying:
>
> A person with B grade intelligence and A grade effort, is always going to end up further than one with A grade intelligence and B grade effort.
>
>
>
**Don't Praise Them** -
* Positives - The only positive seems to be that you are projecting yourself as being hard to win over. There could be an occasional person who may take this up as a challenge and work extra hard to *impress* you. But again, not every body would think in that manner, and there would be some other blokes who'll say - '*He almost never has anything good to say about anyone, let's just stop caring about what this tough nut says*'. So, again, it is not universally going to be positive.
* Negatives - [Davidmh may disagree](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45722/is-praising-students-aptitude-harmful#comment104417_45722), but it does put off some people (like the example right above). Especially when the the students are typically
>
> ... the first in their families to attend college and/or from underrepresented ethnic groups
>
>
>
It is easy to imagine that they could be fighting odds, and wouldn't be having a very high self-esteem. In that case, this attitude is unlikely to help them *come up*. Plus, if their performance suffers at any time, add low self-esteem and this attitude, and you'll most likely have them regretting their decision to join this program. Again, that's not universal - may work for some and not for others.
---
The best policy is to remember that your entire batch is not a bunch of (*as we say in Physics*) identical, indistinguishable particles, and approach this one small step at a time. Focus on one, let's say A. Try praising A at an instance, and see how he/she responds. Accordingly modify the approach further, if they are getting more confident about themselves, and effort goes up, then good. If they are getting more cocky and casual about work, retract the approach - be less charitable in praising and show them there's still some way to go. And please remember, what works for A may not be the same for B.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Like so much else in academia, I think there's a false dichotomy here.
It is certainly possible to give praise for students' aptitude for a given subject, but the reinforcement should be along the lines of: "If you apply yourself and work hard, you'd make a great [whatever field the aptitude is in]."
That way, you make it clear that you think you've found talent, but you've also stressed that the way to make the most of it is by putting effort into it and working hard.
One further point to consider: if you really see someone whom you believe has lots of aptitude for your particular area, and you'd like to see her career blossom, consider acting as a **mentor** to that student. Making sure that students have strong support networks is a critical component for later success, particularly in academia.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: When I was a student, I was regularly told how smart I was, and I learned I did not need to work hard to do well. This came back to be a problem when I got to higher levels of college.
I think that it is important to give well-rounded compliments. Rather than just saying,
"You're really great at that!"
which might breed indiscipline, and rather than saying,
"When you work hard to do your best, you do really well!"
which might give a negative feeling of, "I'm not actually smart; I just have to work really hard", instead why not say something like:
"You are naturally talented/really gifted at this; when you work hard and diligently put a lot of time into it your work is incredible!"
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Note: this isn't really conclusive, and I think the other answers offer a more concrete suggestion. But this wasn't really something I could condense into a comment.
**Given my experiences as a student, I suspect it really depends.**
When I felt like the praise I got undeserved, things might have been a bit counterproductive. I doubt I worked less hard because of it -- I try to study because I want to be really good at things, but it made me more cynical about people's praise than I ever needed to be.
On the other hand, I've been in a number of situations where I ended up with awful grades in subjects I cared about. It was encouraging when a professor told me that I was smart and that I could still thrive in academia if this was what I wanted to do, although the utility of this was limited by my specific circumstances. In another, similarly, when I had a teacher (admittedly in music) who I felt was very hard to please, it was actually helpful to hear that I had a knack for some of the things involved.
In the end, I suppose what was helpful was that my progress wasn't simply reduced to "you work hard enough". Some of this might be related to my snobbery or specific interests (e.g. I would assume that one needs some creativity linked to aptitude to be able to formulate research questions) and the stereotype of "many good students who work hard aren't actually smart" (e.g. alluded to in [this Quora post](http://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-assume-good-grades-means-the-student-is-intelligent-smart-while-you-only-need-good-memory-and-hard-work-to-achieve-them)), but I don't think it's entirely that. As has been mentioned in other posts, praising work ethic could have the unfortunate side-effect of "so I'm getting good grades simply because I work hard; I'm not actually good at this."
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Praise tangibles, not intangibles.
**Tangibles**
Say things like:
* I was impressed with the way you were **dedicated to completing** programming assignments, even when they are difficult. Other students gave up, or skipped requirements X, Y, and Z.
* You did a great job **thinking through the logic** on the Data Structures assignment. I'm assuming that you **took the time to think it through** on paper, or in pseudo-code first -- something that a lot of first year students never do.
* Your algorithms are elegant and show that you **studied the coursework and theory** behind them. In particular, on the travelling salesman problem, I could tell that you **took the time to study the problem, and think through different solutions**. Well done.
* You used parts of Java (or C#, C++, whatever) that I didn't teach. That gets me really excited, because it is the mark of a great programmer that they are **inquisitive about better ways to do things**, and to **learn their tools without waiting to be spoon-fed**.
Then you can follow with encouragement related to those tangibles, such as, "based on the skills and work ethic you've demonstrated, along with your willingness to put in the effort to solve problems, I think that you could make a really talented programmer. If it interests you, I hope to see you in more CS classes in the future."
**Intangibles**
Avoid generalities like:
* You'd make a great programmer! You should take more programming classes.
* You've got a great mind for CS. It's not for everyone, so it's fun to see talent in such a young student.
* If you stick to programming, I know you'll go far.
Intangibles can set people up for failure because they don't help them identify and grow their strengths. If a student earned an A in your class, it's because they worked hard, and were determined, and stuck to it. But if you tell them that they are "good" or "talented", without telling them why, it gives them the impression that their success is not because of their hard work, but is because of some unnamed virtue inside of them. This can lead to a variety of ills:
1. They may have only taken that class to fulfill a requirement, and may have worked extra-hard because they were nervous about passing it. If you praise them by saying that they are a "great programmer", it risks pushing them to continue with a field that may not actually interest them. Worse, it can make them coast in the future.
2. It can actually hamstring them, because they are afraid of letting you down, but don't know what it is about their work that pleased you.
Your intentions are good, and it's great that you want to encourage these young women to feel empowered to tackle a field traditionally dominated by men. But when you encourage them, be sure to give them tangible feedback, not just generalities.
Hope that helped!
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_7: Maybe [regression toward the mean](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean) played a role here?
Consider the following experiment: Start throwing six-sided dice, and when a six comes up, you should praise the die how well it rolled. Observe, that over 80% of the time, the next roll will be worse. Was it because of the praise?
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_8: Speaking as a male student with a multitude of learning disabilities, I would much rather the instructor show me that they see value in me by providing additional instruction and acknowledge that this instruction is because they see a specific advantage that I have over the other students.
Case in point, if your students whom you speak of have a superior aptitude for the computer sciences, then teach them something beyond what their peers are learning. This not only shows that you are more involved in their education, but it also demonstrates to these individuals that the effort they have put into learning their crafts has paid off and that they have been noticed in a positive light.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: I honestly believe that this really depends on the person in consideration,I can say that in my family...we are never praised at home for any achievements (except probably behind our backs), and get criticized if we mess up.While this helps my brother to do better..I on the other hand feel I can do nothing right.I honestly feel one must understand how the student responds to praise or criticism.
*Some people fight harder when told they are not good enough while some fall weak to such comments,and some people work harder if told they are amazing at something.*
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: In addition to the answers above, you shouldn't put too much weight to psychological material. A lot of the research Dweck cites borders on pseudo-science and most of the rest is simple common sense.
So let's use some common sense. For example, don't praise them in a way that is likely to make them put in less effort. If you tell someone they're already good at something, you put them in a frame of mind where they've already reached the goal, when in fact they're at the start.
On the other hand, innate ability is a thing and it is important that talented pupils know what their options are.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: This will depend on the person, its background, experience, how one was brought up etc.
I had excellent marks in primary / high school, praised by many, and the love to learn was inoculated by my parents. Being relatively clever helped as well - but I did not know that.
When I went to a top-tier university I saw people who were way better than I was. Some of them did not make it to the second semester (or second year) because they were so used to "getting it" on the spot (because high school aims for average pupils, at least in France). They were not used to working hard to understand things.
I ended up with a PhD in Physics, again with many brilliant people who stayed in academia and are doing great. I see myself as being average, possibly average+ but with a love to learn, which helped a lot.
What I am trying to say is that you might consider inoculating them this love to learn which, consolidated with their natural cleverness, is going to make magical sparkles.
My son was tested for intellectual capacities (for many reasons irrelevant here - not because of an obsession of his parents :)). He had capacities of a 16 yo when he was 8. I made extra, extra, super sure he understands that he must love to learn (and work) and that his capacities are a booster **if he does**.
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/20
| 2,005
| 8,663
|
<issue_start>username_0: Since last September I have been working hard on my applications, applied to multiple good CS departments yet none of them even wait-listed me, all rejected me, I have also got rejected informally by supervisors I approached.
Now I know I am not an established researcher in this field, I did not publish anything yet nor I have a concise experience with a certain topic but I know that I am not far off and I can pull my weight to reach the desired level by a number of the departments I applied to. The issue is that I almost all the time get unfriendly, cold treatment from professors, none of them is willing to take 5 minutes to discuss anything.
I am told that professors will always accept me even if I had average or below average marks because I am bringing my own fund for this degree yet this whole notion seems false.
My master's transcript does not look good, I have failed 2 courses and recovered but that 'F' will always look like a stain on my transcript. My bachelor's transcript is average (upper-second in UK scale).
How can I improve my chances to get into a PhD field that is not far off what I did in my master's?<issue_comment>username_1: You seem to be operating on the assumption that "I have my own funding, therefore, I can go wherever I want". That is simply not true. Taking on a graduate student is not only a matter of money, it is also a significant investment of time on the part of the advisor and believe me, at top departments, time is a more scarce and precious resource than money. If the professor does not see a reasonably good chance that this investment is going to result in a comparably good outcome (i.e., a student with high-profile publications and a strong thesis), then very likely they won't take you, even if you bring your own funding.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I am told that professors will always accept me even if I had average
> or below average marks because I am bringing my own fund for this
> degree yet this whole notion seems false.
>
>
>
I think you've hit the nail on the head right there. I have no personal knowledge of any PhD program in the world, outside of zero-reputation programs begging for students/diploma mills, where having mere funding will get you in. Now, maybe if you have the funding to have a new building built in your honor you could get the President/Chancellor to put in a good word for you, but I don't think that's the kind of funding we are talking about. Even then, though...
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but when I read over your question and responses I feel a sense of feeling entitled to other people's time and resources. I have funding, admit me; I have a question, answer me; I want to be admitted, work with me; I want to meet with you, make time for me.
While we are all entitled to basic human dignity and respect, and I feel that's a very broad line, that's really it. Any good professor has many things they wish they had more time to do - work with existing students, do research, improve their program, improve their courses, reach out to the community, write a book, maybe spend more time with their kids and family or indulge in a hobby, consult, serve the University in another capacity, etc.
If a professor you approach gets the sense that you think they are obligated to work with you for any reason, that you are entitled to their time and energy, the vast majority will shut you down cold with little hesitation; for them it will be a reminder that there are indeed people who deserve their time and they wish they had more time for those people, but you aren't one of those people so go kick rocks.
So it might be time you seriously considered how you present yourself, and alter your strategy for how to approach a prospective degree program. While you feel that you can perform at the levels the department demands, they don't know that - so you need to consider how they might see you and feel, and how you can best present yourself as someone worth taking a risk on. There are a number of questions and answers on this site on how to approach prospective advisers, as well as general "open letters" from faculty around the world giving their advice on how to handle such interactions as well. I'd strongly recommend you make use of them, and I think you will have a lot more 'luck' if you take good advice to heart.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm in the same position: two fails in my MSc transcript, which makes things difficult.
I chose the path of becoming a researcher before I apply for PhDs. I am now on a research internship that will hopefully lead to a publication; I am looking for more research experience; get introduced to people in the field so that they can formally and informally give you nice references.
So basically:
- get research experience. At the beginning it's hard to get into, but the more stuff you have on your CV, the easier it is to get new positions;
- do networking;
- be VERY proactive, make yourself known;
- try to get published, obviously.
Hope it helps, good luck to both of us ;)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: What kind of field within computer science are you aiming at?
I have no experience with UK universities but in the Netherlands supervisors are more concerned with your ability to do independent research than grades, although without publications this would be hard to prove.
In any case, what really gets you kudos with supervisors is if you come up with research topics yourself. Look up the publications of your targeted faculty to find their interest, do some literature research in that direction to find open question and come up with an approach on how you going to make a contribution to that. Write that down in a convincing manner before you approach them. For me this has really helped to stand out after a disappointing bachelor that took me 5 instead of 3 years and a grade average that would imply an immediate rejection even for any type of honours or research master let alone PhD.
I think this would be especially useful to you having already found funding, as coming up with research topics of appropriate level is really time consuming and somewhat of a scarce resource, professors will be reluctant to provide it to you if they don't think you worth it. Although you may get paid externally you still 'occupy' a topic that may have gone to a more promising student. The topic you come up with does not have to be something you will actually be studying eventually, but it provides some proof that you supervisors will not be constanty busy pampering you in the coming years.
Also, if you got the coding skills and it is applicable to your field: one of the easiest ways to get publishable results is to implement an existing algorithm that has only been described theoretically, and get some experimental results. Just browse arxiv to get some recent papers which are more likely not to have been experimentally verified.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: OK, it's elephant-in-the-room time.
The problem is your grades. A 2.1 isn't a problem, especially if you were close to the grade boundary for a first, especially if it was from a high-ranked university. But it is the minimum level required for most UK PhD programmes. Given that, any admissions committee is going to want to see evidence of improvement through your master's but you seem to have gone backwards. That's a huge worry and makes your claim that you can "pull your weight to reach the desired level" sound hollow. Your master's was your second chance to actually reach that level; applying for a PhD is not a good way to ask for a third.
You're competing against people whose grades are well above average and you don't mention anything in your post that compensates for that. If you have really good grades for courses in the area of your prospective PhD, it would help to emphasize that in your applications. Even then, there's the worry that the "fascinated by subject X but bored and unmotivated by everything else" candidate will find that research in subject X actually requires techniques from boring subject Y to make progress, so will lose motivation and quit. And you're still competing against candidates who found the other courses boring but got good grades in them anyway.
Being able to self-fund shouldn't make a difference unless the department already wants to accept you on academic grounds. If the department wants you and it's a choice between you and a candidate who is roughly equal but can't get funding, you win. (Or, more likely, you both get offers but only you can take yours up.)
Upvotes: 4
|
2015/05/20
| 269
| 1,021
|
<issue_start>username_0: Some universities are called *Polytechnic* and some other contain *Technology* in their name, for example the Valencia Polytechnic University (UPV) vs. the Technical University of Berlin (TUB).
What are the differences between them?<issue_comment>username_1: Nothing. Whichever the founders liked the most.
In some cases, universities called "technical" even provide non technical degrees, but they keep the original name.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Wikipedia has a [nice summary of this distinction (or lack thereof)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_technology#Institutes_of_technology_versus_polytechnics). In essence: the term "polytechnic" comes from the French [*École Polytechnique*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique). Thus, a university with 'Polytechnic' in its name is typically one that was influenced in its founding in some way by the French system. Today, however, there is generally no significant difference.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2015/05/20
| 1,693
| 7,133
|
<issue_start>username_0: Some candidates have the personal or family resources to self-fund their graduate studies, or already know that they are willing to take on debt for them (disregard whether this is a good idea, which has [been](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29504/is-it-worth-self-funding-a-phd-to-attend-a-top-10-university) [addressed](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31679/graduate-school-without-full-funding) [before](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18755/implications-of-being-accepted-without-funding)). They still, however, need to actually be admitted to a graduate school, and having funding doesn't guarantee admission.
The ability to self-fund obviously makes it possible to take unfunded offers, but are there any other ways to actively leverage this funding situation during the application process? Should the applicant inform schools that they would take an unfunded offer, and, if so, when should they (e.g. when applying, after being put on a waitlist)? Are there specific strategies that a candidate might be able to use when choosing schools to apply to?
I suspect that answers to this question might be field-specific, so I won't necessarily specify a field. Answers discussing the differences between fields might also be interesting.
Note that I am not in this situation, so I won't really be able to answer those kinds of clarifying questions. I just thought it was an interesting question that was inspired by but not directly addressed in [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45733/difficulty-being-admitted-to-good-phd-programs).<issue_comment>username_1: I may have an unusual perspective on this, since many mathematics Ph.D. programs in the U.S. fund all their students (at least through teaching). In this context, I'd recommend against even mentioning the possibility of self-funding:
1. It sounds unconfident, like you don't expect to receive funding, and this is not a positive impression to convey. You don't want to give the impression that you feel your own application is subpar, and that you're bargaining to try to turn a rejection into an unfunded acceptance. This might be a reasonable approach at the end of the process, if you're stuck on a waiting list, but it's a problematic way to begin.
2. Letting Ph.D. students go into debt feels exploitative, especially in a program in which most or all of the other students are funded, and letting wealthy people buy their way into graduate school is also troubling.
3. There will be worries about how sustainable your self-funding is. In a year or two, your money or willingness to go into debt may run out, and the department would have to choose whether to come up with money for you or kick you out. That's an unpleasant choice, and the admissions committee may even worry that you are deliberately aiming for this situation (in the hope that they won't be willing to kick you out once you've joined the department).
In the sort of programs I'm familiar with, announcing in advance that you would be willing to self-fund a Ph.D. won't increase your chances of admission. I've only seen this come up very rarely, and the admissions committee has simply ignored the offer of self-funding and made a decision of acceptance with funding or rejection. I can easily imagine that it could decrease the chances of admission a little, although I haven't seen a clear-cut case of that.
By contrast, if you are awarded a prestigious fellowship with guaranteed funding for a certain number of years, you should certainly make sure admissions committees know about it. That doesn't have any of these disadvantages. However, it's not in your best interests to offer to pay your own way unless that's a common and respected approach in your field.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To add to username_1's answer (I'm also in math), if you get an external fellowship, this can certainly increase your chance of admission. When I applied, I initially got waitlisted by one top univerisity, then accepted when they heard I got an NSF Graduate Fellowship (in fact, the way I learned I got the NSF fellowship was from my acceptance letter from this university, which incidentally I didn't go to).
In the cases of self-funding, sometimes it does help, if you're strong enough to warrant acceptance with funding, but the department is low on funding that year. However, in most cases, I agree it is not so helpful to advertise this up front, particularly with top programs, but if you get waitlisted and seem to be a borderline case, then letting the admissions committee know you would be interested in admission even without funding may help.
Where I think it will be more helpful is, if you have trouble getting into a good PhD program, you can use self-funding to help get yourself into a masters program first (after which, if you do well, will have better chances for a good PhD program). Some departments will fund masters students, and some not. Ours typically does, but definitely accept some applicants we would not otherwise, just because the have self-funding. My guess is this may be rather common, as master's degrees are not as serious commitments as PhD's, and one worries less about the quality of grad students getting watered down in this way.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Given your position, I would suggest approaching professors directly that you would like to work with to discuss what possibilities there may be. A student who can fund themselves should have more freedom in terms of choosing what they want their research to focus on. This may be interesting for professors that have some ideas for projects they have no funding for but would like to investigate. It may also let you choose your own research program and get a professor to agree to supervise you with it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: From the perspective of someone in public health, I would approach the idea of self-funding with caution, and likely not mention it at all. There are three real reasons for this:
* Because there are very few external fellowships available, generally speaking whether or not you have been offered funding is a very strong signaling mechanism for the program's actual interest in you.
* The most common paradigm for graduate funding in the field, especially in later stages, is to take a research assistantship that's been written into someone's grant. This is often also the source of your dissertation. While not self-funded, I did have a funding source that institutional rather than tied to a person, and while that gave me somewhat more freedom, it was also considerably harder to get firmly on a project over the long term and to have a PI view me as "theirs".
* Keep in mind even if you can self-fund, assuming that money is fungible, there's other things you could do with that money. I wouldn't put forward spending it on tuition etc. unless you have to - and in my experience, if a department wants to admit you but can't assure funding they'll tell you that, rather than outright rejecting you.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/20
| 2,285
| 9,117
|
<issue_start>username_0: Can a Ph.D. student who only knows how to speak English study in a European non-English speaking country (e.g., Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, etc.) without any problems?
Does applying to these universities require knowledge of that country's language?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, they can, at least in technical fields (I speak mainly for Italy, but I'm pretty sure that this is possible in other countries around Europe as well).
To give you an example, at my university (Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy), there are a lot of foreigner students enrolled in various kind of engineering PhD programs who don't speak, or barely speak, Italian. In fact, most of the graduate courses are delivered in English. However, I recommend learning Italian (or any other local language if in a different country) at a discrete level if one plans to further pursue here (or there) his or her career.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I can tell from my wife's experiences who, as a native bilingual speaker (Chinese-English), tried to be admitted to Swiss universities: It doesn't work. For bachelor's and master's courses the local language (German, French or Italian) is strictly required. There are a few exceptions, especially for natural sciences, finances and economics, etc. (e.g. ETH Zurich, EFPL Lausanne, HSG St. Gallen, et al.). But for most fields the local language is a requirement.
However, this is totally different at PhD or Post-doc level. There you only need to find a professor willing to supervise you (which means that you must be able to communicate with him...), then anything's possible.
Also note that the visa requirements for Swiss student visas sometimes explicitely state that the knowledge of a local language will be put to the test in an interview.
Also note that there are often single modules taught in English sometimes even on Bachelor/Master level but they are normally an exception, so knowledge in the university's local language is still required.
Further note that some Swiss universities even offer courses where explicitely TWO local languages (e.g. German and French) are required or at least expected. I personally have experienced that several times.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: My experience was in France, Université Paris-Est, to be precise, but the same applies, at least, for ESIEE, Marne-la-vallee, Ponts-Paristech, obspm and the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris. I had direct contact with people from these places.
Professors and students speak english when they have no other choice, usually a very accented english (They have real trouble pronouncing 'w'). Speaking to you, they will indeed try to speak english, but amongst them, with you 'nearby', they will, most likely, speak french.
Most of the other employees will not speak english. In my university, the "welcome" session, presenting the university and the academic requirements and procedures, was held in french, even after I reminded them that one of the new phd candidates did not speak french at all.
Same applies in all public offices (including immigration, tax services, etc). Don't expect any of them to speak english. You might find someone, but don't count on it.
Of course, worse yet for random people in the street. My own landlady didn't speak english... Funny enough, all the cleaning ladies I found were either portuguese or brazilian, so that was easier :)
IMHO, while it is indeed doable to get a PhD and live in france without speaking french (I know a guy who did, although I think he learned french by the end of it), it is *considerably* harder. The academic part is easier, you can always ask your advisor to intervene, but the rest is painfully complicated.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: When I had made an inquiry about 3 years ago, a b-level proficiency of German language was required for most undergrad and postgrad programs affiliated to German universities. However, I think for a PHD, most universities do not require this. Rather, they would probably ask for your TOEFL or ELTS score. However, some programs might still require a working knowledge of German. I found some details on this site: <http://www.findaphd.com/study-abroad/europe/phd-study-in-germany.aspx>.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I know PhD students in Germany and the Netherlands without knowledge in German and Dutch respectively. Most of the PhD programs in Germany do not require courses. At least in engineering, most universities allow an English thesis. But to live in a foreign country without proficient knowledge of the language can be hard. In my experience, most people in the Netherlands, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries can speak at least basic English. In France on the other hand it is problematic without knowledge of the French language.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I am a Dutch PhD student, and I am doing my PhD in Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. In The Netherlands knowing only English as a PhD student is no problem. In fact in my university in the Netherlands ([University of Groningen](http://www.rug.nl/)) master classes where given in English if there was a student who did not understand Dutch well. Also in daily life English is sufficient, especially if you are in a city.
In Spain the knowledge of English is worse, but at an academic level you normally can communicate in English. Also at my university ([Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya · BarcelonaTech](http://www.upc.edu/?set_language=en)) most classes are also given in English. Here however, especially in daily life, it is very useful to know the basics of the local language (Spanish/Catalan), also for talking with some of the supporting university staff for example.
**Edit**:
Some extra resources:
[Studyinholland.co.uk](http://www.studyinholland.co.uk/) [comments](http://www.studyinholland.co.uk/students.html):
>
> In the Netherlands there are around 850 Masters programmes taught in English. You can search for degrees fully taught in English in our database of Dutch degrees.
> ...
>
>
> Knowledge of English is so good that it is possible to survive almost entirely in the English language (and watch BBC television without paying the licence fee). British students who have gone to study in Holland recently have found it to be a very welcoming and supportive study environment.
>
>
>
[Studyinholland.nl](https://www.studyinholland.nl/) about the [language requirements](https://www.studyinholland.nl/study-options/admission-requirements) :
>
> It is essential that you speak, read and write English well. You must have passed an English language test. IELTS and TOEFL are commonly accepted, but institutions may accept other tests as well, like like Cambridge English.
>
>
> The required scores are at least 550 (paper based) or 213 (computer based) for TOEFL. For IELTS a score of at least 6 is required.
>
>
> You can find language requirements for individual programmes or courses in the [database of international study programmes](https://www.studyfinder.nl/).
>
>
>
An interesting [document about the Dutch education system](https://www.nuffic.nl/en/library/education-system-the-netherlands.pdf), also indicating that English is getting used more and more:
>
> The language of education is Dutch, but under the influence of the Bologna process more and more study programmes are being offered in English. Education is compulsory in the Netherlands between the ages of 5 and 16.
>
>
>
Finally, a website where you can search for studies in English in Europe: [Study in Europe in English](http://www.studyineurope.eu/in-english)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Summing up the other answers and adding some comments from my own personal experience:
* Writing and defending a PhD thesis in English is possible in all the countries you mentioned. In some countries (e.g. the Netherlands), it's the rule and even the local students do it in English. In others (e.g. France and Germany), writing your PhD in the local language is still the rule and you might get strange looks if you choose to do it in English as a local (depends a bit on the field and on the institution as well). But PhD candidates from abroad can definitely do it.
* Teaching, attending courses and dealing with the bureaucracy will be more difficult, knowing the local language will make you much more useful and open up many options. That's true even in countries/institutions that are moving to English for master's level courses and even more so in those where teaching is almost exclusively in the local language.
* Life outside work will differ a lot. In France or Germany, you are expected to speak the local language for everything, taxes, shopping, etc. Most people will not feel confident speaking English. The Netherlands is a bit more English-friendly, films are not dubbed, people will spontaneously speak English when they hear a foreign accent, you can get some help in English even for official things like taxes (although not everything will be available in English), etc.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/20
| 1,332
| 5,398
|
<issue_start>username_0: I will be a freshman majoring in Computer Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign next fall, and I'm interested in their B.S.-M.S. 5-year program. I ultimately want to get a Ph.D. in Computer Science so I can teach at a university. On the webpage documenting the B.S.-M.S. program it says:
>
> Students are strongly advised to seek faculty counsel about the 5-yr program to be sure they understand the pros and cons of pursuing a Masters degree via the 5-yr program. **If their intention is to ultimately pursue a Ph.D.**, then it may be preferable to avoid the rapid pace of the 5-year program and instead invest time in research as an undergraduate. For admission to competitive Ph.D. programs, the expectation of publications and extensive research experience is higher for M.S. graduates. Therefore, as an alternative to the 5-year program, many top students may prefer to conduct research, possibly leading to a B.S. thesis, as a way to improve their admissions chances into top Ph.D. programs.
>
>
>
This paragraph left me confused, because the M.S. program requires a thesis to graduate. I was always under the impression that **thesis ≈ research**. Wouldn't it be better preparation to acquire experience in graduate coursework and produce a Master's thesis than to simply get a B.S. thesis? It seems to me that according to this paragraph, the only reason to get a B.S. thesis instead of an M.S. thesis is to increase admissions chances to Ph.D. programs, because more is expected of M.S. students.
So, my main question is, **how is a thesis different than research experience?** Why is it worse to obtain an M.S. thesis (through a 5-year program) rather than a B.S. thesis, given I will apply to Ph.D. programs?<issue_comment>username_1: A thesis is always research, but not all research is theses.
In a five-year Masters program, one would definitely do a thesis, but these programs often have very stiff course requirements, which leave little time for research *except* the thesis. Given this, it is often the case that the *only* research that a student does is the thesis, and that only to the level of sufficiency to obtain the degree. Many 5-year Masters Theses are thus no better than 4-year Bachelor's theses, but will indeed be held to a higher standard (e.g., as though one had gone through a separate 2-years Masters program).
Last-minute and "merely sufficient" research work of this sort will also be much less effective at building trust and relationships with a faculty member than a longer time working on research as an undergraduate, even at a "lower" level. This significantly impacts one's ability to get a good letter of recommendation, which is another key for PhD admission.
I suspect this is why they recommend as they do, and think it's a good thing that they do so.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Many institutions now five-year programs that ultimately earn the participant a bachelor's degree and a master's degree. Sometimes these programs are split cleanly into a four-year-undergraduate program, followed by a one-year graduate program. Other times, the program is integrated over the full five years, making it more like a five-year undergraduate program (with the addition study that an extra year obviously entails).
In either case, there is only about one extra year for the master's-level work. That's not a lot of time for graduate-level classes and a substantial research thesis. Sometimes these programs do not require a thesis at all; in engineering departments, these are often labeled as master of engineering (rather than master of science) degrees. Even when a thesis is part of the requirements, it may not entail much (if any) original research. The thesis may be more of a extended report on the current state of a field, without any new contributions from the writer. (Of course, new results would certainly be welcomed as part of a thesis in such a program, but it is not a requirement.)
So if a student is planning to move on to a doctoral program, it may be advantageous to spend more time on research, rather than creating a thesis on the type I have described. I'm not convinced that one or the other plan is actually better. Either a one-year masters or significant undergraduate research experience would enhance a Ph.D. applicant's file. However, I can certainly imagine situations in which either one might end up being more advantageous than the other.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The best people to speak to would be advisers at your university.
Generally speaking, there are two kinds of Master's courses - Master's by coursework, and Master's by research.
In a Master's by coursework, you do classes in 3 semesters, and write your thesis in the fourth.
By comparison, a Master's by research, you do classes in 1 semester, and write your thesis in the remaining 3 semesters.
The above timings will likely vary between courses, universities and countries, and is based on my own Master's experiences, but you can see there is a big difference in how much time and focus is placed on the thesis.
A PhD program is all about research, and as part of the admission process, you need to show them your Master's thesis. Thus, if your thesis isn't that great because you didn't have much time to spend research, then you likely wouldn't get in.
Upvotes: -1
|
2015/05/21
| 310
| 1,264
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a cummulative 3.5 GPA from a top 20 school but a 3.1 GPA in my math classes. In particular I got a BC in linear algebra and a C in abstract algebra. My goal was always to go to graduate school but I fear these two classes are going to crush that. Also my school doesn't allow for retaking of classes (BOO!). Any advice besides the obvious of trying to raise the GPA, ace the GRE, get great letters of recommendation or do research? Or will this be too much to overcome?<issue_comment>username_1: Take the graduate version of abstract algebra. Do incredibly well in it, and ask the prof for a letter.
Hopefully it will read something like the following: "X's performance is extremely strong, and his (her?) homework assignments are flawless. I was astonished to learn that X had previously earned only a C in undergradate abstract algebra; whatever X's weakness was, he/she has left it completely beind him/her."
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Doing research and getting a strong reference letter from your research supervisor is your best bet. There's also the possibility of going to a lesser school for your MS, acing your classes there (and doing research) and switching to a better school for your doctorate.
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/21
| 461
| 1,789
|
<issue_start>username_0: I read an algorithm that is patented, I was inspired in one part of it and applied something similar (not exact) to my algorithm (e.g one step they applied out of their 10 steps algorithm I used in my algorithm not exactly identical but similar notion). Will there be any issue?
Can I simply say, this step was inspired from [ ]<issue_comment>username_1: If your question is whether you can cite the patent in a research paper, then yes, absolutely: **patents are fully citable sources**, and patents don't protect publication of related ideas.
If, on the other hand, you want to use your related algorithm commercially, you'd better get legal advice on that...
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Assuming you have correctly cited the patent, in many countries there is an exemption from patent infringement if the potentially infringing work is academic and/or non-commercial. So, in this case, even if your algorithm does potentially infringe on the patent, you don't need to worry about unless you ever try to commercialise it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If you have a look at
**[Can an algorithm be patented?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/32482/63497)** (Programmers.SX)
You'll notice that:
* In many countries, algorithms, and even software, are simply not patentable.
* Even when software is patentable, it is *not* the case any abstract algorithm is patentable. See [this answer](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/32518/63497)
So even in a commercial context you might still be safe. Also, person X might be inspired by a patent to publish an academic paper, then person Y could implement the paper by X, and that reduces liability even further if it's legit. I would think.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/21
| 1,196
| 4,784
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a master's thesis (in Number Theory) and there are multiple places where I need to claim that something is *not* yet known. Since I am not an expert (and even if I were) I would like to reference some more authoritative source than myself or, say, Wikipedia.
For example, consider the following statement:
>
> In 1980 Schmidt proved that [some property holds]. No other necessary or sufficient conditions are currently known, though.
>
>
>
For the first sentence I can cite Schmidt's original paper, but how can I substantiate the second claim?<issue_comment>username_1: One way, especially since you are not an expert of the field (and even if you were), is to not make such an absolute claim:
>
> To the best of our knowledge, no other necessary or sufficient
> conditions are currently known.
>
>
>
At least in my field (robotics), this is quite common and I think an appreciated amount of humility.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Lifesayko's answer is good, but it should not be the first way to address the problem.
Scientists tend to be aware of the gaps in their knowledge. So they write about them. You will find such sources:
* In review articles and metastudies. They say things like "We reviewed 8 cross sectional studies on the link between zugs and wugs. We found that the presence of zugs is a strong predictor of the subsequent appearance of wugs, but the exact mechanism behind this is not yet known".
* In the "future work" sections of articles in the area. For example, "In this paper, we found that, after 3 months of delay, we can measure a correlation of 0.8 between the presence of zugs and wugs. A next step would be to establish the mechanism by which zugs contribute to the appearance of wugs".
* In other articles which work are based on the same theory as your work. "We are exploring the link between zugs and wods. In the past, zugs have been linked to wugs, although the exact mechanism is unknown".
* In articles which outline the challenges in a certain discipline for the coming years. Usually published by established professors in major journals, they explain what is missing in their area. "One of the major unresolved problems in zug research is how they cause the appearance of wugs".
Of course, for all three of them, it is important that your source is fairly recent, because somebody can well have found out the missing information in the meantime. A defensive formulation is never out of place. But it does not absolve you from looking for sources first.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: What I usually do when I'm not sure, despite having put in a lot of effort trying to get to the bottom of the issue by doing extensive literature research, is to contact one or more experts in the field. You can just send an email to one or more leading experts in the field, likely they will be able to clear up the issue. Also they may point to some sources that you may have missed. You can then cite those sources, also you can cite the information in the communication as a "private communication" and, of course, in the acknowledgements, you should thank them for assistance.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The answers that say there's no call to make absolute statements like that are very good, but its still embarrassing to make a temporizing statement like "to the best of my knowledge", and then have a referee show you that your knowledge isn't good enough.
Your ability to assert that something is not known and be believed is related to your credibility. Master the literature, or work with a co-author or advisor that has, and cite it wisely and thoroughly. Make referees feel like you've done your due diligence.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I can't speak specifically to the academic angle, as others already have, but language might help here - namely, [E-Prime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime) (simply implemented as the removal of all forms of the verb "to be").
Restating your problem sentence:
>
> No other necessary or sufficient conditions are currently known,
> though.
>
>
>
...without the "are" requires an actor; I presume you would use yourself and perhaps other contributors. Thus you could say:
>
> The authors know of no other necessary or sufficient conditions.
>
>
>
This seems literally true and equivalent (less the implied but non-existent surety) to the original, but it thus has lost any force. To provide some content to the statement, perhaps then reference the resources used, date, and search terms, as in:
>
> The authors found no other necessary or sufficient conditions. (JSTOR, 23 May, 2015: 'search term'; EBSCO discovery service, 23 May, 2015: 'search term')
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/21
| 450
| 1,884
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was looking for postdoctoral grants/fellowships for a potential post-doc opportunity in the US. It appears as the entire grant/fellowship system is geared towards US citizens, or permanent residents of the US. It is understandable with respect to use of federal resources, but slightly discouraging nevertheless.
Are there any funding opportunities available for non-US citizen? In terms of field I'm interested specifically in Biomedical and STEM fieds.<issue_comment>username_1: There is relatively little funding of the sort you are looking for--funding that non-U.S. residents can apply for directly to fund post-doctoral work inside the U.S. However, that is not really that important, since that is not how most post-doc positions are funded anyway.
Most post-docs do not apply for their own funding. The funding comes from the institution that hires the post-doc (Very often--but not always--the money ultimately comes from a research grant from an outside agency, but the post-doc would not be involved in writing or administering the grant.) If an institution has funds for a post-doc, they will advertise a job opening and hire somebody. Generally, the search is global; they would be willing to hire somebody from anywhere in the world, provided they are a qualified. (There are some technical caveats about how this works, but they are of little import in practice; and--again--they are things that the hiring institution mostly needs to worry about, not the person they choose to hire.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think in some fields, grants like [Human Frontier Science Program](http://www.hfsp.org/) and [Life Sciences Research Foundation](http://www.lsrf.org/home) are helpful especially biology.
However, competition is very high in these and profile has to be in the top 5-10 of the applicants.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/21
| 1,122
| 4,172
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm thinking of starting doctoral studies at York University (USA). I found this on [the York University website information about accreditation](http://www.yorkuniversity.us/index.php/about-york/accreditation):
>
> YORK UNIVERSITY IS NOT ACCREDITED BY AN ACCREDITING AGENCY RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
>
>
>
After finishing this doctorate at York University in the USA, could I work as a lecturer at the University or at others in the USA?
What is the general difference in the Universities accredited by the United States Secretary of Education, and those which are not?<issue_comment>username_1: Accreditation is supposed to enforce standards of quality in higher education institutions. If an institution does not have accreditation, then it is extremely suspect, and any degree you obtain from it is likely to be completely worthless. This is from [the Wikipedia page on unaccredited institutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_education):
>
> All fraudulent diploma mills are also unaccredited schools, although they may claim accreditation from an unrecognized agency. Accreditation from such organizations, known derisively as accreditation mills, is unrecognized by any government or reputable private entity, and any courses taken or degrees received from such a school are generally considered invalid.
>
>
>
As you noted, the "university" claims to be accredited by the "International Accreditation Organization". This has the hallmarks of an accreditation mill as described in above.
I would be extremely wary of this particular institution, and it is unlikely that any other academic institution would hire you on the basis of a degree from it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: So, I had a few minutes' fun looking up on how much of a scam this "university" is. It is nothing more than a diploma mill. I hope these few tips may serve as useful warning signs for other dodgy institutions. From the university's website:
>
> Duration of the Program
>
>
> The normal duration of the PhD program for full-time students is 6
> semesters (24 months). Course work of 18 semester hours may normally
> be completed in three semesters (12 months). The dissertation may be
> completed in the remaining 3 semesters (12 months).
>
>
>
**No PhD program is that short.**
Additionally, any "university" whose website does not have a list of its departments and academic staff should be treated with great suspicion. I can find no information anywhere about its research departments or staff.
This is what the address of the place looks like on Google Street View (401 Kamakee Street #312, Honolulu, used to be the home of the "Apeautique medical spa"):
**This is a diploma mill.** Any institution capable of awarding a bona fide PhD degree *must* have a proper campus with sufficiently qualified and reputable academic staff (especially when they claim to award PhDs in civil engineering).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The university you link to is pretty obviously a [diploma mill](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_mill), and you should run as far and as fast as you can in the other direction. Do not give them any money, and do not believe anything they say.
Let me just say generally that an online Ph.D. program is a pretty dubious endeavor in any circumstance, even if the school is accredited. The chances that you can really get the deep immersion in the subject matter you need without meeting personally with faculty and fellow students are quite low. You should be very skeptical that one will really open doors for you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Recently, the New York Times did an expose on Axact's large scale diploma mill operation ([link](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/world/asia/fake-diplomas-real-cash-pakistani-company-axact-reaps-millions-columbiana-barkley.html)). It looks like IAO (the accrediting agency) [has connections with this company](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/world/asia/tracking-axacts-websites.html)
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/21
| 797
| 3,228
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to create a fairly long survey for my doctoral research. The target audience is teachers in the area. I have the option of using the software my institution provides (Qualtrics), Google Forms, SurveyMonkey, or perhaps something different. I'm leaning toward my university's software because the URL has my university's domain and might seem more trustworthy or legit than SurveyMonkey. Google Forms is pretty slick, though, too.
My one requirement is that I need to be able to branch based on answers.
What are some pros/cons of using one software over the other for academic work? Is it okay to do a survey with software not provided by my institution?
(PS--This is actually on behalf of my wife. :-) )<issue_comment>username_1: I would go with Qualtrics, for the reasons you cite.
However, make sure that when you pull the data out you export the questions all the possible ways, especially the .qsf version. Otherwise, when you leave the institution, you'll have lost the survey (because you can't log in to get it). This is especially important if you, or anyone else, wants to use the survey again.
Since my institution uses surveymonkey, and I find the idea of asking people to go to a monkey site abhorrent, I will probably install [Limesurvey](https://www.limesurvey.org/en/), but my proclivity to do things myself the hardest way possible is a personal problem.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think that survey URL's domain plays a significant role in *trustworthiness* of a doctoral survey request. What is far more important IMHO are the *contents* and *writing style* of the **invitation letter** as well as having solid *professional* or *academic* **online profiles** (as most likely most people will be looking you up anyway).
In regard to the **software** selection aspect, my advice is to check the following resources: [this Wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_survey_software), [this Quora wiki page](http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-survey-software) and [this Quora thread](http://www.quora.com/Whats-the-best-survey-software-that-allows-branching-logic-based-on-answers). Just keep in mind that some answers are posted by people, affiliated with firms - creators of some survey software. Finally, I would like to emphasize that, when selecting survey software, it is important to consider its *features* and *format flexibility* in **exporting** the results for further *data analysis* (I assume such analysis is planned).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: >
> Is it okay to do a survey with software not provided by my institution?
>
>
>
This in itself should be OK. But if you put you survey somewhere online on your own make sure you carefully read the terms of use of that service and think hsard what rights to the survey data you're signing over to the form provider.
And double-check that this is OK with all the data privacy and ethics stuff the study needs to comply with.
I haven't used it but heard of [REDCap](http://www.project-redcap.org/) in a lecture and got the impression that those developers put a lot of emphasis on getting the privacy and ethics issues right.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/21
| 517
| 2,171
|
<issue_start>username_0: My husband has accepted a postdoc position in a city in Australia with two great institutions where I think I'll have a good shot at securing a postdoc for myself. I have some great connections to researchers there through my advisor and committee members. I'm now doing the groundwork to get my foot in the door as I've not met any of these researchers in person.
How/should I get around mentioning that I'm moving there as a trailing spouse? It will be pretty obvious, correct? Why else would I be moving there? Should I just be upfront about it?<issue_comment>username_1: There's no point in disguising the reason for you moving to Australia. If you give some kind of prevaricating answer to the question of why you're moving, then this will look unprofessional at best. The people with whom you're going to chat about possible postdoc positions for yourself will of course know about the academic two-body problem.
The fact that there are two institutions where you might be able to find work is in your favour. Cultivate your contacts and opportunities with both institutions, at the same time. Don't be coy about the fact you're shopping around for positions.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think it is relevant to mention why you are in Australia nor do I think people would automatically assume you are a trailing spouse. Unless I am misinterpreting 'great institutions' then the city you have moved to is high on the list of places many people want to live, so there could be plenty of reasons why you are looking for a job there. Are you an Australian or a permanent resident? If not, the [Endeavour Scholarships](https://internationaleducation.gov.au/endeavour%20program/scholarships-and-fellowships/applications/pages/applications.aspx) are open right now and provide a postdoc fellowship for 4-6 months. It's usually a lot easier to contact a prospective supervisor by proposing that you apply for funding to work in their lab. Even if the application doesn't work out, applying for a fellowship could indirectly lead to a postdoc if the lab has spare money and is sufficiently impressed by your ideas.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/22
| 886
| 3,890
|
<issue_start>username_0: Not much literature can be found on what I'm working on and it's all by the people I work with. Am I able to reference their work/text in my thesis or I should just stick to referencing material published in journals and conferences, however remote they might be and just get away with whatever's not published and not back them up?<issue_comment>username_1: Yes, you are able to reference their work in your text, as long as you make clear in the bibliography what type of document (master thesis, PhD thesis, Institution) it is.
However, i would not consider it to be ideal if your work *critically* depends on such references in the sense that a central assumption or starting point in your thesis breaks down if the reference provides false or incomplete results. Particularly in the case of master theses / dissertations it is not generally clear whether and to which extent they are peer-reviewed and what their overall trustworthiness is. With (accepted!) PhD theses things are better, as these normally go through a review process. Furthermore, for PhD theses i would expect that their main points have been published somewhere (conference or journal) and then you clearly should prefer these publications.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If others have completed theses or dissertations related to the topic you are studying, I would definitely cite them. While writing my MA thesis, there were very few peer-reviewed publications available in the particular region I was working in but there were a number of recently completed theses and dissertations. Some of these were excellent and provided great data to support my own arguments, while others were of lower quality and were not cited. As long as you're critical of the content and argument of these documents you should be fine.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: *This is really an addendum to the two previous answers, but nevertheless it is still answer-worthy IMO*.
It is mostly true that with PhD theses, the crux of the stuff is generally published in journals etc. so that those count as more reliable sources (I dare say *primary* sources). However, it is not necessarily true that this will always be so. For instance, I am aware that at least [in Theoretical Physics, University of Bielefeld](http://www2.physik.uni-bielefeld.de/) is an example of an institution where it is not mandatory to have the stuff written in the thesis published. Theses are judged for what they contain and whether or not that represents an original contribution to the subject. I am using this only as an example, the general statement is - it is possible for a PhD thesis to contain original stuff which is otherwise unpublished. And at any rate, it is possible to have stuff written more elaborately than in the published papers (mine is an example). (Occasionally, this might also be because some letters journals have stringent limits on word counts and/or pages, so people shrink stuff there and feed out many more details in the thesis).
Thus, there is no harm in citing a PhD thesis, provided you mention that it is what it is.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As with most referencing questions, you have to consider what you're depending on them for. If it's a matter of "further details on the previous experiment", a thesis is likely to go into much more depth than a paper and is the best you're likely to get. If it's "so-and-so proved that..." you should *really* be looking for something peer-reviewed. Most cases will fall in between, and then you need to use your judgement and be clear what you're citing.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: you shouldn't quote a master's Thesis because they are typically not published. only published work should be cited in a research work. If it hasn't been published no one is responsible for the Content
Upvotes: -1
|
2015/05/22
| 641
| 2,490
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently trying to apply for a PhD position, but am unable to meet the entry requirements. My (potential) supervisor has advised me to undertake an honours year to meet the requirements.
**I completed my bachelors degree in 2010** at a completely different university and everybody I've known has done their honours year as a part of their undergraduate degree before graduation.
My degree was titled "Bachelors of Computer and Mathematical Sciences" and shortened to BCM. So I would be
>
> Mr. LegoStormtrooper BCM
>
>
>
while my friends who have completed their honours would be
>
> Mr. Other Guy BCM(Hons)
>
>
>
For me, I can't just add on "Hons" because it would be in a different field at a different university.
So I am very confused about this. I've heard of Bachelors, Masters, Doctorates, Graduate Certificates, but never an "Honours degree" as an independent thing.
Can any one explain how this works?<issue_comment>username_1: I am familiar with the situation in NZ. Since Australia and NZ share many commonalities in higher education, i suspect that things are similar.
A normal bachelors degree is a three-year degree and by itself not sufficient for getting into a PhD program. An honours degree adds a fourth year to the bachelor degree and is normally open to very good students (there are GPA criteria for entry). In particular, an honours degree often involves a research project and is deemed sufficient for PhD admission. Most if not all people do the honours degree immediately after their bachelor. Generally, you need a four-years degree to get into the PhD, which can either be an honours or a master degree.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think that you are asking about an Honours degree in Aus/NZ.
The Honours degree is an additional year(or two depend on the university) of specialized course or research for those who have completed their bachelor degree.
Academic routes of AUS/NZ are different from USA. Their bachelor degrees are usually 3 years, then for some student who want to do research, they study more for an honours degree. In USA, normally their undergraduate degree study already study for 4 years. (Which means it may already included the "Honours Degree"(a.k.a. doing research project), but it depend on whether what each university names their own degree.)
for example, in [Honours Year Australian National University](http://www.anu.edu.au/study/study-options/honours-year)
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/22
| 4,472
| 18,151
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am finishing my first year of Masters and have always thought of going for a PhD in North America. I and my girlfriend are going to have a baby which is totally unexpected. The due day will be somewhere this december which I am still half year away from finishing my Masters degree.
I don't know under this circumstance should I still, or am I able to, apply for PhD positions overseas. This would mean I will have to leave them or bringing them together for my study. I am not super rich to afford a family personally and would need to rely on studentships, but I don't think graduate studentships are sufficient to afford the living expense and future education fees of my coming baby.
Taking on a PhD and a research career are definitely my dream and situation seems very difficult for these to come true. Anyone knowing someone carrying kids along grad school, or any suggestion to me? I just don't have a clue how to take care of everything.<issue_comment>username_1: Children are the purpose of life for millions if not billions of people. They are wonderful. A PhD degree is also a wonderful privilege, available to less than 1% of the population (at least in the US). However, a combination of these two experiences is a very significant challenge, both for the family (your relationship with your wife and child) and for the PhD study, or the chances of having a satisfying, engaging, and overall positive experience in the program.
I do not have kids yet but will share what I do know. I am aware of several peers in grad school who had to manage graduate study and a small child. Even with an older (say, school-age) child it is a difficult task. But with a baby the time commitment, unexpected as well as everyday expenses (diapers, food, clothes, medical care) present substantial added 'overhead' for a family. Perhaps the greatest demand a baby will impose is the demand for constant attention and time, which must be provided NOW, and cannot be postponed for a time and day that works best with your class schedule.
I don't know if you have a working spouse whose income can sustain a baby (including babysitting), or if you are thinking of studying and sustaining a family on a graduate assistantship (formally a 20hr/wk commitment, which in reality is often a 30-60hr/wk commitment, if done right). Add to that a 24/7 commitment to a baby...
Bottom line, yes, it probably can be done. But the odds are going to be against you. It will require immense time management, discipline, flexibility, lots of sleepless nights (both for the baby and for writing papers for classes), constant stress, and non-existent time for yourself and thus declining physical and mental health.
How is this different from having a baby with a regular job? A couple things.
First, the time commitment is different. Many jobs allow a fairly predictable 8-5 schedule. When you walk out of the building, you are DONE for the day. Not so with grad school. When you get home from the university, homework awaits! Budget 4-6 hours daily just on catching up on reading and writing for class, and either grading and preparing for lectures (if you are a TA) or doing research-related analysis/writing (if you are an RA). During my first 3-4 years of PhD study I rarely recall a less than 12-hr workday.
Second, finances. A full-time job that pays at least $50K a year, plus additional income from the spouse, can allow to raise a baby. It will not be a smooth process and will require sacrifices and trade-offs, but at least it is feasible, and the money can be stretched to cover some basic expenses for a baby (with frequent trips to the Dollar Store, Goodwill, and Salvation Army stores).
If you end up in a large university in a large city with high cost of living, you might make around $1400-2000/month for a 20hr/wk assistantship. The exact amount often depends on discipline (engineering/medical vs. business vs. social sciences vs. humanities). This is just around the official subsistence level (i.e. poverty line) income for a household in the U.S.
If you do something relatively unrelated to your program (e.g. an assistantship in a Writing Center or Career Center, etc.) then count on standard university assistantship. In a high cost of living large city, count on around $1500/mo. The figure is much lower if you end up in the middle-of-nowhere, small college town - think not much over $1000/mo. Usually, graduate students struggle throughout their time in school. I mean, carefully budget food and clothes, not to even dream of living in decent, clean, apartments with no roommates or having cars (insurance? gas?) or even considering pricey entertainment or travel. Those who afford these things usually have savings or rely on some other financial assistance ("free money" like scholarships/fellowships) or regular financial support from the parents.
Unless your wife plans to work and bring in substantial income (in the U.S., I would say at least $50-60K/yr), it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible and destructive to family financial situation, to try to raise a baby on a single graduate stipend. I strongly advise against even considering this as an option. A small medical emergency that is not covered by graduate insurance (which is often seriously lacking for dependent care) can put you in debt for years if not decades. This is before mentioning all the human cost of living below subsistence level. If you think the loving, caring, gentle relationship with a spouse will be unaffected by persistent financial hardship, this perception is incorrect.
I already mentioned the high demand on time and attention associated with raising a child. Well, graduate school by itself is like having a child. Your thesis, if you will 'survive' through the preliminary exams and enter the dissertation stage, will be just like another child that needs constant nurture and attention. It will be on your mind day and night, it will cause some stress and it will cause late nights. Many late nights.
Bottom line. Babies are wonderful. Doctoral study is wonderful. But in combination, they will require trade-offs and impose a substantially higher level of stress, and reduced quality of life, than if attended to separately. Since a baby is guaranteed for you at this point, my personal advice would be to focus on raising your child at least until school age (5-6), and revisiting the idea of PhD at that point. You will have a much more pleasant life as a parent with a baby, rather than a baby PLUS a thesis, to come home to every day. The PhD will be there and you can do it later in life, no problem. So, enjoy your baby, it's a wonderful gift. The rest is trivial in comparison. If an academic career is in your future, you will find a way to pursue it sooner or later. AT the end of your life, you will not wish you had spent more time in the lab or submitting grant proposals or conference papers. You will wish you had spent more time with your family. And I hope you do. Good luck!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Well, certainly you are *able* to apply for PhD programs (which typically start in the Fall in the US). As for what you decide to do, that will require a long thoughtful conversation with your girlfriend, but if both of you are open to the possibility, then you may as well send out a few applications and see what kind of offers you get.
It seems like your main question is about financial aspects. Both as a grad student and faculty member in the US, I knew many people with kids during their PhD. With international students, it can be harder when your significant other does not have a work visa, as indeed you will not be making a lot of money. However, people get by, and if you want to come to the US with your girlfriend and baby and support them on a graduate stipend, you can too if you are frugal. There are often opportunities for extra teaching/tutoring, particularly in the summer, to get a little extra money, and this is something you can ask about when you check out PhD programs.
Another aspect, which you may or may not be concerned about is that it may be harder to get family to help out with the baby if all of you are overseas.
By the way, if you start considering this, you should look into visa issues for your girlfriend, which will likely be more complicated than if you were married. Oh, and congratulations!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Anecdotes are not usually the right kind of answer on stackexchange, but you have specifically asked for them, so here goes...
### My experience
I had two children in graduate school. The first was born during my second year, and the second was born during my fourth year. Most of my fellow students thought I was crazy. I graduated (obtaining both a MS and PhD) in five years, with no debt and certainly no regrets. Surprisingly, I found that graduate school allowed me to be more involved in my children's life than if I'd had a regular job.
### Advantages
Some important and perhaps unusual factors worked in my favor. First, and most importantly, my wife had already decided that after we had children she wanted to be a full-time homemaker. Her support allowed me to focus on my studies, although I did change hundreds of diapers, stay up a lot of nights, and after the birth of the first I didn't get any research done for about three months (I did continue passing my courses).
The second important advantage I had was generous funding from the US DOE's computational science graduate fellowship (CSGF). It is (or at least was) the highest-paid government fellowship in the US, at about $33K/year. That was still officially below the poverty line for a family of four where I lived, and half my income went to rent, but by careful budgeting we had no problem getting by on only that income. Could I have done it with less income? Yes, though I would possibly have needed student loans, and the added load of being a teaching assistant would have been a challenge.
Finally, I found that I could get a lot of high-quality research done by focusing intensely for a few hours per day. For me, that was (and is) a more productive strategy than trying to focus on research 24/7. This made it possible to complete my thesis and care for my family simultaneously. I was home by 5-6 p.m. almost every evening and spent most of my weekend time with my wife and children. I did often do research for an hour or two after my kids were in bed. I know that many grad students tend to spend a lot more time each day on research, which might make things more difficult.
### Assessment
Having children during graduate school was a good decision for me. The time I was able to spend with them as babies and then toddlers is precious to me. After I graduated and became an assistant professor, I found that the time I could spend with my children was much more limited, due to the added demands of teaching, advising, service, and administration. Indeed, with my third child (born 2 years after I got a permanent position) I changed a lot fewer diapers and really spent a lot less time with her early on. I've reached a better balance since then, but it took years.
In short: with the right setup, having kids in grad school can work out very well.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Having children while at graduate school is not very common, but is not very rare either (in particular for Asians like me).
My experience
-------------
I'm a CS student in the UK, and my baby was born at the beginning of my third (and final) year of PhD. This did not affect the progress of my PhD at all.
Now, at the middle of my 4th year, I'm waiting for my viva in a couple of weeks, and the delay is just due to my internship in Silicon Valley (when I brought both my wife and my baby to the US with me). I will go there again soon for a post doc.
Sure, my working time has been significantly shortened. However, the pressure also makes me much more motivated. Thinking that my family are waiting for me at home has helped me to eliminate (nearly) all the procrastinations.
I'm also much much happier. Just by holding my baby in my arms, I can forget all the depressions, paper rejections, disappointments.
I'm in London, so everything is expensive, and my scholarship is only less than 16k per year. However, heath service is totally free in the UK, so we still can manage it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: If the job climate is anti-pregnancy for women, whether that's fair or not, it's your advisor's job to let you know that's the case. I don't think any woman at any time should be punished in any way for the decision to have a baby, but that's not going to change the job climate overnight either.
Different women react different to pregnancy too -- lack of sleep may leave them mentally unable to study for six months to a year or more. My wife didn't sleep for more than 2.5 hours or so at a time from about the seventh month of pregnancy to about the baby's fourth or fifth month. Yeah, she had a real hard time focusing. Two other female grad students who had a baby while in coursework had similar problems -- one left the water running in her kitchen sink and caused $400 worth of damage to the downstairs apartment, while the other said she couldn't even read a page of a magazine and stay focused (and this was a very high performing woman).
How the advice is framed makes a big difference -- the infantilizing and the feeling that you need "permission" to have a baby is ridiculous. But at the same time, giving someone realistic advice is not the same as telling them what to do. - See more at: <https://chroniclevitae.com/news/549-should-you-have-a-baby-in-graduate-school#sthash.4zJlCYwe.dpuf>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: After having been in an infertility program for three years, I found out I was pregnant two weeks before I started my doctoral program. I had to take some time off during the first year, but I came back starting in summer session and managed to graduate in five years. My son went to daycare on campus and so was near me at all times. It was a real challenge, especially being the mom of an infant (dads are a little bit off the hook at that age). But I made it through, and when I graduated he was four, and they read both our names and we walked across the stage together. Good luck no matter what you decide --
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Since you asked for personal experience, I'll share mine.
I did the majority of the work for my Master's degree as a part time student while working full time. During that time, my wife and I had two kids. During the first pregnancy, there were some problems and my wife was put on bed rest. I had to withdraw from my classes to care for her over 9 weeks. Then, there was this totally helpless human baby that I had to do my part to care for. I didn't get back to school for a few years. I spent all the time I would have spent on education being a parent instead. When I did get back to classes, it was so much harder to block out the time for classes, studying and doing research. Then we had our second child and time for school was even more scarce. I finally completed my Master's when I was laid off during the financial crisis and no one was hiring. I finally graduated, 9 years after I started. I absolutely don't regret taking the time to focus on my family.
As to the idea that the PhD will always be there, it's true in a sense, but I think you will find that as you live your life and acquire other responsibilities, that your education will move down the priority list and going back will become less and less likely.
I think you should discuss the situation with your girlfriend. How does she feel about you leaving her behind to come to the U.S. for school? How does she feel about coming along? You should also look at what support any school you're considering has for grad students with families. I know that many have on campus apartments, daycare facilities, preschools and other types of support.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I found a program that offers PhD coursework during the summer, so I will only be away from my family for 2 months for the next 3 summers (with a week vacation when I'll return home). I'll be doing my clinical internship, reserach, and disseration at home. I wonder if that's an option for your career field? I'm in social work, and Smith College only has graduate work during the summer. I have been thinking about what to do while I'm away from her and I wrote a post about it: <https://phdincoming.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/how-to-be-away-from-your-kid-while-in-grad-school/>
Make the best decision for you and your family :)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: There is no right moment for getting children. You will always have to deal with sleep deprivation, extra costs, less time , etc. The financial costs are easier to handle when you have a "real" job, but when you are younger the sleep deprivation tends to bite less, and gradschool can be more flexible than a real job. An important aspect is how family friendly your institution is. So, depending on your circumstances, gradschool could actually be the right moment for getting children, rather then a problem. Since the child is already on its way, viewing the situation from this perspectives, is probably the most productive way of dealing with the situation.
I would start with looking at what is offered by your new institution, e.g. childcare, flexible working hours, flexible childcare in case of illness or conference visits, etc. If a lot is offered and your adviser is supportive then you will be fine. If not, you can as a last resort consider looking at different institutions.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: I have been the same situation and here is my suggestion:
Yes you can do it and do your PHD now. But plan to be on yourself for the first year (a year is the most – it can be somewhere from three to eight months). Bring your family after that, because by that time, you will have all the information.
Upvotes: -1
|
2015/05/22
| 1,194
| 5,423
|
<issue_start>username_0: I really like doing research, but I've heard that all the fights for funding can be a major headache. So I am wondering, how can I enjoy my work without worrying about grant applications? Are there specific fields or positions that don't require this?<issue_comment>username_1: The need for grant funding depends a lot on the type of research that you do. The more that your research requires laboratory facilities and equipment, graduate student research assistants to run the equipment, or travel for field work than the more that you're going to need grant funding. In the other direction, grant funding is less important if you do more theoretical research by yourself or with collaborators at other institutions.
No matter what type of research you do, you're going to need time to work on the research and some money to travel to conferences and present your research.
One of the few ways in which this can be done is to hold a faculty position at an undergraduate liberal arts college. Some of these positions have reasonably light teaching loads (although typically higher than at research universities) and funds to send faculty to conferences.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The key point is that the money for your job needs to come from somewhere and as such grant finding is a massive deal for the majority of academics.
In my experience in the UK and understanding of the general nature of academia you will struggle to be defined as an 'academic' without partaking in the perpetual search for funding. Academics are not simply employees of a university or other institute, finding funding to do their research is an absolutely key part of the job. Even as an undergraduate researcher I had applied for funding for various summer projects, its quickly something that becomes relevant but it sounds like you haven't yet experienced it?
Finding funding is also fundamental in supervisory positions where you employ other academics, it would be your job as a PI/group leader to build the group and apply for funding to do that. Are you just interested in research and not in the wider nature of academia such as supervising other research scientists, coming up with new ideas for research and presenting at conferences? If you are just interested in the practical research aspect you could work in industry or as an employee at a university/institute (via teaching positions, research assistant etc) but you are unlikely to have the same freedom of research ideas or same long term career prospects as a typical academic, for example you would not reach group leader/PI without writing grants but you could reach a lead scientist role in an industry job.
It is also worth considering that the time you would have spent applying for grants would likely be exchanged for time required for teaching or other tasks that earn you the paycheck.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: It is definitely possible, because I know people who do. Now it may definitely *limit* your career options, but there are a number of careers within my corner of academia that don't require writing grant applications. Do however note that nearly all of them involve *someone* writing grant applications:
* Lab managers - usually Master's or PhD level folks who aren't interested in running their own lab, but who are good at keeping things going, managing students, etc.
* Programmers or technicians - specialists who aren't students or faculty, but rather employees.
* "Staff scientists" - these positions exist in some institutions, often as part of centers or other large grant funded groups, and don't necessarily require you to bring in your own grants.
None of these positions *necessarily* involve writing grants, though they can involve helping with grants, and if the grant goes away, so does your employment. But these folks also often have their own research agendas as part of either a larger project, or as unfunded side projects.
There's also research positions within industry or the government that may not involve competing for funding, though all of these have other aspects that may be equally as annoying.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: At a research university in the United States, the extent to which you need to write grants depends on what your field is. As a general rule of thumb, if you are in an engineering school, you will be expected to bring in funding. You will need this both because this is how you will pay your graduate students (and yourself during summer months), and because it is used as an evaluation criterion -- at tenure review, your promotion committee will care that you have shown that you can bring in grants. This is also true for physical sciences that have lab expenses.
However, in other fields, like Math and Economics, graduate students are typically funded by the department (sometimes via teaching assignments) rather than faculty grants. In these areas, bringing in grants is much less important, and since expenses are less, there is less need (or expectation) for you to bring in large grants.
Finally, grant writing isn't all bad! It is time consuming (and so annoying when a grant is rejected), but it is useful to be forced, every several years, to think about your research agenda and put your plans down on paper. The act of doing this often clarifies your thinking about where your work should be going.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/22
| 789
| 3,383
|
<issue_start>username_0: Would it be illegal/ against most university policies to ask a professor if you could teach their classes in exchange for food, shelter, and some access to their brain? A lot of professors don't like teaching or want to get their research done for tenure, so I feel it would be a win-win. It would be a good way to advance myself if i found a professor I wanted to work with.<issue_comment>username_1: **Yes**, in all parts of academic culture that I am familiar with, it would be either explicitly illegal (i.e., against the rules of the university) or prohibitively frowned upon for an instructor to subcontract courses in the way you're suggesting. Bottom line: virtually every faculty member would immediately and thoroughly turn down the request, and those that would not could get themselves in real trouble, up to and including being dismissed from a tenure-track -- or tenured -- position.
One could go into more detail about why this is such a non-starter as well as discuss certain acceptable academic practices which are somewhat related -- e.g. course buyouts, guest lectures, teaching assistants. Perhaps other answers will explore this.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There's no possibility whatsoever that this could work. To elaborate on username_1's answer, here are some reasons:
1. The purpose of a teaching requirement is to have courses taught by the professor, not to have the professor arrange for some random person to teach instead. The administration and other faculty members would be exceedingly unhappy if they found out this was going on. Note that there are certain circumstances (called a course buyout) under which grant funding can be used to hire a replacement lecturer so the PI can focus on research, but this can only be done with university approval in advance. The replacement would be hired through the usual university hiring process.
2. I suppose this depends on the laws in your country, but I can't imagine labor laws permit hiring someone informally in exchange for food, shelter, and conversation. No university would tolerate this, since the legal risks are enormous.
3. Even if it were legal, it's obviously exploitation. Universities sometimes exploit people, but I've never heard of any university going so far as this.
4. What if you do a terrible job, or stop showing up, or assign bizarre grades, or harass the students, or try to blackmail the professor? No university is going to let a random person teach a course without at least some minimal screening or oversight, and no sane professor would accept an unknown stranger's offer to teach their course instead of them. Even if you just want to be an informal teaching assistant, there's still way too much potential for things to go wrong.
You could offer to give a guest lecture as a volunteer, but I doubt anyone would take you up on that offer unless they knew you well enough to be confident you'd do an acceptable job. Aside from one-off possibilities like this, you don't have any options outside of the regular process. You could try to become a graduate teaching assistant or adjunct (depending on your background), but working under the table is not an option.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: There are two ways to go about this.
1. Apply to graduate school.
2. Apply for an adjunct faculty position.
Good Luck!
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/22
| 899
| 3,727
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the universities in the UK, Australia, NZ etc., the salaries of university faculty members increases automatically year-by-year in two ways: 1 to 1.5% increment for inflation correction, and by climbing in the salary level (e.g., lecturer level 5 to level 6, etc.: [What is the average salary of assistant professor in New Zealand?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34493/what-is-the-average-salary-of-assistant-professor-in-new-zealand)).
Is the US salary system similar? Say, someone is hired at a university in the US as a tenure-track faculty member. Does this person get some annual salary increase till he\she gets the tenured? Or they have to wait till obtaining the tenure to get some pay raise?<issue_comment>username_1: **Yes**, in all parts of academic culture that I am familiar with, it would be either explicitly illegal (i.e., against the rules of the university) or prohibitively frowned upon for an instructor to subcontract courses in the way you're suggesting. Bottom line: virtually every faculty member would immediately and thoroughly turn down the request, and those that would not could get themselves in real trouble, up to and including being dismissed from a tenure-track -- or tenured -- position.
One could go into more detail about why this is such a non-starter as well as discuss certain acceptable academic practices which are somewhat related -- e.g. course buyouts, guest lectures, teaching assistants. Perhaps other answers will explore this.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There's no possibility whatsoever that this could work. To elaborate on username_1's answer, here are some reasons:
1. The purpose of a teaching requirement is to have courses taught by the professor, not to have the professor arrange for some random person to teach instead. The administration and other faculty members would be exceedingly unhappy if they found out this was going on. Note that there are certain circumstances (called a course buyout) under which grant funding can be used to hire a replacement lecturer so the PI can focus on research, but this can only be done with university approval in advance. The replacement would be hired through the usual university hiring process.
2. I suppose this depends on the laws in your country, but I can't imagine labor laws permit hiring someone informally in exchange for food, shelter, and conversation. No university would tolerate this, since the legal risks are enormous.
3. Even if it were legal, it's obviously exploitation. Universities sometimes exploit people, but I've never heard of any university going so far as this.
4. What if you do a terrible job, or stop showing up, or assign bizarre grades, or harass the students, or try to blackmail the professor? No university is going to let a random person teach a course without at least some minimal screening or oversight, and no sane professor would accept an unknown stranger's offer to teach their course instead of them. Even if you just want to be an informal teaching assistant, there's still way too much potential for things to go wrong.
You could offer to give a guest lecture as a volunteer, but I doubt anyone would take you up on that offer unless they knew you well enough to be confident you'd do an acceptable job. Aside from one-off possibilities like this, you don't have any options outside of the regular process. You could try to become a graduate teaching assistant or adjunct (depending on your background), but working under the table is not an option.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: There are two ways to go about this.
1. Apply to graduate school.
2. Apply for an adjunct faculty position.
Good Luck!
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/23
| 2,467
| 9,238
|
<issue_start>username_0: Tuition can easily get in the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars for a 4-year degree. This is unarguably many times over what the university needs to cover the costs of offering their services. Why is this the case if they are usually run under a non-profit architecture?
Where is all this money going?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that education in US, even in non-profit institutions, is expensive, **because colleges and universities can** charge basically whatever amounts they want, a practice, to a significant degree, IMHO prompted by trying to stay competitive by **overspending** on *amenities*, many of which are very remote to the nature of education and learning. Of course, there are significant *costs*, **some** of which are *appropriate*, such as salaries for faculty and staff, equipment for labs, some research programs and other reasonable expenses. Having said that, I believe that some of the expenses are over-inflated, such as (too) nice and fancy campuses and buildings, top administrative and executive compensation, research labs and programs that don't produce significant enough output, sports and other over-spending sources. That is not to say that tuition and fees cover all those expenses - universities traditionally rely on various financial sources in addition to tuition and fees (see the last link below). Of course, the above is just my somewhat naive (but, hopefully, not so far from reality) interpretation or, rather, impression of the *complex ecosystem of higher education*.
More *details* on the topic can be found on Wikipedia (i.e., see [this section](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_in_the_United_States#Cost_and_finances) and [this article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition_in_the_United_States)) and other resources (i.e., [this article](http://debtandsociety.org/publication/borrowing_against_the_future)). In the *popular press*, there is no shortage of *opinions*, both [blaming](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html) colleges and universities for exponential increase of the cost of education as well as [defending](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-a-olson/how-to-understand-the-high-cost-of-college_b_7064796.html) their actions and situation. Those interested in a more comprehensive *economic analysis* of the subject, can be referred to a significant amount of existing academic research, such as [this thesis](http://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/con_042986.pdf).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Tuition rates have grown much faster than inflation over the past decades; most estimates show that they've more than doubled -- after adjusting for inflation! -- in the past 30 years.
There seems to be a large body of evidence and broad consensus supporting the idea that **a disproportionate increase in the number and/or salaries of university administrators is responsible for this growth**. A quick Google search turns up hundreds of articles, many of which link to the primary data. This trend seems to be global. A few examples, of which I suggest reading at least the first:
* [The Real Reason College Tuition Costs so Much](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0), from the New York Times (April 2015)
* [The Fall of the Faculty](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-fall-of-the-faculty-9780199782444?cc=sa&lang=en&), an entire book devoted to this thesis
* [Growth of administration in the University of California system](http://reclaimuc.blogspot.com/2013/01/uc-administration-continues-to-grow.html): The number of FTE administrators was equal to faculty in 1991; now it is more than double.
* [Booming university administrations](http://bjoern.brembs.net/2015/01/booming-university-administrations/), in which Bjorn Brembs points out that the German university system has more than 2 administrators for each professor.
* [Article in the Wall Street Journal](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323316804578161490716042814)
* [Forbes article about the U. Texas system](http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2015/01/24/university-of-texas-looks-to-limit-metastasizing-administrative-bloat/)
This list could go on for a long time, but you get the idea. There are other theories; [here is one opposing point of view](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/05/report-says-administrative-bloat-construction-booms-not-largely-responsible-tuition).
I was happily surprised to see that my own institution's budget for next year adds about 15% to research and education (we are growing), while **decreasing** the budget for administration and finance by about 8%! But we have an unusual President, whose priorities are in the right place. And we don't charge tuition.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Haha! Market economics and myths about degrees and particular institutions, and crucially the value of networking in professional life after university.
In reality much smaller, flatter structures than universities could provide the same (or better) standard of tertiary education. A lot of the seminars could possibly be done by skyping or hiring a cheap room locally. Lectures (if indeed they are ever genuinely needed) could be delivered by YouTube. This wouldn't prevent the possibility of social interaction with other students.
For most subjects these days, most learning is self-learning, done by reading books (and of course use of the Net).
What you are paying for is NOT quality of education, NOT face-time with your teachers and NOT lectures (you could get that info more efficiently by reading). Contrary to myth, the value of university is not even about "having a good time"/"so much more than education".
In reality you are paying for a piece of paper which says "Yale" or "London University" or whatever, and the value of that piece of paper is that potential employers regard it as a badge of seriousness, not of education.
The other thing you're paying for is to make friends. The idea is that subsequently they and/or you become moderately successful and help one another out.
And the level of the fees? They charge whatever they can get away with. Everything is now "marketised" (already in the Anglo-Saxon world, and the rest of the world will have to follow suite). Even if they didn't spend the money on staff salaries they would find ways: advertising and branding, preposterously expensive research facilities, Hadron coliders, sabbaticals... the list is endless: university managers are creative people in one way at least.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: There is a long list of possible answers to the question, and different answers will apply to different schools. Cal State LA is not the same as USC, although neither is a for-profit entity. Not all universities in the US are expensive. Some have big endowments and some do not. Some nonprofit universities are private, and some are public. For the public ones, the level at which the cost is set is based on how willing the voters are to pay for the system. Here are some general answers:
* The more expensive schools are competing against each other to provide the best amenities, such as rock-climbing walls. This is described in more detail in username_1's answer.
* As described in username_2's answer, many schools are topheavy with administrators.
* Being cheap can, counterintuitively, be a competitive disadvantage in attracting students. Affluent parents may figure that if school A costs $50,000 a year, and B costs $25,000, then B must not be as good.
* At many private schools, there is an expectation that nobody will actually pay full tuition. What you actually pay is based on your ability to pay.
* Students have opinions about where they want to go to school, but the bills may be paid by the parents, not the students. Or if the students are paying, they may be using loans, so the money doesn't seem real to them.
* Education is seen as a public good, and therefore there is a tendency for government to subsidize it in various ways, such as tax-advantaging college savings funds or Pell grants. These subsidies distort the market and raise prices. Although the question is about nonprofits, the extreme examples of this are for-profit schools such as the scandal-ridden [Everest College](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everest_College), which had an absurd cost-to-value ratio.
* In fields like science and education, research activities act as a subsidy to the school, since the school charges funding agencies an overhead as part of grant funding. However, research in some other fields may be a net loss for the school.
* Similarly, some sports programs may produce net revenue for the school, while others are a net loss. This is controversial and hard to measure. E.g., you can't tell whether USC's football program causes alumni to feel connected to the school and therefore donate money.
* Some subjects are just expensive to teach. For example, undergraduate physics labs are expensive to run, but they're needed as a service to other departments such as engineering.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/23
| 528
| 2,302
|
<issue_start>username_0: So your student is becoming overweight: does this negatively impact your research group in some way? Should an advisor care?<issue_comment>username_1: Becoming overweight is not an issue per se. Major physical changes, however, are often a sign of an major ongoing mental or physical health event. Rapid weight gain, for example, is often associated with depression or thyroid problems, both of which *can* have a major impact on the student's ability to learn and work.
As such, I would definitely be concerned if a student was visibly gaining a large amount of weight---not because of attractiveness or disapproval of weight, but because of what else it might indicate.
I would find it highly inappropriate, however, to bring this up with the student by saying something like "I've noticed you've gained a lot of weight" because there are also a lot of more benign reasons somebody might gain weight, including *recovering* from mental or physical health problems that would also be none of my business.
I would, however, notice it as a possible red flag, and start to keep a more careful eye out for other signs of distress, which might legitimately trigger a conversation about, for example, mental health.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It would help to know what motivates the question, to make sure I'm getting at what you are trying to find out, but here goes:
The advisors I have known would wait for the student to bring up a health situation before talking about it.
They would consider the overweight in conjunction with other aspects of the student's well-being. Being overweight by itself wouldn't be a concern. If it were accompanied by symptoms of pre-diabetes, heart disease, OCD, depression, etc., then the advisor would be concerned about the big picture (including, but not limited to, the weight problem).
The concern would be about the student, not about the group.
The gender of the student would be irrelevant.
This is my assessment, regarding the advisors I have personally known.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The supervisor should supervise students about their research work and not judge students based on their appearance or their private life. It would not have any impact on my research group.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/23
| 2,207
| 9,134
|
<issue_start>username_0: How do I deal with two parents who don't see the utility of science and mathematics while pursuing an education in science and math (while depending on their income to fund my tuition?). They come from a blue-collar background and don't think learning arcane symbols has anything to do with innovation or make big bucks in today's world.
My parents wish for me to go off to the industry ASAP or do some freelance or make an app that get them rich quick. I want to pursuit further education beyond that of a bachelor degree.
In the summertime I am preparing for some course work for next semester, but they keep on telling me that I should sign up for some fitness class or make money. I appreciate their viewpoint, but I can't bring myself to balance between studying and concentrating on course work while doing things that are a waste of time.
What should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: There is one thing you should actually do: listen to them, even if just a bit.
Your parents are funding your education and are not entirely happy with what you do. They are also proposing to you to get a job during your breaks.
Try to do just that. To elaborate: I think there is a high chance that your parents will not be willing to help you later on (i.e. at M.Sc. level), thus you will need money.
Also, speaking from experience, the sports part is not to be underestimated. You do not have to be a pro-whatever, but going to the gym and keeping fit is certainly *not* going to hurt your brain.
Beyond this it is up to you to educate them. Look for statistics etc. which
show that having higher education is beneficial for a job and then make it understandable for your parents (basically it should be easy to imagine for them). The latter part is actually the hard part. It seems to me that your parents may have a warped understanding of how difficult it is to actually "get rich quick".
Do not think that trying to educate your parents will be a waste of your time. You might lose some study-time now, but if you are successful you stand to gain much more in the long run (i.e. tuition for masters) – *do not underestimate this*.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If the goal of your parents for you really is that you become the next <NAME>, <NAME>, or <NAME>, then letting you go to graduate studies and letting you hang with all the other smart people is certainly more useful than telling you to "start getting rich now". This is akin to wanting to raise an Olympian athlete, and, rather than making him train, shouting at him that he needs to run faster *right now*. Of course the assumption that any specific person will break through and get super-rich is unrealistic to the point of being ridiculous, but obviously it will be hard to convince your parents of that (at least short-term), so you may need to work with what you got.
While the idea of username_1 is generally useful (find statistics and show them), it sounds like your parents may be the type for which statistics are too abstract and would probably not work very well. Rather, you can try convincing them with anecdotes of well-educated people who "made it" (became rich, to use the terminology of the question). Of those there are many - opposite to popular opinion, most startup founders etc. are not random people off the streets who were selling sandwiches before breaking through. Rather, most greatly successful ideas and companies have been developed by people with degrees from top universities in, yes, math and science. There is a reason why Silicon Valley is in the Bay Area, and it's likely not the weather.
Concrete examples include:
* The company Google sprung out of a research project by <NAME> and <NAME>, two Stanford graduate students. Sergey is now the 18th-richest person in the world.
* Facebook was not a research project, but (at least so the story goes) the original ideas have been developed by <NAME> in a dormitory in Harvard in discussion with other students in breaks between computer science classes.
* <NAME> never finished, but even the founder and long-time CEO of Microsoft was in Harvard for some time. Incidentally, there he met <NAME>, who became CEO of Microsoft after Gates - another case of a very wealthy and important person who happens to have great education.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: So some advice and a personal story. TL;DR: Take advice tactfully, and make your own decisions.
I feel a connection between your brief explanation and my own life story. I went off for business school and studied economics, only to get very depressed and decide to drop out to travel a bit. I eventually went back to school, graduated with a double bachelors in Spanish and sociology and am working on a masters degree right now. But let's focus in on the middle of the story.
My parents were very convinced that this 'travelling' would only be a setback, that I might die, and even if I didn't I would regret the wasted time for the rest of my life. I heard them and accepted their comments, but knowing that only I could know what was going on inside of me, I left anyway. I rediscovered what interested me, and in two years I was back in school.
How does this relate to you? **Your parents are different people than you, but they are still people.** This means they have opinions and views about everything, just like you do. They will freely offer all the advice you can put up with, but in the end it's you that has to make the decision for your life. Having them pay for your education can complicate things, and some of the other answers have some advice about that, but perhaps try talking to them. Explain to them that a) you do hear them, b) you have some of your own ideas, and c) you have a plan that will incorporate what you feel is the best of all the advice you have received, from them, from yourself, and from others.
Parents have opinions, and often, money. But your life is yours, and you have to make the decisions for you. Listen to your parents, and even ask them to go deeper into the whys of their advice. But in the end, **make your own choices**.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: As long as your parents are in control of your tuition, you need to deal with the question of whether they approve of your choices. If you want to make an argument to them that getting a higher education is worth it then here is a really useful chart:
STEM education in particular is even more valuable than general higher education (a good summary may be found in [this report](http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf)), though the percent benefit is less for higher degrees, where non-STEM folks tend to make good money and have very low unemployment as well. Your STEM undergraduate degree, for example, is worth an expected 25% gain in salary vs. a non-STEM degree.
Now it's also possible that your parents aren't *actually* concerned about your ability to make money in the future, and so you won't be able to make an argument to them in this way. For example, what they might *really* be concerned about is their own current debt (e.g., if they are on the brink of bankruptcy or foreclosure and hiding from you) or about non-monetary issues (e.g., if they are religious fundamentalists or anti-government conspiracy theorists).
If something like this is the case, and they aren't receptive to a respectful presentation of your case for STEM and higher education, then you're going to need to think about going along them *as part of obtaining your STEM education,* i.e., a price you have to pay, not unlike putting up with annoying dorm-mates, in order to remain at college.
Once you finish your undergraduate and move on to a graduate program, any good graduate program will give you a sufficient stipend to live on, and you need not be dependent on your parents finances or approval any more in any way.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: In [this recent Numberphile video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjVDqfUhXOY), <NAME> (who, incidentally, build his billion-dollar fortune in large part by being really good at math) comments that in the United States, if you know enough math to teach it well at the high school level, you can probably get a job with Google, Microsoft, or some other big tech company. That is a pretty good career prospect, if you ask me. Depending on the type of science your other major is on, the same applies (for example, if you are studying Chemistry and get good grades, you can possibly get into a MSc program in Chemical Engineering, which will also open the door to a number of good careers in industry).
As username_2 mentions, your parents have to understand that higher education is a long-term investment. You may not get rich straight away (very few people do, and they will be the first to admit that a lot depends on being in the right place at the right time), but you will be reaping tangible benefits for the rest of your life.
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/23
| 753
| 3,098
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would be very happy if you can help me, I really need help!
One year ago I started my PhD, I was the only PhD student (still am) who was (and still) not paid by the supervisor, and I have to work elsewhere as the personal assistant of another professor!
For the first 3 months, my supervisor gave me no topic, I was just sitting in the office and reading on my own! In the end, as he had no new ideas, I went with my own idea, which he pretends to like! The topic that I suggested (I provided a lot of literature background and methods) is really cool, published in very good journal. I started my job with no help from my supervisor! And till now I was successful with good results and I got a lot of knowledge and learned a lot of techniques. I spoke last week with my supervisor, he said he does not have any grant money to pay me (I know he has, he is going to get one postdoc and one PhD student very soon) and he spoke with me in a way that suggests he will never pay me! He also mentioned a lot in his speech about "failure of my experiments in the future", also that is impossible that I got very nice results, and it seems he likes it that I fail! He also told me I am a free person and I can change my group whenever I like!
I am very much afraid I will not be able to finish my PhD with him, and I thought of changing my group as he said "I am free to do that". I do not know what is the problem with him? I only attempted to get a good result and make him happy! What will you do in my case? What should I do?
Need to say he is just a normal professor not a HUGE face!
Please help me and let me know about your ideas.<issue_comment>username_1: I am concerned that you say the purpose of your research was to make your professor happy.
Your research, ultimately, is not for your advisor's benefit, but for yours. You are in graduate school for some reason and making your advisor happy is only part of serving that reason, whatever it is. From what you have written, it sounds like there is no reason, either financial or emotional or ethical, for you to stay with this advisor.
So: why haven't you left already?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Congratulations on the exciting work you have been doing. With the in vivo test you're planning, perhaps this would not be a good time to have it out with this guy. However, there is nothing to keep you from starting to look around for a possible new advisor.
Once you have a person in mind, then you can start to think about how to approach that person. You can use the standard graceful "not a good fit" description, of course, but in your case you can also talk about your hope of getting financial support.
If you find someone who would be interested in taking you on as a student, that person will probably want to guide you in how to handle the switch.
Another thing you might want to do is to talk with the head of the deparment, or the dean of graduate students.
Just make sure that you don't sound like a whiner or complainer. Just outline the facts, leaving feelings out of it.
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/23
| 2,015
| 8,327
|
<issue_start>username_0: *DISCLAIMER: the following story does not necessarily correspond to the facts in reality. In particular, it does not necessarily correspond to the author of this post and his/her supervisor.*
I joined my advisor's lab as a PhD student. I developed my own new direction for my lab, which is recognized by the community. We have presented papers at the top conference in my area. My advisor had never presented their before.
**Professor: little scientific contribution**
In the publications we have written together, I have been the first author and can claim 98% of the scientific contributions. The other 2% is for my advisor's very minor suggestions. Most of the time, after the paper is accepted, the finalization process is 100% on me.
When we have other co-authors, my advisor tries to appear to input more and implies that I have been told to do something (for example, "as we discussed earlier"). My advisor often implies to me that the others are unhelpful to my work, and seems to prefer working in isolation with me.
My advisor has recognized my contribution, saying "your work" as in "sorry for talking about your work" in internal meetings. However, my advisor also seemed to insinuate that I am the one being overly protective about my originality, saying on several occasions in a jocular tone "No problem. I can be the first author."
**Professor: little scientific discipline**
My advisor asked me once to add someone who did not contribute at all as a coauthor. On several occasions, he/she suggested me to submit the same paper to multiple conferences, and to spam low-quality conferences with my publications. Now that he has seen the benefits of my way of quality-thresholding, he started to educate me to have a high standard.
**Professor: the good side**
My advisor has a pleasant personality, enjoys a good reputation among certain communities in our university, and has encouraged me when I fail. Our working relationship is a really, really patient one, and my advisor can leave me alone for several months without pushing. This is not sarcasm but the biggest help that I was given. I have been able to take a larger-than-usual number of vacation days, and have found that my advisor never crosses the line in communication.
**Student: helpless**
I have been very exhausted writing papers and am suffering mental problems from having to fight on the frontiers of science with little help. I am just always stressed. I find it difficult to smile or even to concentrate, and have nightmares every few days.
At the graduation stage, my advisor continues to talking about the "next paper", and talks about doing post-docs, without agreeing on my graduation date. He/she intentionally delayed some of these administrative procedures. Frankly I feel too disgusted to continue this "co-authorship".
I feel less confident about complaining to the university, because (1) I do not speak the local language; (2) I find it difficult to be sociable because of my health issues; (3) I am from a third-world country, which could bias people's judgement; (4) I rely on him/her to organizing the defense; and (5) what should I complain about?
**Questions**
Generally, how does a Ph.D. student. who has progressed well, safely and permanently leave an unhelpful and undisciplined professor, to avoid being intentionally delayed in the graduation process, and to roll on with the rest of his/her life?
What are the general limits of a student's rights in the process of getting his/her Ph.D.? Can he/she submit the thesis and demand to defend, without respecting his/her advisor's suggestions to stay longer as a Ph.D. student or a post-doc?<issue_comment>username_1: The short answer is: Graduate and look for your next lab/job.
Of course, due to the circumstances this is challenging. From my own experience, your situation is not at all uncommon to emerge during a PhD. Feeling like your supervisor takes credit, when all the work is done by you, feeling neglected in terms of supervision. I'd say this rings a bell with many, many PhD students out there. It seems like situations like this are just part of growing up in the academic sense.
On the other hand, you sound like you have already been quite successful on the scientific side, with some high-profile output. Your publications in first-tier locations should help you get you a postdoc relatively easily (in case you want to stay in academia, that is).
Moreover, your supervisor seems willing to give you more financial support. If he keeps talking about the "next paper", this means that he approves of your work. After all, he benefits a lot from it, too. You have some leverage there.
My suggestion is: graduate and get out of there. To do so, you need a plan. You need to 1) get clear picture of what will go into your thesis, and set up a concrete schedule for writing it, 2) make up your mind what kind of career you want to pursue (academia, industry, something else), 3) start networking for your next job NOW. 1) is definitely the highest priority, but 2 and 3 shouldn't be neglected either.
Once you made up your mind, talk to your supervisor about how and when you're planning to graduate, and how much financial support you need to complete. I'm sure he will be supportive of your plans.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: My friend, I would suggest that you start by seeing a medical professional, and the dean of students in your department or university. If it is difficult for you to describe your situation in a conversation, then write a short statement and start the conversation by giving the statement to the person. There are multiple aspects to your situation, but I want to make sure you understand that a university has a responsibility to support its students, and the job of a medical professional is to care for patients. If your university has an office for students with disabilities, you could talk to them as well. I think that your level of distress is making it more difficult for you to deal with your academic stress.
Now, about your academic situation. Your advisor is not everything you would have liked to have as an advisor. But please try to focus on the positives about him and your relationship for now, and postpone processing the negatives until later. Supporting your parents is your top priority right now, and you will start to feel better when you are able to begin helping them. Wanting to care for elderly, infirm parents is a basic human drive.
Here is a proposed text for when you go see the dean of students. If
necessary, you can have this translated to the local language.
>
> I am
> giving you a written statement about my situation because it is
> difficult for me to begin a conversation about my problem.
>
>
> My parents
> are alone and in poor health, and I feel an urgent need to finish my
> PhD and leave [name of city or country where you are] to go care for
> them.
>
>
> This worry is making me so distressed that life has become very
> difficult for me here.
>
>
> I believe that I am ready to graduate, having
> completed my PhD research and published several papers about my work.
> I don't know how to convince my advisor that it is time for him to
> schedule my defense.
>
>
> Is there someone in the university who can help
> me communicate my situation to my advisor? I am finding it
> increasingly difficult to carry on ordinary conversations because of the high level of distress I feel.
>
>
>
This is a simplification of everything that's going on with you at present -- but that's okay.
For the medical professional, you can also list your symptoms, for example: thoughts of suicide, frequent nightmares, difficulty concentrating, difficulty smiling or talking to people -- and anything else that may be going on.
For these conversations, you must set aside the feelings of despair, while you are having the conversation. It should be as though you were there negotiating for a friend or acquaintance, not about yourself. Make sure that you don't get discouraged if the first person you speak with does nothing to help you -- just try someone else.
If you need to show your statement to a receptionist or secretary, that's okay. You owe it to your parents to get the help you need.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2015/05/23
| 1,201
| 5,020
|
<issue_start>username_0: This is a follow-up from my question [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45149/dealing-with-intern-supervisor-who-underestimates-my-abilities) on my atrocious relationship with my internship/assistance as an undergraduate at a teaching lab.
Since I only have some weeks left to end this awful experience, I am planning to visit the department's head(who is also my professor) at his office to explain how unproductive and pointless my "training" was and how I was being exploited by my supervisor.
The problem is that the president is also my professor(teaching courses I'm interested in), and I wonder if anything I say against my supervisor or my experience will worsen my future studies (and relationship) with my professor until I graduate.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Since I only have some weeks left to end this awful experience, I am planning to visit the department's president (who is also a professor) at his office to explain how unproductive and pointless my "training" was and how I was being exploited by my supervisor.
>
>
>
Newsflash: Slavery has been abolished. If you were "exploited", it's because you didn't do your due diligence to find out what you were getting into. You should've asked "what exactly will I be doing?" and, if you were not satisfied with the answer "delivering mail", you should've looked for a different position.
>
> The problem is that the president is also my professor(teaching courses I'm interested in), and I wonder if anything I say against my supervisor or my experience will worsen my future studies (and relationship) with my professor until I graduate.
>
>
>
It might very well have this effect, since nobody likes a whiner. I'd recommend just dropping the issue, forgetting about the past and focusing on what you can do in the future to further your career. I forget the saying exactly, but there's a saying that goes something like "pushing other people down won't float you up".
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> I wonder if anything I say against my supervisor or my experience will worsen my future studies (and relationship) with my professor until I graduate.
>
>
>
It could, and this depends on many factors (including the character of this professor, his relationship with your supervisor, your character and how you explain things etc...), I don't think anyone can predict whether or not it actually will.
I recommend first considering what you hope to achieve in discussing this with the head of the department (aka president/professor). I can imagine a couple of possibilities:
1. You feel the need to unload and feel some sympathy.
2. You care about the system and hope this can be avoided for future students.
If it is mainly the first, I strongly suggest talking to a friend over a beer instead. You'll avoid the risk, and also won't essentially waste your professor's time (which would probably negatively affect his impression of you).
If your motivation is the second, I think this is quite a noble and selfless thing to do, showing high integrity, but it does put yourself at quite a bit of risk with essentially no gain (it helps future students, but if I understand correctly, not you). If this is your goal, I urge you to first consider whether you think this professor would actually care about the advice of an undergrad (I have known professors who would appreciate it, but also some who would simply consider the student to be complaining, in which case relations with that professor would indeed worsen). If you think he will, then I suggest the following:
Before speaking to your professor, make sure you can present the situation clearly, as objectively as possible and concisely (the longer you speak, the more it sounds like a rant and you lose interest - also professors tend to be very busy, and thus have low attention spans for issues that don't seem important). Be very clear straight off the bat that you understand and agree that what has already happened has happened and nothing can/will be done for you, and your intent is solely to raise awareness of the issue so that it can be avoided in the future. Possibly put this intent in writing when contacting the professor for the meeting (again, as short as possible).
In the end, taking action here will involve risk, regardless of your intentions. You will have to weigh how much you care about the issue, and what chances you think you have.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I see this question as a duplicate of the other one, but I don't know how to make that official.
Here is what I said in my answer to the other question:
"Try to get out of there as gracefully as possible."
"Q: Should I talk to a professor about this topic?
"A: Yes, that would be fine, as long as you can avoid whining or complaining."
Perhaps it would be easier for you to avoid whining or complaining if you waited some time before sharing your constructively critical comments.
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/24
| 1,641
| 7,320
|
<issue_start>username_0: Earlier this year, I received a paper to referee for the top journal in my field of research. I know both of the authors. The first recently completed a Ph.D. working with a friend of mine. My faculty friend is the best-known person working in our area; he is an extremely careful and conscientious researcher, and working under him, the student produced some very good work. The other author of the manuscript I'm refereeing is the new post-doctoral supervisor of that recent Ph.D. grad. He is a very senior but not terribly distinguished scientist, and I think that some of his work is rather slipshod.
The first manuscript draft I got from this pair of authors had a glaring problem. There may have been a fundamental error in how they interpreted their results. There are two different ways that the system they are studying could behave, and they assume that it goes one way, apparently without even noticing the other. They might well be right about how the system behaves, but I sent back a report saying that the work would be publishable if they either explained why they only considered one of the two possibilities or expanded their analysis to cover both. The final conclusion is likely to unchanged whichever way the system behaves, but it is important to verify this; moreover, it is interesting in its own right to know which way things go.
After a rather brief period, I got a revised manuscript back from the journal. The authors had made a number of other minor corrections that I asked for, but they basically ignored my main point. At this point, I'm not sure what to do. I still feel like the paper contains a significant amount of interesting material, and it could be fixed without that much effort. However, I am upset that the authors made not effort to fix the actual problem I pointed out. They don't even really acknowledge the problem in their resubmission letter.
I was the only referee who turned in a report on the first draft, so what I say will almost certainly determine whether the paper is published. Should I send it back one more time, insisting that the changes I called for actually be made this time? Or should I recommend rejection, since the authors are apparently unwilling to make reasonable adjustments.<issue_comment>username_1: You should encourage the editor to get a second opinion. If you feel strongly, you should reject the paper again citing or repeating your comment about the alternate explanation. Based on what you've said here, it seems likely to be important.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It's totally reasonable to be upset that the authors ignored your comments, but for the purposes of reviewing the paper, I think you should set that aside. I would let the editor make the decision as to whether the authors are "unwilling to make reasonable adjustments". Send him/her a note saying something like:
>
> I mentioned in my initial report that it was essential for the revisions to address the issue of XXXX, but this has not been done, nor mentioned in the authors' comments. This paper has many good qualities, but I do not think the paper is suitable for publication if this issue is not addressed. If you feel it is worth the time to ask the authors for a further revision addressing this issue, I would be happy to read it and give my opinion.
>
>
>
I think it's up to the editor to judge between "this is a paper I really want in my journal, so I'm willing to put up with a little bit of crap" or "the authors are wasting our time, to hell with them".
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: If it is indeed the case that:
1. The potential flaw really could fundamentally change the conclusion of the paper, and
2. The authors didn't even address your issue at all even in their response letter
then I would recommend rejection.
When doing a major revision, it is imperative that the authors at least speak to every point raised by the reviewers in the response letter, even if it is just to say: "No, we will not do this."
If an author blatantly fails to address a critical issue, then I feel that it is reasonable to conclude that they are avoiding the issue and recommend rejection. If the issue is important but not critical, or if you disagree with how the authors address it, then I think it is better instead to recommend major revision.
Even though you recommend rejection, if the editor wants to give them another chance, they can certainly do so. Similarly, even if they are rejected, they can amend their ways (or not) and go to another lower-level journal. So: vote your scientific conscience.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It seems to me that you should write a brief review which starts by saying something like "I recommend rejecting the submission X, on the grounds that the paper fails to even consider a plausible alternative interpretation of the experimental results, and thus the theoretical significance of the paper is indeterminate". In my review, I would reiterate the essential points about the alternative made in the earlier review, and I would also state this as an "I already mentioned this" summary. It is scientifically not acceptable to claim or imply that a specific conclusion has been established based on some evidence, when in fact multiple conclusions are consistent with that evidence.
It is not clear whether your previous recommendation was "revise and resubmit" or "reject" -- I assume it was "revise and resubmit", otherwise it would be strange for the paper to have been revised and resubmitted. I think therefore that it would be useful to explain to the authors and the editor the rationale for a more strongly negative recommendation, when the paper has not (apparently) gotten worse. A number of journals use the "one round of revision" standard, where you judge that after one revision, the paper is likely to be acceptable. Under that standard, if you judge that a paper is likely to be acceptable after one revision, it should be rejected. A corollary is that if a paper turns out to not be acceptable after a single revision, it should be rejected. Now, I do know of journals where 4 rounds of revisions are tolerated, so you may not be able to contextualize the "reject" decision based on announced journal policy, but you can certainly adopt such a standard, implicitly or explicitly, as your own quality standard for acceptance.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: >
> Should I send it back one more time, insisting that the changes I called for actually be made this time? Or should I recommend rejection, since the authors are apparently unwilling to make reasonable adjustments.
>
>
>
As long as they don't even react to the remark, the polite move would be to assume a good faith communication problem, especially given the amount of involved people. So I'd just ask for another revision and point out the remark was not addressed anyhow.
Personally, I'd avoid being subtle once they missed the point, so I'd just spell out that the authors should address the remark (in the paper), convince you they shouldn't in the resubmission letter, or you will recommend rejection. To avoid being too negative or aggressive, I'd also put in positive comments — say, you expect the point to be easily addressed.
Upvotes: 4
|
2015/05/24
| 924
| 3,933
|
<issue_start>username_0: For any professors out there, do you feel that there are any differences in how you selected and recruited students from the time when you were newly hired, to a well-established stage (i.e. after getting tenure)? I'm asking this out of curiosity. There are oftentimes questions about whether students should choose a new/old advisor, but I haven't seen any that asked about this from the prof's perspective.
I would assume there are since the challenges and priorities for the two groups are normally somewhat different, but I'm not sure exactly how it would differ. For instance, it might be more difficult for the new PI to recruit students (especially good ones) when they have to "compete" with older, better funded peers. This would lead one to think that new PIs might be more likely to take on students they might not necessarily love, but just need bodies in the lab. However, on the other hand, new PIs are more likely to have limited funding, and if they are on the tenure-track, would need their few students to succeed in order to establish a name for themselves in the industry. In this case, it would be detrimental if they chose the wrong student(s) in the beginning, especially if they are limited to the number of students they can afford due to funding issues. I realize that this is field and situation specific, but I'm looking to hear stories/insights from people who have gone through/know about the process.
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: This will indeed be highly dependent on field. For instance, in pure mathematics, there's a rather dramatic difference: most faculty don't take on any graduate students at all until after tenure.
The American Mathematical Society has written one of their [culture statements](http://www.ams.org/profession/leaders/culture/CultureStatement05.pdf) about this issue. Generally, (pure) mathematicians have no labs and hence no need for bodies to fill them. And in math, on the time scale of a tenure clock, advising grad students is felt to have a net negative effect on research productivity (in the longer run there can be dividends). So the clear incentive is to wait until after tenure, and departments are usually fine with this.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: By contrast to username_1's answer about mathematics faculty, for faculty in engineering/science fields at some institutions, graduating Ph.D. students is actually one of the key *requirements* for obtaining tenure. The theory is that successfully supervising Ph.D. students is one of the primary tasks of research-oriented faculty. As a result, selecting a graduate student is likely to be much higher stakes for such faculty, and they may be either more conservative (i.e., "Can't risk a bad one") or more risky (i.e., "Gotta make sure at least some graduate!") depending on their personality and funding.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In deciding whether or not to take on a graduate student advisee, the main factors are
1. Funding. The student will either need their own or departmental funding (by e.g. a fellowship or teaching assistantship) or the advisor will have to provide it. Conversely, if the advisor has a funded research assistantship position it is often necessary to find someone to fill the position.
2. Fit. Broadly, the student and advisor have to agree on the topic of the student's thesis and if the student will be working on a research assistantship then that topic has to fit with the grant. The project might also require special skills (e.g. knowledge of a particular programming language.)
3. Aptitude or ability. Some students are more capable than others.
For the first two points I don't think there is much difference depending on whether the advisor is tenured or not. With respect to the third point, advisors who are tenured can afford to be more careful in selecting only students that they think will do well.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/24
| 682
| 3,049
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm writing up my physics PhD thesis, and am wondering whether to include the derivation of a formula that I worked out myself. I've recently found that this work isn't actually a novel contribution to the field, as the formula (though not a detailed derivation) appears in the appendix of a 10 year old paper.
Is there any sense in including it? And, if so, how would one describe the contribution?<issue_comment>username_1: There is usually no reason not to include something in a thesis. Your thesis is a place for you to give a coherent account of all your work on a topic. There are (usually) no page restrictions, and it should serve as a reference document for future readers.
Many theses include a lot of review material, beyond just what might be contained in a literature survey. A thesis has to contain new material, of course, but it does not all need to be novel. There can be a lot of merit in giving detailed explanations of known results, if the reader is not necessarily going to be familiar with them in detail. A derivation that has not previously appeared in the literature (even if the final result is known) is clearly suitable for inclusion.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: This is one of these case which very from country to country - from University to University. For example a German PhD is very different to a UK PhD, in how it is handled, evaluated etc.
For the UK, obtaining a PhD is easiest if:
* You have made a novel contribution to research
* That contribution is publishable/has been published
However, sometimes things go awry, you cannot afford equipment, your institution lacks the ability to do research etc. so you can also obtain a PhD on the basis of
* a systematic in depth investigation of your research topic with a sufficient amount of sufficiently high quality work
Now coming back to the contents:
As a most simple description, a PhD Thesis should be a scientific document that is on its own understandable to an averagely educated person.
So non specialist school level knowledge may be assumed as a priori known while specialist concepts should best be introduced in greater detail.
Then again, some people do not include a large literature review or large background review while others do, this varies from country to country, from institution to institution.
The best advice I would give you is:
* IF the information is of direct relevance to your work and required for an understanding of your work and is not trivia it would be better to include it in the thesis as background to aid the reader.
* IF the information is trivia in another field but not yours, it would again be beneficial for readers to have that information as opposed to having to seek it out.
* Check with how your institution likes its theses, do people generally write an extensive literature/methods review (in which case you should possibly include it) or do they just tend to write a rather plain presentation of results (in which case the benefit may be debatable).
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/24
| 646
| 2,877
|
<issue_start>username_0: Do faculty members get bonuses similar to industry such as cash bonus, stock bonus, profit sharing, commission sharing, and tips? Or only for teaching more courses?<issue_comment>username_1: Since most faculty members are employed by non-profit institutions, there is little in the realm of corporate benefits that directly carries over for all faculty members.
However, there can be some carryover if faculty have intellectual property which has been licensed through the university to a corporation. In such cases, they usually share in whatever revenues the university receives from the corporation.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In general no. Faculty are salaried employees with no bonus structure. Faculty often can work "overtime" where a department may allow a staff members to commit 110% or even 120% of their time by teaching additional classes, taking on additional administrative work, or conducting additional research. In some cases universities offer bonuses for jobs well done. These are tiny (e.g., 100 USD) compared to most industry bonuses.
There are also bonuses that are not directly paid to the staff member. Teaching releases and additional discretionary funds are often provided as a reward for a job well done (generally large amounts of grant capture).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In addition to the other good answers, it is also possible to make additional money by consulting and other activities. In the US, faculty are often hired for 9 months out of the year. They can make up their salary for the other three months in a variety of ways. New faculty often receive some sort of startup package which they can spend in a variety of ways including hiring students and postdocs or paying their own summer salary. Grant funds won from a government agency like the NSF or industry can also be used to pay summer salary (though the NSF limits you to 2 months on their dime without special permission). Faculty can also sign up to teach more classes in order to pay themselves in the summer.
If the faculty member chooses to take their 9-month base salary in 12 monthly payments over the year, which is pretty common, then any additional summer salary payments they receive might look like a bonus in some sense.
Now, any awards that are made to the institution or extra classes that are picked up, do not generally allow the faculty member to increase their annual/monthly salary, just to fill in the months between 9 and 12. However, under many 9-month contracts, your summer months are effectively your own. A professor might take on an industry consulting gig for 3 months over the summer completely separate from their university appointment. Depending on the field, this might come at a substantially higher monthly rate, thereby allowing the prof to pad their salary.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/24
| 2,046
| 8,781
|
<issue_start>username_0: My paper has not been published because none of the authors presented the paper. My supervisor (my co-author) was at the conference, but he did not show up to present. I can only assume he was tired that day (he is an old man), although he did manage to present two other papers. He also failed to inform the conference committee of his inability to present.
This is an IEEE conference. The paper was not published in IEEE Xplore, but even worse, it is not even mentioned in the proceedings.
What is really annoying is that they still want me to have their permission to submit it to another conference. This is what is written in their email:
>
> Your previously-submitted IEEE Copyright form transferred ownership of this paper to IEEE. However, if you would like to resubmit this paper to another conference, please request permission to do so by sending an email message to <EMAIL>.
>
>
>
They also did not reimburse us for the hefty registration fees.
1. **How should someone in my position proceed?**
2. **Shouldn't the conference at least mention the title of the paper in the proceedings?**<issue_comment>username_1: I'm afraid you're out of luck here.
The paper was accepted and submitted, and someone should have presented the paper. Since no one withdrew the paper from the conference, and no one presented it, you're stuck at the mercy of the rules of the conference organizers.
Basically, the program organizers need **not** mention the paper in the proceedings, nor are they required to release the copyright claim on the paper. You will have to go through whatever procedures the conference organizers (in this case, IEEE) expect you to do if you want to resubmit the paper elsewhere.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: A conference has a number of limited slots for presentations. When your paper is accepted for a conference, someone else's paper got rejected, because it was slightly worse than yours and slots were limited. In this sense, if you are not going to present your accepted paper, this a huge disservice to the conference (and the related community). As I already said in my comment that annoyed you, if everyone did the same thing (did not show up in the conference to present his paper) there would simply be no conference and this will be a huge waste of everyone's time (reviewers, PC comittees etc..). So, the first step is to understand that such a thing would normally never happen.
On the other hand we are still human and life emergencies happen. You may become sick before travelling to a conference and therefore not beeing able to present there. In this case, this is what emails are for. You should have notified the PC chairs that you were not going to make it and ask for leniency. On the other hand, what you describe is even more far-stretched. Your co-author did go to the conference, was probably paid his expenses from his institution and did not bother to show up at the time to present the paper. Imagine the similar example of some PHD student of going to a conference, partying the night before the presentation and not bothering waking up the next time to present. Have you considered the embarassment of the PC member responsible for your session, when they call out your name and noone shows up to present? And nobody even later this day or even two days later, bothers to send an email to apologize for this? Instead you think the conference organizers are in the wrong, because they are actually doing what they told you they would do (contrary to you). Not publish your paper if you do not show up.
A war with them would only hurt you and not them. Apologize sincerely, ask for permission to publish somewhere else and try to be as nice as possible. Do not upload to arxiv before settling things out. And in the next case, understand that in Academia your word is your currency. Make sure you do not break it for whatever reason and if you do (due to some inevitable emergency) make sure you apologize promptly.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: The IEEE has a rather clear policy on failure to present: in general, a paper that is not presented at a conference will be withdrawn from the proceedings. I have recently been publications chair for an IEEE conference, and in that role you are explicitly asked after the conference to identify any papers that were not presented and thus need to be withdrawn from the proceedings.
The person who has caused this, really, is your co-author. Even if they had some emergency occur that prevented them from presenting (e.g., becoming ill), it is their responsibility to make a good-faith effort to inform the conference organizers so that some sort of alternate arrangement may be made. For example, I have seen papers presented remotely, or by a non-author serving as proxy, or shifted to a different day or time. Conference organizers are generally reasonable about such things. If your co-author was at the conference, capable of communicating, and failed to do so, then that is a real problem, and it is entirely reasonable of the organizers to treat it as a "no-show" and withdraw your paper. If they were hit by a bus or something like that so that they were completely unable to communicate, then that's a different problem, and a lost paper is not a big deal compared to such a health impact.
As for copyright and republication, though: I'd be surprised if you have any difficulty getting permission; the IEEE isn't likely to try to hold onto something they aren't publishing.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: I just want to add two points to username_2' excellent answer:
* Registration fee is paid for attending the conference, not for publishing the paper. It may cover social events, banquet etc. Your supervisor did attend the conference, so it is unreasonable to ask for a reimburse.
* This is not PC chairs' fault, and you only leave a bad impression by arguing with them. They are surely senior in your field, and are likely to be PC members, reviewers in your next conference. Having a bad impression about you may make your paper less likely to be accepted.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: You tell us
* Your supervisor and co-author was meant to present your paper
* He didn't and you don't know why
* He presented two other papers, but not yours
* He never communicated with you that he would be unable to present your paper
* He did not inform the conference committee that he would be unable to present the paper, he just didn't turn up
What should you do next? **Speak to your supervisor.**
Even were he not to blame, he would have a certain amount of responsibility to helping you fix this, by merit of being your supervisor.
You are well within your rights to ask, "So, what happened at the IEEE conference? I thought you were going to be presenting our paper." Do this in a neutral tone of voice, and listen to what he has to say. It's entirely possible he has a legitimate reason for this unusual behaviour, but being kept in the dark isn't doing you any favours.
Next, have a clear and honest conversation about what to do now. Don't blame him for the screw-up; your main focus is how to move forwards. Explain the problems you are facing and ask for his help in how to fix them. The conference organisers were entirely within their rights to keep your registration fee and not mention the paper in the proceedings, so focus on the copyright issue and how to move forwards from there.
If he does his duty as a supervisor he will help you move onwards and sort out the mess that was largely of his creating. Even if he doesn't, you will learn more about the situation (such as why he didn't turn up to present the paper), which will help you in your communications with IEEE should you have to forge ahead without his help.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: The situation shows some parallels with the legal concept "force majeure". The following site gives a practical explanation of this (you can also refer to Wikipedia):
>
> Generally, death or illness of one of the parties to a contract is not considered a force majeure. However, under general contract principles of contract, if death or illness renders it impossible for that party to perform their side of the bargain, they are excused - See more at: <http://actofgod.uslegal.com/what-constitutes-force-of-nature/illness-or-death/#sthash.W5aJqpRd.dpuf>
>
>
>
Give that precedent, it would seem only fair in this case if IEEE were to release from your contract, and consequently release the copyright ownership, given that the co-author's inability to present was apparently due to health reasons. In your circumstances I would try to see if they are open to this line of reasoning.
Upvotes: -1
|
2015/05/24
| 1,238
| 5,426
|
<issue_start>username_0: How long is this allowed for even after the student has completed graduation requirements?<issue_comment>username_1: In the United States, there is a lot of opportunity for flexibility in scheduling graduation, assuming the faculty member has sufficient funding and motivation to keep the student around.
In most cases, however, the student would likely be served better not by delaying their graduation but instead by arranging for a transitional period as a postdoc with their same advisor. In many cases, the cost of a postdoc is often not terribly different than a graduate student (higher salary is offset by lack of tuition), and there is typically little difficulty converting grant money from one to the other.
As a postdoc, however, there is no longer a question of graduation and thesis hanging over the former student's head, and they can be more free to focus instead on publication, networking, giving talks, and other things that will help to better position them for applying for academic positions.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In general, what you are asking about is **not** possible, at least not in the manner in which you have written it.
At most schools in the US, once you have completed your graduate degree requirements, which include the defense, you are considered to have "graduated," at least as far as your "employment" with the university is concerned. Your contract typically terminates on the day you are said to have finished the graduation requirements. Therefore, postponing your graduation means delaying your defense.
What may instead be possible is to transition from a graduate student position into a temporary postdoctoral position within the group. It is often understood that this is simply a direct extension for the purposes of maintaining employment, rather than as a "new" position.
In Europe, the situation is quite different, as the model for "hiring" graduate students is typically contract-based. The willingness of your advisor to continue to employ you is then dependent on the availability of resources sufficient to extend the contract.
The **advisability** of such a move, as username_1 indicates in his answer, is questionable, as it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure an academic position without experience beyond the graduate student level. That said, you're probably better off looking for a postdoctoral position and excelling there, rather than trying to just continue on your PhD work for an extended period of time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The question is difficult, as it is likely to depend on your institution; however, rule of thumb (I have found) is that academic departments typically have a cap on the maximum number of years (~7yrs) you can be registered as a "graduate student," so if in principle, so long as you are below this max. years rule, you are allowed to extend your graduate education.
That being said, if you have already been studying for 5+ years, it is likely that if the department feels you've been successful they may begin to pressure your adviser to "get you out the door."
As for if it would provide better chances for an academic job, likely no. There are exceptions, one being on pursuing one of the NIH's new early-investigator awards. These awards are granted only to new graduates, and are designed to allow the recipient to "Skip" the post-doc phase of their career, and help set you up to apply to RO1 grants at an earlier age.
Another good reason to stick around is if you feel your work could be expanded on, and you don't see any post-doctoral advisers willing to allow you to do this. Some (though not all) post-doc advisers will treat you as laboratory equipment, and will stifle your independence (although slightly unethical, at least according to the journal Science, this does indeed happen) by prohibiting you from exploring your own research interests. This carries the risk; however, of looking like you are not independent from your current adviser.
The best advice I've ever received concerning a similar situation is to discuss staying on as a post-doc for a short time at your current institution and apply for grant-funding of your own with your current adviser as a co-PI. If you are successful, you maybe able to leverage the department to list you as research faculty which would help you stick out from the crowd (including myself) of post-docs.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Here is the situation in mathematics in the states (at least for top 50 schools). The typical graduation time is 5 years. A student who is having a hard time, and doesn't have enough material to graduate (or get a post-doc) can stay for a sixth year, but this sometimes comes at a cost of having to teach more on the sixth year. Another way to proceed (for strong students) is to apply for post-doc in their fourth year, and then graduate in four years if the application is sucessful, or stay for the fifth year if the application is not sucessful.
It is very rare to stay beyond the sixth year. Typically at this point, the student is allowed to stay affiliated with the university, but has found a job somewhere else, and is just hanging around to finish his thesis (but at this point it is clear that the student will not be applying for post-docs and just wants to have a thesis at the end of the phd journey).
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/24
| 768
| 3,425
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm going to apply for PhD at a top university in US. I have two peer reviewed papers already published and 2 unpublished papers.
The last two are ready, but I do not have time to submit them to be reviewed as I want to mention them in my CV in my application and can't wait for notification of acceptance/rejection, so I'm planning to put them on arXiv.
Is there any difference between arXiv papers and refereed ones in admission committee evaluation? Does it make a huge difference if I submit them to a conference/journal instead of arXiv?
(My field is Computer Science-Data Mining)<issue_comment>username_1: Having any research done will be a huge help as you are applying for a doctoral program. Two published papers in respected peer-reviewed venues is fairly impressive. I would not suggest doing anything differently for your next round of papers than you did for the first ones; that should mean submiting them where they are likely to have the most impact.
As part of your graduate application, you can list where your manuscripts have been submitted to, and for most institutions, you should be able to submit copies of the submitted manuscripts as supplemental material for your graduate application. That will let the admissions committee look over your work. If they see that you already have two things published and two more reasonable-looking manuscripts under review, they are likely to be impressed.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The end of your question makes it sound like you are confused about something: arXiv and conference/journal submissions are not alternatives. The arXiv is a preprint server, and posting there is like posting to on a personal webpage in that arXiv postings are not counted as publications and do not preclude you from submitting to a peer-reviewed venue.
As for how a committee would evaluate published verus unpublished papers differently, one gets a preliminary sense of the quality/significance of a published (or accepted) paper from the venue it was accepted to. For unpublished papers, there is no immediate indicator of this (it could be great, mediocre, or seriously flawed), but they certainly signal you're research active, and since you already have a couple of published papers, assuming they are in reasonable journals, chances are your unpublished papers will be assumed to be of reasonable quality.
But, for both published and unpublished papers, an assessment of the quality should come from your letter writers, who should be able to give more insight than just the reputation of the journals you have published in.
In addition, there is no reason to delay your submission. On your CV, just list the title of the paper, with the word "submitted." (If you want, you can make a separate preprint section, but this seems unnecessary with only 4 papers.) If it is on the arXiv, you can give an arXiv link. Even for papers not submitted, you can still list them as preprints (though submitted or at least being posted online is better).
Note: I disagree with the other answer about saying what journal you submit to--saying where you submit to gives no indication of the quality of the paper (maybe just your biased perception of its quality), and it leave me personally with a slightly desperate impression, though this may depend on the field. (In mine, some people do this, but most do not.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2015/05/25
| 4,900
| 20,745
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a Masters student, and I think this is the only place in the whole internet that do not hold stereotyped negative attitude towards PhD recipients. From time to time,however, these sort of quotes scare me:
>
> Having a Ph.D can close some doors for you. The general attitude and stereotypes about Ph.D holders are that they're uber academics/nerds who can't really function in the real world--this is an especially pertinent attitude to pay attention to in technical fields like engineering and science. So it closes some doors. You've also got less jobs to choose from, since you're vastly overqualified for many and you probably won't be able to find any good entry level positions because people will just assume you'll get bored and leave as soon as you find something better, so there is a cost to having everyone think you're a genius. [Quora](http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-a-Masters-and-a-PhD-in-computer-science)
>
>
>
Well I study for fun and advancing my knowledge -- and the last thing I want is these sort of stereotypes. I know if I pursue for a PhD I will have little to no experience about working for a corporation, so how worried should I be? Can I have the same level of experience compared to my peer who might have chosen industry instead of pursuing PhD?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> you probably won't be able to find any good entry level positions because people will just assume you'll get bored and leave as soon as you find something better
>
>
>
I feel like this is a non-argument, if only because people *without* a PhD are also likely to leave a low-level industry job if they get a better offer elsewhere.
>
> I know if I pursue for a PhD I will have little to no experience about working for a corporation, so how worried should I be.
>
>
>
Not a lot, I would say. Again, the same applies: people *without* a PhD also start out without any experience about working for a corporation (with the exception of older students who go back to school after several years of Real World work).
>
> Can I have the same level of experience compared to my peer who might have chosen industry instead of pursuing PhD.
>
>
>
This is probably field-dependent, but I can't see why not. The best answer I can give without knowing what field you are planning to do your PhD in is that, while you might end up having a *different* type of experience than your un-PhD-ed peer, it doesn't have to be *less* experience. Keep in mind that, in order to get a PhD, you need an ability to think outside the box and come up with ideas that solve problems in interesting ways. Sometimes, employers value this ability more than *n* years of experience doing standard white collar work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: *First things first* - this question is very region- and field-specific, as cultural norms and views of academia differ a lot in different places. Further, this will naturally also be highly employer-specific, as not every recruiter or employer has the same sort of requirements, views and prejudices. Everybody who tells you that there is a hard and fast rule is lying.
That being said, there are a few observations that I think are pretty general w.r.t. the PhD job market:
* Nobody hires you or pays you more *just because you have a degree*. It's a pretty common misconception that having an advanced degree somehow magically entitles you to higher pay even if you do the same job in the same quality than somebody without a degree. This is particularly pronounced in computer science, where there are a bunch of *excellent* programmers / software devs out there without degree. Don't expect to make more than them just because you got your training in an university rather than through participation in open source projects.
* At least in central Europe, no smart person does *not* hire you just because you have an advanced degree. I am confident to say that in Switzerland, the sentiment expressed in your quote is entirely wrong. A PhD certainly does not close any doors. There are a lot of jobs where it will be useless, but I have not yet seen cases where it was actively *bad* for the applicant to hold a PhD.
* There are a bunch of jobs out there where holding a PhD *is* in fact very good for you, even outside academia and research. Here in Switzerland and IT, consulting is one of those fields. Consultants with PhD look smarter on paper, and hence their time is easier to "sell" for horrendous amounts of money to customers. It is pretty well-established that in this case just holding a PhD will in fact give you better starting salary and better career opportunities in many companies.
* Generally speaking, as a PhD holder, you *will* have less experience than somebody who worked in the industry for 5 years. Contrary, you should (at least hopefully) have a higher level of formal knowledge and understanding of underlying principles. What you need is either (a) a job that requires the latter rather than the former (various "evangelist" or innovation jobs come to mind), or (b) and employer that has a time horizon large enough to allow you to get experience and who has problems complex enough that they *need* somebody with deep fundamental knowledge. This is the reason that big tech companies such as Google, IBM, or MS, often also pretty aggressively recruit IT and math PhDs, rather than going for cheaper and more experienced professional software devs.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: That attitude may be common, but it is definitely not everywhere. In my former group, one of the PhD students went on to industry after graduating, and the hiring committee was very impressed by the fact he had a research record.
All in all, how desirable you are in industry depends on what kind of research you do, and what skills you pick up along the way. My colleague went on from applying statistics to Biotechnology data, to customer behaviour data. Other people can directly apply their research into industry (say, Intel may be interested in incorporating your cutting edge compiler technology into ICC). Lastly, there are people that don't do anything remotely useful or applicable outside the academic world (say, string theory), but their research may show their capabilities and versatility, and private companies are willing to pay hefty salaries in their research branches. Of course, there is another group of PhD holders that have not found a good or fitting industry job.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm just going to address this part of your question since I have direct experience with it:
>
> You've also got less jobs to choose from, since you're vastly overqualified for many and you probably won't be able to find any good entry level positions because people will just assume you'll get bored and leave as soon as you find something better
>
>
>
It depends how in demand you are.
I think there are three sorts of jobs you can get after your degree. The first type are jobs where you directly use your degree. In this case, your degree is an asset: you would be unlikely to get the job without it and you have a strong advantage against another candidate who doesn't have your degree.
In the second case, your degree is either neutral, a bonus, or a small minus compared to someone with equivalent experience. The specifics will depend on the actual job description, the actual experience of your hypothetical counterpart, and the specifics of your degree and field.
The third case are jobs for which you are vastly overqualified. Let's say you have a PhD in chemistry and you're applying for a job as a lab assistant, or you have a master's in English and you're applying for a job as a shop assistant. These are the jobs where someone is likely to believe you are going to leave as soon as you get the opportunity.
I have a couple of friends with PhDs who struggled to get work in the recession, and were turned down for Type 3 jobs (in the UK) because they were overqualified. The irony is that yes they *would* have preferred something better *if* they had been able to get it, but in reality they wouldn't have had anything better to leave for, so they were not in fact the flight risk that the potential employers thought they were.
So type three jobs may turn you down. But if you're in demand enough, you won't need to apply for type three jobs, so it won't matter. It really depends on your field.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm not sure if I'm qualified to answer this question since I'm only an undergrad right now (starting phD soon), but I'm going to try since I have some experience with it having worked in industry for the past few years in an (bit higher than) entry-level position. From what I've seen, yes unfortunately these stereotypes are correct. To the point that I have been told by multiple managers/directors at work to not pursue graduate school since I will only make myself overqualified like every other phD out there if I can't find a job at the end of it. People in academia will tell you that this doesn't have to be the case, but I wouldn't count on it. Of course there are exceptions to the rule and I also know people who were successful in obtaining employment after their phD, but the fact remains that the vast majority of phDs without other types of work experience will not have much luck in having people simply hand them a job because of their degree. Keep in mind though that I'm in biology, so this might be different if you are in say computer sciences, in which case I'm sure the situation is a lot more different.
Having said that, there is a solution to this problem, which is to make yourself into more than just the average phD graduate, which is actually not that difficult to do. For instance, most people with a phD go from their bachelor's degree to a masters to a phD, having done nothing but school for a really really long time. If you want to find a job outside academia, don't do this... The reason a lot of people don't want to hire phD's in my field is because they think phDs are overqualified in the knowledge area, but way under-qualified in experiences. For instance, people will ask why if you wanted to go into industry, did you choose to do a phD that is not a requirement of the job you are seeking. This then shows poor planning skills and judgement. What employers what to see are people who are PROACTIVE, no matter if they have a bachelor's or phD. So turn yourself into that person. Pick up experiences through your degree to make yourself stand out from the 10 other phDs applying for the job, this is why I kept a job through my undergrad, so that at least I'll have a back-up plan. If your grad school work is way too heavy for that, at the very least NETWORK with people in industry, if you are even considering a job outside academia. This is one of the only ways to get around people who view your phD as a negative. If they already know you as a person before you seek a job from them, or if you are introduced by someone they know, you being overqualified will seem less like a problem since they want to help you. Employers are not evil, they want to help people, just give them a reason to. This also leads back to the point of being proactive though, since networking requires years of work before you get a job at the end of it. It is a crucial skill if you wish to be successful outside of academia. So in summary, yes unfortunately the stereotypes are normally correct if you are a typical phD graduate. However, it's not hard to escape that stereotype if you plan ahead and work hard to set yourself apart from the "competition".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Aside from what the PhD was in, having a PhD in the first place demonstrates some very desirable qualities from an employer's perspective. These include:
* The ability to work independently without supervision
* Heavy refinement of one's own learning processes
* Organisational and time-management skills
* The ability to work on the same thing for a long time whilst still being able to keep focused
* Communication skills and the ability to negotiate and exchange ideas.
If an employer is looking for someone to coordinate a project or carry out general research, as long as you can emphasise these qualities and how your PhD benefited you greatly with these skills, then I don't imagine there would be much of a problem. It's also another reason why maybe rather than taking a contrived approach towards a PhD, that maybe graduate students should try to engage with as many opportunities as they can during their PhD to make sure their experience is very well-rounded (although they may be less inclined to do this if they're absolutely adamant that they want to go into academia in the future or if they feel they're not cut out for anything else.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: First, let us distinguish two situations; jobs opportunities, which directly related to your field of research and prefer a PhD, and jobs which not. My understanding you are asking about the later ones, therefore stories that there are industries where PhDs are preferred do not answer your question.
Off course, it is really depend on countries/continents, but I have seen so far about two main types of situations where you PhD can be a negative:
* Let's assume you are looking for a research job in an industry closely related to your research topic. Nice. Sure, you have good chances. However you should be careful about overspecialisation. Academic research topics (ie topics of your PhD) may or may not be useful in industry. When an industry guy looks for a researcher with PhD, generally he is looking for someone with very specific skill set, not just some smart guy. If a chemical company is looking for someone, they do not just look for a Chemist. So you can end up in a situation where you may be well employable, but there are only a handful of companies in the whole country who have position for you.
* The other problem in one word: agism.
Most company are looking for young people with experience. And you will be an old person without experience. If your PhD takes a few of years, maybe have a post-doc, a maternity leave, etc you easily find yourself to be rather old for the position. Bigger companies, who wants to keep you as a researcher maybe ok with that but most company sees you as a potential manager later in your career.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Although the accepted answer starts with a disclaimer, it ends up painting a rosy picture. That's certainly not my experience in the US job market, as someone who studied a very pure field of mathematics and then sought jobs in finance. There are indeed some hardships faced by PhDs that can make it harder for the reasons exactly stated in the Quora snippet. The reasons are somewhat valid in that a PhD program isn't really about training you to accomplish things in the quickest way possible, which in the Real World is often what is desired.
However, having a PhD will open doors too, generally by companies/managers who have enough experience with academics to know the pros and cons. It's a mixed bag, like a lot of things.
I think the warning for the number of jobs being limited is true. There are many jobs where they will immediately assume you applied accidentally and throw out your resume. On the other hand, same is true for having a Master's too for some jobs.
Believe it or not, the hiring managers dismissing your application may actually know more than you. You may be desperate and really, really want that job doing glorified paperwork, but that hiring manager has dealt with someone just like you before, who left shortly after getting a much more interesting job.
As a word of final encouragement, things aren't as bad as they seem, but often they seem worse to PhD graduates, who lack the training and experience to seek jobs in industry. I think the most important thing for any PhD wanting to go into industry is, **have a plan** as soon as possible, at least a few years before you graduate. It doesn't take much in the early stages of your grad school to take steps that will end up moving you a lot closer toward that industry job. One that comes to mind is summer internships.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_9: If you are short on time you can skip to the summary.
The very first thing you need to do is ask yourself, why do I want a PhD. The goal of a PhD is to enhance the scientific body of knowledge in their field, by doing research. All throughout the PhD process your focus will be on understanding what others have done and what tiny little problem can you work on, that will bring some type of enlightenment to your field. So for example, my PhD is in Computer Science (CS). I spent the first few years in course work but my final 2 years I took 0 courses and spend all of my time reading scientific papers trying to understand my chosen field and how I might contribute. Ultimately, my dissertation research explored the question of what affect does a multimodal interface have on the ability of an operator to control multiple robots. Thus, my contribution to the field of Human Robot Interaction was on understanding the cons/benefits to adding speech and other modalities to operator user interfaces.
I say this to say that you need to understand the goal of a PhD so that you can understand future career opportunities. A PhD should be trying to push the scientific boundaries by looking for unanswered problems or applying research to address problems, e.g. Psychologist, Public Policy. Now there are plenty of people who get a PhD but have no wish to do research or apply research in novel ways. This to me does not make much sense because the purpose of a PhD is to do research, thus the reason every PhD has a dissertation.
Finally, to your question of opportunities. A PhD will close opportunities and at the same time open new ones. Your goal, if you so choose to get a PhD, is not to look for a leg-up on entry level positions (if this is your goal than stop at a Master’s degree). Your goal is to secure a position that allows you to do/apply research. So using my field of CS as an example. I interviewed at a number of locations e.g. Microsoft, Dow, a research lab at Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and a number of other places. In some of these places they were more interested in my ability to program (they thought a PhD meant I would be a great programmer) and in others they were interested in my ability to do research (find unsolved problems and solve them). Without a PhD I would not have been interviewed for research positions at locations such as the Naval Research Lab, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, NASA. However, I was not a good fit for Dow, Boeing and others because they wanted software development and not research.
Finally, as for pay. You can get paid a lot for doing research. My starting salary, as a PhD, working in an Industry lab doing research was 6 figures. The Taulbee survey gives the salary for research faculty and in CS the current average starting salary for junior faculty at public universities is around 95k for 9 months or 127k for 12 months. This is for CS and other Engineering disciplines. Similarly, a master’s degree and similar years of experience could put you in the same range so don’t let salary be your deciding factor.
SUMMARY: A PhD will close doors, but to careers that are not of interest if your goal is to do research. A PhD will open new opportunities to companies interested who do research e.g. Oil companies, Tech Companies, Government Research Labs, Defense Industry etc. Ultimately you need to decide what your goals are - if it is to learn or master a craft than stop at a Master’s and learn on your own; If however, you like to explore the unknown, are unafraid of failure, don’t mind occasionally being ridiculed by your peers, all for the sake of generating knowledge than PhD may be for you.
Here are some links on why get a PhD (or why not). Many of these links point toward becoming a professor since that is often a place where you can do research, however it is not the only place.
<http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/guidephd.htm>
<http://shouldigetaphd.com/>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: IMHO there is no such thing as "overqualification". There are only incompetent people managers who cannot figure out what to do with talented individuals or how to put their skills to work.
I hope that the (popularly memetic) picture below illustrates the issue.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/25
| 879
| 3,631
|
<issue_start>username_0: In case of multiple job offers, should candidates reveal schools names or show offer letters?
* Some say [do not name the competing institutions in either of these initial emails](http://theprofessorisin.com/2011/08/10/negotiating-your-tenure-track-offers/)
* Others say ["there are too many crazies in departments--you never know what someone might do to interfere with the other institution's perspective. I've seen it happen, and it ain't pretty. On the other hand, it made the choice easier."](http://chronicle.com/article/The-Best-Problem-Dealing-With/138957/#comment-888051888)
* Some say do: ["Just to let you know, I do have another offer that came in from Midwest State U. They have initially set my salary at ... "](http://chronicle.com/article/The-Best-Problem-Dealing-With/138957/)<issue_comment>username_1: I received several competitive PhD offers and would suggest that you do not reveal unless asked, you have a right to privacy and I believe its best to hold back information like that as you can make the point that you have another competitive offer without being specific,the name adds nothing to the discussion.
I believe the principle still applies with faculty offers because it again adds nothing to the conversation, there is no need to mention another offer unless it is required for leverage for a certain benefit or if they wanted to know later on why you turned them down.
Furthermore, including the name brings in the personal opinions of the people who made the offer, removing aspects of your control. All they need to know (and only when negotiating your offer) is that you are considering another offer and why, you are already being taken seriously by the fact you have an offer. Talking about other offers in too much detail (or when not necessary) brings in doubt and extra questions when they have already offered to hire you.
I employ the policy of keeping communication to the necessities in the rest of my life too. Its an efficiency and control thing.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I do not see any reason to show the offer letter. If the school you are negotiating with does not believe you, then that is not a good sign. As for mentioning the other university, it depends on if you can pitch it as a selling point that makes the other offer better. While you should always tell the truth, you can be somewhat selective and play both sides of the coin.
For example, if you get offers from both Stanford and Harvard and you grew up on in the Bay area, but are currently doing a post doc at MIT, you could tell Stanford that you have an offer from Harvard and that you are really happy in Boston, so they will have to beat Harvard's offer. Similarly, you can tell Harvard that you have an offer from Stanford and that your family is in the area so Harvard will have to beat Stanford's offer.
Alternatively, if you have offers from both Stanford and Bunker Hill Community College and you grew up, were educated, and are currently in the Bay area, you would not want to mention the name (<NAME>) when talking to Stanford, unless you can explain to Stanford what benefits Bunker Hill uniquely provides. You probably want to specifically mention Stanford when talking to Bunker Hill.
If, however, you grew up, were educated, and are currently in the Boston area, then you are in a gray area and may want to mention Bunker Hill to Stanford. Given the difference in the ranking of the two universities, it might be a hard sell to convince Stanford that the Bunker Hill offer is really competitive to the Stanford offer.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2015/05/25
| 937
| 3,883
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently saw in an ad that an Italian university invites applications to "Senior researchers (RTD-b, tenure track)." What are RTD-b positions? Since they are said to be tenure track, I guess they correspond to assistant professors in the US system? Are RTD-b position holders expected to do independent research and advise PhD students as assistant professors do? How much teaching load do they usually have? What is their career path after getting tenured?<issue_comment>username_1: Exactly, they are tenure-track assistant positions. After 3 years, if you pass a successful evaluation based on your research activity (*abilitazione scientifica nazionale*), you become an associate professor. The guidelines for this evaluation include an indicative target number of papers and citations, which is field-dependent. This is only indicative, there is a national committee in charge of the evaluation, and they are supposed to always check case-by-case.
The teaching load is quite low: 60-80 hours of frontal teaching per year, plus exams (warning: there is *a lot* of exams in the Italian system). As far as I know there aren't other obligations, apart from maintaining a good research output to get the *abilitazione*. Supervising PhD students is not required.
(The teaching load becomes 120 hours after you become an associate professor.)
The system for the final evaluation is still provisional and has to undergo a new reform in the next months. These positions were introduced in 2010, and things are still new and bleeding-edge. But in any case they are worth pursuing, there are not many other chances to get a permanent associate professor position in Italy.
To be eligible, you need at least 3 years of post-doctoral experience (comparable to an Italian "rtd-a" position).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: RTD-B is an acronym for Ricercatore a Tempo Determinato tipo B. That is to say, fixed-term researcher of type B. The term is three-years, by the end of it you are supposed to have passed a national habilitation based on a few key metrics, and then become Associate Professor (<NAME>). Type A on the other hand, is simply a postdoc position.
The "Ricercatore" title is the italian nominal equivalent of a USA Assistant Professor. I specify nominal because, contrarily to USA positions, you are not expected to start a group of your own, your are not given any research money to do so, you are not expected to supervise BS, MS, or PhD students. You do are expected to perform high-class research; the independence of your research will largely depend on the ability to attract funds on your own.
In that regard, your moral standing is more like a Research Scientist in USA, unless you are capable of attracting large national grants, or large AND prestigious European grants. With those funds, you will be able to gather all resources you would need for fully independent research.
You will be expected to teach, and the teaching load will vary a bit depending on the institution that hires you. Typically one course per year, that amounts to 50 to 80 hours of formal lectures, to a typically a large number of students, grading exams scattered throughout the year.
One thing to keep in mind is the selection process. In the USA, an institution will receive several applications, make a short list, and invite the shortlisted candidates for one or two full-days interview. In Italy, institutions nowadays use shortlisting as well, but interviews last only 20 minutes or so. Also, recommendation letters are not needed in Italy, although some places are starting to ask them.
After getting tenured, the next path in your career would be to become <NAME>, the equivalent of a USA Full Professor. And then, just as in the USA, you might take other paths as to become Dean.
Upvotes: 3
|
2015/05/25
| 2,241
| 9,088
|
<issue_start>username_0: Normally I teach a single section with 10-15 students, and a single copy is sufficient. This class will have 3 sections of about 20 students each. FWIW, I am in the United States.
I am considering changing textbooks for an introductory class. A problem is that none of the TAs and tutors already have this textbook, and our department funds are limited.
How many free desk copies is a publisher usually willing to provide?<issue_comment>username_1: I have never pushed to see how many desk copies of a book I could get, but I've gotten three with no problem whatsoever. I suspect that you could get more, although it might be best to space out the requests over the course of a few months.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In the mid-2000's ago I was responsible for requesting the desk copies for a course similar in size and scope as the one you were teaching, and was able to secure two copies for the new TA's (that is, for myself and one other grad student). Given how the publishing market has "evolved" in the last few years, I'm not sure if it would still be possible to push for multiple desk copies.
However, if you're planning on acquiring a number of copies, you may want to ask the publisher if they're willing to provide a discount on a direct "bulk" sale. Given that many publishers offer substantial discounts in the case of trade fairs and scientific meetings, they may be willing to work with you in such cases.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: You have to understand that in the undergraduate textbook market, the publishers are competing intensely for textbook adoptions and will do what it takes to make the sale. (This is not so much the case for e.g. the monographs that might be used in graduate courses). The marginal cost of production of an additional book is very low, people who get desk copies were quite unlikely to purchase for their own use, and so it costs the publisher very little to give out desk copies ad libitum.
At my large R1 school we have different TAs for our intro classes every quarter; sometimes ten or more of them. We have **no problem** getting desk copies for each TA.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I personally consider textbook publishers to be somewhere between an unethical business and organized crime.
They rip off your students, so don't feel bad about getting as many copies as you can squeeze out of them, and then some more to give to your students.
Most books are printed overseas anyway, at a cost of ~$5 each.
You can imagine how much they make on a single book.
Elsevier has roughly 7 billion EUR revenue and a profit margin close to 40%
If there is any alternative, I try to go for books that are cheaply available to the students, and for books that don't randomly change the enumeration of homework assignments to make older editions useless.
I think it is time for us to push back in the interest of our students. Our department decided not to go with books that needs to be 'registered' online to be usable. That was a good first step.
I wish university libraries would provide textbooks. They have a much larger buying power, and would end the textbook scam very quickly.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm the OP and want to give an update/answer, several months later.
The publisher (Pearson) rep was happy to give 3 electronic copies of the book to my TAs and expressed a willingness to provide them for additional TAs. On the other hand, I have yet to get my desk copy, since they only give those out if our college bookstore orders 25 or more new copies of the book, and our bookstore hasn't placed orders yet. (This is the first class of more than 25 students that I've taught in 15 years of teaching.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Former Pearson rep here. This is how it works:
Pearson (and likely others) clamped down hard on reps over-sampling desk copies a couple years ago so any faculty paying attention will have noticed a dramatic shift from 2010-now. Specifically, when I was a rep I had a "budget" for physical books that was merely theoretical, and set at about 4,000 copies for my territory. The year after I left it got cut in half to 2000. If reps go over, they pay out of commissions for the overage. So Pearson finally (wisely) incentivized reps not to send these out willy nilly.
If you're getting lots of service from a publisher rep, it's not always because the class in question is large. It might be because you're married to the woman who makes the big decision for the intro Chem course across campus, or because you do teach that large intro bio course every 18 months. The opposite holds-- getting poor service != your class must be small. If you have a bookstore that never orders in high quantities, you're not actually a customer of that rep as much as you think you are. The used market will take the whole cake. So in the case spelled out in a comment above (no copies till the store orders), the rep is likely trying to put the hurt on the bookstore by getting faculty set against them. It's a risky strategy imo because the rep's relationship with the bookstore is so crucial. But I'd have done it at one school where the relationship with the bookstore was beyond salvageable the day I first came in. But all in all, your best bet for getting a desk copy is really quite simple. for those having Trouble:
1. Half the time when I didn't send a desk copy it was on accident. I have a post grad degree and have done a little in the world of academia. Was on my grad program's "big" fellowship and also taught some courses etc. I was insanely busy. I was busier as a Pearson rep. Just ask again and again. The software is crap and it's a nightmare for reps to handle this logistically, but the sales teams don't want it automated as they want to intercept the BIG requests as a local rep so they have knowledge of where the large adoptions in their territory are happening. I dropped the ball all the time for small clients (who truly do not matter from a sales goal perspective, but toward whom I didn't have any intention of being a poor rep--they just come in below the line). An email a week later would really seal the deal, or a text message or phone call for sure. There is a 100% chance a rep doesn't get all the things done every day they need to get done. In my territory anything under 50 books never really got done but I had three huge-course schools (and two small schools I never Even visited). My calculation tells me to spend 88% of my time at 2 campuses, 12% at a third, and 0% at four and five. Which also means I have a Bad relationship with the bookstores at 4 and 5. If you teach at four and five, you have to have a class with like 400 kids in it for me to really wake up biting my nails over forgetting to follow up with you (agh the pain I recall from biting my nails all the time during these years at Pearson! But not from schools four and five)
2. If they want you to take a digital copy and you want physical, same policy applies. Just keep asking.
3. If you get blacklisted for suspicion of selling copies on to the used industry it will be tough to get copies. There is a way to see this in the reps system but it's going to still be at their discretion to send or not (you have a flag on you called "bookgrabber" at Pearson if you're suspected of this). But this is pretty rare.
4. If you can't get what you need, you could have your chair request by phone. That would work for me with a small course.
5. Last resort, email the editor. Don't talk shit on the rep; the editor will surely know what's up--they won't tell you but they will know immediately whether it's a case of "agh that terrible new rep in Oklahoma is killing my adoptions!" Or "yeah that's totally reasonable that the rep skipped this one" but all editors are basically nice people, young, but smart, more academic in their pursuasion, and they care more about small courses because the individuals they need to Court are the influentials in any field, which means that while no rep gives a shit about Vassar or Swarthmore or your R-1 upper division physics course, the editor is genuinely incentivized to care. They also maintain solid relationships with reps and will manage the politics of you going behind the reps back pretty well. Edit to add: to find editors, check the copyright page of your old edition. Or used linked in. Or find the authors email online and ask who they worked with. Authors are quite accessible and friendly (most make zilch and really do believe their book can help you and your students -- many, even top names, include their email in an intro and literally invite students and faculty to send questions to them.) current editor is always incentivized to get X $ in business in the fiscal year and also to cultivate long term relationships with future contributors, authors, reviewers. Tell them you like to review in their field and you'll get your desk copies -- even if they just mail them personally off their desks.
Maybe this is helpful.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2015/05/25
| 947
| 3,868
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm working as a student research assistant (HiWi) at a research group in a German university. My job is based on hours and it's mainly programming. In my contract I have to work 20 hours a month. Since I can work anywhere, then I usually work at home. Also things are so flexible, so some days I work 5 hours a day and other times 2 hours a day. My supervisor trusts me, so basically I just tell him how many hours I worked a month or so. Because sometimes I work less hours in one month but then I have to compensate for it in the next month.
However, when I'm counting my working hours I usually don't count the days where we have vacations. If you divide 20 hours by the days of the month then I would usually need to work 1 hour everyday. So if I was working in a normal job, then I would have that day off. But because of the flexible way of the job, then I'm not sure if I should subtract that time-per-day vacation time from my official working hours.
Does anyone know if HiWis in Germany are subject to vacations? Or should we work the full working hours mentioned in our contracts regardless of how many vacations are there in the contract?!
Edit: yeah I know that I can ask my supervisor, but I don't want to open such a dialogue now with him. I know that HiWi contracts are standard in Germany so I guess any professor or postdoc in a German Uni here can answer this :)<issue_comment>username_1: Student research assistants in Germany (*studentische Hilfskraft*, or HiWis) are paid according to a fixed number of hours per week worked throughout the semester. They are therefore expected to complete a set number of hours over the course of the semester.
In principle, HiWis should work the same number of hours every week. However, at many universities, the contract only says that HiWis are paid the same amount each month, with no further subdivision demanded. The factor (at my university) is 4.348 weeks per month. So the number of hours expected to be worked in principle does not depend on the presence of holidays.
With respect to vacations, HiWis are allowed the fraction of time proportional to what a full-time employee would earn. If you worked 8 hours per week, you would be entitled to one-fifth of what a full-time employee earned in vacation time per year (roughly 3 hours per month).
(It should be noted that there has also been discussion that HiWis should not try to concentrate their workload too much, as there is the possibility that by doing so, they may work too many hours in too short a period, in which case in principle their income would become taxable under German law.)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: On your first question: **Yes**, research assistants (*studentische Hilfskräfte*) in Germany are legally entitled to vacation. The number of vacation days varies by region, in particular it depends on whether or not they are covered by a collective labour agreement (*Tarifvertrag*). Thus, in Berlin, there are 31 days, whereas in the remaining states (*Länder*) the legal minimum of 24 days per year applies. Have a look at your contract!
On your second, implicit question:
>
> I'm not sure if I should subtract that time-per-day vacation time from my official working hours.
>
>
>
The fact that you are entitled to holiday does not mean that you can take a week off whenever you like. Typically, you have to hand in a formal **application** for leave. That means you can't simply deduce the vacation form your working hours without prior notice. The procedure depends on your local administration. If you don't want to bother your supervisor, ask her secretary.
You may also ask your local student board (*AStA*) for more information.
If you speak German, have a look at this trade union brochure: <https://www.gew.de/studium/studium-und-job/>
Upvotes: -1
|
2015/05/25
| 848
| 3,507
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently completed a dissertation and have been encouraged to publish the work.
My dilemma is that I find it quite difficult (and painfully tedious) to rewrite the same thing couched in new language. Whereas I don't plan to copy and paste the whole thing verbatim, it would be nice to take chunks of the original text here and there, and proceed to break-apart, edit, and reassemble the bits and pieces to create a newly condensed version of the dissertation.
How does one go about this whilst avoiding self-plagiarising?
It would seem sensible to make generous reference to the fact that the paper is derived from the dissertation. However, does one really have to effectively rewrite everything and reference every last page and figure from the original text?
Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: The dissertation is not a published work in the same sense as a journal or conference paper. It is normal for a recent graduate to take large chunks of their thesis, with minimal or no modification, and use the excerpts in more formal publications. You do not need to worry about self plagiarism in this context.
The copying often goes the other way as well. If you already have published papers when it's time to write your dissertation, you may take large chunks of the published papers and reuse them in the dissertation. In some fields (mathematics or theoretical physics, for example), this is quite commonplace. People talk about "stapling your papers together" to make a thesis. In reality, there is more to it than that. Introductory and concluding material are needed, but many theses have chapters that are based on published manuscripts, with relatively little editing.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: That's completely normal, as others have noted. In older papers you often see a footnote: "Parts of this work have been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for [degree], at [institution]". Perhaps you can add that for full disclosure.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Plagiarism (n): the practice of taking **someone else's** work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
By definition, you cannot plagarise your own content. Make one reference to your dissertation and don't worry about it.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: As others have stated, don't worry about it. It is an accepted practice to re-use as-is significant portions of your dissertation in a published paper, as long as it has not been published previously.
A somewhat extreme case of this is the [thesis by publication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis_by_publication) format, whereby the core of a master's thesis or doctoral dissertation is made of one (for master's thesis) or more (for doctoral dissertation) papers either already published or submitted for publication. Some universities and thesis supervisors actually encourage this as it increases the publication count without too much added effort.
As an example of this, see [my own master's thesis](http://publications.polymtl.ca/379/1/2010_PhilippeAubertin.pdf). Chapter 4 of this thesis is a paper which, at the time the thesis was written, had been submitted for publication but had not yet been accepted (since [published](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6062664)). Even though the rest of the thesis is in French, the paper chapter itself is in English, which is the language in which the paper was submitted for publication.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/25
| 462
| 1,594
|
<issue_start>username_0: Albeit arXiv offers [RSS news feeds for subject areas updates](http://arxiv.org/help/rss), it is also possible to track an individual paper for updates (such as if it was submitted and/or accepted to a journal)?<issue_comment>username_1: This is a pretty silly solution, but you can [use a page tracking service](https://www.google.com/search?q=email+when+page+changes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) to see when the page changes; this should detect both changes in the paper as well as in the journal its submitted to.
**Edited as per [Jaap Eldering](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1605/jaap-eldering)'s suggestions in the comments:** you can use arXiv's OAI-PMH protocol to programmatically access version history! For example, if you want to look up [arXiv #1206.0094](http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0094), you can look up <http://export.arxiv.org/oai2?verb=GetRecord&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:1206.0094&metadataPrefix=arXivRaw> for its version history.
Furthermore, arXiv **does** have an [Atom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_%28standard%29) feed for individual articles: you can access it at <http://export.arxiv.org/api/query?id_list=1206.0094> -- the link it includes is to the latest version of the article, so I presume it will change if the article is updated.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: These updates get announced in the [email digest](http://arxiv.org/help/subscribe), don't they? So, you could subscribe to the appropriate email digest and filter for messages that contain the URLs of the papers you're interested in.
Upvotes: 2
|
2015/05/26
| 924
| 4,084
|
<issue_start>username_0: I applied for a position with the application deadline of April 30 and was contacted for an interview last week. My interview is in mid-July. Can they reasonably expect a candidate to start in September if they make a decision quickly? If so, would it be appropriate to ask for teaching release for the fall semester? Not sure if asking for a january 2016 start-date would be a deal-breaker from their perspective when they are moving so quickly. Thanks in advance.
Edit: this is in Canada.<issue_comment>username_1: This may depend to some extent on hiring norms in your field/country.
I would assume that if they are interviewing people in July, it is because they really need someone to start teaching in the fall. (Otherwise they would wait another year and hire for next fall, when there would be more candidates available; I would assume that by this time of year, many people are off the market.) As such, I wouldn't think they'd be likely to go for a deferred start date, or a complete release from fall teaching. A modest teaching reduction is conceivable; you may be able to tell during the interview whether this would seem to be in line with their needs (e.g. if there is one particular class that they really need someone to teach).
The size of the department may also give some indication - a large department is more likely to have some flexibility than a small one.
You might be able to negotiate for classes that require less advance preparation (e.g. introductory courses instead of advanced). You might also be able to get more money for relocation, on the grounds that you're moving on short notice.
But my gut feeling is that you should be prepared to show up and start teaching in September.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It might, it might not. It might mean they are desperate to find someone to teach, but it might also mean they are desperate to fill the position before the university takes it away. For example, the current thinking is that my university is going to impose a hiring freeze any day now. We are currently running a number of searches. As long as candidates are willing to sign a contract, we don't care when they start. In some ways, it would be better if they delayed the start date.
After you have an offer. Then you can ask when they want you to start. At that point asking for a delayed start and/or teaching release is reasonable (at least for US tenure track positions at R1 universities).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: If they have interviews in mid-July, they will make decisions in late July at the earliest. Give a week or two to negotiate the details and sign a contract. You're then in a position where a candidate doesn't even have sufficient time to give their two-weeks' notice as is common in the US (with much more time required in other countries if you want to quit your job). You also have to find a place to live and actually move.
This will be no news to your new department. They understand these timeline issues, and I cannot see anything wrong in asking them for their timelines. In particular, I cannot come up with any reason why such a question could possibly be construed in any negative way: after all, it shows that you are serious and are thinking through the practicalities of making the commitment to move. This is better than having a candidate who never seems to care about these issues, possibly because they have no intention of accepting the offer anyway and only wants to use it for negotiations at home.
In other words: Ask whatever questions you have when you're there. They invited you, so they at least think about wanting you to come. They will be more than happy to talk you through the things that aren't clear to you, and they will likely also listen to issues that will present hurdles to you (such as giving your current employer the legally required minimal time for terminating your employment, moving in time, getting ready for classes while moving, etc). None of these questions should catch them off guard.
Upvotes: 1
|
2015/05/26
| 420
| 1,708
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in the process of leaving a funded PhD position and apply elsewhere. There was a lot of competition for the position, and the benefits were good (being employed by the university), but things didn't work out (mainly I want to pursue research that is not being done in my first university).
Could it be useful to brag about how I got a competetive PhD position in my application to other places? My first university is not famous, but I did come in the top 5% of over hundred applicants.<issue_comment>username_1: This is just an opinion:
You will need to be very clear why you left, and you cannot leave room for the suggestion that it was just because things got a bit uninteresting. The way you have described it in your question leaves me with that presumption, and on that basis I would feel uncomfortable with working with you on a fixed term (or fixed goal) project such as a PhD.
*i.e.*, the obvious question in the mind of the reader of your CV will be, "How do I know you won't disappear on me as soon as things get a bit boring or difficult?"
Frankly, I think you have more to lose than you have to gain by discussing it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Research interests can sharpen or crystallise during a PhD, so it is definitively possible to realign interest. However, the case for a switch needs to be absolutely compelling.
Usually supervisors avoid taking on someone who started a PhD somewhere else, unless the case is very strong - and coming out on the top 5% is, at that stage, not anymore a very strong reason to accept a student; the main reason has now become "is the student really interested in doing what I am interested in"?
Upvotes: 0
|
2015/05/26
| 1,155
| 5,274
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am in the process of changing PhD programs, and my previous supervisor cannot write a letter that is purely positive. The main difficulty is that she wants to include details about what happened at my previous university; however, we do not agree on all these details, and she seems to be unwilling to debate the past. She believes that I should (or I may have to) explain myself and that I can't justify everything I have done in my previous institution.
Other faculty members I have talked to are of the opinion that if I have to explain myself like this then it is not a recommendation letter anymore and recommend not asking her for a reference. This is difficult because I can get other letters, but the strongest letter that I got was from my first supervisor, and I expect the other ones to be good but not stellar.<issue_comment>username_1: Not all cases are equivalent. Unfortunately, switching PhD programs is something that is not often done. This is such an exceptional case, that I think it's one of the few instances in which a purely positive letter from a supervisor is **not** called for.
The basic issue here is that the people reviewing your application need to understand why you left the previous program, and be able to judge whether the issues were environmental (over which you had no control, and therefore would be unlikely to be repeated) or structural (likely to reoccur, and thus reducing the likelihood you'll finish the new program).
Consequently, I would find a recommendation letter from the previous advisor that is *only* positive highly suspicious. If everything is positive, **why are you leaving?** Someone needs to explain the situation clearly, and we need to hear from both you and the advisor what each of you believes happened, and why a "fresh start" is needed. If somebody was applying for admission to my PhD program after having started one elsewhere, and if I were at all interested in the candidate, the first thing I would be doing is contact the old advisor to understand why she wrote such a strong letter. Because otherwise the pieces wouldn't "add up" correctly.
Moreover, I don't think you can submit an application for admission to a new PhD program without a statement of support from your old supervisor. If you don't provide a statement from her, it will again look suspicious, and damage your chances of admission. (The person reviewing your application will think: *what is this candidate trying to hide?*)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Without knowing the details of this situation, I think its best to assume that any admissions committee might well seek out information from your previous adviser or head of graduate studies before you're offered admission, whether you list those folks as recommenders or not. It would be irresponsible not to do so.
If there have been some problems with your previous situation, and you don't think that your previous adviser can provide a fair letter, my recommendation would be to seek out the chair of graduate studies in your previous program and solicit a letter from that person. Have the conversation about what will go in the letter in advance. You should show that person that you've learned something about yourself from your previous experiences, and that you can look at the experience introspectively and use it to launch a better next experience.
You will be an "atypical" applicant. You need to convince a new program with your application package that you can finish what you start.
My advice is that you might have better luck getting into a large program that typically loses students in the qualification stage. If a program accepts students with the idea that they will lose a third of them at some stage, they may me more willing to take a risk on accepting them if you're willing to take the risk that you might not pass qualifiers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This "answer" isn't an answer, because Scott already gave a great answer. But I have some additional explanation to offer.
If a letter contains a lot of highly positive material, but also some negative material -- it's better not to submit it. The positives will be diluted (trumped) by the negatives.
Let the new people know that you have not included her in your references because it wasn't a good fit. If they push you for details, you might say she has a strong character. Leave it at that, without getting into any details of any disagreements you may have had with her, i.e. take the moral high ground.
By the way, a recommendation letter is the wrong place for her to be continuing her conflict with you. If she has any doubts about the suitability of the match between you and the new program, she should simply tell you that she would not be the best person to write a recommendation letter for that situation. This is code language for "But I would not be able to write a strongly supportive letter, and you would be better off not submitting what I would write."
She should be supporting your decision to look for a better fit elsewhere, and sending you on your way with a letter that speaks only to the positives, and wishes you well in your future endeavors. This would be analogous to an amicable divorce.
Upvotes: 1
|